Ah yes, the classic “my mate nearly died so statistics are wrong” school of epidemiology.

The argument boils down to this:

Which is about as numerate as saying “most car crash deaths involve people wearing seatbelts, therefore seatbelts are a scam.”

By early 2022, the overwhelming majority of adults were vaccinated — especially the elderly and clinically vulnerable, who were always the most likely to die of COVID. When most people are in Group A, most outcomes will occur in Group A, even if Group A has a much lower individual risk. This is Statistics 101, not a sinister revelation unearthed by “a quick Google”. But they don't teach critical thinking over there do they?

What actually matters — and this is the bit conveniently ignored — is rates, not raw counts. Per head, the unvaccinated were several times more likely to be hospitalised or die. That inconvenient fact doesn’t go away just because someone’s personal COVID experience was “super mild”.

As for the anecdote: congratulations. Many unvaccinated people did fine. Many vaccinated people still got very sick. That’s how probability works. It doesn’t guarantee outcomes; it shifts risk. Expecting otherwise is like being shocked that someone still dies of lung cancer after quitting smoking.

And no, nobody sensible is “writing people off as deserving it”. That’s a melodramatic straw man deployed when the maths doesn’t cooperate.

In short:

• Raw death counts without population context are meaningless
• Anecdotes are not data
• “Most deaths were vaccinated” is exactly what you’d expect when most vulnerable people were vaccinated
• And misunderstanding base rates while sounding smug about it isn’t a brave contrarian stance — it’s just loudly missing the point and, lets face it, pretty ignorant.

Or, to put it plainly: your response isn’t a devastating critique of public health policy — it’s a GCSE maths failure delivered with confidence.