I think the authors feel the government response (lockdowns, vax mandates, etc) was too strong. But the article makes it hard to determine whose criticism of which scientists is considered "obsessive".
Science should serve an advisory role in public decision making, not act as a load-bearing structure. Science involves argument, full consensus is never achieved, and "it's only a model, really." (maybe science-communicators need to start repeating this like investing companies -- "investment involves risk, past returns don't guarantee blah blah blah...")