If they need to be rescued now they should be regulated like other industries that are critical but don't seem to be able to weather crisis on their own (like banks), e.g. minimum cash reserve requirements with stress testing.
A broader question -- can a company that allocates that much capital to preparedness be expected to survive during normal times?
I don't think there is a re-insurer big enough to handle viable pandemic insurance. Such an entity/industry would need to hold >$1T in pure cash right now.
Taking a step back from "good or bad?"... One thing I haven't seen outside the academic literature is a discussion of the leverage ratchet effect [1]. Buybacks are just one lever that actuates the ratchet. A question worth asking: "why has corporate leverage increased so much over the past 30 years?" I don't claim to have an answer, but asking that question could shed some light on whether buybacks are "good or bad".
[1] https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers...
I have always assumed that shareholders wouldn't take this into account, but maybe they deserve more credit than I've been giving them.
Also, buybacks absolutely benefit shareholders that continue to hold. The supply of shares decreases, often increasing the value of the held shares.
Levine's argument did implicitly point out to me that there are times when those who don't sell back some of their shares during buybacks are inherently taking on more forward risk than with dividend stocks; a lesson I'm learning now the hard way. One lives and learns.