Corals can recover from "bleaching" and can overgrow skeletonised areas (at some extent), but neither all bleaching cases are equal, nor all of the around 3500 species, if I remember correctly) of extant hard corals are equally resilient.

The real cause of bleaching is unknown. Vibrio can invade the area and accelerate the killing of coral tissue, but is unclear if they are a cause of the disease or a secondary effect of the disease.

IT is absolutely known, it has been proven that Nitrogen in the presence of phosphorus with the addition of micro metals such as titanium and zinc suspensions found in sunscreen are creating a chemical cocktail that is toxic to the coral.

The real cause of bleaching isn't in question. The article has little to do with the cause of bleaching. It doesn't suppose that the 3500 species extant hard corals are equally resilient. You are telling me things that, while certainly interesting and appreciated as such, don't really address any problems with the article or its assumptions.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in peer reviewing the article here if this is what you expected. I was not asked to do so in any case by the editors, and this is not the place for it.

The article is great, but the problem is more complex than that, for several reasons that as you pointed, are out of the scope of the article (so I will not discuss them here). Feel welcomed to talk about the article, and only about the article, if this is what you want. I will listen carefully.