I don't see that. I've been watching and contributing to this thread - IIRC from the start - and the impression I get is that time and time again, the main argument in favour of HS2 is that it provides badly needed capacity by removing all the fastest trains - initially from the Southern WCML, but after phase 2 is complete, also from the Southern ECML and to a much lesser extent from the MML, freeing up space for stopping services. Phase 2 also removes trains from the congested Manchester-Stockport corridor, and overall you get massively reduced journey times Birmingham to Manchester, and Birmingham to the East Midlands/Leeds/the NorthEast. The argument further points out that there is no other plausible scheme on the cards that can deliver those same benefits for less money, and even if such an alternative scheme could be dreamt up, any alternative scheme that relies primarily on upgrades to existing lines instead of building a new line would inevitably cause many years of severe disruption to those lines.
That's an extremely strong argument in my mind. There are other arguments in favour of HS2 that are not as strong (including the faster London-Birmingham journey times), but, as far as I can see, it's clear that those are side-arguments, where it's being pointed out that they are additional benefits from HS2.