So what would have been an ideal length for you? I think the fixed separation into centrally and privately managed halves is a good idea. 48 + 48? Would that stop your critique? I guess that would cause all kind of alignment issues. 64 + 32? Probably enough, but the gain seems marginal to me.
To be honest, other than running out of space, the length of an IP address has never truly mattered, because you don't typically use the IP address to access microsoft.com, e.g. Also routing uses subtrees, so we could have had just grown IPv4 with an extra 4 octets too.
Does every cold virus need an IP address, no. But on the other hand it might make sense to give every planet and asteroid in the solar system one.
He may be downvoted because counting that is a bit disingenious.
The central concept in v4 is an interface, which has a 32-bit address and of which a host tends to have one. The central concept in v6 is a network, which has a 64-bit address and which may be populated by one or many hosts.
The number of /64 network addresses per m² of the planet is also a large number, I'm sure. (That it is a large number is intentional, in order to permit simple routing even when that simplicity leads to lower addressing density.) But counting that is honest in a way which counting /128 addresses isn't.
I calculated the number of IPv6 addresses per square meter of the earth's surface and got a similarly large number.