The part that is good is that they are admitting that their continuation of shut-in behavior is not about the virus.

Like the old saying goes: Step 1 is admitting you have a problem. The author didn't quite go that far. But they gave enough of an idea of what's going on in their head that someone else can start to diagnose it.

Because, sometimes, it's easier to accept that you're built in a certain way rather than spend a lifetime in denial.

"Sometimes" is the key word here. And the one that I wouldn't know how to quantify.

It seems to me that the "way people are built" these days is just a lack of discipline. We have grown up soft and effortlessly, and we did not grow the tools to cope with self regulation as it was never necessary. I don't see how "accepting" this behavior does anything to solve it.

Ostracization is a valid social regulation for enforcing certain qualities in a society and it's not always wrong to use it.

Perhaps it is you who grew up with too much discipline?

Ostracism is shown to be a precursor to terroristic ideation, if your goal is to see less mass shootings and similar extreme events we would all be better served to consider rehabilitative and inclusionary practices instead of punishing people that you deem too soft or ostracizing t them.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323393438_Ostracism...

In my experience, pro-strict-discipline ideas don't care about effectiveness or consequences. The ideology of discipline itself is the point and the virtue being pursued.

"Neurosis" is no longer a well-defined term in the relevant professional community these days, but to the extent it has a specific meaning beyond being a vague synonym for e.g. "worry", it's an unresolved mismatch between your mental behavior/personality and the expectations of society.

There are two ways to resolve that - change your mental behavior/personality and change the expectations upon you - and there's nothing in the definition to prefer one over the other.