I have a different view on this. I think it's an asset to the prosecution.
When MT was interviewed by police about twin E she said she believed that sometimes babies collapsed with no explanation. Myers questioned her about this during cross-examination about twins A and B, which was (IMO) trickery, right at start of trial, because as she explained, this was how she as a nurse, not a doctor, had rationalised to herself what was happening, and it was after many sudden unexpected collapses and four unexpected deaths. It shows conditioning IMO, it's a real insight into how it became so that over that year no one would even question that this could be suspicious because they had absolute trust in each other. Such an environment operates on trust, they know what training and qualifications they each have and harm wouldn't even be on a nurse's radar, IMO. She explained to police they, as a unit, were all shocked by the deaths but that it still was a common occurrence. That was her speaking her truth, as a nurse, not a paediatrician, before knowing that anyone would be arrested let alone charged with murder and attempted murder.
Dr Harkness said to police that sudden deterioration was relatively common, and that was brought up in his cross-examination for baby G. He explained to jurors that it was relatively common for his time (as a junior doctor) in Chester, but he no longer holds that view.
They are only explaining how they had managed at the time, one could say the lies they told to themselves, conditioning, to justify what they were seeing happening. Very few people question the systems they trust in. IMO
I don't think one can go wrong with truth. I would say it is explainable in the context of the period in question and will have no bearing on what senior medics didn't believe at the time should be happening, and on experts saying it doesn't happen at all in babies showing no signs of gradual decline, showing self-recovery between collapses, and without medical diagnoses.
JMO