Talk:Neil Ferguson (epidemiologist)

Epidemiologist?
What, really, is required for someone to be called an epidemiologist? Mathematical biology doesn't sound like it covers the whole field. --Hjordmån (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * He is widely known as an epidemiologist and a professor of mathematical biology in the Division of Epidemiology, Public Health, and Primary Care of the Medical School at Imperial College....and uses mathematical models in infectious disease epidemiology. He does more than enough epidemiology to be called an epidemiologist. Whispyhistory (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, difficult. NF has a track-record of working in the field of epidemiology with expertise in simulation. See for example https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simulations-science/ or https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/biomedicine/, later mentions "CCM’s approach to health and the human body bear some resemblances to the ways that epidemiologists approach populations’ health and how ecologists approach ecosystems." under Chapter 5.1. If you want to go ahead here, I would research the topic independent  of NF to avoid any bias or emotions. As a researcher who contributed to the field, whether it is considered 'core sciences' or not, is still a research. Science is a bit a challenge in the 21st century. Saturation in some fields, and forward into new branches. Try this https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?type=publication&query=epidemiologist ... and articles like "The Lived Experiences of Epidemiologists in 2020" or "In Search of the Truth as an Epidemiologist in 2020" indicate the need for identity of this subject or researchers. Simulation on the other hand has always been difficult, as much as theory has been. Early working examples e.g. of solving a integral or diff equation with mammoth machines are no comparisons to what is going on today, with millions of scientific models about literally anything, I bet even the modelling of honey bees. Experimental proof and connecting the dots is the key.--𝔏92934923525 (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

POV editing
I have concerns about 's recent edits to this article, specifically misrepresentation of sources to cast Ferguson's research in a poor light, unsupported by the sources. WP:BLP is clear that "Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." --RexxS (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) In this edit Magnovvig misquoted the source by substituting "One of Ferguson's models predicted that 65,000 people would die from swine flu" for the source's "one of Ferguson's models predicted 65,000 people could die from the Swine Flu". There's a very clear difference in meaning in that edit.
 * 2) In the same edit, Magnovvig asserted "This latterly caused some embarrassment to Health Secretary Matt Hancock during BBC Today on 16 April 2020 while the coronavirus pandemic raged in the UK." The source says nothing about "embarrassment", nor does it describe its context as "while the coronavirus pandemic raged in the UK." The embellishment is clear editorialising.
 * 3) In this edit, Magnovvig selectively quoted Streek as saying "the authors assume that 50 percent of households where there is a case do not adhere to voluntary quarantine ..." The source actually quotes Streek as saying "In the - really good - model studies by 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 ..." Magnovvig's deliberate omission of Streek's preface puts a spin on the quote you employed and places the paper in a much worse light that Streek's actual words did.
 * 4) Having mentioned criticism of Ferguson's work, Magnovvig failed to make use of the Business Insider source's quotes from Tim Colbourn and Stephen Griffin, which were favourable to Ferguson's study.


 * I'm very concerned about your use of three forums (my talk page, the WikiProject medicine page, and this page) for browbeating me.
 * In this instance, there are no quotes on wiki, and wikipedians are somewhat free to interpolate. The model influenced policy, did it not? That is why the House of Lords had their post-factum inquiry. Or do I mistake their thrust. The model itself was taken from "can die" to "will die" somewhere between abstract theory and dictated policy and concrete practice. That is the reality of what transpired, and the raison d'être for the Lords inquiry. Please, let us not split hairs. Ferguson for a time was in the jump seat of the bus. Lesser men would not have survived a call that was wrong by *two orders of magnitude*.
 * No it is not. It is an accurate picture of what transpired in the interview. Wiki forces us to summarise fifteen minutes of radio into one sentence. Are you naive or just a hack? What other reason is there to think that a radio host drags up some event from more than a decade earlier?
 * If 20,000 deaths over two months and the PM being at death's door is not "raged", for heaven's sake what is?
 * It is standard practice in academic circles to couch language in a shit sandwich; I'm just cutting to the chase. Wiki forces us to brevity, remember? And it's Streeck, if I'm not mistaken.
 * This is an article about Ferguson, and that is a red herring. If I want to write about Tim Colbourn and Stephen Griffin or any other character who appears in the Business Insider article, I'll do so on their pages. What you seem to be saying here, if I'm not mistaken, is that you buy into Argumentum ad verecundiam.
 * Ferguson is a big boy and more than able to fend for himself. Remember that lesser men would not have survived a call that was wrong by *two orders of magnitude*. Only because you have more seniority in this forum than me and can use it to silence me, I will back off my edits on this subject so as to ensure that there is no repetition. I'm dismayed by your use of three fora to browbeat me. This might be termed abuse of process by an impartial observer. Magnovvig (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For good measure: Magnovvig (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly resent your imputation of my actions here and you need to rethink whether you benefit from making unfounded accusations against an uninvolved administrator enforcing the BLP policy. You've been around long enough to understand what our policy says about misinterpretation of sources, and you have no excuses for failing to comply with it. Wikipedia has zero tolerance for such behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not browbeating you, and your claiming that I am is a personal attack. Please strike your attack on me.
 * Wikipedians are not free to put spin on sources. There is a big difference between a model that predicts that deaths could rise to 65,000, and a model that predicts that deaths would rise to 65,000. That is not splitting hairs, and your edit deliberately misrepresents the source.
 * "This latterly caused some embarrassment to Health Secretary Matt Hancock during BBC Today on 16 April 2020 while the coronavirus pandemic raged in the UK." is not an accurate picture of what the Business Insider source states. Anyone can read the source you used to see that is the case. You embellished what you read there to reflect your own POV and that's not acceptable. Strike your personal attack on me there.
 * Steek's comment was not made "in academic circles", but in a newspaper interview. He was asked for an example of a model containing an untested assumption. Your selective quotation gives a very different interpretation of Streek's criticism of the report that he otherwise found "wirklich gut" – as is apparent from a full reading of the source.
 * You are utterly mistaken. There's no red herring. Our article is indeed about Ferguson, but "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." You cherry-picked the critical comment about one of his models from the Business Insider source, but didn't report that the source also contained quotes favourable to Ferguson's work.
 * If you don't demonstrate that you're prepared to abide by our policies on NPOV and NPA, I'll take steps to see that your editing privileges here are curtailed until you do. --RexxS (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. Your posting of one comment in three different fora when one would suffice implies to me that my observations are grounded in fact. There was absolutely no misrepresentation. Your high-handed attempt to misrepresent my comments by this edit disqualifies you from further judgment in my case. You look to me like a bully. Magnovvig (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You misrepresented the sources to further your POV on the topic. You were caught out. You have displayed an ignorance on how to communicate. You have made several personal attacks on me. You can either start taking advice from more experienced editors or you can find yourself at ANI facing the prospect of sanctions. --RexxS (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Resignation
Flurry of reporting that Ferguson has just resigned from SAGE, e.g. Exclusive: Government scientist Neil Ferguson resigns after breaking lockdown rules to meet his married lover. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Undue/original research
is repeatedly adding content in the Foot and Mouth section. The latest addition is

What source is there for "Dr. Ferguson published a journal article in Science ..." or is this original editorial comment based on the primary source? And what is the source for this work being "relied upon" by the UK government? I think we must represent sources accurately, and that secondary sources are needed to establish WP:DUE weight. Alexbrn (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah. About that.  How about the Beeb dragging out Ferguson's key role... a decade after the fact? Oh, my, it sounds as if it is WP:DUE based on the WP:RS!!! XavierItzm (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Science primary source is a reliable source for the identities of its authors. It requires no analysis. So we can say Ferguson published a journal article in Science magazine in April 2001 describing the "pattern of spread and impact of interventions". The BBC source allows us to say Ferguson was among those providing advice that the government relied on to control the foot-and-mouth epidemic. But that's it as far as I can see. The "relied on" depends on a reading of The policy of "contiguous culling" was adopted following scientific advice that this was the only way of controlling the epidemic. in the BBC source, so I guess that's just about reasonable. Of course, the real question is WP:DUE. If you read Ferguson's remarks to the BBC, you'll see that he's saying more or less that by the time the 2001 outbreak had been recognised, it was already too late to do anything else. It's probably undue to indirectly blame Ferguson for the cull of millions of animals, because that's far too simplified a view. The information really belongs in 2001 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak where it can be properly discussed in context. --RexxS (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Science primary source is a reliable source for the identities of its authors. It requires no analysis. So we can say Ferguson published a journal article in Science magazine in April 2001 describing the "pattern of spread and impact of interventions". The BBC source allows us to say Ferguson was among those providing advice that the government relied on to control the foot-and-mouth epidemic. But that's it as far as I can see. The "relied on" depends on a reading of The policy of "contiguous culling" was adopted following scientific advice that this was the only way of controlling the epidemic. in the BBC source, so I guess that's just about reasonable. Of course, the real question is WP:DUE. If you read Ferguson's remarks to the BBC, you'll see that he's saying more or less that by the time the 2001 outbreak had been recognised, it was already too late to do anything else. It's probably undue to indirectly blame Ferguson for the cull of millions of animals, because that's far too simplified a view. The information really belongs in 2001 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak where it can be properly discussed in context. --RexxS (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of code
Code Review of Ferguson’s Model. Some people are anonymously criticising the released code for the model used in predictions. Is it worthy of including in the article (probably from anther source)? --Error (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Would need at least reputably published analysis (and preferably, secondary sources citing that), and certainly not an anonymous post on a slightly batty blog! Alexbrn (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Would it be worth adding a reference to this codecheck nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01685-y which seems more reputable than the Telegraph comment article? https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/codecheck-confirms-reproducibility-of-covid-19-model-results — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:7F08:B800:10A4:FE2B:B55C:9289 (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * That's a WP:PRIMARY source. You could start by finding an independent reliable secondary source discussing it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Is this more suitable? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01685-y referencing https://zenodo.org/record/3865491#.XvMi3ZNKhQY
 * Yes, but only if the comment supported is written in an encyclopedic tone. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have now added this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, please add your code-related information to CovidSim, where it should belong, if we try to achieve clarity on the specific subject separate from the person. I will add the link etc.--𝔏92934923525 (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits by User:MCFerg3
I have undone edits by on the grounds that (a) the grant referred to is not notable, despite it being dressed up as an award, and (b) the soucing is primary. I also note that all this user's edits relate to interactions between Neil Ferguson (epidemiologist) and the Mercatus Center, which given the account name suggests a possible WP:COI. Third opinions appreciated. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Ferguson has received money from Koch Brothers--should this be included?
https://www.aier.org/article/the-absurdity-of-ad-hominem/: "that Tyler Cowen and the Mercatus Center this past Spring awarded funds to Imperial College modeler Neil Ferguson" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.252.153.226 (talk) 05:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Any decent source (i.e. not a dodgy US thinktank)? Alexbrn (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You can find it at and  which are both written by Tyler Cowen who heads the Mercatus Center. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see the part about receiving money as a prize from Emergent Ventures but nothing about the Kochs. And considering the profile of NF since the pandemic began, if we want to include one funding source we would have to include all he's received since and before. Juxlos (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Bird flu
I have partially restored the section on bird flu (only partially as the second paragraph of the original text was clasisc WP:SYN). I'm not sure on the exact wording to use here, but I do think Ferguson's involvement in modelling bird flu in 2005 and 2006 is significant enough to merit a section. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Possibly, if there's secondary coverage. But calling an estimated upper bound a "prediction" is not correct (as was done before with the POV misrepresentation of "would kill"). Alexbrn (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. "Would" was definitely wrong so I changed it as you saw; "predicted" is marginal but I'm very happy with the change per MOS:SAID. You can find terms like "predict" used about bird flu in later media coverage such as and  but that's not enough to require its use here, and it doesn't seem to be used in quite that way in sources contemporary with the studies. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good. We obviously need to be watchful because there are some yahoos out there wanting to establish the narrative that COVID-isn't-real-just-look-at-Neil-Fergusons-past-predictions, and attacking this page to that end. Alexbrn (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Criticism
The article does not appear to cover Ferguson's inaccurate forecasts adequately. Might be worth fact-checking the claims on the Columbia University statmodeling forum. "Imperial College epidemiologist Neil] Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . ..

In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.

In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.

In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.

Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.

So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?" Source: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/05/08/so-the-real-scandal-is-why-did-anyone-ever-listen-to-this-guy/ 92.19.102.181 (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia follows reliable, published sources, especially for biographical articles - not some random blog that gets shot down in the first comment under it. Alexbrn (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Resignation from SAGE; Jonathan Sumption quote irrelevant?
Not sure why an exerpt from an opinion piece by retired judge Jonathan Sumption (from The Sunday Times) is pertinent to Ferguson's resignation. (The cited article can be read at https://archive.is/09Oi0)

Nothing else in the Resignation from SAGE section suggests Ferguson's reasoning was related to anything other than the personal reasons cited and I can't see justification for Sumption's quote to be included.

Do others agree it would be appropriate to remove this? Axolotl785 (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that it doesn't belong under "Resignation from SAGE", but I suspect that this is just a consequence of a previous split of the Covid section into pre-resifnation and resignation, which then doesn't make sense for post-resignation topics. For now I will put in another subsection. That doesn't mean this material should necessarily stay: it just gives it somewhere sensible to be if it does stay. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've cut the long quote. The opinion piece mentions the subject of this article once. Unless we have secondary sources suggesting Sumption's views on Ferguson are noteworthy, I don't see why it's due at all and would be happier removing entirely. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Possible COI editing
On 2023-09-13, an IP address registered to Imperial College London (the institution where the article's subject works). This was quickly undone.

On 2023-10-19, the account User:Eonore1 was registered and proceeded to as the Imperial College anonymous user. After this was undone, the user.

I suspect that given the similarity of the edits, User:Eonore1 is affiliated with Imperial College London and is the same person as the initial anonymous user. I further suspect that given the subject's affiliation with Imperial College London that this user is the subject himself or someone close to him. Dan Leonard (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)