That story and his individual points fall apart upon analysis.
The below is the best current analytical distillation I've seen of where we are:
https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-peop...
The upshot is:
a) there is a huge diff between localities that act aggressively and prepare and those that dont
b) the ones that prepare and act aggressively to reduce exposure see death rates below 1%. This is still 5-10x more deadly than the flu, and is best case
c) the ones that dont see death rates above 5%. This is 50-100x worse than the flu.
In the US Washington and San Fran are failing to act aggressively enough in time.
The article doesnt discuss NYC, where I live, which has similar levels of infections as Washington tho far fewer deaths. The piece explains how the difference in death rate indicates NYC is in a far better position than Washington, and my own analysis is that we may still have time to stop the worst case, but it is really about what happens in the next several days.
Even in worst case, most people will themselves be fine, but everyone knows at least someone immune compromised or elderly or otherwise much more significantly at risk. So everyone's social or familial network will be impacted.
In terms of the future, it seems likely that even in best case, there will be subsequent waves that hit pockets that were missed the first time around. The difference in impact again will be in how overwhelmed the local hospital system will be. In the US this is likely to be highly variable as healthcare, bed availability, etc, is non-uniform.
And, yes, a vaccine in 12-18 months is pretty much the dream scenario. No guarantee we get there.
The dynamics of this are not something most of us have ever experienced.