The merest Self-Loading F-wit knows that this incident has nothing to do with MCAS. On the other hand, it is surely likely that it has something to do with aircraft being out of service for a long time; and this means that similar events will probably happen again. That makes for a real
PR problem. When mechanical problems occur on a Max, the media will of course cross-refer to the two crashes; it's not hysteria, it seems to be an algorithm in modern news-gathering systems, such that when an aircraft type is in the news, there's an automatic search for other stories covering that type.
The issue is that on the one hand it would control the bad effects, and be honest, to say that problems are to be expected when a lot of aircraft are returned to service, and it doesn't have implications for the certification. On the other hand, it's unlikely that a manufacturer or airline would be really happy to say "They're going to be a bit buggy at first." At the least, it would make it clear that even a good, safety conscious, manufacturer or airline can't really have safety as its first priority; over the long term, commercial viability has to rule.
BTW, it may just be that I hope once more to fly between Auckland and the West Coast of the USA, but I don't believe that an IFSD on a twin is entirely without interest, now that engines are so reliable. It is reassuring that it seems not to have been a problem with the engine itself.