I think that's a little uncharitable: If even a handful of people (regardless of location) are harmed by causes that we don't accept as normal, those are traged

I think that's a little uncharitable: If even a handful of people (regardless of location) are harmed by causes that we don't accept as normal, those are tragedies and we'll broadcast news about that tragedy 24/7 and use enormous institutions to move heaven and earth to eliminate that harm. If thousands of people are harmed by causes that we do accept, that's life as usual. That might be obvious, but it bears some thinking about. About 19 people in the US have been killed by Takata airbags in the years since 2008, and we've spent $24 billion recalling vehicles for repair, because that's a risk that we don't tolerate. 100 people will die today in cars - probably more than 19 people in the next hour, it's going on rush hour and people will be tired and in a hurry - and it's just another Thursday. Also, close to 19 veterans will commit suicide today. We accept that as normal, and I feel strongly that we shouldn't; consideration of that outcome should enter into the public consciousness as we consider the ethics and justifications of military recruitment and our involvement in conflicts across the globe. Where the deaths happen doesn't really matter. I think it's more about a human ability to name and blame an antagonist: Takata. 9-11. Firestone. Putin. Covid-19. Katrina. Comparatively, 'car culture', senelescence, social and cultural reintegration, and other issues are diffuse to the point of being pervasive and and human brains have a hard time running the numbers on the risk analysis.