Is 'Insectageddon' Just Hyperbole?

Whilst confirming that scientists are 'concerned' about declining insect numbers, Jane Hill (York University and President-elect of The Royal Entomological Society), opines that 'insectageddon' has encouraged 'hyperbole of doom' (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/08/worried-about-insectageddon-insect-decline). Hill points out that insect numbers are very prone to fluctuation. Point taken but pointing out that moths are declining and aphids increasing, doesn't paint an especially rosy picture. Moths are mostly pollinators/ food for birds, whereas aphids are plant disease-transmitting sap suckers. Hill points out the excellence of the UK's long-term insect data. It can be 'mined' for long-term trends. Some other countries (e.g. Denmark and Germany) also have good chronic records for insects. All show worrying trends, with declines of 'key' insect species. Hill seems rather upbeat about the prospects for UK insects. She finds solace in government's claimed 'commitments' to nature recovery and tree planting. Her optimism may, however, be somewhat misplaced. That same government recently claimed the countyside is 'a place of business', encouraged forestry rather than development of 'proper' woodlands, allowed farmers to use formerly banned insecticides etc. Hill appears very taken by the 'successes' of butterfly reintroductions in the Cotswolds and Rockingham Forest. These are, however, labour-intensive and focus on only a few species. This type of conservation programme cannot be a model for a majority of insect species. I am not yet at a 'doom setting' but 'insectageddon' seems real enough and worrying enough to me?