No, not really, it's a question of force.
"Explosion" isn't a unit of force. Shockwaves - the same as you get from an explosion, the same as you get from an impact - are often deadly. If you're shot, for example, the bullet itself is likely (depending on the round used) to pass through you entirely, especially if it's a high-powered round. But the shockwave that the impact and passage of that bullet creates within your body will rupture your delicate internal organs.
Y'see, your organs are mostly inside the chest and skull to protect you from high-energy impacts and piercing damage. Bone won't do a whole lot about modern bullets (or a lot of early ones, for that matter) because they'll pass through bone easily and push out that shockwave - transferring the energy of the bullet into the denser medium of your body far more easily than they can into the air. But bone cages protect from pretty well anything you're likely to face in 'nature' quite effectively, which is why you have them.
So yes, shrapnel can be deadly - but again, the size of the explosion matters. In a frag grenade, for example, the intention of the shrapnel and the relatively low-power explosion that propels it isn't to kill with lethal force (explosion) but to shred delicate flesh - imparting just enough force to the shrapnel to create significant relatively minor wounds in great numbers. Untreated, you'll bleed out in 20 minutes - intact or not.
There's no single-answer result here, just one in which we examine the purpose and mode of action of different weapons. You can't directly compare the purpose of a frag and the purpose of a bunker buster - they're made for different things. The anon in OP's image is, of course, retarded.