How many coronavirus victims would have died anyway?

There's a new argument in the US, and perhaps to a lesser extent here in UK, that the daily coronavirus death statistics are not really real because they include a huge number of people who would have died anyway, either through some other disease or old age or obesity or diabetes or whatever. In other words, the argument goes, it's not right to say that Mr X or Mrs Y were the latest victims of Covid-19 when the former had a chronic heart problem and the latter was 103. This argument which fits well with those who are still convinced that the whole pandemic is a giant linguistic overkill and that the lockdowns were a massive overreaction. We have columnists in the UK who are fervent supporters of the overreaction brigade and go on to say that as a result economies are being needlessly destroyed. It's a compelling argument but you have to put yourself in the mind of a government faced with the prospect of tens of thousands, nay possibly millions of citizens dying terrible deaths in hospitals and care homes unless the whole country is banged up at home and forced to work from the sofa. Pretty well every government has resorted to the same lockdown methods. Sweden has remained an exception but the Swedes haven't exactly escaped virus deaths, so the Swedish model is not necessarily one to follow. Anyway it's too late now. So back to the debate about statistics. How many deaths can be solely attributed to the virus as opposed to all the other diseases and illnesses which cause deaths every year? In the US this is now becoming a political issue. If someone dies of a heart attack but also had Covid-19 symptoms, should that person's name be added to the list of coronavirus victims? The largely conservative-minded commentators and politicians seem to be saying that if there wasn't a pandemic around, this individual would probably have passed away in due course and so should not be labelled as a Covid death. I fear the argument is somewhat specious. A very large proportion of the fatalities HAVE involved people with, as they say, underlying health problems, such as diabetes, heart problems, lung problems, etc. In other words once the virus was added to their existing frailties, their immune system just couldn't cope under the strain and, in some cases, their vital organs collapsed. Who knows whether they would have survived another six months or three years or longer if the virus hadn't taken their life away? The fact is Covid-19 hurried them to their deaths and in many cases in a horrible way. So no sensible person can morally or truthfully claim that coronavirus had not played THE crucial role in destroying people's immunity. So whatever the political arguments for changing the statistical basis for counting the daily deaths, there is no getting away from the fact that the US and UK, combined, have currently lost nearly 125,000 people through the virus. And that's why lockdown was imposed. Can anyone seriously claim that if there had been no lockdown whatsoever in either country, the death toll would still have been 125,000 in the US and UK? Surely it would have been much much higher.