Neil Ferguson, a scientist who convinced Boris Johnson of the British coronavirus blockade, has been accused of flawed research in the past

Ferguson’s FMD study has been the focus of two very important scholarly papers that have identified problematic assumptions in mathematical modeling.

The model was not 100% correct because the scientists defended his work and performed the study with limited data and limited time, but the conclusions reached were valid.

Michael Slasfield, professor of veterinary epidemiology at the University of Edinburgh, who co-authored both important reports, said a “ note ” about how mathematical models are sometimes used to predict disease spread. As intended.

He explained his sense of “dejav” when reading Ferguson’s Imperial College dissertation on the coronavirus, published earlier this month.

The paper -Non-Pharmaceutical Intervention (NPI) Impacts to Reduce COVID19 Mortality and Medical Demand -Warned that if no measures were taken to control the coronavirus, about 510,000 people in the UK would die.

He predicted that if the government’s conservative approach at that time was not changed, about 250,000 people could die. Studies based on mathematical models have been the key to convincing the PM that “suppression” and subsequent blockade are the only viable options to avoid significant loss of life and meltdown of the NHS.

This week, a second paper written by Ferguson and the Imperial team further predicted that failure to control the outbreak of coronavirus could kill 40 million people worldwide.

But scientists warned last night about the dangers of making extensive political decisions based on mathematical modeling.

In 2001, a foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreak in parts of the United Kingdom led the Ferguson and Imperial College teams to create predictive modeling, which was later criticized as “fitting for purpose.”

But at the time, it was very influential and helped to persuade Tony Blair’s government to carry out a widespread pre-emptive slaughter, eventually killing more than 6 million cattle, sheep and pigs . The cost to the economy was later estimated at £ 10 billion.

A model created by Professor Ferguson and colleagues at Imperial in 2001 showed that animal culling included not only animals found to be infected with the virus, but also neighboring farms without physical evidence of infection. Animals are also included.

“Unfortunately, extensive selection is the only option to control the current epidemic in the UK, and as the number of cases declines to ensure eradication, the controls currently in place It is essential to maintain

The strategy of genocide-known as serial killing-caused disgust in the British public and prompted an analysis of the methodology that resulted.

2011 dissertation, Catastrophic tension: mathematics and experience – progress and management of foot-and-mouth disease in the UK in 2001, It turns out that the government has ordered the destruction of millions of animals for “seriously flawed” modeling.

According to one of the authors, Dr. Alex Donaldson, a former director of the Pirbright Institute at the Animal Health Laboratory, Ferguson’s model caused “serious errors” by “ignoring the species composition of the farm,” The fact that it has expanded is faster among some species than other species.

“Mathematical models were at best unable to distinguish risks between farms, and at worst were crude estimates that were inaccurate representations of FMD epidemiology.”

He also described an enthusiastic atmosphere reminiscent of the last few weeks, arguing that this would allow mathematical modelers to shape government policies.

“ The general impatience waiting for the full extent of the infection to become apparent, along with an increasing number of outbreaks and piles of corpses awaiting disposal, has been identified as a lack of success in traditional control measures. The self-styled “experts,” including the veterinarian, biologist, and mathematician, will announce new options that have not been demonstrated, “the researchers said.

Earlier reports in 2006, Use and Abuse of Mathematical Models: The Case of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in the UK in 2001Identified Ferguson’s model as the greatest driver of government policy.

“This model was not fit for predicting the course of the epidemic and the effectiveness of control measures. The model also remains untested, and therefore, their model in predicting the impact of control strategies. Use was careless. “

On Friday, Professor Thrusfield said: “When I wrote these two review papers, I thought that if foot-and-mouth disease recurs, it will be a cautionary note for the future. I don’t think it will warn of a new human plague But, of course, this warning is perfectly valid.

“This is a dejav. [FMD] There was very intense opposition from members of the veterinary expert, especially those who soaked their hands in blood and killed completely healthy cows.

“The people involved have had significant economic and emotional implications. [because] Slaughter these animals completely healthy. This was tough. This is because the farmers have lost their livelihood. They didn’t have to be slaughtered, but because their predictions were wrong. “

Last night, Dr. Paul Kitchener- lead author Use and abuse of mathematical models, And raised concerns about the modeling taking place in the former Chief Veterinarian-Coronavirus in British Columbia, Canada.

“The basic principles of modeling described in our paper apply to this Covid-19 crisis as well as the occurrence of FMD.

“It is difficult to understand what is affecting the current model, given the small number of Covid-19 tests reported to be performed in the affected countries. In particular, the transmission speed. How many mild, subclinical infections have occurred? “

“The model-driven policy of FMD control has led to tragedy. A huge number of animals have been slaughtered without cause, resulting in unnoticed sufferings of people and animals-financial implications Needless to say. “

However, in 2001, Lord David King, the government’s chief scientific adviser, stated that criticism of epidemiological modeling was “misplaced.”

“I agree that unnecessary selection has taken place, because there was no uniformity in how things were handled.”

Ferguson says about FMD modeling: “There are only one factor to use in determining policy, especially science-especially modeling-it’s ridiculous to say that our model has changed government policy. There were many factors .

“We did modeling in real time, as did other groups in 2001. Indeed, the models were not 100% correct, there was certainly limited data, and we had limited time to work. But I think the broad conclusions reached were still valid. “

In his study of BSE, Ferguson predicted that human deaths would be between 50 and 150,000.

Others have directly criticized the methodology adopted by Ferguson and his team in their research on coronaviruses.

John Ioanidis, professor of disease prevention at Stanford University, said: However, some key assumptions and estimates built into the calculations seem quite bloated. “

“Everyone who thought that the coronavirus resembled the seasonal flu was” living in a cloud cuckoo, “Ferguson said.

He defended the conclusion reached “on the overwhelming demand for health care systems imposed by this virus.”

“Frankly, it is humorous, humorous, and dangerous to suggest that the severity of this virus is equivalent to seasonal flu, and those who do not analyze the data at a detailed level. “