The quality of The Economist has really gone down over the years. It was never a spectacular source of journalism or anything, but nowadays it's not good for much besides representing liberal think tank consensus. The idea that Taiwan is more dangerous than, say, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Libya, Myanmar etc. is laughable. Even within the context of China I think in the short-term (the next 4-5 years) the greatest danger is the South China Sea, where potential for accidents and escalatory chains is far more abundant.

Past the short-term, it's hard to say. I think the fate of Taiwan is, to be frank, more in the hands of Americans than in the hands of either the Chinese or Taiwanese. Today's ROCA is utterly inadequate for any imaginable military conflict across the straits, and the PLA today is probably capable of pulling off such a conflict if foreign intervention is off the table, albeit at a great cost. Everything hinges on American participation. Of course, it's a complicated calculus for the US. Explicit declarations of protection would further disincentivize already-sluggish improvements to ROCA's doctrine, procurement, and preparedness. It could also trigger an immediate resumption of the Civil War, which would be unthinkable otherwise. And Americans are in general sick of foreign entanglements, as evident by the enthusiasm for an Afghanistan pullout. So it's not as simple as marching up to Taiwan and guaranteeing protection. In the end, if we can avoid bombs being dropped on Taipei and Xiamen, I'd call it a win for everyone.