wal, there are many, many factors at play here you're not considering.
Look at this data, and sort for Deaths by Age - All Groups: CDC COVID Data Tracker
Pay very close attention to the ages most affected. I don't believe this data is good, but it's a big part of what the CDC uses to drive their decisions.
1. Is the initial increase in death actually a sharp exponential curve mid-season with a sharp drop off, or is it a drastic increase of testing with an unreliable test/assay driving a rough awareness of the actual infection of the population?
2. What does the second season say for the infection death rate in the population? Does it look like "vaccines" had a significant impact on death rate? Death is, after all, one of the primary metrics for determining the efficacy of a therapeutic or "vaccine" is working.
3. What does the current season look like for death rates? Why might that be?
Factors you and the CDC stubbornly seem to ignore (not, necessarily, in this order):
1. More of the population has become aware of various treatments including prophylactics, but primarily the supplementation of vitamin D3 in order to become vitamin D3 replete (=> 50 ng/ml). Impact? Unknown, because nobody tracks this. We do know that it virtually eliminates death in all but the oldest populations with the most comorbidities, or perhaps the truly immunocompromised individuals. We're not really tracking that, either.
2. The average comorbidities for deaths, admitted by even the CDC, is close to four. These comorbidities increase with age, and likely in part due to Metabolic Syndrome from a life of not enough physical activity, strength training and eating well (enough).
3. Herd immunity acquired through natural immunity. While it confers less protection against variants given the antigens generally change due to mutations, natural immunity has been proven to be more effective and for far longer than whatever benefit has been acquired from the "vaccines." Therapeutics have never been tracked appropriately, and our only indicators are what the protocols did in general populations at the country level. I'm counting Indian states as countries because of population.
4. Prophylactic use of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and iodine/iodide remains virtually untracked in the population, and has some vast unknowns and questions. There are some studies showing efficacy, but they aren't at the scale where we know for certain. None of them carry any statistically significant risk, though. Perhaps ivermectin at 0.2 mg/kg of body weight has a very low effect for old, comorbid and/or vitamin D deficient populations. Maybe it doesn't even work that well as a prophylactic in the general population. It does appear to be effective for a therapeutic, still.
5. The apparent spread and number of symptomatic cases related to Omicron variant have seen a dropping of extant monoclonal anitbody infusion use due to them having no efficacy as a therapeutic. The antibodies that worked for Delta do not work on Omicron, at all. Why, then, would the antibodies acquired from either the "vaccines" (theoretically) or natural infection from the novel SARS-COV-2 virus be reducing symptoms including death?
6. It is a long-held truth that virus variants, due to the pressures of natural selection, see the mutations that make them more transmissible and less deadly "win out" and remain more prevalent by epidemic or pandemic spread. Why does this seem to be virtually ignored by everyone, and what effect(s) may be present, primary/secondary/tertiary, given the widespread use of these "vaccines" on the population? Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) comes to mind as merely one possibility.
The most infuriating thing, though, is that we frankly don't know anything for certain. Because studies, data tracking and analyses are so corrupted, improperly performed, and "poisoned" at this point to know for sure. That also doesn't say anything for the outright suppression of information, data, institutions and individuals trying to act as a counterbalance for rational discussion and refinement of our understanding. It leaves individuals and groups in the general population, like this board, attempting to make sense of the entire debacle while the innumerate effects, on health or otherwise, ravage the world's population and economies.
Are we wrong? Certainly to some degree. We're biasedly using incomplete information to abstractly form an conceptualization of what is actually occurring in reality. But are we more wrong than what the WHO/CDC/PHE/HPS/HPA/HPW recommend? I'd say no.
I offered my own infection experience, which tends toward the more extreme for this variant, as an anecdotal example to learn from. A little piece of ground truth from my AO in the battlespace as part of the larger war. Even then, while I felt like shit for two weeks, I was never at risk of death at any point. The only reason I went into the hospital was because it was a) the only facility open and b) capable of determining if I had a more serious, antibody-resistant bacterial infection. I was there for three hours. Most of that was waiting on doctors and a chest X-Ray. I only wonder what would have happened if we'd had the ivermectin protocol on-hand to begin immediately after a positive antigen test instead of 3-4 days into the infection.
They didn't even check for infection -- they just assumed it was all COVID, but had no issues saying I wouldn't be as serious if I had taken the "vaccine" directly after telling me monoclonal antibody treatments weren't working.