Shy question : Why is the question whether it will do a statistically significant impact on death rates ? I really do not understand . To me, this reads like "ah well, thats a statistically insignificant # of death, they do not really matter ." And just to be clear : I really want to understand you .
Insignificant doesn't mean unimportant. In a country with a far higher percentage of low-risk people, and a far higher average mortality, the actual impact will be smaller. If ' business as usual before COVID19' was 1 million deaths, and ' business as usual during COVID19' is 1.01 million deaths, there isn't much point top go for a complete lockdown. In Belgium we can have a lockdown for two months, keep paying people's salaries, and largely keep everything going with some (by comparison) mild nuisances. In Sierra Leone a lockdown means people are going to starve. And there isn't much point in letting 100 million people starve, for example, to delay the death of 10,000 elderly people, most with underlying conditions.
So the questions are: what happens when we do nothing, what happens when do [x] or [y], and which measures can our country afford? When it comes to the latter, the answer for many countries is: not much.