Given that Vermont's population includes children, elderly, infirm, etc, it doesn't seem logical to draw conclusions from comparing the death rate of the two populations.

There's probably an important demographic difference or two between Amazon employees and the entire population of Vermont. Like, how many 80-year-olds do you think work at Amazon?

The population of Vermont includes thousands of premature babies, bedridden elders, stage 4 cancer patients, and other vulnerable demographics that are not typically working at Amazon. Also, even at the worst rush times, Amazon employees are at work for maybe 60-70 hours a week out of 168 total. Dying off the clock isn't counted.

And you're ignoring the multiple specific instances of wrongdoing that I mentioned.

I didn’t realize Amazon hires the elderly and people in hospital.

Amazon will hire anyone who can pass a drug test and physically handle the work for at least a day.

...which people in hospital clearly cannot.

... and since Vermont doesn’t have these selection criteria for its residents, the comparison makes no sense.

a lot of 70-90 year-olds working in amazon warehouses you think?

Well the incidents seem to mostly be with workers aged 60+... And when you get to your 60's random sudden health incidents become much more likely.

70-90 is middle-aged now?

Vermont has only 12 workplace deaths per year. Yes, being able and working at Amazon is better for your health than being 90years old with cancer.