Not really. The second part alone ("most of ... shouldn't be") might qualify as skepticism, particularly if the reason given is lack of sufficient evidence, but few stop there. Most go on to express one or more other reasons and/or conclusions, such as "intentionally exaggerating" which is its own claim requiring its own proof. Also, if that's the only reason given then it can't be argument in the alternative because there are no alternative routes given to the desired conclusion. Just one route to one conclusion, contrary to the original proposition but itself lacking proof.
Plenty of the COVID skeptic types I know, and myself included, have expressed exactly the sentiment the GP described. In a way, it's nice to be vindicated after all this. I don't think it really makes a difference whether that sentiment fits into the exact Wikipedia definition you're arguing about, but it's obvious to me it's been a common one for the entirety of the pandemic.
How are skeptics vindicated by the second part? I have always agreed with both of those skeptic things however I come from a different pov than most, most likely.
Only the first has been closer to being true. We don’t have a decently sized population that did very little if anything wrt mitigating like the rest of the world. Just because the mitigation mandates have been too much doesn’t make the average skeptics correct. Considering a large amount of skeptics want little if any mitigation efforts. It’s hard to say the world would be in a better place if the skeptics decided everything. I don’t see how it wouldn’t be a shit show if that was the case.
