> If you're looking at human cost, then yes, deaths is what matter. If you're evaluating protocols to prevent infection, then cases per capita is exactly what you care about.
But there is no reason to care whether infection is prevented or not, unless infection carries some sort of cost. That metric has no value on its own.
I'm genuinely confused at what you're trying to get at here. I mean, in the abstract, sure, if an infection had no "cost" we wouldn't care about how widespread it was. But it's fairly well-established by now that this specific infection carries not only a small but obviously real risk of death, but a risk of lingering, debilitating effects that go far beyond the respiratory system.
But there is no reason to care whether infection is prevented or not, unless infection carries some sort of cost. That metric has no value on its own.