The problem is that 'indirect murder' citations are operations in propaganda and not reason. It involves torturing numbers like it is Abu Ghraib (lets assign all of the deaths of the uninsured to Brian as clearly he is entirely responsible for the existence of the current healthcare system!), take more leaps of logic than Olympic gymnastics, and all mixed together with an extra large dose of motivated reasoning. In order to absurdly alchemize what is an inconvenience and possible financial hardship into the equivalence of mass murder.
The fact "indirect" has to be added as a qualifier to murder is very telling to the illegitimacy of the concept and proof that just murder wouldn't stand undisputed. There is no reduction in culpability in the actual concept of murder.
There is no difference between killing someone with your bare hands, training a dog to push a button on a detonator, or even using a hitman or deliberately creating a lethal rube goldburg machine.
Instead "indirect murder" is just a way to call things which aren't murder a form of murder. That is a quite dangerous form of polemic which is used to justify violence. It can be applied so liberally to argue that dissent harms "the cause", leading to setbacks and therefore is a form of mass murder and justifies killing dissenters.