Mosquitoes kill more than 700k people every year (2017)

Because:

1. The article doesn't mention hydroxychloroquine and

2. Hydroxychloroquine is being touted as a cure to Covid 19, a claim that has its basis in politics, not science. Part of the claim being made is exactly the (wrong) claim you were defending: that hydroxychloroquine is safe--as if safe/unsafe were a binary.

If you go from an article about malaria to an only tangentially-related topic of hydrochloroquine and basically parrot Trump's untrue claim that hydrochloroquine is perfectly safe, you shouldn't be surprised if people assume that you're agreeing with Trump's claim that hydrochloroquine should be used to treat Covid-19.

Understand that claims occur in a context. The CDC's claim that hydrochloroquine is well-tolerated is in the context of treating a very deadly disease (malaria) that it is proven to treat. Your claim that hydrochloroquine is safe occurs in the context of treating a much less deadly disease (Covid 19) which it may actively exacerbate. Maybe you intended your claim in the context of treating malaria with hydrochloroquine, but that wasn't the context you said it in.

While I think that we should totally put the blame on drunk drivers, I would still make a distinction between negligence and intentionality.

Saying that drunk drivers intentionally kill people opens the door to saying that bad doctors kill people, bad medicine teachers kill people, people who vote for the wrong politicians kill people, politicians who enact bad laws kill people, etc.

At that point the discussion devolves into "your party kills people because your ideology is wrong", "no, yours is"

First - if you're going to say 'mosquitos kill humans because they transmit disease' and then include humans for a completely different reason (i.e. homicide) makes for an odd comparison.

For example, what if human transmission of the communicable disease results in some massive amount of death, which could very well be the case?

Second - mosquitoes are carrying a lot of otherwise benign things, which most people recover fine from. Possibly things like the flu. Well some people die from the flu, but very rarely. So I'm not sure if the fact it was communicated by a mosquito or something else makes sense.

Maybe inanimate objects, like the door handle to your public building, contribute more to basic pathogen spread, like the flu, in which case again, that would put things in context.

It's a tricky thing to compare lions attacking people to mosquitos that happen to spread in some cases, some minor thing that in may have rare deadly consequences.

For example the US Preventative Task Force evaluates evidence and recommends screening guidelines as well as giving the strength of the evidence.

For breast cancer, the only recommended screening is that women age 50 to 74 have mammograms every 2 years. And that is B grade evidence.

https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recomme...

With screenings, you have to be really careful about selection bias. Basically, screening will catch a larger proportion of slow growing cancer. Also with respect to staging, the slower growing a cancer, the earlier the stage you will catch it at.

My guess would be that if you have a cancer that is rapidly going from stage 1 to stage 2, you would already have a worse outcome and the 2 months screening hiatus is not going to be that big a difference maker.

EDIT:

In case people ask about clinical breast exams and self breast exams, here are the American Cancer Society guidelines:

"Research has not shown a clear benefit of regular physical breast exams done by either a health professional (clinical breast exams) or by women themselves (breast self-exams)."

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/screening-tests-...

So the only guidelines with evidence backing them up call for 2 year screenings. Within that framework, a 2 month delays are not going to be very clinically significant.