The sheer arrogance displayed in this article is breathtaking. Scientists are so super-smart that not only are they experts on the science, they are also better

The sheer arrogance displayed in this article is breathtaking. Scientists are so super-smart that not only are they experts on the science, they are also better at the entirely orthogonal skill of programming than the entire programming industry! The results from using this software have directly influenced political decisions that have resulted in the greatest mass curtailment of personal liberty in modern history, not to mention the rest of the response to a public health situation that is going to cost hundreds of thousands of lives around the world. The idea that code that demonstrably contains bugs and exhibits non-deterministic behaviour, written in a style that has proven time and again to be resistant to mechanical testing, formal verification or expert peer review, should be defended because while it's written in such a style that doesn't matter because this code was written by scientists is... I don't even have strong enough words. It's laughable. It's patently absurd. Sorry for the slightly ranty comment, but I am genuinely furious that people are trying to defend this work in this way. It is insulting to me as a professional software developer who has also worked on many scientific and engineering programs over the years. It is the antithesis of good scientific practice, where methods are transparently disclosed and peer review and attempts to reproduce (or fail to reproduce) important results are actively encouraged. And it is downright offensive to me as someone who can't look after close family members right now because laws made in no small part because of this software prevent it.