I imagine in terms of medical care access and affordability or welfare stimulus, practically negligible, but in terms of CDC funding, science literacy, public policy, and general preparedness, it would be a whole lot better put together.
So I'd say... 10% fewer deaths? 200K vs. 220K deaths sounds about right.
Eh. The biggest issue is that the US is governed hyper locally. There is no national public health service. There's a collection of 3,000 county public health offices and around 55 state and territory public health offices. Testing is organized mainly by each county. Mask standards are mostly decided at the county level with various degrees of overlapping with cities and states.
This is how the US government is organized.
It honestly doesn't matter if the president was Hillary or Bernie. The capacity of the US state to respond to something like a pandemic is largely restricted by it's decentralized nature.
All the lower governments rely heavily on guidence from the feds
What evidence do you have for this?
Common sense. Small municipalites arent going to have their own virologists on hand to help guide policy.
That doesn't changed the fundamental issue. The feds lack the authority to enforce any guidelines that they set. They have to be enforced at a local level.
Do you really think that rural counties or Ron Desantis would be enforcing guidelines set by Hillary's HHS?
A random county in bumfuck idaho really doesn't matter. However most counties will adhere to the state, who will mostly adhere to the feds. You'll find differences amongst municipalities, sure, but with something like a pandemic going on, ignoring federal guidance would put you in the minority
It's not some random bumfuck county in Idaho, it's any office held by Republicans across the entire country
Exactly. There would have been allocated resources and personnel dispatched immediately.