Sharpening for large megapixel cameras and does it therefor apply to panoramas too?

there are 2 sharpening stages when it comes to panorama production. 1st, you need to get rid of the optical low pass filter blur (anti-aliasing filter) which usually needs a 1pixel radius and fixed amount and masking values. a LR preset is handy here. it's dependent only on the sensor and never on the lens. this blur is pixel-uniform.
after the stitching process, this pixel uniformity is gone due to various translation and distortion processes during the stitching process, so the initial sharpening against the low pass blur can't happen here.
the 2nd sharpening (output sharpening) needs careful considerations about the final panorama projection. when you have a more or less flat panorama the pixel deformation resulting from the stitching may be low enough to properly apply a general sharpening on the entire panorama. the same applies to cylindrical panos with a relatively small height related to the width. when it comes to spherical (equirectangular) panos, a sharpening only makes sense in the middle third of the height. below and above the image pixels are too much stretched to show the sharpening. correct sharpening of spherical panoramas requires the conversion to 6 cube faces, then sharpening and then a re-conversion to the equirectangular projection. as equirectangular panos usually intended for interactive usage, some of the interactive panorama players apply a real-time sharpening while displaying the panorama in the (flat and pixel uniform) viewport of the player.
so for spherical panos, usually no output sharpening is applied, and the initial sharpening is more important here.

The amount of sharpening required depends on the sharpness of the sensor and the lens.

I have a Nikon Z 7 and a Fuji GFX 50S that both have a resolution of 8256 pixels on the long side.

The Fuji needs much less sharpening than the Nikon because it has a sharper sensor and sharper lenses.

The sharpening you do in Develop is designed to compensate for softness in the digital capture. (Capture sharpening)

The image should look sharp, but not too sharp. If in doubt, sharpen less.

Always apply sharpening at 100% view, where one image pixel is represented by one screen pixel. Any other view will be inaccurate and misleading because the image has been scaled. (if you have a 4k or higher monitor, use 200%)

Use appropriate output sharpening when exporting.

Output sharpening compensates for softness caused by resampling, and in the printing process.

Note that there are different options for screen and print.

My answer is no, not for the original file. I agree with Johan.

Any changes in sharpening are related to scaling and resampling the original. Sharpening should be applied after resampling.

This works on pixel level. You can only assess sharpening at 100%. Then it doesn't matter how many more pixels are outside your present screen view. However - if you apply sharpening on a zoomed out image, you will get a false preview of the sharpening effect, so it may appear as if you need more.

But the point is - for practical use, the image will almost always be downsampled. And then you need different sharpening parameters depending on final size.

It's not logical that you would sharpen a stitched panorama differently than how you would sharpen the individual images. After all, the panorama still comes from the same camera, the same lens, and the same sensor. The reasons why you sharpen a high resolution camera photo (smaller sensor pixels, small camera movements have greater impact, lens unsharpness has greater impact) do not apply here.

Interesting question. I probably have a wrong answer, but I will express my opinion based on what I have done. I use a smaller camera, 20.5 megapixels. The largest I have done in panoramas is one that includes 32 images (four horizontal rows, eight vertical columns). I sharpen the images before I create the panorama, applying the same amount of sharpness to all images. After the panorama has been created I usually find that the sharpness is pretty consistent. This may not be the best or proper way of doing it, but it has worked in my case.