That is one way to see it, but it's not the complete spectrum.
Ideally you'd want the people to use their savings though, wouldn't you? Instead of just forcing money into the system, where 95% (to go by your numbers, which were actually surprising) would end up in their savings.
I don't believe that printing money is the only way, or a very good one taking others into consideration.
If you look at bond yields, the interest rate was going down - which also causes the interestrate offered by banks to drop. In many parts of Europe it dropped <0%, meaning that'd you'd end up paying interest rates to have money in the bank account.
That way you'd force more people to possibly go out and spend, ideally at least. Would the propensity to consume remain the same, or would it go up? Making it a less rewarding environment to have money in your bankaccount, my guess would be the latter.
The only problem with that is, it also forces people into placing their savings in stocks - usually retail investors like that would buy ETFs or other instruments like that, and you'd force the stockprice up. But you can't have it all.
One thing is certain, inflation will happen from printing more money - because if the circulating supply is increased, and the demand remains the same (which it will, considering the propensity to consume), then you'll push the prices higher eventually.
But then again, we've never seen markets like these before, anything can happen. We can only go by previous experience when it comes to economics, no one can really tell the future. Your guess is as good as mine, but I know that I would've never done the amount of money printing to support QE and helicopter money. That just can't be healthy.