They clearly do think like that since they came up with the metric. They CHOSE to make that an analytical anchor because it benefits them to see production levels rise again.

Who are these nefarious "they"?

nobody, except banks perhaps.. on a related note, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, covering thousands of hectares of pristine Alaska coastline with suffocating, deadly raw oil, was famously "good for the economy" .. because almost every measure of economic health increased in the aftermath of the events.. of course, millions of sea creatures died, and the area was poisoned for who-knows-how-long.. make sense?

I guess "good for the economy" here means it increased GDP for the affected area.

This is a common critique of GDP as a measure of economic health. And it's a fair one. But in the bigger picture, GDP remains the best measure I know of.

Accidents and disasters will happen, but their rate is fairly constant, and the noise they add to the measurement is far from invalidating it.

That last sentence makes no sense at all.