I take your point, but: 1. This looked more like an early-results announcement than a scrubbed, peer-reviewed paper. Given the pandemic-related subject matter,

I take your point, but: 1. This looked more like an early-results announcement than a scrubbed, peer-reviewed paper. Given the pandemic-related subject matter, it seems as though it'd be more important to publicize possibly-lifesaving results as soon as possible than to fix immaterial problems with grammar and spelling. 2. Assuming that we want English to continue being competitive as a global lingua franca (as do I, for selfish reasons), it behooves us native speakers to be tolerant of "aberational" usage by non-native speakers, as opposed to invidiously looking down on those whose usage doesn't conform to our notions of correctness. (In fact, it'd be good to allow a simplified grammar and spelling to evolve, akin to what I understand used to be the role of Koine Greek, as opposed to Attic Greek, in the days of the Roman Empire.)