I think the title was intended to be sarcastic (but I assume the thread starter will correct me if I'm wrong).
Describing a disaster as having been "averted" implies some sort of timely and competent - even heroic - intervention that resulted in the disaster not happening. In this case the assessment of experienced and qualified professionals appears to me to be that a lack of timely and competent intervention increased the risks of a disaster, and that luck played a large part in the outcome.