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.

  • GrouchoMarxist [comrade/them,use name]
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 years ago

    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.