I know you struggle with context given our other threads, so I'll connect the dots: the "problem" from the original post was a large increase in immigration placing a strain on resources. If someone replies that a "significant fraction" of those immigrants were facing certain death, AND this "significant fraction" accounts for only 5% of the increase the original post was talking about, then that reply is at best a complete red herring; that 5% subset is simply not the source of the "problems" alluded to in the original post, eg. if you kept immigration levels at historic norms and only allowed additional refugees, you wouldn't have the "problems" the original post was alluding to.
That reply is only relevant to the original post if "significant fraction" consists of a meaningfully large percentage of that increase that is allegedly causing the problems.
Therefore, the phrasing of that reply in-context is misleading at best.
And, to continue with your fallacy for the sake of humour, I know you struggle with logic given our other threads, so I'll help you out here in a now non-humorous way: There is nothing to suggest the comment was of relevance. You are searching for something that never was.
Seems that way. Someone even asked for a "citation" in another comment, meaning that they wanted to know from where a comment was originally copied. Think about that one for a minute. You have to wonder sometimes.
That reply is only relevant to the original post if "significant fraction" consists of a meaningfully large percentage of that increase that is allegedly causing the problems.
Therefore, the phrasing of that reply in-context is misleading at best.