My take is that the crux of her argument is that fusion is unlikely to be the great solution of all our energy problems any time soon, so we should not let that false hope direct our funding decisions in the race to a sustainable energy future.
It would be an insanely good outcome if fusion becomes viable and massively scaled by the end of the century, and frankly, that's not soon enough for our climate and peak oil problems.
The couple of videos I watched above your comment seem to take this into account. I think that's why the aim is for a Q > 10 rather than just being content with Q > 1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4W1g-6JiY