The article is presenting this as some sort of scandal, that we spent a lot of money to urgently build things that we didn't end up needing. This way of thinking about things is why we are generally not well prepared for unlikely disasters: most work you put in will not be needed.
Instead we should see this as really positive: we were working to make sure that if stay-at-home (which has cost far more than $600M) didn't work we would have space to treat people, and then we kept the infections low enough that we didn't need to use it.
Instead we should see this as really positive: we were working to make sure that if stay-at-home (which has cost far more than $600M) didn't work we would have space to treat people, and then we kept the infections low enough that we didn't need to use it.