Neil Ferguson

[Nalaar]

I dont watch news or read newspapers any more. Am I to.presime from the OP this guy has been thrown off some committee for buttfucking a goat in Trafalgar Square ?



Because, as you say, if all hes done is consensually shagged someone else's other half, then wasnt  Boris iintercepted leaving someone's house in his boxer shorts a while ago ...

Boris doesn't have the decency to hold himself accountable - and voters don't mind enough, apparently.

[johnofgwent]

The question there is whether it's in the public interest to publish the story.  



On the one side, does his private life have any bearing on the quality of his advice or modelling work?



On the other side, you could argue that if he is breaching his own rules, people have a right to ask why - i.e. is it that he doesn't even believe in his own rules, or if he thinks his situation is an exception, why can't other people in the same situation do that as well?



We should keep in mind that when questions like "can I see my girlfriend" have been asked in the official forums, the answer was given as a clear no.



If people start making a link between this and his actual advice - i.e. if he is doing this his advice and modelling must be wrong and we can ignore it, that is clearly against the public interest.  



There is also the uncomfortable dichotomy of looking at the PM's personal behaviour in recent years and wondering why he doesn't have to resign as well.

I dont watch news or read newspapers any more. Am I to.presime from the OP this guy has been thrown off some committee for buttfucking a goat in Trafalgar Square ?



Because, as you say, if all hes done is consensually shagged someone else's other half, then wasnt  Boris iintercepted leaving someone's house in his boxer shorts a while ago ...

[Nalaar]

Isn't that kind of like saying that if I forgot to lock my front door, and I get burgled, it's my own fault and nothing to do with the burglar.  Although I'm sure many people will agree with that, I've always felt uncomfortable with such conclusions as it pre-supposes that it's "normal" to live in a world where you get burgled if you don't lock your house.

In this example Ferguson and his mistress are the ones breaking into other people's unlocked houses.



They deliberately took actions they should not have, because they thought they could.

[cromwell]

Isn't that kind of like saying that if I forgot to lock my front door, and I get burgled, it's my own fault and nothing to do with the burglar.  Although I'm sure many people will agree with that, I've always felt uncomfortable with such conclusions as it pre-supposes that it's "normal" to live in a world where you get burgled if you don't lock your house.



In this case, you are pre-supposing that it's normal and right to live in a world where if you are a government adviser doing data models for the government, and you did something wrong in your private life, you should be publicly exposed in the national press. I don't agree that this is the world we should live in.  If he was a minister or the person actually making the decisions, I would be much more likely to agree.



This is simply attacking the person rather than the policy for misdeeds which do not invalidate the decisions made by government.



@Barry as for his model being wrong because of Sweden, David Davis doesn't provide any source or details in his tweet, so we have no way of knowing what he's talking about - my first suspicion is that the model simply can't be used for Sweden because of demographic and culture differences.



Also, as I've admitted before, it's entirely possible the model is wrong because it was produced at a point in time where less was known about the virus than it is now - in fact it could be wrong in either direction.

Sorry Javert but that is cobblers,burglars and private life are irrelevant,he said we shouldn't be meeting up with 'friends' he did got caught as did Catherine Calderwood advising on one course of action for the plebs and imagining themselves being exempt,neither were and paid the price.

[Javert]

Ferguson is point zero in all of this. If the way he acted gave the telegraph an opportunity to expose his behaviour for their gain. That's on Ferguson.

Isn't that kind of like saying that if I forgot to lock my front door, and I get burgled, it's my own fault and nothing to do with the burglar.  Although I'm sure many people will agree with that, I've always felt uncomfortable with such conclusions as it pre-supposes that it's "normal" to live in a world where you get burgled if you don't lock your house.



In this case, you are pre-supposing that it's normal and right to live in a world where if you are a government adviser doing data models for the government, and you did something wrong in your private life, you should be publicly exposed in the national press. I don't agree that this is the world we should live in.  If he was a minister or the person actually making the decisions, I would be much more likely to agree.



This is simply attacking the person rather than the policy for misdeeds which do not invalidate the decisions made by government.



@Barry as for his model being wrong because of Sweden, David Davis doesn't provide any source or details in his tweet, so we have no way of knowing what he's talking about - my first suspicion is that the model simply can't be used for Sweden because of demographic and culture differences.



Also, as I've admitted before, it's entirely possible the model is wrong because it was produced at a point in time where less was known about the virus than it is now - in fact it could be wrong in either direction.

[cromwell]

Glad that's clear.







Ferguson is point zero in all of this. If the way he acted gave the telegraph an opportunity to expose his behaviour for their gain. That's on Ferguson.







Would you accept that he's not just 'any random member of public'?

Correct,he was part of the whole you must stay at home order it matters little if the press are hypocritical and I really don't care how many women  he has on the go.



He was a public figure who ventured in to the do as I say not as I do scenario,the only right course was resign and he did ........end of.

[Nalaar]

No to be clear, he is of course responsible for his own actions.

Glad that's clear.

However the Daily Telegraph is responsible for the decision to publish the story, and whoever leaked it to them, is responsible for their decision to do that.  Were those decisions motivated by a desire to save lives?

Ferguson is point zero in all of this. If the way he acted gave the telegraph an opportunity to expose his behaviour for their gain. That's on Ferguson.

In my view, it also depends whether it's reality that his actions in terms of having visitors were scientifically dangerous as well as technically wrong.  If the former, then he can't really complain about it having an impact on his career.  If it's only the latter, the penalty should, morally at least, be confined to the same penalty that any random member of the public would suffer.

Would you accept that he's not just 'any random member of public'?

[Barry]

...

As to whether he has got his recommendation 100% right I would very much doubt it. This is a new virus, never been observed and studied before therefore no-one has the ability to make the right predictions and recommend the correct actions. This is why we need to rely on such experts.

Well kwhs, it seems the mudslinging has started which draws into question his professional judgement.

David Davis MP tweets:

A bigger issue than Professor Ferguson's private life is the accuracy of his model. When applied to the Swedish policy it forecast 40,000 deaths by now, over 15 times the reality

https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/1257761432906731520">//https://twitter.com/DavidDavisMP/status/1257761432906731520

[Javert]

Perhaps?

If he is not responsible for what he did, then who is?







The penalty is arbitrary and circumstantial, Ferguson had a high public standing and audience, therefore it is inevitable that a revelation of a deceitful lifestyle will be subject to widespread ridicule, the fact that this lifestyle also contradicted the Governments advice means he probably had little option but to resign.

No to be clear, he is of course responsible for his own actions.



However the Daily Telegraph is responsible for the decision to publish the story, and whoever leaked it to them, is responsible for their decision to do that.  Were those decisions motivated by a desire to save lives?



In my view, it also depends whether it's reality that his actions in terms of having visitors were scientifically dangerous as well as technically wrong.  If the former, then he can't really complain about it having an impact on his career.  If it's only the latter, the penalty should, morally at least, be confined to the same penalty that any random member of the public would suffer.



Note I am setting aside the moral question of his private life - I might have a personal opinion on that, but it shouldn't affect his job.  This is a University researcher who is not part of the actual decision makers and who has not sought to be famous or subject to policitially motivated take downs.



Let's keep in mind the Daily Telegraph and their allies have recently started a concerted campaign to reduce or end the lock down, and that on Twitter now you can see various images calling Neil Ferguson and his friend "remainers and left wingers" and therefore their advice on the lockdown should be ignored/reversed.

[kwhs10]

Several interesting responses

The question about who is responsible the telegraph of the professor. Clearly he is responsible he committed the offence however would the public in general take the attitude if he can do it so can we if they were never informed. Perhaps a word to the people that matter for a reprimand might have been in order. Also why print now, this was the second offence; why not print after the first.

As to whether he has got his recommendation 100% right I would very much doubt it. This is a new virus, never been observed and studied before therefore no-one has the ability to make the right predictions and recommend the correct actions. This is why we need to rely on such experts. They have studied similar breakouts and their expertise is in adapting this similar knowledge to guide us through the current circumstances. Their knowledge also enables them to adapt the responses as the epidemic develops. This means changing the response in accordance with the reaction of the disease and to the preventative actions we take to negate it. It is the loss of this capability at the highest level that I consider to be increasing the risk to the public at this time

One of the replies to my original post discussed the severity of our treatment of public figure who transgress in private life. Should such private actions have such damming consequences? Consider the usual resignation requirement for an MP indulging in the romp with a married work colleague, While we expect such a response in the UK in Italy such news is positively received, remember Berlusconi's indescressions, with a general "so what" and" good for him" public attitude

Finally in response to a comment by Nalaar. Clearly if Neil Ferguson is no longer advising on COVID19 responses he should be putting his talents to work advising on attracting stunning women

[Nalaar]

I do think that the guy's expertise should not be lost from the panel. Why don't the Police just fine him and he'll have had hispunishment and get on with the job.

I believe he has chosen to resign.

[Nalaar]

Perhaps

Perhaps?

If he is not responsible for what he did, then who is?

but the penalty for poor personal behaviour on your private life and/or breaching the lock down restrictions in a way which really only should incur a small fine, should not really end up being public national humiliation and losing your job (if indeed that's what's really happening).



It's also worth considering that the Telegraph published this as almost an entire front page spread, with other stories which were much more important either relegated to back pages or not mentioned at all.

The penalty is arbitrary and circumstantial, Ferguson had a high public standing and audience, therefore it is inevitable that a revelation of a deceitful lifestyle will be subject to widespread ridicule, the fact that this lifestyle also contradicted the Governments advice means he probably had little option but to resign.

[Barry]

He was responsible for what he did, whether the story was published or not.

Isn't this all about being seen to do the right thing, not about the actual risk?

An example is this excerpt from a hospital email:

We have had concerns raised by the public that staff are not adhering to the social distancing rules. We do understand the proximity you work with your colleagues means you may think its ok to remain in close proximity to them on the corridors and in restaurants. We have to reassure the public that the NHS is a safe place to be and that we too follow government guidelines.

The staff understand the risks much more than general members of the public but are being asked to keep their social distancing so that "people feel safe".

The way I see it, the 2 metre rule is obviously a made up distance as the research suggests 1 metre is fine.

The other is that the advice says 2 metres or 6 feet. Well 2 metres is 6'8" thereabouts, so it's obviously not that important or they would have said 7 feet.

I do think that the guy's expertise should not be lost from the panel. Why don't the Police just fine him and he'll have had hispunishment and get on with the job.

The whole country have been locked up for 6 weeks now, and most fit people have had enough of hiding behind the door, with a little break to go shopping or "Clap for the NHS and key workers" for a couple of minutes on a Thursday night.

[Javert]

He was responsible for what he did, whether the story was published or not.

Perhaps, but the penalty for poor personal behaviour on your private life and/or breaching the lock down restrictions in a way which really only should incur a small fine, should not really end up being public national humiliation and losing your job (if indeed that's what's really happening).



It's also worth considering that the Telegraph published this as almost an entire front page spread, with other stories which were much more important either relegated to back pages or not mentioned at all.

[Nalaar]

Only if you assume that it's "right" that the story needed to be published.

He was responsible for what he did, whether the story was published or not.