That’s exactly what he’s doing. Very well said.
No, the way I see it is he’s not conflating the 2 issues. Think it through... I saw exactly what he intended. Comparing crisis to crisis not the terms. Though one spreads as a contagion, the other spreads as a casualty or an acceptable mortality rate within a specific profession. But they both have one unequivocal commonality... a risk of death.
As humans we make decisions, we expose ourselves to arbitrary acts of God, nature and death at the hands of another. That’s life.
So to pigeonhole a contagion into some kind of an unknown and treat it as if it were exempt from all reason and rational thought when comparing it to other causalities that have mortality rates is simply denying the obvious. They both require containment to minimize the outcome/mortality.
So in the scheme of acceptable cost vs mortality the response can be WAY more damaging then the cure. That is one reason medical malpractice/errors mortality rate is acceptable. Containment is the common denominator for both crisis... an acceptable cost vs mortality. People will and must die for the survival of either humanity or the survival of a profession that death is simply a trade-off with those that would be saved/healed.