I've been skeptical of the projections of mortality rates for some time.
The article about the Swiss, and their reading of this is similar. As well as the recent change of the model to a reduced mortality rate by the author of the Imperial College bears out my original skepticisim.

From the artical on how Switzerland is still open:
"His team at the Public Health Agency of Sweden is critical of the Imperial College paper that warned this month that 250,000 people in the UK would die if the government failed to introduce more draconian measures. A week later Johnson ordered the police to implement a partial lockdown to combat the virus, telling people they “must stay at home”.


“We have had a fair amount of people looking at it and they are sceptical,” says Tegnell. “They think Imperial chose a number of variables that gave a prognosis that was quite pessimistic, and that you could just as easily have chosen other variables that gave you another outcome. It’s not a peer-reviewed paper. It might be right, but it might also be terribly wrong. In Sweden, we are a bit surprised that it’s had such an impact.”

I'm not being crass here, certainly this virus is one of the worst ever. That being said, real science allows for the correction of a theory based on newer data. That data is being gathered now as we get more real world evidence of the actual numbers, both infection rates and mortality rates.