mhaze,

<<I think you've got the flu v. CV19 comparison wrong. The flu deaths you talk about in the article are for people who died OF the flu, whereas the CV19 deaths are people who died WITH the virus. Apples and oranges.>>

I'm comparing apples with apples: people who died FROM the flu vs people who died FROM Covid-19.

The Oxford English Dictionary disagrees with you:

"Compare With" Or "Compare To"?

In general terms, either preposition is correct, but the choice depends partly on meaning and partly on grammar. In addition, American English generally prefers to when there is a choice, whereas in British English the two different constructions are more evenly spread.

Let’s look first at the meaning of each phrase. To compare can be defined broadly as "to estimate the similarity or difference between things." For example:

Individual schools compared their facilities with those of others in the area.

It is difficult to compare our results to studies conducted in the United States.

In this meaning, either preposition can be used, http://www.lexico.com/grammar/compare-with-or-compare-to

mhaze,

<<The flu deaths you talk about in the article are for people who died OF the flu, whereas the CV19 deaths are people who died WITH the virus. Apples and oranges.>>

I think you're barking up the wrong tree with trying to differentiate the prepositions OF from WITH. Here's why:

OF :
Of (to indicate relating to, belonging to) — I always dreamed of being famous.
Of (to indicate reference) — This is a picture of my last birthday.
Of (to specify the number or an amount) — A good number of people understand Hindi, http://medium.com/@english_grammar/how-to-use-preposition-in-english-grammar-on-at-in-of-for-2fdb11e80029

The Cambridge Dictionary provides these definitions for:
WITH
With meaning ‘in the same place as’

With means ‘in the same place as someone or something’ or ‘accompanying’:

She arrived with her boyfriend.

I don’t like tea with milk.

There was a free phone with the car.

With: reactions and feelings

With often follows adjectives which refer to reactions and feelings:

Are you happy with your music lessons?

The teacher got angry with them because they were behaving badly.

I’m delighted with this new jacket.

With meaning ‘using’

We use with to refer to what we use to do something:

They opened the package with a knife.

I’ll tie it with some tape to keep it closed.

He cleaned the table with a cloth he found in the kitchen.

With meaning ‘because of’
Spoken English:

We use with to mean ‘because of’ or ‘as a result of’. This is especially common in speaking:

With all this work, I’d better stay in tonight.

I couldn’t sleep with the noise of the traffic.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/with

Where is the brains trust when you need it to explain http://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-deaths-per-million-7-day-average?country=~SWE

With an infection fatality rate of probably 0.25%, we have completely effed this country for a generation or two, thanks to a hysterical and cowardly response our forebears would be ashamed of. To think that some gave their lives for us to be so gutless.

What a bunch of sops we have here as representative of the nationally scared $hitless, can't even address a graph that stares them in the face!

God help us in a war with China. Let's be sure we line up to equitably have our heads parted from our bodies.

"The result had, on average, 2.6 comorbidities, such as heart problem, hypertension, renal issues, lung issues etc."

I'd say these co-morbidities matter not.
So what if you have heart problems, hypertensions, renal issues, lung issues... So what?
You were still above ground, in the land of the living with those existing health issues.
If you had pre-existing health issues and COVID-19 is too much for you to fight off and you end up dying,

- Then COVID-19 killed you -

But wait it gets worse.

If someone else didn't give a rats arse to follow COVID restrictions, didn't self isolate when sick etc. then they are guilty of spreading the damn thing to others through their selfishness.

On the other hand, it's everyones responsibility to protect themselves first, and then others second from harm.
Some people think the loss of finances is worse than getting sick, but not all are in the same boat.
Some who get sick will die.

Some think a price can be put on life.

How much is your life worth?
How much of a price would you be willing to pay to save someone elses?
How much a price would you pay to not die?

How much in $ is a life worth?

200 billion dollars
- Enough to almost bankrupt a nation, in all fairness -
25 million people divide by 200 billion dollars
- $8000 each.

Does anyone here want to try and argue that anyone else's life here in this forum is worth less than $8000?

Lets start with you Spencer and then you mhaze.
Is your life worth $8000 to either of you?
or maybe is it worth $8000 to those who care about you?

I'm not rich, I might've been had I bought that coin, (and a few more) it just kept on going... nearly 300% gain in a day, but that's another story...

I ain't rich, but if I had the money, I'd spend 8 grand a piece to save all your lives, if that's what the price was.

- $8000 each.
mhaze,
i've had experience with people who aren't worth even that much yet they enjoy the protection of our authorities & even pay them more than ten times the average wage.
Did you know that more money, our money that is, is spent on criminals & other useless by the many useless in authority than on the genuine needy, many of whom are victims of those very useless in those authorities ?
COVID-19 was spread by people unknowingly but we know that there are people who spread the virus either deliberately & or because of their indifference towards others & just utter selfishness. They're not harshly enough dealt with !

AC, while you are talking money a correction. You're not saving 25 million lives but ~0.25% (IFR) of the percentage of the population required to be infected to achieve HI. That's now established at probably less than ~30% (if appropriate behaviours are adopted) so you can distribute that 200 billion over ~20000, i.e. 100K each to maintain to reach their normal length. However, no point in that because 20000 lives will be shortened whatever we do. You see, the virus doesn't care how it takes its pound of flesh, in one mouthful or many. It's more patient than we are as evidenced by Victoria, NZ, Japan, Korea, some ex-posterchildren for eradication.

An intergenerational debt of 200 billion, 300 billion, a trillion, where does it end? What of lives both shortened and of poorer quality due to years of isolation, border closures and lockdown? By what justification is this ignored?