The author compares statistics from the end of August to the historical record as if covid-19 was globally vanquished by September

I think the word "interim" in the passage you quoted is adequate disclaimer. Is he not allowed to make any observations until all the numbers are in?

He describes the 1918 pandemic as lasting a year, the 1957 pandemic lasting 15 months, and the 1968 pandemic lasting almost two years in some countries. H1N1 lasted just half a year.

The passage you quoted clearly anticipates additional deaths:

"Even if the total number of deaths were to triple, the mortality rate would be comparable to that of the 1968 pandemic, and it would be about two-thirds of the 1957 rate."

How do you justify your extrapolation that 100% of the world population will get infected? Has that ever happened with previous pandemics?

one of the biggest problems of mine with pure libertarianism; Assurance that important information finds the consumers making important decisions related to that information, and in a timely fashion.

I'm not sure what you mean here. How many people get information directly from government? Are they watching C-SPAN? If you count government figures on Twitter, perhaps the quantity is high, but I have doubts about the quality. You link to NPR, "an independent, non-profit media organization." Despite saying federal funding is "essential" they add that "On average, less than 1% of NPR's annual operating budget comes in the form of grants from CPB and federal agencies and departments."

So far, the US covid-19 response is neither a test of big government or the lack thereof. I personally feel like it errs more towards the latter, but there is no agreed-upon criteria for judging this.

I don't think you are arguing that the government is not big enough. Was there any shortage of funding, material or personnel, if government figures had made all the right decisions?