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.
This is basically what I was trying to tell the OP when they had a hissy fit.
The US absolutely does not have institutions to deal with a pandemic like this. Since the 80s and embracing neoliberalism, they have been stripping the government of institutions, safety nets and defunding things. Not just Republicans but Democrats too all in the name of bipartisanship.
Just look at that asshole Cuomo in NY, who flat out said that a pandemic wasn't going to prevent him from doing budget cuts. He cut medicaid and defunded hospitals anyway. That's the kind of stuff that people don't think about from the Dems. They push austerity too while whining "we need to balance a budget and raise taxes".
I think an argument can be had for how this pandemic would've shaped things for a better healthcare system maybe 50-60 years ago, before our culture became so individualist and our government centered around neoliberalism. If this was going on during the 70s, oh yes, we might have a real movement and push for a universal healthcare system in response to this failure.