You usually make sense, what happened ere. They didn't ignore the readings. They read them and concluded that there was no evidence of raised probability of a major event. The political appointee may have presented that as `no probability` but that isn`t the same.
It is a high risk area with a lot of low level activity. There was a high probability of a major even at some time, but nothing indicated it was imminent. So `no raised risk` was accurate. The Concordia comparison does not work; the seismologists did not increase the chance of a major event. The captain did.
If you ask a scientist to predict the future you are asking the wrong question. At best they can provide the best odds available given the data and the state of the science. At the moment seismology is still just getting started, if you bang up scientists every time the reality goes against the odds they gave you, then who the hell would work for you?