I 100% agree that if you have proof of efficacy against severe disease, its reasonable to assume efficacy against death. In fact I think it would be absurd not

I 100% agree that if you have proof of efficacy against severe disease, its reasonable to assume efficacy against death. In fact I think it would be absurd not to. But, the usual rules of the game (and certainly the rules the FDA plays by as I understand it) are that you either reject the null hypothesis with a sufficient degree of statistical significance or you don't, and if you don't, you haven't "proved" anything. So if someone claims that studies proved something according to those rules, its fair to call them out if there was in fact no proof. To your first point: Yes, 99% of the population does not understand statistics, null-hypothesis testing, what "under-powered" means, etc. But, I think we under-estimate the ability of the public to understand good explanations of these topics. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I believe the median reader of a page like the linked article can grasp explanations of these topics even if they are initially somewhat ignorant of them. And, while I can't prove it, I believe that the most epistemically rigorous rebuttals of what we feel are false claims are ultimately going to be the most durable.