I'm suggesting ways in which what is written there can be read in a perfectly reasonable way. your response made it clear you've done no such search, you jumped at one interpretation you disagreed with, and responded in a way, if I weren't familiar with your earlier stances, would have suggested that you were the one minimizing the harm brought about by covid-19. and that appears to be the way the interlocutor read it. and it went down the hill from there. thus my diagnosis of violent agreement, and that you're both talking past each other.