I did not think that the first two seasons were as bad as you did. I thought that they had low highs, but that they were watchable, and really most of the earlier seasons had at least one episode that I thought was worse than anything from the hated first Whittaker season. I appreciated some of the things they were trying to do in the first season even if they didn't really work well for example, alot of people complained about lower stakes episodes, but I was sick of seasons that felt like they had 7 stories where the universe was about to get destroyed, so I welcomed this.
I thought the second Whittaker season had some stronger episodes, but they threw out all the stuff I was referring to in my last paragraph, or else didn't improve their efforts (like having a bigger TARDIS crew than usual, which I was looking forward to, but which didn't work out well) so it made me retroactively think the first season was worse than I gave it credit for at the time. I also hated the "Gallirey is destroyed again" twist, which soured the Mater/Cybermen storyline. Also, that season was back to hitting some really appalling lows, like Orphan 55, which was the most laughably awful episode I can imagine them making.
I thought that the "Flux" season was worse than its reputation. The entire thing was nearly unwatchable, and I can't imagine what would make me every try and sit through it again.
So overall I gave the first season more of the benefit of the doubt at the time than most people did, but I retroactively judge it more harshly because the show never paid off my good will. the second season was mostly better but at times it was even worse, and it ended on a really sour note. I thought "Flux" was unbearable.
Responses