My point is that text doesn't necessarily convey how they meant it. Their experience of the advisor's passing was indirect, so it isn't all that crazy that what stands out to them is how it affected their SO and the obvious effect it'd have had on the advisor's family.
That's because I'm me and not anyone else. It was pretty traumatic for my SO and everyone else around the PI. The PI insisted on going into work and continuing on like nothing changed even as they were mentally deteriorating. If I don't include details about the tragedy it might be because I don't want to bring that energy to my comment and not because I somehow was oblivious to their significance.
It’s still odd to characterize a person’s death in terms of someone else’s career progression. Probably because it’s uncommon to see a death characterized by it’s second order effects. Usually it’s the family or friends and it’s more personal. OP didn’t say anything wrong though.
> It’s still odd to characterize a person’s death in terms of someone else’s career progression.
OP even went another level, since it was their SO's career progression that was affected, thus affecting OP. Agreed, they're not wrong, but it was odd.
They’re not wrong in the sense they’re factually correct: OP’s life would have been different had a cure been available. But if OP’s SO approached her PI on their deathbed and said “Dear PI, what about my SO?” They’d probably be met with incredulity.
That's a real odd way to characterize a person's death.