How many would have died if they weren't treated? Like, to a first approximation, nobody dies of measles any more, but you're not going to see me saying that that means that we don't need to vaccinate against it.
It's a legitimate question, but again, it's only useful if you're going to make the same comparison with handguns: how many more people would have died without medical attention? Are we comparing the lethality of the injury? The incidence of occurrence? The effectiveness of medical care? These are meaningful and important questions.
The numbers alone, without a meaningful comparison with what they mean in their relative context only clouds the picture.
That's fair. It's certainly the case that none of the numbers people have been providing are useful because you can't disentangle causes well enough to use them to support any particular position.
How many would have died if they weren't treated? Like, to a first approximation, nobody dies of measles any more, but you're not going to see me saying that that means that we don't need to vaccinate against it.