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/

...and look up the effect if COVID on Bame. Then come back with a slightly more rational approach

I have. There does appear to be a difference in how Covid impacts certain BAME groups. This needs to be understood in the context that these groups are disproportionately key workers and less economic secure, but nonetheless there does appear to be a difference. However, i don’t believe anyone (though perhaps someone has in the bowels of Twitter) has suggested Covid presents such a different threat to different ethnic groups to warrant a differentiated public policy response, as you inferred regarding your comments on NYC (which was interesting given how ethnically diverse much of the UK is).

Look at the ethnic profile of NHS workers who have died. That should give you a clue.

@Derbygerbil all your posts here are excellent. It's simple common sense re contagion but you've explained it so well.

Was it this thread where people discussed code? I think they’re some info on his code here

Alas, it’s all code to me 🤷🏻‍♀️

Sorry, here’s the link!!

lockdownsceptics.org/code-review-of-fergusons-model/

Yy like Alsohuman says.
The BAME community comprises a significant proportion of our precious essential workers. It demonstrates utter contempt to them if we continue to fail to protect them. And leaves the potential for an indirect race discrimination case.

The government wants to end lockdown. As do we all. So they need to get on with getting hold of enough PPE for our frontline workers (so they won't keep dying), get the accurate tests, drugs and medical equipment, masks for the public.

Why didn't they do all of this over the past month? We could've been ready to ease lockdown without such risk to lives and the economy.

Is it gross negligence? Extreme incompetence? Or something more sinister? Is there any truth in the eugenics supporter theory? I so hope not.

We really shouldn't need any expert (Ferguson or anybody else) to get the very basic and simple concept of contagion. A very infectious disease has more opportunity to spread when people aren't socially distancing. And as Ferguson himself demonstrated, certainly in the UK we need that enforced via a lockdown because too many don't adhere to the guidelines.

Ferguson is just one expert amongst many. Angela Merkel's one of the other many scientists warning against premature end to lockdowns. She's worth listening to given she's very successfully managed Germany's infection and death rate.

Thanks for your answer to my question Smile
I hate to think what I've heard, rumours of support for eugenics amongst some in power, is true. You think there's no truth in that. I hope you're right.

So our government's mishandling of the pandemic, the failure to protect frontline workers and treat patients is instead gross negligence.

*We really shouldn't need any expert (Ferguson or anybody else) to get the very basic and simple concept of contagion. A very infectious disease has more opportunity to spread when people aren't socially distancing. And as Ferguson himself demonstrated, certainly in the UK we need that enforced via a lockdown because too many don't adhere to the guidelines.

Ferguson is just one expert amongst many. Angela Merkel's one of the other many scientists warning against premature end to lockdowns. She's worth listening to given she's very successfully managed Germany's infection and death rate*

This. Absolutely.

You might be missing your parents, wanting a trip to the hairdresser or (more seriously) mourning the loss of your income. It's shit. Just like WW2 was shit for our grandparents. But, having a different 'opinion' about it is irrelevant. Until now we've all been fortunate enough to live a life in which we got what we wanted without our lives being threatened. We were all extremely privileged. Right now we are living through a period in which different people's opinions and preferences are worth little. What matters now are facts and science. We have a killer amongst us. Fact. You may not like it but it's just true.

You know when you encourage your children to do well at school and pass their exams? That's so they can pick up knowledge. Knowledge is power. Your feelings and opinions on FB and Twitter mean nothing in comparison to the facts.

@ToffeeYoghurt

Thank you. I aim to please

@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.

@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!

too closely...

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

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

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!

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

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?

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.

"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.