Retractions can be healthy but in this case it seems to have taken a good deal of effort from another group, which isn't the best sign about the process of the original authors or the journal.

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.