Neil Ferguson - is this Too good to be true?

[LilacTree1]

Resigns after breaking the lockdown?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/05/exclusive-government-scientist-neil-ferguson-resigns-breaking/

[TheoneandObi]

Not on a deep epidemiological level (not expressing that v well!). More the general perception of all the hard work and scolarship put in by his colleagues. In the public imagination it becomes 'oh yeah they're the bunch who work where that arrogant lockdown breaker prof works'.

[ToffeeYoghurt]

Why would his actions discredit his work?
Just because he ignored his own advice doesn't invalidate that advice. Given it's very basic common sense we don't even need his advice.

[TheoneandObi]

More widely though does anyone think the Prof's actions discredit the work of hiis sept and colleagues (bc I'm sure he's not a one man band doing all those big sums)?

[LilacTree1]

long but you could do that voluntarily.

[Derbygerbil]

well it was imposed on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

No action could possibly have been taken based on a body of hard evidence, lockdown or no lockdown, as Covid-19 was novel. Every country had to approximate, estimate and apply models.

[longwayoff]

Maybe so Lilac but I find the best way to avoid an infectious disease is to remove myself from potential sources of infection. Very effective.

[longwayoff]

A pp believes lives are the most important consideration. That is utterly wrong. People are cheap and eminently replaceable. Not so businesses, such as Wetherspoons, Dyson and other supporters of lifting lockdown. Ask Trump. They will always find more people to keep those coffers full and overflowing. May I fetch you another super yacht Philip Green? How about another small private island Mr Branson?

[LilacTree1]

longwayofff well it was imposed on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

[longwayoff]

This is so transparent you could use it as a window pane. So now lockdown,'s about to be eased on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. Thanks Bozo and mates. Experts? Who needs them when we've got this bunch in power?

[LilacTree1]

smile sorry, was that directed at me?

[LilacTree1]

"Government decisions have to be based on what preserves as many lives as possible though."

but they haven't done this. They didn't close the borders. We know now that they released patients into care homes, which were an obvious infection risk. Lockdown is not about saving lives. Cancelling air travel and big events and quaranting arrivals into the UK - that would have been justifiable.

[MartySouth]

Of course I have no idea if anybody is following the rules and I have no interest in policing anybody at all, even Niall Ferguson. I have no right to judge individuals about what they do because I don't know why they do it and because I'm not a police officer or judge.

What I am arguing is that an individual's feelings or opinions about the lockdown is really not a basis for what is true or right. We all have feelings and opinions about what is right, based on our preferences and circumstances and we all have a right to be heard. Government decisions have to be based on what preserves as many lives as possible though. Sometimes that might clash with what you feel but that's tough. When our grandparents talk about sacrifice, that's what they mean.

[MartySouth]

smilethoughyourheartisbreaking

Very true Marty my opinion means as little as yours. Just because mine isn't with the tide doesn't necessarily mean I am wrong

We will not know the full impact if this until we are through it. There is a train of thought which would think it is actually better to be hit harder on the first wave.

Your argument makes me think of Michael Gove's dismissal of 'the experts'. Where did this idea come from that everybody's opinion is equal? I guess it's equal on facebook or Twitter but there are some things that are not a matter of opinion. That's why people go to university. They get to learn things that other people don't know. Scientists all over the world (not just a stupid hypocritical man in the UK who had a fling) agree that the only way to mitigate the impact of this virus is a lockdown (plus other measures like testing and tracking etc.) There really is no exception to this anywhere in the world. As many people have pointed out, Sweden has a much lower population density than ours and is following social distancing.

Instead of everybody banging on about the right for their opinions to be heard we should all be thinking of our responsibility as decent citizens. Deaths in the UK are the highest in Europe and among the highest in the world. The virus has already killed more people than the blitz in London. Insisting that because one scientist had a fling you should be able to act on your own 'opinion' about the virus is utterly irrational and amoral.

During WW2 your grandparents didn't decide that they had a right to not adhere to blackout or rationing. It was shit but they did it because it was the right thing to do and because experts in government had put a lot of educated thought into the strategy. What's happened to us that our individual 'need' to go to the hairdresser trumps decency and intelligence?

[Derbygerbil]

Sorry @Smilethoyourheartisbreaking .... I misread your last post, and my reply makes even less sense than normal.

[Derbygerbil]

There is a train of thought which would think it is actually better to be hit harder on the first wave.

Unless we’d gone for herd immunity and suffered the consequences, I can’t conceive of a reason for thinking it would have been better to have been hit harder on the first wave (and if we had done that, it would have been our first and only wave!). I’d be interested to try and understand the thinking behind it though.

And if we had followed that train of thought, the
train would likely have become a train wreck of biblical proportions!

[ToffeeYoghurt]

We've certainly been hit very hard by the first wave. More so than most of the rest of the world.

[LilacTree1]

If this is true...lm beginning to think I’m the only person in the UK who was stupid enough to obey the rules. Apparently it was no big deal if I’d visited anyone!

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8294009/Neil-Fergusons-MOTHER-LAW-comes-defence-saying-believe-vilified.html

[Derbygerbil]

too closely...

[Derbygerbil]

@Smilethoyourheartisbreaking

I agree that it would be wrong to compare to closely, what’s sauce for the goose etc.... There’s no timidity on here from those wishing to downplay the impact of Covid in their use of models.

I was merely trying to make the point that the best evidence available (e.g. large populations such as NYC and Bergamo that have had devastating Covid outbreaks, and have reliable data) are consistent with Ferguson’s modelling prediction of circa 250,000 deaths, and that the ridicule this figure has attracted from many on this thread is therefore entirely unfounded, whatever the merits of the model (the model may be crap even if it gives a reasonable figure) or the man!

[Derbygerbil]

@LilacTree1

There were doubtless flaws in Feegusson’s
model, which there will be in all models irrespective of whether their author was a hypocritical idiot.

The fact remains that, irrespective of its flaws, the 250,000 figure doesn’t seem unreasonable based seven weeks on.

[Derbygerbil]

@ToffeeYoghurt

Thank you. I aim to please