99% survival rate of covid-19, therefore we should do nothing to stop it.

This actually an example of the gambler’s fallacy.  Assuming that because something is improbable means it won't actually happen. 

I feel like there's some information missing, particularly why does covid has 99% survival rate, is it because of the precautions we took, the vaccines, etc. otherwise, as everybody else said, there isn't any fallacies in sight

If this is an argument against claims of why we should use masks, vaccines and mandates then would say It’s a Strawman Fallacy. Because its not the death rate that’s concerning, it’s the hospitalization rates and infection rate mixed with death rate. Because the danger thats trying to be avoided is hospitals and ICU units from filling up to the point where they become useless in their societal function of being able to take in and help heart attack victims, accident victims, cancer patients, surgeries etc. And since the infection rate is so high with SARS Cov2 it makes that 1 to 2% death rate a very massive number of deaths because the population is so large. An example is that more people have died of covid in the past year and a half than in the civil war, or all the cancer deaths annually. So to say 99% survival rate therefore it’s not bad is using semantics, hyperbole and relativity to downplay the threat. I say relativity because it’s a glass half empty vs half full claim that leaves out important context to deceive.

No fallacy, just an opinion. Even in argument form, the problematic premise is an opinion:

P1. If Covid has a 99% survival rate or greater, we should do nothing to stop it.
P2. Covid has a 99% survival rate.
C. Therefore, we should do nothing to stop Covid.

More of an opinion. There is a lot of unknows here. We do not know who is in the 1% could be person 1.  We do not know how it will mutate in the future - It could be come more deadly. What about the impact on the healthcare system? There is also a moral implication here - Do we just let the 1% die.

What this argument fails to take into account are mutations.  The longer any virus is allowed to propagate unchecked in the wild the more it mutates.  It also assumes that the survival rate will remain the same, whether or not it accepts the probability of mutations.  I would say this is an example of the Availability Heuristic Cognitive Bias, which is the tendency to estimate the probability of something happening based on available examples.  "Because the survival rate of covid19 is 99% NOW, we should do nothing to combat it, because it will continue to be 99% in perpetuity, whether we do anything or not."  Availability Heuristic

It breaks no laws of logic, so no logical fallacy, as it is merely an unsupported opinion.

However, since it only mentions the larger percentage, the conclusion does not take into account the smaller percentage (the 1% who did not survive).

So, as a statement, it is flawed, as well as being incomplete.

So many errors, so little time. False premises. False alternative. Proof by Verbosity (Argumentum Verbosium, Proof by Intimidation) – it is the submission of an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details within the time available. (This is a variation of the Gish Gallop and Argument from Authority.) Etc.