Neil Ferguson hypocrisy

[Mintychoc1]

He’s been saying that if we’d locked down earlier it would have saved lives. Well maybe so, but it would also have saved lives if people hadn’t done things like meeting up with their married lover while we were meant to be locked down and isolating! I can’t believe he’s got the audacity to say this stuff.

It's hard to believe he's still being listened to and quoted as an expert. If he was such a fan of lockdown why did he let his married lover into his house?

We don't know how many lives have been saved by lockdown- his modelling was inaccurate - didn't he wildly over forecast for other health issues previously?He's a busted flush who needs to disappear back into the shadows.

This wasAlso Prof Ferguson:

Ferguson: we didn't anticipate that it's very common for [care home] staff to work in more than one facility, and that accelerated the spread of the infection from one care home to another.

We were not anticipating the epidemic to be close to the size it has been in care homes

...........

This might just be me but wouldn't you run some of these assumptions past someone with industry experience? Perhaps it just illustrates the danger of only following the science rather than considering real world situations?

He's still an expert and he's still right. Or don't you care about the content. Would you rather Boris worked it out alone.

He's saying this now to help the public understand what they must hold the government accountable to do in a second wave. That's a truly important task.

we all know someone who’s had chicken pox twice for example. I don't. I have had shingles and know people who have.

i think the cry will always be we locked down a week too late whenever we had locked down. Even if we had locked down in late Feb, someone would argue we could have saved some of the people that died as we didn't lock down mid Feb.
And I also think the lock down had to by led to some extend by the "public" for compliance to work. Which it did so maybe it that respect we locked down at the right time - could be argued that way

I am hearing more and more people now saying we shouldn;t have locked down at all - so that is an argument too. Although not one I agree with as I do think lock down worked to some extent and politically it would not have been possible.

I think we should have locked down when we ran out of test and trace capacity, even if we only had a few cases then, we needed test and trace to contain it.

And I also think the lock down had to by led to some extend by the "public" for compliance to work
Loads of evidence that the public and businesses had already 'lockeddown' ahead of the government so the public were more than ready. I heard a very brief report on the radio this morning about the maths department at Bristol university. They'd studied peak covid death day, this was sometime in April, average time from infection to death was 20 days, tracing this back, this put peak infection day about a week before lockdown. This they suggested was because people changed their behaviour before government lockdown.

we all know someone who’s had chicken pox twice for example*

I don’t

kendodd peak infection coincided with panic buying of toilet rolls. Perhaps we should blame the supermarkets.
Having read the behavioural science report on the gov. site I think it was the psychologists that were leading the decision rather than the proper scientists.

I believe Whitty was responsible for the delay, due to his idea of lock down fatigue. Apparently, there is no scientific evidence about fatigue at all. Whitty based it on a hunch from the fact that many people don't see a course of medicine through to the end. I do not hold Whitty in half as high esteem as everyone on here seems to. I think he has compromised his principles many times over and may well have contributed enormously to the massive excess deaths we have suffered.

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/revealed-the-inside-story-of-uk-covid-19-coronavirus-crisis

@AlecTrevelyan006

This wasAlso Prof Ferguson:

Ferguson: we didn't anticipate that it's very common for [care home] staff to work in more than one facility, and that accelerated the spread of the infection from one care home to another.

We were not anticipating the epidemic to be close to the size it has been in care homes

...........

This might just be me but wouldn't you run some of these assumptions past someone with industry experience? Perhaps it just illustrates the danger of only following the science rather than considering real world situations?

Yes, its madness that they didn't check about this. Many care homes are forced to use bank or agencystaff to cover staff absences and bank/agency staff, especially agency, often are on the books of several homes. It's not rocket science to check that.

What does her marital status have to do with keeping ppl safe from c19?

I don't understand passion for villifying NF. It sounds like ppl don't want to hold accountable the actual politicians that took actual decisions. It's an attitude that also ignores the giant teams working at Imperial. Dozens of coauthors.

Journos constantly chase us (even remotely qualified) scientists for comments on c19. It's relentless. Someone has to answer media enquiries because of pressure on Unis to "show impact" and creates space for the rest of the scientists to actually get some work done.

Oh, and while I'm at it: Imperial's Report 9 outputs are very good. We adapted them for local forecasting; they worked well. Those who prefer deterministic models are trying to overturn 50 years of computational epidemiology: good luck trying to get those ideas thru peer review. I might enjoy the bloodsport. Epidemiologists are the most brutal reviewers I've encountered.

That's interesting re care homes.

And absolutely simplify thing to do is to check the function rather than assume.

But I wonder who is responsible for taking how care homes work into account and seeking that information?

I always believed and still believe that Sage gives a variety of situations, models and opinions and government forms their own policy based on that.

So yes, they follow the science. But it doesn't mean they followed the worst case scenario scientific presentation which would have saved lives.

Interesting about Telegraph releasing the story just before lockdown released and Prof F was against releasing.

I wonder if there was the same sort of plan etc around it taking a few weeks for Guardian and mirror to break the Cummings clause saga.

It's the shamelessness that gets me. He should shut up and lie low. If he wants to make pronouncements now, should get someone else in his department to do it for him.

think the cry will always be we locked down a week too late whenever we had locked down. Even if we had locked down in late Feb, someone would argue we could have saved some of the people that died as we didn't lock down mid Feb.

I think people will always rightly be ashamed that we had the most warning and managed to end up with among the heaviest losses. I would hope they'd feel ashamed. Your minimising is rather off.

believe Whitty was responsible for the delay, due to his idea of lock down fatigue. Apparently, there is no scientific evidence about fatigue at all. Whitty based it on a hunch from the fact that many people don't see a course of medicine through to the end.

There was a recommendation following swine flu that the government listen to behavioural experts next time and I believe this is where idea came from.

think we should have locked down when we ran out of test and trace capacity, even if we only had a few cases then, we needed test and trace to contain it.

Completely agree, it would have saved a whole heap of suffering and we could have poured resources into that instead.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-nhs-test-trace-app-matt-hancock-london-assembly-tower-block-a9560451.html

Apparently the contact tracing app doesnt work in tower blocks.

I don't know why they don't just go with the off the shelf app. Well I do, wasn't Cummings mate paid 250 million quid or something to produce one.

I do hope they haven't gone with a duff app just to provide money for some business. I wonder if the off the shelf version is as good/better/cheaper. I'm surprised there hasn't been more scrutiny of this, or have I just missed it?

Both Google and Apple have a covid tracking app. I would be surprised if it wasn't available free.
Dominic Cummings mate (yes really) was awarded a contract to create ours and was I believe paid 250 million for it.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52441428

I was wrong about Cummings mate.
fullfact.org/online/not-dominic-cummings-sister/

@Andthenthenewone

I think he got pissed off that he fell and Cummings was let go for an even bigger offence. I would be pissed off in his shoes too.

Yes I wondered if this was it as well. Ferguson resigns, correctly, because even though he didn't actually break any laws at all, his credibility was sufficiently damaged that he realised he couldn't stay. Cummings does break the law, makes himself a national laughing stock, refuses to even contemplate resigning and stays in place to damage the pandemic tackling efforts.

makes himself a national laughing stock,

Except he doesn't make himself a laughing stock, he makes us, the public, the ones who followed the rules, a laughing stock.