Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Neil Ferguson should be held accountable

155 replies

Mumlove5 · 30/03/2020 10:03

... 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

OP posts:
BigChocFrenzy · 30/03/2020 12:03

"the one thing I do find troubling is his reluctance to release his thousands of lines of undocumented 13+ year old C code"

This I agree with
Peer review is SOP

This will almost certainly be done at the latest after the crisis has passed,
as there will inevitably be a public enquiry (probably in every country too) into what worked and what didn't, what prep we need for the future etc

However, his results align broadly with what almost every other expert around the world says,
using their own experience of pandemics and diferent models too.

Epidemiologists abroad are certainly analysing his reports and comparing to their own predictions,
but he is within the mainstream

BigChocFrenzy · 30/03/2020 12:10

"I would be willing to bet"

I'm not so arrogant as to bet against the experts in another field
I know what I don't know

(and I'm a STEM PhD just retired after nearly 40 years of highly complex maths / physics modelling & supervising of modellers - but that's not in epidemiology)

Tonyaster · 30/03/2020 12:13

I would be willing to bet that Sweden will have similar per capita deaths to the UK and that this lockdown and destruction of people’s jobs and livelihoods was unnecessary, at least for anything more than a 2 week period to slow the spread and give healthcare a chance to cope

Yep.

TeaForTara · 30/03/2020 12:13

You start off by quoting the Daily Mail and you follow up by quoting Russia Today? Nice, reliable sources there OP.

ODFOD.

pointythings · 30/03/2020 12:17

BCF are you saying you have no unknown unknowns? Grin

Walkingtohealth · 30/03/2020 12:32

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Bluntness100 · 30/03/2020 12:33

This also Pisses me off because it’s so blatantly unfair. Folks sitting at home throwing bricks.

It is the beyond ludicrous scenario of us facing something new, articulating possible worst case, planning for it, and then working to make sure it doesn’t happen, and evolving your predictions as it plays out..,then someone comes along and says well you got that wrong didn’t you mate. We were never going to be that bad.

It’s such bollocks. It’s also the same people who if we didn’t plan for worst case and if did occur, would be screaming why the fuck didn’t you ask what was reasonable worst case and plan for it.

There is no way to win for these guys, who are working their arses off to help, because someone needs to be blamed right, it needs to be someone’s fault, so let’s all aim a mighty kick at the scientists who worked to show the government what it could have looked like so they could prepare.

It will be the same when we are released and this is over. Someone’s going to say “ well that was all a massive over reaction, who can we kick for that then” totally ignoring the fact that worst case could absolutely have happened.

Really shameful behaviour. We see it with the other diseases. Because we avoided worst case, then it means attacking those who rightly modelled it to enable us to prepare is the way to go.

And l”esser measures may have worked”? Seriously! Are you forgetting the infamous herd immunity and the who’s scathing response of don’t let this fire burn? Of them telling the world not to let it run through the population because they didn’t know enough of the disease?

And Of people screaming for lock down? Why we weren’t doing what others were doing and how the government was going to be responsible for the deaths of millions?

Maybe we should all follow Belarus, drink vodka and have a sauna?

Tonyaster · 30/03/2020 12:33

Bully.

Reported. Feel free to report me also.

Tonyaster · 30/03/2020 12:34

That was to walkingforhealth

borntobequiet · 30/03/2020 12:41

BCF is probably saying she doesn’t know if she has any unknown unknowns. I know I don’t.
OP you strike a chord not a cord. And you should probably step away from the Daily Mail.

Bluntness100 · 30/03/2020 12:43

would be willing to bet that Sweden will have similar per capita deaths to the UK and that this lockdown and destruction of people’s jobs and livelihoods was unnecessary, at least for anything more than a 2 week period to slow the spread and give healthcare a chance to cope

Good for you, but would you have bet it six weeks ago? Because what you’d have been bettting is millions of lives. Hindsight really is a wonderful thing.

It’s like if you forecast reasonable worst case without planning, to enable planning,, and then prevent it happening, you’re shit at your job. It better bloody happen or you’ll get attacked because suddenly some folks knew better.

pointythings · 30/03/2020 12:45

borntobequiet so you both have unknown unknown unknowns???

AgentCooper · 30/03/2020 12:48

I agree that lockdown is shit and my mental health has taken a real knock. But in NF’s shoes I reckon you need to plan for the worst case scenario, don’t you? Nobody would want to have what’s happening in Italy on their hands.

thatgingergirl · 30/03/2020 13:00

Couldn't agree more Bluntness

And as regards Sweden, there is criticism there about the stance of their government.
Guardian.

goldpartyhat · 30/03/2020 13:06

Maybe the panic mode has had a good effect in that people isolated quicker ?

DippyAvocado · 30/03/2020 13:44

Sweden is relying on self-responsibility. I guess it's a cultural thing. People didn't really adhere to the guidance when we tried it here. Only time will tell if it's effective in Sweden.

Dongdingdong · 30/03/2020 13:57

There is no way to win for these guys, who are working their arses off to help, because someone needs to be blamed right, it needs to be someone’s fault, so let’s all aim a mighty kick at the scientists who worked to show the government what it could have looked like so they could prepare.

This. If you want to blame someone OP I suggest you look to China.

TalbotAMan · 30/03/2020 14:15

Peter Hitchens: degree in Philosophy and Politics. Career: Journalist since the 1970s

Neil Ferguson: PhD in Theoretical Physics 1994. Career: Academic. Currently professor of mathematical biology at Imperial.

I think I'd rather take the chance that Ferguson is wrong than Hitchens.

poppymatilda · 30/03/2020 14:16

I'd be bloody delighted if this is a massive over-reaction. Loads fewer people would die than we fear, we could come out of lockdown sooner, the NHS would survive etc. Not looking for someone to blame!

Science is uncertain - the best in the world are working on this and doing the best they can with an ever-evolving picture

LittleRootie · 30/03/2020 14:33

People didn't really adhere to the guidance when we tried it here

'We' didn't try hard enough. 'We' gave out vague and mixed messages and then blamed people for not following them.

knittingaddict · 30/03/2020 14:50

"People are now saying"

Are you Trump op?

Tonyaster · 30/03/2020 14:52

Tbf Neil Fergusson has got it quite wrong twice now. 500000 then 6000. I don't think people can be blamed for losing faith in what he says

lakequeen · 30/03/2020 14:54

He hasn't got it wrong twice, he has changed his prediction on the basis of the measures that are being taken. Not the same thing.

goingoverground · 30/03/2020 14:59

I'm not going to repeat all the valid scientific points that other PPs have made but some more things to add:

You asked, OP: Professor Ferguson is now calling a figure 25 times smaller than his original prediction the absolute maximum. One wonders what has happened to change his mind?

The answer is partly new data/information. A model is only as good as the data used to create it. We have very little data as this is a new virus. As we learn more, the model can be refined. That's how science works.

But the main reason the projected number of deaths has been reduced from 500k to 20k is because the number of deaths will be reduced by the measures put in place NOT because the model was wrong.

@Eyewhisker that article about BSE is about what would happen if sheep are infected with BSE. As the article says, there is no evidence that they are. Also that model is nothing to do with the 200 people who have died from vCJD from the original BSE outbreak, it is modelling a theoretical situation.

Actually, the 200 people who did die from vCJD died because the government didn't act on the advice of the scientists tasked with investigating the risks. The Southwood report said that transmission to humans from infected beef was probably very low BUT it was such a serious risk it needed immediate investigation. The government decided very low risk meant safe and Professor Dickie Southwood is remembered as the man who said there was no risk from eating infected beef.

@Mumlove5, the science is not necessarily easy to understand but you don't need understand it to see what is happening in Italy and Spain after lockdown and healthy, young HCPs in the UK needing ventilation or dying from COVID-19 to realise that things would be very, very much worse if we did nothing.

ragged · 30/03/2020 15:19

OP: will you drop your vendetta if "only" 20,000 die?
Just wondering what the satisfaction threshold is.