When scientists call something weird it means that their theories are inadequate, but that they cling fast to their theories and cannot accept any other explanation.
The Universe works, and it’s foolish to think that any human can understand it fully.
Like most “game changing” observations, This one is likely to be the result of small deviations that eventually will be found to be due to errors or uncertainties in the measurement, or perhaps some known but unaccounted for factor. It’s very rare for a new observation to truly lead to novel science.
That is the reason science “clings” to theories (the term theory doesn’t mean what you likely think it does BTW). The theory is usually a very solid explanation of the phenomena it is intended to explain. Theories are generally not overturned because doing so is difficult. That’s as it should be. Science should be stable but not static. It obviously would be bad if changes could never occur, but science would be useless if every perceived anomaly caused complete abandonment of all prior work and knowledge.
The analogy I like to use is to a legal term, “burden of proof”. The new observation might well imply a new scientific paradigm, but the burden of proof is on those offering the new paradigm to demonstrate that it is superior to the old. It’s not on the rest of the scientific community to defend the old theory; the default position is that the old theory is best until proven otherwise.
Science often gets a bad rap on here (hopefully the irony of people using modern technology to claim that science doesn’t work isn’t lost on anyone). The problem is not really science, though, but a lack of understanding of what science can and cannot do. Scientists are human; they can be just as guilty as anyone of this. Science can provide explanations of measurable phenomena. Science can be used to make predictions about future measurements. Science cannot be used to make accurate predictions when either data is inaccurate or the phenomenon is not entirely understood. Science also cannot be used to make value judgements, although it does inform debate.
An example of this is the recent Covid modeling. Scientists who made these models were NOT wrong. All included a significant amount of uncertainty that was clearly stated by the model. Further, the models were refined and adjusted as more data was obtained and more information on the virus became known, preliminary models proved to be off, but the refined models have been much more accurate. That’s typical of how it should be.
Where we messed up was our treatment of these models by political leaders. They were treated not as possible outcomes but as certainties. There’s no certainty in science. Also how to react to a pandemic is not a scientific question. Science can give an idea of what may happen under various courses of action, but it cannot decide between them. It’s a value judgement as to how economic and social factors should be weighed against public health and potential deaths. Science cannot provide a correct answer as to what course should be followed.