Very much open to arguments like this (which importantly don’t try to dispute the rule breaking in question, and in the process, abase the proponents), but a few caveats: https://twitter.com/robertwiblin/status/1265646942899638272

1. This is about alternatives, if someone else can do the job, or the same person can continue to do the modelling w/o title or being on a committee, utilitarian argument loses weight. 2. The attempt to conflate self-regarding behaviour (eg use of sex workers, drugs) with..

...other-regarding behaviour (spreading infection) behaviour should be resisted. 3. If you’ve proved hopelessly wrong about fundamentally big questions (eg let’s say you advocated for Brexit in the most idiotic basis possible like), the utilitarian argument also loses all force.

4. Cf. This thread on when you should / shouldn’t get rid of problematic advisors. https://twitter.com/anonmugwump/status/1229392333076156416

5. I think you can also make the argument that apology should be sufficient (eg past school time behaviour), but perhaps not in a pandemic situation and clearly not where someone has no regrets.

FWIW, I don’t think any of these arguments save the need for Ferguson to resign (alternatives, can carry on in other capacity), Cummings (1-5 all against him).