Suryag ji, you don't have to put words in other people's mouths. The other side of the argument is not that those doctors would have died in traffic accidents, the other side (at least from me) is that most of those doctors were in their 60's, 70's, 80's, and one even in 90's. That Swiss site links to the data site that Arun.Prabhu also posted. Many of those doctors are also listed as "pensionato" (retired), "Ex-medico," etc. Probably retired folk hauled to the front-lines of fighting the disease, with predictable results.
At least on my side, I'm not arguing against the current lockdown. In the face of an unknown disease, it was the right thing to do, and Modi did a commendable job of instituting an early lock down.
Now the need is to use the chance to make an honest evaluation of the disease and its characteristics. This need is not served by: labeling every death with Coronavirus as a "CV death":
In other words, a 90-year-old man who dies with a fracture of the femoral neck and becomes infected with corona in the hours prior to his death is also counted as corona death. To name but one example.“
A German medical specialist informs us: „From my medical point of view, there is some evidence that some of these people may have died as a result of the measures taken. People with dementia get into high stress when major changes are made to their everyday lives: isolation, no physical contact, possibly hooded staff.“ Nevertheless, the deceased are counted as „corona deaths“ in German and international statistics. In connection with the „corona crisis“, it is now also possible to die of an illness without even having its symptoms.
Why inflate the death count with "data" like the above? Any particular reason, maybe to justify the current lockdowns, or maybe to plug a vaccine?
The need is also not served by: publishing data on the "exponential rise of CV cases" without publishing corresponding data on the "exponential rise of testing for CV cases" (in fact, the fraction of positives is practically flat). To its credit, worldometer is now showing data on the number of tests as well. The flat fraction of positives to me indicates that - in the pockets where "new cases" are occurring, what we're seeing is actually the fact that up to 20% of the population has already been infected. The testing is turning out to be a poll of this infection - increased testing, corresponding increase in cases. In India, that fraction seems to be 2.5% in the general population, about 10% in the Mosque revelers.
So what I'm saying is, no issues with the current lockdown, no need to justify it, it was the right thing to do. The issue now is - are we honestly evaluating the need for future lockdowns? Not if we keep spreading unnecessarily inflated numbers of deaths and also showing "exponential spread" without the context of "vastly increased testing."
Like I said, I'm very interested in seeing how well that prediction of "93,000 deaths in the USA" pans out (this prediction, once again, ALREADY ACCOUNTS FOR THE EFFECTS OF THE LOCKDOWN, according to the author(s) of the paper). If this turns out true (I hope not), then the experts have a good handle on evaluating the seriousness of this disease. If this prediction turns out to be greatly exaggerated, then - I'll have a hard time buying the logic for future lockdowns. Another couple of days or so should tell us.