Why does a joint leakage MPC protocol not directly apply to a disjoint leakage requirement?

In the paper "Multiparty Computation Secure Against Continual Memory Leakage" on pg. 1239 the footnote at the bottom points out the difference between $joint$ leakage and $disjoint$ leakage. The authors say the weakly leakage resilient protocol of BGG+11 cannot be directly used because it only applies to $joint$ leakage.

My understanding is the adversary has been made more powerful and is able to perform disjoint leakage (i.e. he can make leakage requests on random modules at any time).

I was wondering if somebody could explain this footnote a bit more clearly. Why does a weakly resilient protocol not apply directly?

-
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 1, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0, "katex": 0, "math-container": 0, "wp-katex-eq": 0, "align": 0, "equation": 0, "x-ck12": 0, "texerror": 0, "math_score": 0.6066807508468628, "perplexity": 1709.1307167605694}, "config": {"markdown_headings": false, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "plain"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "warc_path": "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2016-18/segments/1461860116878.73/warc/CC-MAIN-20160428161516-00205-ip-10-239-7-51.ec2.internal.warc.gz"}