Clearly it is immoral to lie. And it is clearly immoral to deliberately intentionally will the death of others for whatever motivation, greed or otherwise. You are right to compare this to abortion, which is the direct, deliberate, willful killing of another.
And you may be right that’s what people are secretly intending to do or you may be wrong. But simply advocating for the policies at issue is not necessarily evidence of it. It’s equally as unfair to call proponents of further quarantines as wanting to destroy society to implement socialism or stick it to Trump. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are both good and ill intended actors on both sides of the debate, but also those viewing the situation with common, good principles and coming to different conclusions. Not every political question is one of good versus evil–rather, they can (and should) be about which morally upright measures are best to achieve the greatest common good.
Your analysis of the situation and what the best course of action is may be the best. Or it may not and the alternative one might be. Someone in good faith, operating from common moral principles, could come to either conclusion, depending on how they interpret the facts. No one is omniscient when it comes to understanding and interpreting factual circumstances. That’s why politics is a thing.
Again, in every analysis of the common good, there almost always needs to be some form of toleration of negatives to advance the total positive good. People operating from a common morality will always disagree about the specifics of how to do this–at its best, this is what politics is all about. But toleration of the risk of unintended death in and of itself is qualitatively different than the willed, direct, and deliberate infliction of it on an innocent person.