(Note: not the author). I think any article like this can attract (and even deserve, depending on what's presented) criticism. But I absolutely dislike the "lack of credentials" as an opening argument.
It's much better to tear away the points you don't dislike, IMO, without mentioning credentials. It's obvious that being in the field can give you much better understanding of the issues, but not being in it does not mean one will not try to reason over the data (even if wrongly).
I'm a biologist (well...half biologist, half computational biologist, and something else thrown in the mix). Does that mean I can not criticize (hypothetically) something on epidemiology because I don't have credentials, or, conversely, not try to figure out something in the data (even if my reasoning is totally wrong) because I don't have the required credentials?
I understand the above is a little too black-and-white, but I mean, let's encourage debate, even strong disagreements like your post, without going over what the author is doing in the first place.
P.S.: (not a jab at you, but a thought that emerged while writing this reply) I believe there are a lot of models floating on SARS-CoV-2, but I feel we also need loads of basic, bench level experiments to understand it better.