3 ms·

> “There is a hint that it has a higher propensity to infect children,” said Neil Ferguson, a professor and infectious disease epidemiologist at Imperial Colleg

> “There is a hint that it has a higher propensity to infect children,” said Neil Ferguson, a professor and infectious disease epidemiologist at Imperial College London and also a member of NERVTAG. Yeah, we all remember who he is. Forgive me if I take any quotes from Neil Ferguson with a spoon of salt.

Spare_account 6y ago
Can you elaborate on this for me, I am not familiar with him
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  He built the models back in March or April which led to the initial mass lockdowns, because they projected extraordinarily high casualty counts. Turns out the model was something like 10,000 lines of undocumented and untested C code, which was... basically impossible to analyze or explain.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - whycombagator 6y ago
    Wikipedia[0] says this: > Ferguson's research has raised questions by virologist Hendrik Streeck. Ferguson is the corresponding author for a paper titled "Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand", which describes itself as having "informed policymaking in the UK and other countries in recent weeks".[55] Streeck stated in reference to the paper "In the – really good – model studies by the Imperial College about the progress of the epidemic, the authors assume, for example, that 50 percent of households in which there is a case do not comply with the voluntary quarantine. Where does such an assumption come from? I think we should establish more facts."[56] The computer models which Ferguson authored were initially criticised as "unreliable" and "a buggy mess,"[57][58] but subsequent efforts to reproduce the results were successful.[59] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Ferguson_(epidemiologist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Ferguson_(epidemiologist) [59] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01685-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01685-y
  - pedrocr 6y ago
    What was wrong with the modelling though? Even after all we know now leaving the epidemic unchecked would easily triple our yearly mortality. Based on what we know now we'd still do lockdowns. Probably more severe and shorter ones sooner.
mellosouls 6y ago
He's a highly experienced epidemiologist who was influential in early UK Covid responses. He lacks moral authority due to an incident which he has rightly been criticised for - what has that got to do with his scientific expertise? https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Ferguson_(epidemiologist) https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Ferguson_(epidemiologist...
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  Oh, I don't care about that. He can bone whoever he likes. It's the modeling he loses credibility on.
  - mellosouls 6y ago
    Thanks for the clarification, though I'm not sure that strengthens your case against him - while there may be dissenting voices his work is still considered mainstream I think?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - frereubu 6y ago
    If you want people to know what you're saying, you need to unpack your comment more than your initial one. I also read this as a snide aside about his love life, which is a pretty easy interpretation. Do you have a link to something more substantive than your comments here? Edit: The quote seems pretty clear - "we see it in the data" - which would just be a higher rate of infections in children, and he's clearly speaking as a member of NERVTAG, not just as himself.
    - flukus 6y ago
      I think this argument is just a variant of: 1. Scientist predicts x by y. 2. Politicians take action to prevent x by y. 3. x by y didn't happen, therefor scientists were wrong. It's like complaining your sys admins do nothing because nothing ever breaks. Or that Y2K was a conspiracy theory because it was prevented.
bioinformatics 6y ago
England, mainly with Ferguson, and now with this new "super" mutating virus is ending the last dime of credibility that scientists had with the civil society. After this pandemic, no one will ever listen to a scientist again. Maybe not everyone, but a good percentage of the population for sure.

Spare_account 6y ago

Can you elaborate on this for me, I am not familiar with him

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bpodgursky 6y ago
He built the models back in March or April which led to the initial mass lockdowns, because they projected extraordinarily high casualty counts. Turns out the model was something like 10,000 lines of undocumented and untested C code, which was... basically impossible to analyze or explain.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- whycombagator 6y ago
  Wikipedia[0] says this: > Ferguson's research has raised questions by virologist Hendrik Streeck. Ferguson is the corresponding author for a paper titled "Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand", which describes itself as having "informed policymaking in the UK and other countries in recent weeks".[55] Streeck stated in reference to the paper "In the – really good – model studies by the Imperial College about the progress of the epidemic, the authors assume, for example, that 50 percent of households in which there is a case do not comply with the voluntary quarantine. Where does such an assumption come from? I think we should establish more facts."[56] The computer models which Ferguson authored were initially criticised as "unreliable" and "a buggy mess,"[57][58] but subsequent efforts to reproduce the results were successful.[59] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Ferguson_(epidemiologist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Ferguson_(epidemiologist) [59] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01685-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01685-y
- pedrocr 6y ago
  What was wrong with the modelling though? Even after all we know now leaving the epidemic unchecked would easily triple our yearly mortality. Based on what we know now we'd still do lockdowns. Probably more severe and shorter ones sooner.

mellosouls 6y ago

He's a highly experienced epidemiologist who was influential in early UK Covid responses. He lacks moral authority due to an incident which he has rightly been criticised for - what has that got to do with his scientific expertise? https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Ferguson_(epidemiologist) https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Ferguson_(epidemiologist...

bpodgursky 6y ago
Oh, I don't care about that. He can bone whoever he likes. It's the modeling he loses credibility on.
- mellosouls 6y ago
  Thanks for the clarification, though I'm not sure that strengthens your case against him - while there may be dissenting voices his work is still considered mainstream I think?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- frereubu 6y ago
  If you want people to know what you're saying, you need to unpack your comment more than your initial one. I also read this as a snide aside about his love life, which is a pretty easy interpretation. Do you have a link to something more substantive than your comments here? Edit: The quote seems pretty clear - "we see it in the data" - which would just be a higher rate of infections in children, and he's clearly speaking as a member of NERVTAG, not just as himself.
  - flukus 6y ago
    I think this argument is just a variant of: 1. Scientist predicts x by y. 2. Politicians take action to prevent x by y. 3. x by y didn't happen, therefor scientists were wrong. It's like complaining your sys admins do nothing because nothing ever breaks. Or that Y2K was a conspiracy theory because it was prevented.

bioinformatics 6y ago

England, mainly with Ferguson, and now with this new "super" mutating virus is ending the last dime of credibility that scientists had with the civil society. After this pandemic, no one will ever listen to a scientist again. Maybe not everyone, but a good percentage of the population for sure.