You left out (c) cases were rising exponentially, so even if doctors could have handled X number of patients, they would become overwhelmed a few days later whe

You left out (c) cases were rising exponentially, so even if doctors could have handled X number of patients, they would become overwhelmed a few days later when that turned into 2X. Virtually no one in the population had immunity to SARS-CoV-2, so the only way to stop the exponential rise was a dramatic reduction in face-to-face contact between people. That could occur through spontaneous change in public behavior (e.g., everyone avoiding public places as much as possible, or everyone wearing then-unavailable N95 masks in public), from public policy ("lockdowns"), or from both. But continuing on as normal would have led to hospitals being overwhelmed, no matter how efficiently they were run and how skillfully they treated the patients. To your point (a), old-age homes should have been much better protected, but it's virtually impossible to shield them off when the virus is raging outside. The most effective way to protect the elderly would be to reduce transmission of the virus in society as a whole. To your point (b), that's what happens in a pandemic. There's a completely new disease, and doctors don't know how to treat it effectively. Everyone is trying to do what they can, based on experience with treating other diseases. You can't base public health policy around a belief that doctors will instantly know the correct way of treating a pandemic disease. You have to take dramatic measures to reduce transmission in a situation like New York faced in early 2020.