IMHO this supports the OPs point, which is that the stock market in its current incarnation does not care about the lives of human beings.
Which is unacceptable. We collectively have enough creativity and intelligence figure out how to have a stock which can not only reflect corporate profit but also human well-being.
I think it begins by acknowledging market externalities - pollution being one of them - which allow for activities which are profitable within the shared fiction of the market, but which are, in our broader shared reality, ultimately destructive.
The Happinese/Well-being GDP also seems like an interesting idea.
I do agree that using the stock market as an indicator of quality of life, general well being of human beings or anything else than the financial viability of publicly traded companies is not a very good idea. That's a frequent mistake made by financial journalists and politicians alike, however, especially during election season.
There's potential for a huge gain in efficiency here. The stock market is fundamentally a long bet (if you want to short the entire market you invest in things outside it). Of course the market is exited at the long term prospects of that.
Also, you're being a little disingenuous when yo say "These are the same markets that cheer when job cuts and redundancies are announced." When one under-performing company cuts jobs it tends to go up because costs are decreased. When a well performing company announces a mass layoff it tends to be a toss up because signals are mixed. When a ton of companies announce layoffs the market tanks because the signal being sent is things are getting worse all around. You're comparing a positive reaction to a single entity event (company announces layoffs) to a positive reaction for a market wide event (potential for covid to become less of a burden on the economy as a whole). You can't cross compare as if they're 1:1 like that.