I'm involved with numerical modelling too, but in a physical science field. The models I use are much more complicated than the basic statistical models used in epidemiological modelling. The track record of disease modelling, the inaccuracy, would be inexcusable in hard sciences.
As Dr. Fauci has said:
Fauci said he personally remains skeptical about models because they’re “only as good as the assumptions you put into the model.”
What’s more important, he said, is accumulating data that eventually “trumps any model” and allows people to modify it.
“I have no problem with people who are critical of modeling because modeling is inherently an imperfect science. So I don’t really have any quibbling with that,” he said.
Those quotes are 8 days old, by the way. The inaccuracies in disease modeling have been known for over a decade now, and those that study how inaccurate they are have recommended in medical journals they are to be met with skepticism when forming public health policy.
The current data shows that the models (including the ones you work with) are not providing accurate disease predictions. Dr. Fauci acknowledges this. They are the excuse to promote hysteria and fear, and create public policy which is ultimately destructive.
Perhaps disease modelling will be more accurate, but only when medicine has international standards in diagnosis and the epidemiological models can use ensemble spreads and advanced methods in output confidence can be established. Until then, relying on these models, such as the ones you work with, well they wouldn't make it past a 1914 course in Geology, quite frankly.