Good question! I don't see how it could be a timeline change, so Worf's omission is curious.
A few personal interpretations:
The time loop is in the 24th century, within a limited area of space. The Bozeman only enters the 24th century (and for all we know this area of space) via the portal for less than a minute. That doesn't amount to "ninety years of looping", but X times 40 seconds, X being the number of times the E-D was in the loop. The number, not the time.
The Typhon Expanse may well be pretty expansive: the Bozeman was only three weeks out of port when disappearing, but the part of the Expanse where we meet our TNG heroes is still unexplored a century later. It might make sense to assume the Bozeman was caught in an anomaly on the near-Earth edge of Typhon, and propelled not just a century forward in time, but also across the Expanse to its distant end which still remains unexplored as of the 2360s.
As for the "altering nothing is a silly strategy" thing, that strategy does have its upsides. The objection assumes that there originally was no reason to turn anywhere - but if the ship is in a time loop, this is probably due to an anomaly of some sort, and starships explore anomalies for a living. Quite possibly, then, the ship originally turned to examine the anomaly and was caught, in which case the correct strategy is to proceed until the anomaly is observed, and then not approach or enter it.
Out heroes would then be betting against the anomaly being undetectable from a distance, which may actually be a fairly good bet. They already know it's difficult to realize that one is in a time loop, so they would have a good reason to assume that their predecessors would have approached the anomaly unawares, several times. They also have a reason to think the time loop isn't particularly harmful to them: they all just get killed and then reborn. The risks of betting that way are low, then.
It's way different in "Time Squared", where the heroes have every reason to think their fate is gruesome and only one of them will barely survive the event to reboot the loop. There's no assurance of resurrection, that is, no mounting evidence of multiple resurrections - quite the contrary, there's some evidence of resurrection actually being a low-odds event. Even in that episode, our heroes have the duty to assess the risks this anomaly presents to shipping, but they probably also have the right of self-preservation.
Also, in "Time Squared", the heroes are proceeding to a destination, not exploring; odds are high that their late predecessors followed a straight-ahead course. Yeah, there's talk there, too, about the E-D being the only Starfleet asset out there at the time, but there's no mention of her being the first and thus probably exploring the region.
(However, nobody in "Time Squared" suggests just stubbornly staying on course. Rather, everybody knows that there will be forewarning: Picard will decide it is a good idea to take a shuttlecraft on a solo flight, then hopefully remember that this got them all doomed in the first place, and choose a completely opposite action. The heroes remain true to this line of thinking when, at the conclusion of the episode, they do the completely unexpected, dive into the maelstrom, and survive.)
Timo Saloniemi