What you're saying is "a disease kills people who were going to die from it anyway". No, those people weren't going to die if not for COVID-19, and you can say the same thing for any disease, tautologically.
Later analyst of the death records showed it was the latter. The death rate increased. But then did just returned to 'normal' The mortality was excess.
By that reasoning, many people are supposed to be eaten by lions, they should get back to the jungle and learn to run better.
If an insult kills the former then they get clustered together in the death records. And after that the mortality rate should drop. Because they're dead already.
If you don't see that drop afterwards it means the insult killed a bunch of people with health issues who weren't going to die anytime soon.
An example I saw was of a WWI vet who had reduced lung capacity because he got gassed during the war. He died during the smog despite being 'okay' beforehand.
> The medical advancements in the last 100 years increased the survival chances of many who would not be here already, if not said advancements.
Ie "those people wouldn't be here if not for the reasons that let them be here", ie tautological bullshit. Guess what, they also wouldn't be dead if not for COVID-19.
Saying "x wouldn't happen if not for the thing that caused it to happen" isn't some profound statement.