Ok, sorry, but this is just hysteria. A deadly pandemic is in absolutely no way milder than climate change.
Climate change will see the occasionally bad storm, gradually more frequent flooding, and displacement of a minority of the global population from the coast over a period of >1 century.
People will gradually move inland and rebuild. Economies may shift over time, power structures wax and wane, etc - the point is it will feel mild because it will happen on a large timescale.
This is far less deserving of early mitigation strategies than a global pandemic which is killing potentially millions of people in the span of a few months. The two levels of danger are simply incomperable.
>Both cause major systemic economic damage, with long lasting consequences.
I hear this perspective a lot, but I think it's flawed fearmongering. The gradual nature of climate change is such that the "damage" will be indiscernible from normal turnover maybe increased by a couple percent on average per year as storms and floodings increase in frequency. If anything, this could be a perpetual infrastructure stimulus. That's even if it happens on a short enough scale to matter. The anticipated timeline (and carnage) is not and cannot be proven and given that we are dealing with geologic timescales, it will likely be at hundreds of years at an absolute minimum.