I have to respectfully disagree with the two of you. I can come up with a few quotes as evidence, but I think this particular one is a decent illustration of the stoic concept of sympatheia (mutual interconnectedness, or the whole [sometimes capitalized depending on translator] in Aurelius' writing):

Whether it's atoms or nature, the first thing to be said is this: I am a part of a world controlled by nature. Secondly: that I have a relationship with other, similar parts. And with that in mind I have no right, as a part, to complain about what is assigned me by the whole. Because what benefits the whole can't harm the parts, and the whole does nothing that doesn't benefit it. That's a trait shared by all natures, but the nature of the world is defined by a second characteristic as well: no outside force can compel it to cause itself harm.

So by keeping in mind the whole I form a part of, I'll accept whatever happens. And because of my relationship to to other parts, I will do nothing selfish, but aim instead to join them, to direct my every action toward what benefits us all and to avoid what doesn't. If I do all that, then my life should go smoothly. As you might expect a citizen's life to go - one whose actions serve his fellow citizens, and who embraces the community's decree.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 10.6 (emphasis mine)

I would point out a couple of things: you could take the "whole does nothing that doesn't benefit it" to say that we should just let whoever is going to die go right ahead because death is a natural part of life but I would argue that the second section of this passage is a pretty strong argument against that. I would also point out that Aurelius ruled during the Antonine plague (it is said that up to 2000 people died per day at the height of it, so I think we can stop calling this time unprecedented now), he and his co-emperor Lucius Verus called Galen in to study and try to treat plague victims. When Aurelius died, his last words are reported to have been "Weep not for me, think rather of the pestilence and the deaths of so many others."

Also RE: attempts at change - I posted this quote a couple of pubskis ago because it seemed fitting at the time:

Is anyone afraid of change? Why? What can take place without change? What is more pleasing or more suitable to the universal nature? Can you take a bath unless the wood is set afire and undergoes a change? Can you be nourished unless the food undergoes a change? And can anything else that is useful be accomplished without change? Do you not see then that changes in yourself are just the same and equally necessary for the universal nature?

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 7.18

This is also the same guy who "zooms out" and dumps on how everything is the same forever and ever but with a different set of names so I get it, and if you really zoom out it is kind of true, we are born, we live our short lives, we die, and we are soon forgotten. But change comes, sometimes slowly, sometimes in the blink of an eye. If this were not so we might still be wearing toga and riding horses everywhere. (So much poo!) But no matter our current circumstances, we have to stay focused on being good and doing the right thing. I think that the "you shouldn't deal with it/them/self-importance" is perhaps misunderstanding the idea that there is what you control and what you don't control. You can try to help other people but you have to do so with at least a little bit of detachment because ultimately you don't control them/their reaction. We don't control what happens, only how we react. I see how this might be taken as overimportance on the self. In a way it is, but the outcome should be that we direct our action toward the highest good.

I hope I didn't ramble too much.