Well, that's ONE bad example.
If you have an infection, should you go to the doctor, get the infection tested, and then take the drug that kills that bacteria, or do some research online then go and get what they have at the pharmacy and guess at the dose, or maybe some Vitamin C? If you want to die, or don't care if you do, the latter should work fine, but if I have a leg swelling up from infection, I'll trust the doctor, because he has years of training and experience, and access to an entire suite of advanced tools not available to me. YMMV of course.
If you read the study, you know you're misrepresenting what it found, which is dishonest, or you didn't bother to read it and are making ignorant conclusions about what it said. What an entire team of experts reported is that without mitigation it would kill 2 million people. So that's ONE option - do nothing and if you do nothing, these are the results you can expect. We and every country on the planet are taking pretty drastic steps to avoid that 2 million dead figure, and they will work to some extent, as the study tells us, and as we have seen in other countries.
Assuming you did not read the study (the other option is you're being dishonest), you are dismissing it from a position of near total ignorance, while citing nothing for the alternative view.
Furthermore, if you're a governor or mayor, how should you make decisions in this crisis? By relying on the best minds out there, who have experience with pandemics, can model the spread, predict outcomes however imperfectly, or just take a WAG and put the 7 million lives in Tennessee at risk based on their gut, or what some hack lawyer at AEI said in an editorial yesterday?
It's a serious question. If you do NOT rely on experts, how should one make decisions?