This article is somewhat puzzling for me. On one hand, the OP clearly knows Clojure very well. The disadvantages of laziness are real and well described.

On the other hand, though, this sounds like a theoretical/academic article to me. I've been using Clojure for 15 years now, 8 of those developing and maintaining a large complex SaaS app. I've also used Clojure for data science, working with large datasets. The disadvantages described in the article bothered me in the first 2 years or so, and never afterwards.

Laziness does not bother me, because I very rarely pass lazy sequences around. The key here is to use transducers: that lets you write composable and reusable transformations that do not care about the kind of sequence they work with. Using transducers also forces you to explicitly realize the entire resulting sequence (note that this does not imply that you will realize the entire source sequence!), thus limiting the scope of lazy sequences and avoiding a whole set of potential pitfalls (with dynamic binding, for example), and providing fantastic performance.

I do like laziness, because when I need it, it's there. And when you need it, you are really happy that it's there.

In other words, it's something I don't think much about anymore, and it doesn't inconvenience me in any noticeable way. That's why I find the article puzzling.