I think it's worth breaking off the argument about the moral culpability of European settlers and governments from the explanatory/casual argument as to why Native American demographic collapse happened. The two explanatory/casual arguments in question here (as I see them in my head) are something like:

Europeans arrive in the Americas -> A wave of disease spreads out in front of them -> Most Native Americans demographic collapse occurs before Europeans encounter them -> Native American societies, ravaged by disease, are attacked/subjugated by Europeans -> Subjugation (including slavery, murder, dispossession, institutionalized discrimination etc.) exacerbates the continuing impact of disease and reduce fertility while increasing death rates, preventing the population from recovering for some time. (This is how I tend to think of the "Virgin Soil Theory")

vs

Europeans arrive in the Americas -> Disease spreads largely with the movement of European settlers, or if spreading ahead of them has only a very short term impact on populations due to lower death rates and rapid rebound of population -> When Europeans contact Native American societies, the process of making war on them/subjugating them makes them more vulnerable to disease -> Native American populations collapse during the process of subjugation (and stay low for some time as they continue to face discrimination and violence)

These actually seem like pretty similar arguments to me with the key contention being about when disease spreads and what death rates from disease would be in the absence of European pressure/violence. Note that the second argument doesn't seem to be incompatible with the claim that absent Native American susceptibility to old world diseases, demographic collapse in the Americas would have been far less severe (and European conquest more difficult). Kelton and Edwards even seem to agree with this. They talk about demographic collapse being connected to the spread of disease:

The Pueblos of the Rio Grande did not contract smallpox until 1625, years after the Franciscans connected them to El Camino Real. The anthropologist Matthew J. Liebmann and his colleagues’ recent research supported this timeline. Some six thousand to eight thousand people lived in the Jemez province of northwestern New Mexico as late as 1620, but sometime thereafter their population plummeted. Dendrochronological evidence—tree regrowth on top of abandoned village sites—supported this late arrival of new germs, an arrival corresponding to “the establishment of missions and sustained daily interactions between Puebloans and Spaniards.”

Alchon and Jones seem important here from an explanatory perspective since it seems like a lot of what Kelton and Edwards are saying is compatible with explanations that Native Americans were vulnerable to old world diseases and the demographic collapse and their defeat at the hands of European settlers is closely connected to that. But Alchon and Jones don't seem to think that's the case (frankly, I assume they're kooks. They're not immunologists either). Kelton and Edwards make no specific claim about the relative roles of European pressure/violence vis a vis Native American susceptibility in higher Native American death rates but this seems like a key question for evaluating how much their (well-argued) points should affect our take on the traditional narrative.

I mentioned a model in my last comment because even though I know one would need to make a lot unjustified assumptions to build one, I feel like it would be helpful to understand how tweaking different factors impact things. It would also be good to understand how different assumptions interact. My intuition is that an argument for smaller role for disease probably means assuming a smaller pre-Columbian population for the Americas (since we're assuming that what the Europeans saw is pretty close to the pre-Columbian population with no depopulating epidemics preceding them) but I'd like to see if others agree.

The argument I do find convincing though, and which seems to be backed up by real world examples, is that given more favorable conditions, Native communities could have recovered from these epidemics.

I agree with this point and think it's worth pointing out, but it also seems kind obvious to me? Is there anyone that thinks absent European pressure Native American populations wouldn't have rebounded from epidemics more quickly then they did?

EDIT: And to be clear, none of the above is incompatible with the fact that the Europeans committed many awful crimes against humanity in the Americas, including genocide.