What are you trying to say here? That math doesn't make sense to me at all. Pretty clearly the reduction in deaths comes primarily from... those who would have been vulnerable to dying.

One would expect more deaths in the placebo group from all the people who died of covid. Which makes the data even more striking.

I suspect the number your focusing on is the 4 cardiac arrest deaths. At a glance it seems 4x higher than the one reported placebo death. But the number is 4 vs 1 for over 20k people. Why not instead focus on placebo group having 2 vs 0 myocardial infarction? The reason why not is that dying is noisy business, and things like cardiac arrest have a pretty high baseline, and this is such a small sample the variance is likely noise.

Perhaps you could present a proper statistical analysis to convince otherwise? Something similar to the methodology for determining Covid vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing Covid deaths. After all, the data is all there. I didn’t see anything resembling such an analysis in your linked source. Just the confused ramblings of someone nontechnical, clearly out of their depth in reading a fairly basic research paper.

"None of these deaths were considered related to BNT162b2 by investigators"

How would they know? What investigators and what criteria? If there was a 20% increase in seemingly-unrelated deaths, would it be detected? These are the questions that Pfizer should have explained but instead we just got this one pithy sentence. Also remember, this is industry with a history of fraud and criminality. GSK was fined billions for covering up heart deaths in a diabetes treatment only a few years earlier and Pfizer is up on the list too. Our FDA needed to be our advocates and a lot of people feel let down seeing this rubber-stamped.

Even without the vaccine we would have got here but it would have taken longer and cost more lives.