The study is counting all excess mortality during the pandemic. This is a bad methodology, and I might add possibly a politically motivated one, but that's neit

The study is counting all excess mortality during the pandemic. This is a bad methodology, and I might add possibly a politically motivated one, but that's neither here nor there. There are metrics all over the place showing some regions with no lockdowns having less excess mortality and mortality due to covid. Some of the lockdown measures in some places were counterproductive. Some people say all of them were, some people say none of them were anywhere (which makes no sense really), but the truth is probably somewhere in the middle: at least some measures taken in some places were the wrong call. This is to be expected, we didn't know what the disease was going to do and lots of us panicked. But conflating deaths from covid with deaths from the response and attributing all of them to the same cause is going to necessarily include deaths that would not have happened even in the pandemic if it weren't for the response. And we can quantify that, as an example, look at the disparity in excess mortality and covid death between California and Florida. California had a higher excess mortality and a higher covid death rate. Was that excess death in California due to covid, or due to a botched response? Again, probably a bit of both, but there's no way to pick the two categories apart, and so this entire methodology is not useful to quantify anything.