What they’re suggesting is that under packet loss conditions QUIC will outperform TCP due to head of line blocking (particularly when there are multiple assets to fetch). Both TCP and QUIC abstract away packet loss but they have different performance characteristics under those conditions.
HTTP/1 has parallelism limitations due to number of simultaneous connections (both in terms of browser and server). HTTP/2 lets you retrieve multiple resources over the same connection improving parallelism but has head of line problems when it does so. HTTP/3 based on Quic solves parallelism and head of line blocking.
The only way the first part of your sentence is correct means that the second part is wrong. HTTP 1 pipelining suffers from head of line blocking just as badly (arguably worse) and the only workaround was opening multiple connections which HTTP/2 also supports.
Given the alternative, switching to a new protocol, requires much more code changes than fixing bad implements of the old protocol, your argument falls quite flat.