I guess I'm having a hard time thinking of reasons why absolute value is more important than rate, especially in this scenario, when we're measuring the impact

I guess I'm having a hard time thinking of reasons why absolute value is more important than rate, especially in this scenario, when we're measuring the impact of an infectious disease that spreads person-to-person. I suppose in the hypothetical situation, where there are 10,000 cases in Wyoming and 10,000 cases in New Jersey. A choropleth map by rate would shade Wyoming 15-18 times darker than New Jersey. And this would obfuscate the likely reality that 10,000 cases in New Jersey is imminently a far bigger story – because N.J. is not only 15-18 times more populous, but ~25 times more dense. (The fact that Wyoming is ~15x bigger by land mass would make the issue worse, in terms of visual distraction) But I'm not sure how shading this by absolute totals – in which case, Wyoming and N.J. would be the same shade – would provide significantly more value? Sure, N.J.'s situation wouldn't be effectively invisible in the totals map, compared to the rates map. But now we have to imagine a scenario in which a person-to-person virus managed to sicken so many people (proportionally speaking) in such a large rural state compared to an extremely urban state. It's very hard to imagine a scenario in which we don't want to focus attention on Wyoming. For 10,000 Wyoming people to be infected – and only 10,000 affected in New Jersey – would almost certainly mean that the infection's original epicenter is Wyoming, and that someone from Wyoming had direct contact via travel with a New Jersey resident, (especially if Wyoming and N.J. are outliers in terms of absolute totals by state).