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.
They pushed back on recommending masks because they were afraid that the public rushing to buy masks would put an even bigger strain on the lack of medical supplies for hospitals at the time. I suppose you could argue that Clinton might have maintained better surpluses/CDC funding but at the end of the day, the delay in mask use was a failure to allocate resources, not a policy position or personal preference.
I know that's the excuse used, but unlike trump the clinton's were good at disaster capitalism and probably would have sniffed out the potential mask windfall when Covid was still in Wuhan.
The Clintons are not good at disaster capitalism, just look at Hati as an example of how they view things
Good was a bad word choice, but from the sense they'd at least recognize a vampiric business opportunity ahead of time, whereas trump admin tried ignoring the situation for as long as possible. without making this about Clinton in particular, I think just about anyone else in the potus seat would have put together a better response than trump.
Ah, fair enough, I see what you mean about the masks. It would be better under not-Trump but I don't feel that the difference would be meaningful in any way