Neil Ferguson should be held accountable

[Mumlove5]

... for causing mass hysteria and panic with his grossly overestimated pessimistic model. The man that caused the 2020 global economic collapse over a death rate similar to that of a severe seasonal flu.

I don’t read the DM much but this article struck a cord.
www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8163587/PETER-HITCHENS-Great-Panic-foolish-freedom-broken-economy-crippled.html

“ Crucially, those who began by claiming that we faced half a million deaths from the coronavirus in this country have now greatly lowered their estimate. Professor Neil Ferguson was one of those largely responsible for the original panic. He or others from Imperial college have twice revised his terrifying prophecy, first to fewer than 20,000 and then on Friday to 5,700.

He says intensive care units will probably cope. And he conceded a point made by critics of the panic policy – that two-thirds of people who die from coronavirus in the next nine months would most likely have died this year from other causes.

He tried to claim that the shutdown of the country had led to this violent backtrack, claiming that it was ‘social distancing strategies’ which had brought about his amazing climbdown. How could he possibly know either that this had happened, or that it would happen, or that there was any connection between the two?

It is very hard to see by what means he could know any of these things. Could he have softened his stance because of the publication early last week of a rival view, from distinguished scientists at Oxford University, led by Sunetra Gupta, Professor of theoretical epidemiology? It suggests that fewer than one in a thousand of those infected with Covid-19 become ill enough to need hospital treatment.

The vast majority develop very mild symptoms or none at all. Millions may already have had it.

This report is being unfairly sneered at by Government toadies, but we shall see. It seems unlikely that Oxford University would have bungled their work.

And it is obvious that a few days of raggedly enforced house arrest could not have made so much real difference. Even those who believe in these shutdowns think they take two weeks to have any effect.”

www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

en.globes.co.il/en/article-lockdown-lunacy-1001322696

Of course you can ask questions about the model, but you need to understand what the model was, and why it was created.

Both the government and imperial have been very clear publicly. They asked for reasonable worst case to enable us to prepare. And as reasonable worst case it was accurate.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. You seem to want them to have been able to work out what would happen if we did x y and z and some how change the course of how this was handed. That was not feasible to do accurately at the start of this before it had even really hit the Uk or even EUROPE, or the usa.

The team did their jobs, they did what was requested, they were asked reasonable worst case based on current nhs capacity and lack of treatment, and no measures, they provided that.

What, we can’t ask questions about his model?

His model?

It isn't his model. He didn't come up with it alone.

OP, why the personal vendetta against the guy?

"the guy who said 5700 has already backpedalled on that"

He didn't use mathematical models, only statistical projections based on Chinese data

The UK is very different to China and also does not have the same measures
So no surprise that actual rl UK results soon diverged from predictions based on China

He is NOT an epidemiologist; he is a scientist in a completely different field

It probably will be hindsight in the future... just like we did with his BSE model and H1N1 model. However, we’ll be in a global depression by then... a much graver consequence than slaughtering 6.5 million cows.

There will be a Parliamentary Select Committee questioning him and everyone else once this is over.

For me it makes perfect sense to plan for the worst, and hope for the best.
There are too many variables for anyone to know, and a fluid approach as things develop is the sensible precaution.

The Daily Smell, Peter Hitchens, oh my God, now that is funny 😂

MumLove5 perhaps you need to share this with the Mum of the 21 year old who has died. Or how about about the family of the front line NHS consultant? Or how about the family of GP in my country who has also died?

None had any underlying health conditions.

You don’t know what you’re talking about and you’re getting your info from the DM.

Meanwhile The Lancet doesn’t think we acted nearly rapidly enough.

Of course it’s hindsight, what else can you do with something never experienced before and with no reliable data?

The government had to request they did it, they wanted to know what they could be facing and what they should do to prepare, the fact we then learned as it evolved, took measures globally etc, doesn’t change what was requested at the time, why it was requested and what limited data they had then,

They did the right thing, if they had done something very different and it had went to hell in a hand cart you’d also be blaming him.

When faced with a global crisis like this, you work out what the fuck you could be facing then you start to prepare for it, at the same time working towards not letting it occur.

Anything else would be fool hardy.

Well, one of the issues is we don't know how many people have died in China. There is current thinking the death rate there is much higher than they reported. Italy aren't experiencing a 'bad flu year' they have a heavy death rate in a short time-frame that outstrips flu quite startlingly. Plus they will also actually have deaths from flu, so flu doesn't stand still so coronavirus can rampage- some deaths from corona would have been from flu but many would not.

Death rates are hard to calculate, ours appear low but a) are out of sync (as apparently PHE has to tell everyone, test more, and it takes days or even a week or more to actually confirm a covid death which is very worrying, how can we know the lockdown is working if we don't have quick up to date death rates) and b) apparently don't properly take account of care home and home deaths as patients are often not tested for covid.

So- the death rate is difficult to estimate and some think it was much much higher in China than they have reported -otherwise why are Italy and Spain seeing such high rates in such a short time? There may be reasons, but it's unclear.

I do agree the model should be questioned, but the paper this is based on is publically accessible and you can read it and analyse the modelling yourself which is what other teams have done. It is not hidden away at all.

The government looked at his models

They also looked at how deaths got out of hand in Italy

• that's real life data, not projections

France now does not have a single critical care hospital bed left, so are shipping cases to Germany and other European countries

• who can't keep taking cases from France indefinitely, because their own cases are still shooting up

The ½ million UK dead was a reasonable worst case which any govt had to consider
They also got these wost case estimates from several other sources

CV could turn out like the Millenium Bug - when disaster was averted by billions & billions being spent to avoid it,
But then fuckwits say it was unnecessary

The govt were damned if they did and damned if they didn't - hence their much criticised delay in deciding
I'm definitely no fan of Boris & co, but I don't envy them that decision: lives vs economic crash

If social distancing works, then the death rate WILL be much lower, much much lower. That can't then be used to say- we didn't need to social distance!

Isn’t it wonderful how the Daily Mail (and apparently a lot of random people on MN) know so much more about epidemiology than professors who have researched it for years.

It is very hard to see by what means he could know any of these things

Well, yes obviously it is hard to see. If it was easy to understand how these calculations are made we would all be professors wouldn’t we. I really don’t think any of these academics are claiming to definitively know anything about what will happen; they are making best estimates based on the available data, mathematical modelling and their expertise. These estimates will naturally change as more data becomes available.

It is governments who are deciding how to act based on the possible scenarios. The UK government has taken a cautious approach but so have many other countries. Maybe hindsight will teach us that it was the wrong choice but you can’t pin that all on one man.

Of course he keeps "changing his mind". This is a new virus with limited data so the models will need to be constantly updated as more becomes available.
That's because its science not dogma.

I hate to say it but I think the UK looks better now as it's not testing properly anything at all. Not in the community, not even in hospitals, and it doesn't count deaths til days afterwards. So, the death rate may be approaching, although not quite, Italy's but we can't know. There was an article today saying that one hospital had 30 odd dead but only 11 reported. So, if that's repeated elsewhere, the death rate may be higher.

Poor counting is a huge issue here. The modelling is of actual deaths, not poorly recorded UK record-keeping deaths.

There are two things that the Peter Hitchens article (and the linked Spectator article) omits.

One is that no one has immunity to the virus. Potentially millions of people could catch it, so even with a low mortality rate, you end up with a lot of deaths. If 15m catch it and 0.5% die, that's still 75,000 people dead - about five times as many as die from complications related to seasonal flu.

The other is that even if the mortality rate is small, it's clear that a large number of people become very ill with the virus. In the UK, the numbers ill and dying are currently fairly small yet hospitals are already overwhelmed, much more so than in a typical winter flu season. We've seen from Italy what happens when the virus is allowed to rage unchecked - hospitals are having to let some people die. Imagine if we didn't have lockdown - how would they cope?

Sorry, but silencing others with a different opinion and view is scary territory.

Nobody is silencing you. We are just disagreeing with you. Because you're talking bollocks and taking the word of the Daily Mail over that of an actual epidemiologist. That clear enough for you?

By all means feel free to keep spouting crap and defending your position, just don't get defensive if you get called on it.

I suggest those criticising him read the original research paper rather than the daily mail opinion piece. It is standard practice to scenario plan and the numbers reported in the daily mail were simply the worst case scenario rather than the most likely. It is the newspapers fault for incorrectly reporting research and misleading the population.

The trouble is that modelling and these decisions are not binary - it's not as simple as this is correct, do this and you'll be fine, that is wrong, do that and you're all going to die
I would sooner be overcautious and minimise deaths than take a chance the other way

Ffs

His model was based on the situation at that time and assumed government plans and guidance in place at that time would continue. It predicted consequences of those actions.

Because those consequences were so horrendous, the plans and guidance changed.

Hopefully changed enough to result in the revised lower numbers.

How difficult is that to understand? I know the global economy is shot. But a million dead in the UK is not something civilised society is prepared to accept. Hence why the rules all changed.

I am sorry OP but all of the scientists are saying and have been for months that if left unchecked the disease would spread exponentially, and if checked could be suppressed. This is not difficult to understand. Neil Ferguson has said expressly today in the Guardian that with social distancing things are looking more positive. Without social distancing it would not have.

Another thread started on the basis dim-witted ill-informed read it in the Daily Mail opinion.

I think he's swinging wildly from one extreme to another and basically has no idea about what is going to happen. I agree he was pretty dangerous over BSE.

Nearly it doesn't matter.

The thing that matters is whether the NHS copes or not.

Many of the people who have sadly died have done so because they got Coronvirus. There was really nothing that could be done to keep them alive.

We need to ensure though that those that can e saved will have access to the correct treatment.

And those that would most likely die no matter what treatment they receive are shielded to prevent them from catching it.

You only need to look at Italy / Spain to see we are not there yet.

And you only have to look at Italy / Spain to see that we absolutely do not want to get there.

The reduced deaths are as a result of the government measures.

They may be completely wide of the mark and the economy may be getting destroyed for no reason - then you look at Italy and Spain...........

We take significant and drastic action, and as a result there are fewer deaths than there would have otherwise been. Because there are fewer deaths, people claim the drastic action was pointless and unnecessary, not appreciating that the drastic action was the reason that there were fewer deaths.

EXACTLY, Visiting.

Had drastic action not been taken, we could have had much worse consequences. Perhaps not as bad as he predicted (who knows) but much, much worse than we are experiencing - and that's bad enough.

This is the problem with idiots - they can't see any further than the end of their noses.

If we take Action A, we will never really know what would have happened if we had taken Action, B, C or D instead. We just can't - so we do the best we can with the information we have.

Another thread started on the basis dim-witted ill-informed read it in the Daily Mail opinion

Well to be fair this was tackled on R4 this morning where I heard him interviewed. I don't read the DM.