I'm not sure what I've said that would contradict anything you've suggested. I agree with your question, obviously we should do everything reasonable to contain and curtail a lethal disease. The best way to do that is to address it in a sober, realistic manner and drive intervention and response on evidence - not the conjecture of journalists who demonstrate little to no understanding of the situation and disseminate unfounded paranoia.

I think your comment is doing the opposite. It is using conjecture and false comparisons to downplay the seriousness. And using those false comparisons as a heuristic for justifying a continuation of common practice. You may well be right. But you are not providing any evidence to justify that.

Could you detail what comparisons you think are unfair?

As for sources, if you look in the thread I respond citing WHO, NEJM, KCDC, etc as evidence for my assertions/assumptions.