This article is simplifying things in very self-serving ways to make a political argument by leveraging a tragedy. It ultimately aims to blame the rich but the

This article is simplifying things in very self-serving ways to make a political argument by leveraging a tragedy. It ultimately aims to blame the rich but the article is poorly-written, vague in making that connection, unfocused in what it covers, and ultimately incoherent: The first part of the article seems to be a criticism of how India handled the pandemic. But until the recent second wave, India's strategy was considered to be highly successful. This article describes the initial lockdown in very negative tones, but I would say that given all the unknowns and the high density of Indian metropolitan cities, it seems that a harsh initial shutdown followed by numerous phases that relaxed restrictions/handed control to local governments seems fairly logical. If there wasn't a strict lockdown early, critics would be making the opposite argument right now. This second wave is also not well-understood. This article, like others, uses anecdotal examples of election rallies or sporting events as contributors, but it ignores that the sudden growth in cases from 3/1-4/1 may just be the result of aggressive, poorly-understood COVID variants (or a mix of all these factors). The second part of this article criticizes private healthcare. But in many countries, state-run healthcare is low quality to begin with, which is what spurs on the advent of private healthcare. Developing nations in particular have state-run hospitals that provide a DMV like level of service. Why shouldn't citizens be free to seek out better care? The author begins to make an argument that the difference between public hospitals and private hospitals is somehow problematic but doesn't ever get specific in terms of evidence for claims, instead resorting to low-quality ranting with phrasings like "clutching their pearls". It's also not clear how the public/private aspects are connected to the current second wave. The third part of the article is about the Bhopal disaster, which doesn't seem related to the current situation at all. Bhopal was a story of corporate corruption (ignoring safety standards), government corruption in India (allowing this kind of behavior), government corruption in the US (denying extradition requests, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Carbide#Bhopal_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Carbide#Bhopal_disaster), and the lack of accountability in globalized/international economies. I re-read this part a few times but it too doesn't seem relevant and the author's meandering introduction of the Bhopal disaster into this article just adds to the incoherence. In the end, I am not sure what the point of this article is or why The Atlantic thinks it met their standards.