I didn't understand your response too much but I do believe that Jesus being perfect just meant that He was perfectly righteous and holy,.. not perfect in the sense where He didn't make any goofs.
"Perfect" in the Scripture sometimes means "whole". So you'd have to do some word comparisons at which word you're looking at. Was Jesus "whole"? Of course He was equipped with everything needed to be the appropriate sacrifice. And if that's what the passage in question means by "perfect", than yes, it would be correct to say it DOESN'T mean "didn't make mistakes".
As far as the question about Jesus learning things like morals. To answer that you'd have to know a few things about neurology and developmental psychology.
At certain stages in life, children aren't capable of certain decision making processes that more constitute adult moral choices. Prepubescent children don't have the capacity to think through all the possible consequences of their actions. This makes their reasoning capacity very black and white. That has to do with mylenezation in the brain.
So Jesus at 12 years old is rather rude to His mom. If you look into the Greek in the context of that interaction, you'll see Joseph is actually angry at Jesus's behavior. So though Jesus is technically correct in His answer to His parents; it's obvious from a developmental standpoint that He's acting like a child. Which is totally consistent with His developmental stage.
Now Joseph and Mary as adults were upset because they understood that a 12 year old walking around in Jerusalem presented a real danger to the kid's safety. Human trafficking was a big issue in the Roman Empire and a 12 year old by himself ran a high risk of being abducted, sexually abused and / or sold as a slave. Did 12 year old Jesus know these things? Probably to some extent, but the possible consequences of that happening didn't prevent Him from leaving the group and going back to the city. This wasn't a case of when everyone packed up to leave; they "oppose forgot Jesus". When they started the journey He was most likely with the group and then went back to the city later.
Now besides the "normal bad stuff" that could happen to a child who was wandering a large Roman city alone; Herod and Caiaphas knew the Messiah was out there somewhere. So here was Jesus in the temple talking to all these religious leaders; if they tried to kill Him when He was two, what wouldn't prevent them from trying to kill Him now?
Now Jesus, likely knowing the story of Abraham and Issac; did He know at 12 that He was the sacrifice? Was that what was going through His little 12 year old head? That's a good question. He would have at least known the story. It doesn't seem to me though that at 12, Jesus knows the whole scope of what was to happen to Him. Yet the Jewish leaders would have been in trouble by the Roman authorities if they killed the kid; (human sacrifices were illegal in the empire at that point). And the Romans were not going to execute a 12 year old who'd committed no crime. If anything He would have become someone's servant and eventually ended up in the army. And I know He would have understood THAT wasn't the plan! LOL
So the Father's intervention that at least Joseph and Mary had an understanding that they needed to go find the kid. Nothing in the passage indicates that God told them to do this. So if we take that information; that clues us in that they as His parents knew He wasn't "invincible".
Which means other things in His childhood would have happened to Him. He fell down and hurt Himself, He probably did wack His hands or otherwise injure Himself with the tools of what ever trade Joseph really was. (The English translations say "carpenter" but seeing how there was very little wood in the area and most buildings were constructed of stone; Joseph and Jesus were most likely a stone masons. He also probably got into physical altercations with other boys.
And yes, He probably came down with what ever childhood illnesses would have been present at the time. I'm pretty sure measles existed in that era and I know cow pox, monkey pox and chicken pox did exist in that era. It's not clear historically if small pox existed yet. (We know by the end of the 1st century small pox existed. There are accounts by that point, that accurately describe the illness.) Obviously "plagues" of one form or another existed. We see that in the secular record. And they did institute things like quarantines.
I like what
@ViaCrucis said. It's true that the joining of these two natures in the God-man is difficult for us to understand (and that I think has more to do with our sin than human intellectual capacity to grasp). Yet the two natures could not be separated without killing the human Jesus. And that in part is what the atonement was about. The reason Jesus died was because the Devine nature had be rent from (what was left) of the human nature. Because at the point He died, His human soul was in Sheol. But that aspect of the atonement is a whole other theological discussion.