So, to re-interpret, black people in america are disproportionately affected by COVID not because they're poor, but because they're black in a northerly latitude, and consequently this displacement, once they all die, is evolutionarily good for the population of the country because this genotype, I dunno, shouldn't be up here, or am I reading too much into it?
No?
Black people in America are disproportionately affected by covid-19 for a lot of reasons. The specific reason why this effect stratifies by latitude is unclear, but may be due to vitamin D deficiencies, caused by eating a normal western diet (low in vitamin D) while, yes, being black in a northerly latitude, which is an unfortunate reason to have a health issue but not exactly something you can do anything about. It is extremely unlikely that they will all die. Whatever deaths do occur are not particularly likely to be evolutionarily "good" or "bad", which aren't really valid concepts except in the extremely attenuated sense in which all deaths are "evolutionarily good" because... people dying is how evolution works. Nevertheless, I certainly don't think these deaths are good at all and you are being intentionally obtuse. The whole conversation about some deaths being relatively better for society than others was
separate and wasn't about minorities at all.
Am I also reading into it too much that it reads like they, having higher death rates, are therefore 'lower value individuals?' I'm not sure if you're positing about their race, or maybe this is a hamfisted pass at how modern medicine enables the average person to subvert genetically weaker human traits? Is it race? Eugenics? What keeps you safe from the standards you set?
Yes, you are reading into it too much because those things weren't related, and also, you are committing a basic logical fallacy (affirming the consequent) in the first sentence here. 'Lower-value individuals', meaning elderly boomers who are consuming a disproportionate share of society's resources out of an apparent sense of entitlement (and therefore literally have a lower value to society, in fact a negative value because they consume more than they produce), have higher death rates than anyone else. It does not follow that anyone with higher death rates is part of that group. I do not believe that you are really stupid enough that you can't understand this. The rest of this quote, therefore, is as irrelevant as it is obnoxious.
Ooooor do we bring this all the way back around to the old fart baby boomers that want to eat at their open buffets and determine that they're lower value people that purging is a good outcome for because they can no longer contribute as effectively to the growth of the economy?
Yes. Or, to be more precise, it's not a "good outcome", but it's a "bright side of everyone dying". This is exactly what this was about all along. I'm not going to quote the rest of your paragraph because it was irrelevant and dumb, but the fact is:
we are running out of money to pay for them already because they use it all up and don't care. If a few more of them die off thus freeing up a little more resources for everyone else, no, I'm not going to be especially sad.
(ETA: You could also read my most recent edit on my previous post before this, which I'm guessing you missed, for more about how two different conversations were dishonestly munged together there, or, you could just, like, read the actual context.)