That's a somewhat cynical take, and I don't think any public policymakers would agree with your framing. What you're saying amounts to "We don't need more ventilators because all those people are probably going to die anyway and it won't save many lives."
A better reason is because we beat the outbreak. A few areas like Milan/Madrid/Brussels went past their health care capacity and could have used more hardware. But they're all past peak now, and everywhere else (almost -- there are a few worrisome spots in the US still growing, and the developing world is still a big question mark due to lack of testing) managed to reach peak without hitting their limit.
That's good news. We won. It's certainly not a problem that some of the efforts turned out not to be needed. It's like a war effort: everyone had a part to play, we needed to be conservative with our risk analysis and try different things.
A better reason is because we beat the outbreak. A few areas like Milan/Madrid/Brussels went past their health care capacity and could have used more hardware. But they're all past peak now, and everywhere else (almost -- there are a few worrisome spots in the US still growing, and the developing world is still a big question mark due to lack of testing) managed to reach peak without hitting their limit.
That's good news. We won. It's certainly not a problem that some of the efforts turned out not to be needed. It's like a war effort: everyone had a part to play, we needed to be conservative with our risk analysis and try different things.