Yes, I think based on other responses I'm identifying something that I failed to explain.

I think the confusion that is being faced here is that many people are seeing Waterfall as a slow, unreactive model because that's how it used to be done (when CI/CD tools weren't really around or were in their infancy).

Realistically, Agile is just "small waterfalls rather than one big waterfall" - something Waterfall has never stopped anyone doing, it's just that in the past it was prohibitively difficult to do it. Unfortunately Agile is also a bunch of other harmful things, like prioritising bad code to please the customer (it may not have been intended this way, but in commercial reality, there's only one way that will often go).

All that said, I agree with you. I think it is long past time that people stopped holding up Agile as some kind of gold standard development methodology that can do no wrong.