Well, perhaps you would like to see it being more deadly to better convince people of your plan of shutting everything down for good to save them, I don't know. I certainly don't.
Why are you so obsessed with this being a conspiracy to harm you more than it does me?
First of all, again, its all simple math: A number of people get infected, a number of those get ill, a number of those will be treated or will get more ill, currently 2/3 of the latter will survive and the other third will die.
Which variable do you want to change, so it stays that low with more freedom?
- How many people get infected? That is what we did so far with social distancing, but as we see, there is only a little margin for failures.
- How many people get ill? That is what we want to influence with vaccination, but its not the problem of politics, if the pharmaceutical companies are only able to deliver 8% of what they planned to deliver last summer - that was their planning, politics did a lot there to remove impediments.
- How many people will get into hospital or ICU? That is what we currently try to keep as low as possible, by all medical technology we have available and all the personel we have available. If we could get more people there, it would be fine, but there are not more people around.
- How many people die in ICU? Again, that is at the best possible already that we can do without hoping for better technology. Maybe somebody invents something more clever to prevent the damage by SARS-CoV-2, but so far there is no reason to assume it will get much better than what we already learned last year.
As you might see, there are MANY ways left to make sure more people die, but only very few options to reduce lethality a bit. And these variables are not very flexible as well, because if you let more people get ill and let more people require help in a hospital to survive, the earlier you will exceed the capability of the ICUs and people will die. Simply because nobody is there to prevent it.
What makes the disease the (maybe) least deadly pandemic of all times is plainly simply because we did fight against letting it (maybe) become the most deadly pandemic of all times.
And finally: What are we comparing with? The Influenza epidemic of 1968 happened at a time for example, when Germany was unable to even gather basic data on how many people had been infected and we only estimated how many people died (excess mortality of 40000) - of COVID-19, we already had 65000 confirmed deaths. 1957 did cost us 30000 in excess mortality.
So, by just looking into some history books we can find out, that your respected person did, what even the most respected persons can do: He said something stupid. It is not the least deadly pandemic of all times. From what we know, it seems to be even high on that list in modern times.
Do you want to compare things to medieval times? In that case we have more problems with the accuracy of historic information, but can at least say for certain, that COVID-19 must be in the 20 most deadly pandemics in the past 2000 years. And not even in the 20 least deadly pandemics or the least deadly pandemic.
And that despite all the medical technology we have, despite all the good health care system we have, despite all the knowledge that enabled us to produce a vaccine in mere months, than years.