Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was the trim wheel not visibly spinning out of their control? Simply because the symptoms are different should mean that stopping it via taking manual control is a recurring option.
The spin was not visible to these pilots presumably because it was happening in small increments with a delay between them.
The presence of the third, off-duty pilot on the flight before additionally explains even better how in that case the crash was avoided. While the pilot and co-pilot were at the controls, the third one, looking from behind, didn't have the direct duties to do, so he had enough time to both just observe everything that was going on and the less immediate stress to allow him to come to the solution that worked.
Like when one programmer spends half an hour on something "not working" and complains to the colleague who just takes a look and immediately sees what the first one hasn't for half an hour. Additionally the movement of the trim wheel is actually easier to follow from the place in the back (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19440045 ).
And there's also a possibility that the false sensor reading and MCAS together produced a slightly different differential signal which resulted in more obvious manifestation of the problem. Possibly both elements contributed to the lucky outcome in that previous flight.
In the old times of civil aviation there was the third person on duty in the cockpit, the "flight-engineer." As the planes got more computerized controls, they started to be certified to fly with two-pilot crews. The computerized systems, when working, do reduce the chance of the crash and overall number of accidents did decrease simply because the humans were on the average less often in control, and therefore there was less chance to do anything wrong.
The problem is when the unreported computerized controls secretly depend on the single sensor that can be faulty. And when they actively confuse the pilot and ruin the flight instead of helping him.