Bad headline from the Guardian on this one.
There's a big difference between evacuation readiness and evacuation.
There was a sudden, but not catastrophic increase in air loss from 1 pound per day to 2 pounds per day. Until the source of the loss increase is found, NASA doesn't know if this is new damage such as from a micrometioroid impact or if existing damage is growing. Like a leaking dam, damage in weakened metal can grow rapidly without warning. So the astronauts not involved in the repair efforts are ordered to be ready for evacuation if the situation starts worsening rapidly.
I personally expect the source of the leak to be found and repaired without evacuation.
It went from 1 pound air loss per day to 2 pounds per day.
So it is significant in the statistics sense. That is a very measurable and sudden change which definitively shows that either a new leak has occured, or an existing leak has suddenly worsened.
However, 2 pounds per day loss is not severe on its own. Presumably the worry is that without knowing what caused the sudden increase, they can't know whether a sudden and much worse intensification of losses will occur. So the astronauts not involved in repair activities should be ready to evacuate until the situation is fully evaluated and a repair plan is ready.
Oxygen generators recycle CO2 back into O2. They can't create new air. So lost air is replaced from compressed gas storage tanks that get replenished from supply flights. 2 pounds per day is easy to supply from the tanks. The issue here is not knowing why there is a sudden doubling of losses and therefore lacking confidence that the situation won't worsen rapidly.