I sympathise with your sentiments. This may blow over, or the danger of contracting COVID19 may be the new normal and we have to learn to mitigate those risks.

Either way a RTW trip ahead of you is very exciting. I'm jealous of that.

I don't know if you're asking for input on bikes, or just commenting on the difficulty in choosing one. I'm going assuming it's the former!! Ever met any biker who didn't like to pontificate about bikes?!

Anyway, the adventure bike market has exploded over the last 15 years. Every factory is selling the overland dream to commuters and sunday riders the world over. And by and large that really is who's buying them. The factories know this. That's not to say they are bad bikes. I'm sure they are great, but the vast majority will never ever see the likes of the Mongolian steppe or the Road of Bones. As such they are not built to handle them. That's not to say they couldn't cross either, but they were not built with that in mind. They were built to make the owners feel like they could ride those places.

First let's posit that the lighter a bike, generally the better. On the open road a juggernaut is fine. Stable and comfy, but on rougher roads, trails and tracks that challenge you to stay upright, that weight will be a major handicap: I know from experience. I rode a BMW R1150GS, two-up across South America and mostly it was fine, but on some gnarly roads (I'm not great off-roader), it was really hard work.

Generally, anything under 170 is usually akin to an enduro: so perhaps look at a weight max of 180kg, dry will allow you a bike that is decent on the open road and not unmanageable on the dirt. Opens up a lot of bikes of up to 800cc, I would say.

Meanwhile let's also posit that mechanical complexity and remote locations only play well when the former suddenly requires human input. In other words if your bike needs a USB, a laptop and an internet connection to be diagnosed, reprogrammed and tuned, you better hope it needs none of those off the grid.

Now what follows is not a sales pitch, it's simply my rationale for valuing my bike as a potential travel bike. It's also an admission that it's the best choice either.

I no longer have the BMW. I was relieved of its ownership when a nice lady ushered me into a crash barrier whilst I was riding home: this is after it survived 7,500 miles of South American mayhem. Anyway, with the exception of an XR400 that broke my butt, I have owned the same Honda 96 Transalp since then. Why do I like this bike for the idea of a more remote trip?
Lighter than a GS (but not light),
21" front,
decent suspension travel,
fuel economy is about 4.5litres per 100km, once reaching 3.5 on a very steady ride
decent tank size
Honda build (I mean the Honda of the 90s)
comfy seat
decent headlight
Carbs. No complex FI system.
Can do two-up at a push.
Decent power
V-twin (I love V-twins)

Those are the reasons I think it makes a good bike for such a trip. If I could make it air-cooled and weight 30kg less, I'd love it more. My point is that newer isn't necessarily the best.

My other point is that if you are so overwhelmed by the choice of bike, narrow the field by choosing a genuinely decent criterion to consider: weight. You will soon have a far more manageable shortlist.

I've been impressed by what some have managed on the likes of the CB500X and the CRF250L.

Once you've chosen it, by all means add a few clever bolt-ons but don't clutter it either: you may want to reinforce the sub-frame, add LED lights where you can, add an auxiliary/USB plug and a comfy seat, but if you really need to make major changes, then perhaps its not the right bike to begin with.

My bike works for me so I'm not going to tell you what to choose, but I would urge you not to discount some models because they are too small because, depending where you go, even they may feel too big.

__________________
Adventure: it's an experience, not a style!
(so ride what you like, but ride it somewhere new!)