I dunno man, before that paper, it was very very difficult to discuss the fact that almost all papers sucked monkeyballs, and afterwards it got much, much easier.

I really appreciated his work, and like the OP, am pretty disappointed in his behaviour since the pandemic started.

The biggest problem I had with that paper is that it was focused on specific areas of science, with different reasons for their difficulty. (Psychology and social sciences are brand new fields, basically in the phlogiston stage, which any new science has to pass through. Medicine is about trying to solve real problems in a complex system where experiments are hard to do, but can't simply be ignored.)

It's not that there aren't problems in every scientific field, but that paper tarred all the sciences with the same brush, and I saw a lot of people use this paper to advance their physics quackery because "Hey, most physicists are wrong anyway".

Nor is that meant to dismiss the way some fields and some journals were using their difficulties to excuse really bad practice. So if having that dirty laundry aired out has improved their standards, great.

But the paper itself seemed more like a way of drawing attention than a serious attempt at improving the fields. So I never had the admiration that the OP did.