Depends, I think on what you mean by 'sustainability', the means by which you intend to achieve it and the human price you're willing to pay.
The demise of late-stage capitalism might, when the dust settles, lead to a world in which we all live in wee villages, trading seashells for bread and dried berries. Eminently sustainable lifestyle and much better for the planet, but I don't think we'd much enjoy the process of arriving at that point, nor the attendant drop in life expectancy.
Conventional agriculture produces over a quarter of the world's greenhouse gasses and is a main source of freshwater pollution. Organic farming puts far less pressure on the planet. It's also woefully inadequate to the task of feeding the current world population. So, one could very well argue that letting the virus run its natural course without intervention leads to greater sustainability if it decreases the number of mouths to feed in the short run and allows us to 're-set' at a population level supported by other means of cultivation. Somehow, though, I can't see many people getting on board.
Those fortunate enough to live in developed economies may, depending on the financial support available, be able to cut back on consumer purchases, thereby decreasing pollution associated with manufacturing and transportation, to say nothing of waste when the item itself ends up in a landfill some months later. Which is fine except that, as I noted in another thread, companies respond by canceling orders, leaving millions of workers - usually women - out of a job.
My point here is that any useful discussion on this topic must deal in the real and the concrete rather than the abstract and amorphous.
Grazie Milan! You are showing the way. https://www.instagram.com/tv/B_h2NJ6gU2v/?igshid=i722j2ldet2r
Once upon a time.... 📖