The article you cited earlier -
UK has enough intensive care units for coronavirus, expert predicts | New Scientist - indicates that the new models assume the strict lockdown put in place in the UK is followed by a S.Korea style test and trace program. That measure was not part of the initial study, as has been pointed out many times.
Which, of course, returns to the question of why an obvious prospective mitigations/suppressive strategy was left out of the theoretical model. As stated by me more than once, the op issue is not that the report itself is in error (although it likely is) OR that there are not scenarios one can mine to arrive at these lurid warnings BUT in how, through timing and selective focus, it was manipulated to foster policy.
The sequence is telling:
First, construct a study that leaves out a well known South Korean approach to the problem - one that apparently NOW makes a difference to the forecast.
Second, let the press run with it by emphasizing the unrealistic 'either or' false AND unrealistic choice of "nothing done" or "all suppression" as satisfactory.
Three, make sure, in the document that most people don't read, sufficient caveats, unknowns, and other salted loopholes allow a claim of honesty. Even hint that the South Korean option exists, but don't include it in the tables.
Four, when the meme has been milked dry take whatever policy intentions stated by Boris Johnson as something concrete and "locked down" - claiming that the South Korean option is was what all along could save the reports it's unrealistic and dubious forecasts based on full suppression.
Fact is that neither "do nothing" or "do everything" was ever realistic or practical, but it didn't stop the team from talking as if were. There is zero chance that an 85 percent rate of suppression could have been maintained for 18 to 24 months (or 80 or 75 etc.). And if the team had wanted to, according to the facts at hand, they could have forecast on a realistic basis with and without the Korea option (of course, that might have watered down 'suppression' via control of people's conduct).
So now, suddenly, the blandishments of Boris Johnson are taken as a reality, the discovery of the infection rate of 3.0 doesn't matter, and there really is no problem; NOW they (or their supporters) want to talk about that South Korean option thingy, the fine print left out of the marketing for full suppression over unrealistic time frames.
Sorry Jasper, none of this was necessary EXCEPT as a political marketing ploy to milk maximum suppression BEFORE introducing less draconian options and supplements.