The thing is, they didn't fuck up. It's the same model with more up to date data.
They DID fuck up. They were called publicly on the suspicion they had not used the data that was available from countries using THIS virus. You're literally CHOOSING to believe it's only just become available. Even without actual datasets, they more than enough to go on to realise that Pneumonial infection was a bigger problem with COVID than with Influenza A/B. It was literally THE take away from all the early reports from those treating the fucking virus. Some really key factors were EMPIRICALLY demonstrated beyond any doubt, not in data charts, but in the medical reports. We KNEW it was harder on the respiratory symptom. We KNEW that treatment would not be the same as for Flu Viral Pneumonia. I mean, for chrissakes, they pump Influenza a/b / H5N1 sufferers who get viral pneumonia full of tamiflu, which is 99% effective against those viruses but not at all effective against COVID 19. All the stories from those treating the virus had exactly the same flavour, and it was all about the terrible effects and challenge of treating THIS form of viral pneumonia.
They are not talking about not NEW data. They are talking about how the data changes when you reset that one value, that one factor at the heart of this model - the actual reality of treating this virus.
But because the behaviouralist modelling seemingly produced their work separately from these sorts of voices, it left in that.
This isn't worth arguing. They got called. They got called on the suspicion that something very similair to this was happening, in the last week, since the moment the briefing was given. They were called dozens of times, by so many Senior Academics, Professors, heads of schools, countless other very senior experts in all the field, in so many letters, articles, tweets and threads - that I stopped posting them.
They were CALLED openly, by people who needed to see their hand, because the bet looked all wrong. And whadya know, they'd misread the deck.