It's true there will probably be an increase in this kind of bad article retraction before we can see a decrease, and that wouldn't necessarily indicate an increase in bad science -- similar to certain crime statistics when reporting starts to be taken seriously. But I still think the article raises quite a few ongoing concerns with the current academic system, which does have capacity pressure/incentive problems to a much greater degree than previous generations.

I do agree retractions in general should be more normalized, as there are also plenty of cases where honest non-reckless mistakes were made, and sometimes even quality work that turns out to have issues in retrospect e.g. new information invalidates a previously common assumption. But I'm not sure any of that applies to this particular paper, and regardless the original authors apparently avoided addressing any of it.