You realize most people only read the headline.
Yes, but authors usually do not have control over headlines, and @tksirius posted the article based upon its content, not its headline, so we should discuss the content.
In particular, the individual being interviewed (an engineer with experience in creating models of pandemic spread) is arguing that what is likely to happen will probably happen with or without draconian measures. He qualifies his worst-case-scenario (which equates to 500,000 US deaths) as assuming the healthcare system does not collapse. I think our evidence from Italy, New York, and even the UIHC's blunt assessment of their preparedness (in particular, lack of PPE if things get dicey) indicates that if we did nothing, there is a good chance of collateral damage due to healthcare shortcomings. @HawkGold 's anecdotal accounts hint at this as well.
So I think we are clearly in a "flatten the curve" mode for the forseeable future. But I think the perspective of this individual has merit, he has contributed to successful modeling of pandemics previously. I think if by the time the next pandemic comes around our healthcare system has become more robust and resilient, and if we can combine that with better systems for testing and tracking (there have to be some really smart people working on the tracking problem right now, I assume), we can deal with a similar magnitude problem with much less disruption of everyday life.