Neil Ferguson

[papasmurf]

p.s. - I would also view this in the context that the Telegraph is not a tabloid,

It has been getting more and more tabloid as time passes.

[Javert]

The story exists because of his actions, he is responsible.

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



Otherwise, let's say I witnessed a violent crime, and I was contacted saying that if I report it to the police, I'll be killed by criminals.  I reported it to the police, and was then murdered.  Does that mean I am responsible for my death?  Maybe in pure logical terms yes, but in terms of moral responsibility arguably not.

[Nalaar]

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

The story exists because of his actions, he is responsible.

[Javert]

p.s. - I would also view this in the context that the Telegraph is not a tabloid, and in my view it is not really a newspaper either - it is effectively these days the official magazine of the Conservative Party.  As such it's pretty interesting that this story is broken there.

[Javert]

Do you think the telegraph is more responsible for the situation than Ferguson himself?

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.

[papasmurf]

I am wondering how such an ugly bastard got such a fit looking woman "on the side."

[Javert]

The real story here, which we will probably never know, is:

- Who did the Telegraph get the information from?

- When did they first have it?

- When did their source first have it?

- Is it a coincidence that this came out when it's just been announced that the UK has a worse death toll (on current numbers) than Italy?



It's also highly probably, given his expertise in this area, that Neil Ferguson is 100% sure that he didn't put anyone in danger at all by doing that based on the scientific reality.  Unfortunately the UK government doesn't trust all of the public (and probably rightly so) to be able to assess their own situation in the context of scientific knowledge, so if he is not following the exact rules set out, he has to be made an example of.



Also, the wording is that he has stood down from membership of the SAGE group - that doesn't necessarily mean he won't be advising it anymore - just that he's maybe not attending the actual formal meetings.



For what it's worth, I'm willing to bet that in a few months time, it will have become clear that the chance of catching Coronavirus from walking past people on the road too close, or from being in a supermarket with other people, or from a park bench, or even from a gathering of people in an outside environment, is fairly negligible and less than your chance of getting other illnesses and injuries in those scenarios.  However, at the moment I guess we still have to err on the side of caution.  Inside environments is a different matter I suspect.



Also his choice of wording is interesting

"I thought I was immune....."



Does that mean "I thought I was immune but I was wrong".



Or does it mean "I think I am immune and also thought so in the past when these events occured".



I suspect it's the latter, and he is almost definitely right.

[Nalaar]

Do you think the telegraph is more responsible for the situation than Ferguson himself?

[kwhs10]

May I take this oportunity to thank the Daily Telegraph for increasing the risk to the general population of a second COVID19 spike as the lockdown is released. Neil Ferguson is the most emminent of the scientific advisors the government had on dealing with the pandemic and given, even with his input, there is no gaurantee SAGE and COBR will get everything right as we come out. The removal of this important scientific expert makes a possibility of such errors the greater thus putting more citizens at risk. Granted ignoring his actions will not not sell as many papers but I question whether the Telegraphs financial balance sheet is as important as public health in general

Personally I could not give a damb if Neil Ferguson spent his off duty time on top of St Pauls Cathedral, stark naked, dancing a jig. What I do give a damb about is he is not giving the government the best of his experience and advice to keep us all as safe as possible.

Epidemiologists of this stature do not grow on trees. The government cannot simply replace him and his expertise to guide us through this troubiling time, and with all due respect to the remainder of the advisory teams, his loss will represent an overall diminishing of their collective capability to keep us safe.