I too find the theory of "normalisation of deviance" really interesting - and thanks to PP for sharing.
I find it harder to understand why people are "so" affected by his death - aside from the fact that all deaths are tragic and these circumstances amplify it.
However, as far as I view it he took an unnecessary risk, failed to take proper precautions and, for whatever reasons, assumed this lack of preparation would stand him in good stead.
My understanding of MM is that he facilitated an understanding of science and human biology and was a great advocate for learning and personal development.
He also could not comprehend why other people could not overcome the challenges that he saw in diets - because he had absolutely no understanding of how real people lived.
His regimes have allowed people to reevaluate their diets but as far as understanding the determinants of ill health and poverty he was on another planet.
He was a good "voice" ( like Jamie Oliver and others) nothing more and failed to back up "his" science with quantifiable results or anything that would/could be said to be in the "public good".
Read all the fluff pieces he did in the Daily Mail on how his family lived and his understanding of the "general public". He had low understanding (probably a sad result of his upbringing and no fault of his - however we are what we repeat and lower empathy.)
RIP and condolences to his family - but let's not get carried away. A tragic and unnecessary death should not preclude a rational discussion re legacy either.