scottsdad

The Tanzanian President has died, apparently from Covid. My PhD student is from Tanzania, and he went home for a break in August. When he got back i asked him what the restrictions were like in Tanzania. Simple answer: none. According to my student, they are more concerned about Malaria. He spent 2 weeks going to theme parks, clubs, parties etc. He self-isolated upon his return - but read up on the Tanzanian president's remedies for Covid. Steam inhilation and prayer.

Adrian Dunbar this morning on BBC Breakfast with Naga and Charlie. Charlie - an annoying runt at the best of times - got under his skin by demanding an acting performance leading to Dunbar saying something like "I'll give you a bit more, son". Joyous.

Salmond and Davies are mates. When Salmond had his chat show at the fringe, Davies was one of his guests.

Not so, the excess is still being measured against 2015-19 and not just in Scotland. The ONS are doing likewise for England and Wales and I would expect the same from most other countries. Hadn't realised that - cheers.

That's the point I'm making - the "within 28 days of a positive test" can count people who shouldn't be there as per my example, and also miss people as some folk can be in hospital with Covid for weeks before dying. The NRS metric is more accurate, but still not 100% accurate.

Yep - and remember that the 5 year average is going to see a bump for the next 2 months as we factor in the 2020 excess deaths, so we could soon be well below the average.

Whilst we use this metric I doubt we'll get to zero deaths any time soon. I could be asymptomatic and yet test positive, and 27 days later get run over by a bus. I would then end up as one of these numbers. The NRS metric is a little better but they have loosened the definition so much it isn't really clear.

1. Police Squad! (can't believe how little love this show is getting here) 2. Blackadder 3. Frasier 4. Curb Your Enthusiasm 5. Yes, Minister

Heard a guy on GMS this morning, a social psychologist. Forget his name. Anyway, he was giving it the stuff that we need to go really slowly because "cases" are 50 times higher than at the lowest levels last summer. 1. We are testing much more. 2. We have a vaccine that is cutting hospitalisations and deaths. This was always the point of lockdown. Honestly feel like some folk are moving the goalposts. Expect many stories on the Phillipines Variant today and how this means we might have to delay exiting lockdown.

I agree to a point, but they managed to pull it back (I think) with just one line. "I'm knackered"

I read an article by Richard Littlejohn a while back (last year). I like getting a counter-point - I read Peter Hitchens as well. Anyway, Littlejohn made a point that stuck out to me (a stopped watch is even right twice a day...). For some of the public health experts, this is Christmas. They have gone from anonymous civil servants and academics to household names, they are a new band of celebrity. Not only that but they have genuine power - the chance to influence government policy in a way they never dreamed possible. For some of them, they won't want to ever let that go. They'll spin out the crisis for as long as possible because when it's over, they go back to the day job.

I have probably said this before but I was a Labour member until 2003. I was in the local branch and the CLP, attended the Scottish conferences. After the Iraq invasion I left the party and, thinking back, have never voted for them since. Here in Scotland we have the spectrum without them: a centrist party in government, a right-wing party in opposition (Tories), a left-wing party in opposition (Greens), the Liberals (another party with no point) - why do we need Labour any more? I always thought I was generally Labour supporting, but that was because at a UK level it's them or the Tories. I would still prefer a Labour administration in Whitehall to a Tory one, but there my support ends. Corbyn put me right off - he was fighting old battles again. Sarwar and Starmer - doesn't exactly make me excited for a new red future.

Sunday night...

I disagree. If she needs help I hope she gets it. Same for anyone - and she's not the first person to not get along with the in-laws and this can have a detrimental effect on mental wellbeing. It's the stage that I question - the big interview, the massive publicity, worldwide trashing of the royal family, etc.

Comes back to my question from before: what was the point of the interview? Why go on international TV and trash the family? What benefit is there? Money. They maybe didn't get a fee from Oprah Winfrey's company but I'd bet they got a pay day (advertisers maybe).

Finished The Thick Of It for the first time. It was good apart from the second-last episode (the inquiry one).

Within the trial period, yes, They would pause and investigate. During the trial these clots were not an issue - and they're still not an issue. It's entirely probable that these people developed clots independent of the vaccine.

It is a serious question. She was indeed a minor actor in a successful TV show (hardly a household name), and apparently it was suggested to her that she keep acting but she said no. She could do that now, with her profile as it is a movie or two would see them sorted for life.

When they quit their duties, they said they wanted to be "financially independent". But much now to complain of being cut off! But then you have to wonder how they could make money. Aside from being famous for who they are, what can they do? What skills do they have?

If these countries don't want them, they should send them here. We'll happily take more AZ vaccine. 37 people have suffered blood clots following the jab - that's not to say that the jab caused the clots. 37 people out of 17 million vaccines so far doesn't make a pattern of anything. As per earlier posts, X does not always lead to Y.

I skipped the interview and have tried to avoid the endless stories since. But through osmosis some of the stuff has come through. My biggest thought though is: what was the point of the interview? It can only be money - take a few million quid to trash the family on TV. I just don't get the point.

Dad (age 75) had the AZ one at the end of February. No issues. Word of warning about anecdotal linkages. At uni one lecturer told me that he could make a graph - which he did - showing the rise of HIV in the UK and the rise of colour TV ownership. For about 10 years these graphs went in the same direction. Now clearly there is no linkage between the two things, so beware looking at graphs and saying that X must lead to Y because there is a similar trend.

If I can offer two pieces of advice to anyone here in the situation I was in: 1. You cannot borrow your way out of debt. I tried debt consolidation loans more than once (lower monthly payments!) and they never, ever worked. All these loans ever did was add to the overall debt burden. The ombudsman who made these companies pay me back the interest was really scathing about the companies - they could see my dreadful credit rating, my poor history of loans, my income/output and still gave me money. 2. If you're worried, contact a charity that can help. I went with StepChange, who were excellent, but others are available. They do take a fee (2% of my payments) but given all the admin work they did on my behalf, well worth it.

My folks watch this daily. Mum is certainly an NS fan but they watch it for information from the horse's mouth. But yes, I can see why this causes anger.

These press conferences (UK and Scotland) have shown that the press are actually incapable of asking a pointed question, or thinking on their feet. The first journalist will ask two or three vague, rambling questions based on what's been the hot news topic that morning. The minister will pretty much ignore any tricky question and only answer the one they like. Journalist two will then come on and (surprise surprise) ask the same questions again. Often prefaced with "following on from the last question...". Rather than see that their question is done with and come up with something new.