One of the challenges is that you’re only tautologically correct if you say “future pandemic risks,” which by definition haven’t happened yet. We could likewise say that the risks from climate change that we’re worried about are also “future climate risks” which haven’t happened yet.
It sounded to me like you were shifting from proposing that pandemics hadn’t killed anyone yet (false) to proposing that future pandemics were less risky because they hadn’t killed anyone yet (tautologically true of both future pandemics and future climate deaths). So I remain unclear about what it is about climate risk you’re claiming is riskier than pandemics.
One of the challenges is that you’re only tautologically correct if you say “future pandemic risks,” which by definition haven’t happened yet. We could likewise say that the risks from climate change that we’re worried about are also “future climate risks” which haven’t happened yet.
That’s exactly why I compared the relative future risks of climate change, nuclear war, and pandemics in my writing.
It sounded to me like you were shifting from proposing that pandemics hadn’t killed anyone yet (false) to proposing that future pandemics were less risky because they hadn’t killed anyone yet (tautologically true of both future pandemics and future climate deaths). So I remain unclear about what it is about climate risk you’re claiming is riskier than pandemics.