That's a strange way to think of a virus.
Viruses don't say, now we have done 5,000 deaths we are done. They continue to kill. When they aren't stopped, they infect exponentially until they reach a peak (30% of the population, say).
A week or so ago, you said the same sort of thing but the numbers were smaller. Next week, I imagine you will say the same thing when the numbers are two or three times as many. For me, your rationale doesn't make sense because it doesn't extrapolate. In your argument, the future doesn't exist.
People who deal in pandemics think in terms of growth curves, not snapshots. They think the virus will kill millions, unless they take action. They wish to prevent that. They are spending money to try to avoid millions of deaths and to keep other risks at bay (eg starvation because no one has any money to pay for things and so production stops).
They hope the amount they are spending now is enough to manage the whole curve. They may be off. But there's no reason to say that the amount they expect to spend will grow at the same rate as the deaths pile up.
| 