the morale issue for me is it's a preventable disease with a potential death toll of about 1.5 million.I don't agree.
Life expectancy at birth for a male has increased from 65.7 years in 1920 to 89.4 years in 2020, 36% in 100 years. That is so far out of synch with evolution it's ridiculous, so there is a cost and this is it:
Healthy life expectancy has also increased, but not as much as life expectancy, so more years are spent in poor health. Although an English male could expect to live 79.6 years in 2016–18, his average healthy life expectancy was only 63.4 years – ie, he would have spent 16.2 of those years (20 per cent) in ‘not good’ health. And although females live an average of 3.6 years longer than males, much of that time is spent in poor health – they experience only 0.5 more years of good health than men. Rates of disability-free life expectancy are similar to those for healthy life expectancy.
A fifth or more of one's life spent in poor health and increasing risk of disability is a questionable advance, in my opinion making one a victim of the survival instinct which compels one's drive to continue life, regardless of its advisability.
We are on the wrong path of disease treatment advancement, thinking we are only extending lifespan when in fact we are also greatly extending ill-health life span. That needs to change to disease avoidance advancement by the extension of good health life span at the cost of disease treatment advancement. Achieving this is of course as much societal advancement as medical science.
.