The article is about societal consequences, not details about the spread of respiratory diseases. And while this will certainly spur more interest in virology, it's not like we'll magically be able to overcome some of the scientific barriers in the way of addressing the common cold and influenza, both very complex and multifaceted, with just some more r&d money in a short amount of time. More resources will help, but science is as stochastic as it is incremental, and it's hard to say where the next breakthrough will come from
Be that as it may, I'm sick and tired of the "we're all gonna die" rhetoric. It is simply not helpful, at all, even as a precaution. Find a way to channel this crisis into something productive. Find new ways to work. Find new treatments, vaccines, healthcare solutions. Adapt, overcome. Encourage and enable others to adapt and overcome. If we have to stay further apart to make it work, let's find a way to make it work. Support local businesses. Get that delivered takeout. Buy that appliance. Spend that cash if you have it - it keeps people employed. It'll be over, as inevitably as the change of seasons. Optimists win every time.
The rhetoric isn't we're all gonna die. Its that societal tensions and polarization will flare up. It might be helpful to read beyond the admittedly clickbaity headline to look at the meat of the article. I will concede the headline is needlessly pessimistic and clickbaity, and that I also initially thought it was about the spread of the virus - the article can definitely be clearer about what its talking about upfront and be more proactive about offering solutions. But it's not the kind of rhetoric it seems it is.
