Ooh, thanks for reminding me about re-infections, and why I was so annoyed with Ferguson for saying "scientists see the data and it's 10-15% reinfections".
There's two points to it, one is the implication that anyone who is not paid by the government as a scientist to work on this is "not a scientist" and therefore should have no opinion, essentially gatekeeping knowledge in a completely unscientific way.
More importantly though, he, as a scientist has data which is directly contradictory to the published data, significantly so, over 110% wrong - imagine the deaths figure was under a half what was true in the published data, anyone would have an ethical and professional requirement to point that out. But instead he just waffles over it, with a number he barely knows (10-15% is both a massive range and something that should be known to very high accuracy unless he's talking about something completely different) and completely ignores the published data. That isn't scientific.
Publishing all data all the time is not reasonable, it's really hard to publish data, it's expensive, changing the systems of the public dashboard risky such that you might end up with none etc. So there's nothing wrong with not publishing the detailed data, what is wrong is leaving data that is known to be incorrect to be published, the very minimum required is caveats and statements where the incorrect data is published (if it is still published) and a technical paper clarifying the situation with accurate figures at the snapshot.
If scientists are not publishing their results and providing the data for peer review, they are not scientists, they aren't doing science, and they should not be claiming it.