That is a fair and valid criticism, the alarmist theme pushed relentlessly till it crossed some binary threshold that instantly transmuted it from extreme crisis to "all is well". And equally important, has been the questionable basis of the report's original assumptions.
So far I noted two insightful criticisms of the study:
First, Nic Lewis and his statistical analysis using Diamond Princess Data. Here is the latest adjusted table for comparison:
View attachment 67276518
The DP data would suggest the Ferguson, et. al. paper overstates fatalities from 1.65x upto 18.1x depending on the age cohort. Of particular note is the DP data was derived from a sample in close quarters, with shared dining, and routine socializing and recreational interaction.
Second, Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta argues that the model is most likely flawed. His team's modeling study suggests that as many as half of the people of the UK have already been infected the virus, implying that fewer than one in a thousand so exposed become sick enough to require hospitalization.
If so then not only could herd immunity kick into effect, dramatically reducing peak cases, but that the fatality rate is very, very low.
Of course, that model is now being tested and will most likely be revised by real world results.