Critiqued coronavirus simulation gets thumbs up from code-checking efforts

I think the critique on the code quality was wrong and right at the same time:

- Wrong, because the model may have other problems (it has been criticized because it did not reflect reality in some situations, for example when applied to Sweden) which aren't related to code at all;

- Wrong, because it would have been far more important to discuss on the merits and demerits of the model, rather than its implementation;

- Correct, because bad code in academia is a known and widespread problem (I am guilty of it, too).