Valid points in the article but they boil down to:

1) WFH unexpectedly made for awkward at-home office arrangements (eg kitchen table) and meeting formats (eg. zoom) BUT over time people sorted these things out 2) WFH people worked much longer hours perhaps over compensating for not being in the office, and that takes its toll on health

That's it. So really nothing to see hear _except_ that this is a subtle attack on the WFH spun to favour those who need to see their workers in the office.

The funny thing is: WFH favours those who are productive but penalizes those who get ahead by 'networking' or 'schmoozing with the boss'. If you're in the latter group where promotion-by-popularity is what works for you then, yeah, WFH is a bummer.