This is why I share those driving videos with the ODB-II data added.  That extra information provides insight to nudge people's brains for desiring a closer look.  You discover there's more at play than a simple value being stated at any particular time.  It's a complex system Toyota worked hard to create a "for dummies" interface.

New Misconceptions.  The start of the weekend brought this: "For long periods without use, apparently the best is keep the charge to HV level (no more than the 20% HV charge).  Read that here somewhere."  I was curious where that new member to the forum came across such misinformation.  I also wanted to intercept that before it becomes a new misconception.  After all, many of those situations can be turned into a teaching moment.  So, I posted:  Incorrect.  You have any recollection where you read that?  It's helpful to find out the source of new misconceptions.  Think about it.  Toyota's hybrid system has strived to maintain about 65% since for longevity since the very beginning, over 2 decades ago.  That balance has proven itself well for a wide variety of uses & conditions, even with different chemistries.  So out of the blue reading that HV level is better makes no sense, especially since that is below 14%.  Keep in mind that there's a lot of anecdotal comments passed along on the internet, some never confronted by critical-thinking, just accepted as fact.  Don't be afraid to ask for links or detail to support a claim.

Simple Advice.  We have people working from home, not driving their vehicle anywhere near as much.  Apparently, this person wouldn't be driving at all for quite awhile.  I'm not sure how that's possible.  Never going anywhere for several weeks isn't something we're hearing.  Even with the reduction to essential travel, people still travel.  If nothing else, they'll need toilet paper eventually.  More realistically, they'll need food.  I can't imagine too many people going to the grocery store and purchasing a supply of things to eat for several weeks.  Some will, but that won't be the norm.  Significant reduction is the expectation.  And in that case, there's nothing to do.  The longevity of your battery-pack is just fine in that circumstance.  In that regard, I provided this simple advice:  The advice is to drive the car from time to time.  Use electricity or gas.  You have that choice with the HV/EV button.  At home, plug in randomly rather than every night.  We have been patronizing local businesses.  They are still working to provide food services and they still need money.  So, it's out to get something to eat.  The improvised curb-side delivery has been working great too.  There's the drive-thru for the local coffee shop too.  Eventually, you'll run out of some supply (toilet paper), so you'll need to run an errand for retail anyway.

Dealing With Rhetoric.  When arguments fall apart for the antagonist, their next step is to attack you personally.  Most of the time, it takes a form like this: "But that IS your solution, isn't it?  Aren't you saying that manufacturers should stop producing and selling ICEVs?"  They simply make something up and ask if that is what you meant.  It is an obvious divert technique, right out of the troll playbook.  They hope you'll take the bait.  Sometimes, I do... but with a twist.  Since he wanted to make it personal, I looked up one of his own quotes to use in the reply to frame the discussion:  To quote your own post from the previous GM discussion: "What they don't want to do is waste resources developing more efficient ICE instead of developing their EV platforms.  ICE is dead, won't be around much longer, and it makes little sense to dump billions into new engines that are on the way out."  That looks like a continued misunderstanding what a PHEV is and has to offer.  Nothing is needed to develop a more efficient ICE.  You just take whatever is already available and supplement it with electric-motors with batteries powered by plug-supplied electricity.  GM did that already to create their Voltec system.  This is what everyone expected to be rolled out in a SUV platform, like Equinox or Trax.  Development was already complete and real-world proven.  The approach worked, but GM abandoned it anyway... despite leveraging so much of what GM had already established.  That was GM's phased approach to BEV offerings.  Toyota, Honda, Ford, Hyundai, BMW... many automakers are following a similar path to reach that ultimate goal of no longer producing ICE.  It is a natural transition which should appeal to the masses.

Exaggeration.  You know you have an antagonist cornered when they reply with an extreme, some type of response grossly exaggerating what you actually posted.  For example: "And your solution is for all automaker everywhere to stop making all ICEVs right now.  Yeah, I'm sure that would work."  Of course, I said no such thing.  I had posted several comments about automakers have some sort of transition plan, an approach to phaseout the out with a next step technology.  Stopping cold wouldn't make any sense, period.  The dealer business couldn't support such a drastic change across the board.  With a particular vehicle, sure.  In fact, that makes sense if there is some obvious succession.  But if it is a step backward or requires too much on the consumer's part, not a chance.  Know your audience.  It wasn't that complicated in this case.  He just simply either wasn't paying attention or didn't care.  So, I kept my reply brief and without any point to argue:  Ignoring the wide variety of HV and PHEV options available for transition to BEV by replying with an exaggeration...

In other words, you're making the same mistake CARB made 20 years ago.  Remember that mandate?  Remember why it didn't work?  You're focusing on a technology, not a goal.

Disappointing Outlook.  Shortly after the press started sharing projections from Detroit about EV expectation, there was disappointment.  It was almost as if the EV community did a collection sigh.  The numbers were far lower than anyone ever anticipated.  This great revolution of new BEV choices was only to bring a 5% penetration in over 5 years time.  What kind of change is that?  Seeing such an outlook so poor left many without words.  How do you support being let down like that?  The production of ICE (Internal Combustion Engines) was to have a grim future at that point, with plans of discontinuation by 2030.  It was the wildly optimistic enthusiasts hyping up expectations again.  Ugh.  I posted this wake-up call:  The problem of "over promise, under deliver" speaks for itself.  It has a long history.  What's even more interesting though is the Reuters detail published today that he's referring to.  It states a projection of the two biggest American automakers producing 5 million SUVs and Pickups in 2026, with only 320,000 of them electric.  That falls well below the expectation of major change... and certainly not the "options for consumers will be there from GM soon" you hope for.  Look at Toyota's top-selling SUV for some perspective.  RAV4 sales for last year totaled 448,071 here.  That's just one vehicle from one automaker.  320,000 split between two automakers and split between SUV & Pickup makes that number really disappointing in terms of the supposed revolution they were hoped to represent... especially when that's projected for 6 years from now.

In other words, trend of the past tells us nothing about what to expect from an entirely new audience.  It's how market growth works.  That next level doesn't necessarily resemble the prior, since purchase priorities of the next differ so much.  Put another way, selling a plug-in to a well-informed enthusiasts has basically nothing in common to the approach needed to appeal to a mainstream consumer.

In short, the should-have-done and going-the-right-direction don't mean anything either.  It's all about sales.  That's the measure of change, not what marketing tells us.

Piecemeal Data.  The topic about Detroit's future brought about this: "GM has declared no more PHEVs.  We'll get a RAV4 PHEV and Ford has several HEV and PHEV SUVs coming this year.  Given the poor sales of the Outlander PHEV, I doubt Americans will buy many of these.  And the take rate of Pacifica PHEV was only about 2%."  Seeing such a jumbled & disconnected grouping of information was annoying.  It's worse than cherry-picking.  They were just random facts.  That type of piecemeal data only serves to feed a narrative.  There's no critical-thinking with such vague assertions anyway.  You don't build a line of reasoning from such disorganized statements; yet, that's what thrives online.  Ugh.  I fired back with:  RAV4 is Toyota's top-selling vehicle and the hybrid version is around 20%.  The PHEV model will offer 39 miles of EV verses Outlander's 22 miles and around 40 MPG for HV efficiency verses Outlander's 25 MPG.  Comparing the two as if they were in the same category isn't constructive.  No one is going to buy that line of argument.  As for the attempt to compare a minivan to a SUV, that's absurd.  Understanding audience & market is very important.  GM can declare whatever it wants based on whatever it wants.  Missing that opportunity is their loss.  If you choose to doubt the potential, so be it.

Watch what happens in the meantime.  If Toyota really does kill their traditional model of Sienna, making that minivan hybrid only, it will set the stage for another +300 horsepower PHEV offering.  That puts Detroit at a clear disadvantage.  Just look at how some jumped over to Chrysler for the Pacifica.  The status quo is definitely on the verge of being shaken up.