Admitting scientists were wrong in their claims on science does not hurt societal standing of science or funding. The cost is very low, everybody expects scientists to be wrong on science from time to time.
Admitting scientists may have caused the pandemic is on a whole another level. Societal status and funding may be pulled. The cost is so huge it makes relevant scientists unlikely to admit any of the sort.
I don’t have a great way to prove this, because we’re arguing about a hypothetical, but I think you’re wrong.
Let me try one similar but non-medical counter-example. People are still willing to get on planes, even though Boeing 737 MAX engineering flaws caused 346 deaths.
Some, not all, people are willing to get on Boeing 737 MAX. Certainly not people who know about the fiasco and avoid increased risk.
Your counter-example does not work at all, instead it is an example of my point. Boeing managers were driven solely by profitability of the company, mismanaged safety concerns, did not tell the customer about problems and MCAS fearing lost or less profitable contracts, and that's why we got crashed planes and hundreds dead.
Admitting scientists may have caused the pandemic is on a whole another level. Societal status and funding may be pulled. The cost is so huge it makes relevant scientists unlikely to admit any of the sort.