Tuesday 29 December 2020

Why People In Authority Keep Breaking Their Own Rules

So Wee Nippy Krankie got caught last week breaking her own Beijing Boak rules...and not one single person in the opposition parties in the Scottish parliament pulled her up about it. 

Despite a photograph of Wee Nippy without a mask being splashed over every newspaper and TV news station in the country, there was a deafening silence from the Scottish Conservatives, Labour, the Greens, and the Lib-Dems at PM Questions last week.

Hmmm, very strange.

Because politics is very tribal, it's brutal. Opposition parties lie in wait, like tigers, ready to pounce on the slightest 'mistake' of their counter-parts in Government. 

Yet the Scottish Parliament chamber fell silent last week. How bizarre, especially when it was about the virus, a subject normally so important to them that our whole economy has had to be shut down and people's livelihoods destroyed in its name?

Could it be that the only reason why such a breach of the rules - by the person who makes the rules - was ignored by all the other politicians is because they too have been secretly breaching the rules? 

Think about it. 

It would be highly embarrassing if you were to call for the head of the First Minister for doing something which is later revealed you were doing too.

So maybe now it makes sense. 

Instead of forming a circular firing squad, they all agreed beforehand that, in this particular case, it would be best for all of them to stay silent. 

That's why every single one of them from every single party 'slung it a deafie'.

But the story doesn't end there. 

It begs yet another question.

Why do we see so many important and influential people in authority breaking the very rules that they impose on us? 

You have to admit it's a fair question, because the list of people who have broken virus rules reads like a who's-who of our top scientists, doctors and politicians:

Nicola Sturgeon, Prof. Neil Ferguson (aka Professor Lockdown), Dr Catherine Calderwood, MP Margaret Ferrier, Labours Jeremy Corbyn, Robert Jenrick, Stephen Kinnock, and PM Adviser Dominic Cummings all got caught breaking virus rules...and I suspect this is probably just the tip of the iceberg. 

Bear in mind, these are only the ones who got caught. We know politicians never admit to anything or apologise for anything unless they actually get caught. How many more rule breakers could we add to that list who didn't get caught? 

And I've been wondering what makes them do it? 

The answer could be simpler than you think. 

Those in a position of power may have just looked at the virus figures and stats and concluded that the threat from the old Beijing Boak is not quite as serious as the official line they are obliged to push.

Because the latest figures and stats for Scotland reveal that on 23rd December there were 56 patients in Scottish ICU's with the virus. That's not very many when you consider that we have 585 ICU beds available for virus patients in Scotland (plus the 1000 bed Louisa Jordan hospital at Glasgow's SECC). 

When there are 1585 ICU beds available in Scotland for virus patients, yet only 56 of those beds are being used, surely it’s perfectly reasonable to ask what’s going on?

The two main excuses I’ve heard from our political leaders as to why lockdowns are necessary is to: 

1) Protect the NHS 
2) Stop the virus spreading

That just doesn't make sense. How can any of those be true? 

Because we know that the NHS in Scotland is only using a small fraction of the 1585 ICU beds they have available, so the NHS is nowhere near bursting at the seams. It is clearly not in need of “protecting”. 

And as we have also learned from past experience, lockdowns do not stop the virus spreading, they only stop it spreading during the period of lockdown (after which the virus resumes where it left off). 

So the question still remains, WHY have we been under constant lockdowns since March? 

We are regularly reminded in every newspaper and every TV news station that there has been over 70,000 deaths in the UK from this virus. But they don't seem so keen to mention that deaths of people aged under 60 years old with no underlying health issues is less than 600.

This virus is very infectious and very nasty but the figures show that it does NOT kill the majority of people. The survival rate, the percentage of the population who do NOT die from this virus is more than 99.9%. Is it really proportionate to destroy a whole country because of a disease which has a 99.9% survival rate (and now a vaccine on its way for the other 0.1%)?

While I do think it's fair to say that the NHS is certainly under some degree of pressure, it also should be noted that this is almost entirely due to poor management, inefficiency, and years of underfunding by successive Governments. 

To say it's on its knees, or it's near to collapse, or it's NOT able to cope, just doesn't seem to hold true. The figures just don't bear that out. 

It's simply untrue to say that lockdowns are proportionate with circumstances and figures such as these. 

As time goes by, maybe we're now starting to figure out WHY many of those in authority continue to break the virus rules they impose on us: They simply don't feel the dangers are as bad as they've been telling us they are.  

This would also explain why they don't seem too keen to condemn any of their colleagues who get caught breaking the rules. If they give a 'pass' to their colleagues when they get caught breaking rules, then their colleagues are obliged to do the same for them if they get caught in the future. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, and all that

I just wish they would be more honest with the public.

We, the public, are totally scunnered with it all. We are being continually locked down and it's destroying our economy, our jobs, our lives, and our livelihoods. These lockdowns cannot possibly be about protecting the NHS, nor can they be about protecting the majority of the population from a virus which has such a teeny weeny chance of killing them. 

We're fed up with those in authority forcing us in to these lockdowns. It's such a DISPROPORTIONATE action given how minuscule the danger is to the majority of the population.

Oh, and while I'm at it, we're also fed up with these restrictions being imposed on us by law

Since when did our Police become enforcers for the ideas and whims of politicians and scientists?

Sunday 13 December 2020

Crown Office Worker Jailed

Katherine Vaughan, a Crown Office worker in Aberdeen, has been jailed for stealing £240,000 worth of evidence.

Over the years she stole heroin, cocaine, crack cocaine, MDMA, cannabis, ketamine, mephedrone, diazepam, CCTV footage, audio tapes, DNA samples, confidential documents relating to prosecutions, passports, a stun gun, a locked safe, jewellery and bank statements.


However as regular readers know, I like to go beyond the headlines and look a little further in to these things.

So while this is a shocking story, there is something a whole lot more disgraceful about it - and it re-confirms what I have been saying for years.

The authorities cannot be trusted with our data.

The Crown Office prosecutor in the Katherine Vaughan case admitted that: "In spite of the best endeavours of the police, it remains unclear how she transported the productions from the office to her house".

This just beggars belief! 

So not only did this woman steal a ton of stuff from the Crown Office and was found guilty in a court of law for doing it, the keystone cops at Police Scotland and the clowns in the Crown office still don't have a scooby how she did it!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The old well-worn phrase that the police always trot out which says "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear" is simply not true.

We, the public, may have nothing to hide but we've got plenty to fear...especially when the corrupt Crown Office and untrustworthy Police Scotland are the people in charge of keeping our data safe.

You couldn't make it up.


Thursday 10 December 2020

NHS Workers £500 Bonus

The Scottish Government have announced that NHS workers will be given a £500 bonus for all the hard work they've done this year. 

On the surface this seems very admirable, very fair, very well deserved. 

But is it really? Let's look a little bit closer (please hear me out on this one). 

Unlike many people in this country, NHS workers have worked continuously in their jobs since March, during which they’ve earned 100% of their wages. More importantly, the majority of NHS workers do NOT work directly with virus patients so they are not at any more risk than any other member of the public in any other job. 

I absolutely don’t begrudge a £500 bonus to a doctor or a nurse or a porter or a cleaner or anyone who has spent the last 8 months decked out head to toe in PPE while going in and out of the ICU every day - these NHS workers have gone beyond the call of duty and I salute every single one of them. 

What I DO object to is a £500 bonus going to: 

NHS directors, assistant directors, governors, assistant governors, non executive directors, operational directors, clinical directors, pharmacy managers, care directors, medical trainers, R&D managers, innovation directors, revalidation managers, strategic clinical managers, quality issue directors, risk managers, health and safety directors, charity fund managers, clinical governance directors, auditors, commission and contracting directors, informatic and business intelligence managers, planning managers, insurance managers, “freedom to speak up guardians” (and no, I didn’t make that one up!), health and well being managers, equality and diversity managers, payroll staff, occupational health managers, staff engagement managers, performance tracking teams and their managers, and the heads of communication teams.

So I've got a better idea.

Do a survey. Ask every single NHS worker how many times, since March, they have donned full PPE and interacted with virus patients? 

I think you'll find that most of the NHS employees will answer “never”, because most work in admin areas, not on the front line.

Then you give a £500 bonus to the wonderful doctors, nurses, porters, cleaners etc who deserve it. And you give NOTHING to the others who have never been within a mile of a virus patient, especially those bureaucratic middle-management type leaches who suck up all the cash and squeeze the life out of the NHS. 

Tell them that they’re lucky to have a job, lucky to have been gainfully employed with 100% wages for the last 9 months while many other workers in our country have been left unemployed, penniless, and unable to feed their families

So will the Scottish Government give the £500 bonus ONLY to the workers in the NHS who deserve it?

No chance.

Because if you dare to criticise anything or anyone in the NHS or the Governments response to the dreaded Beijing Boak in any way these days, you’re labeled a conspiracy theorist who wants to kill granny, a piece of scum who doesn’t support all our brave wonderful NHS angels risking their lives to save us.

Meanwhile the fat-cats in the NHS continue to get fatter - at our expense. 

Tuesday 8 December 2020

Government, Scientists, & The NHS

Do you get totally scunnered listening to the same old rubbish from our politicians?

I do.

Since day-one of this pandemic all I've heard them bleat on about is how "we’re listening to the scientists" and "we’re being guided by the science"?

Look, I didn’t elect a scientist to make decisions that affect my life. So I object when I see the politicians I elected taking orders from these scientists. Especially when the science being fed to us seems to be one-sided and biased (more about that later in this article).

I'm really not happy that my life and livelihood is being steered by so-called scientific ideas put forward by people like Professor Neil Ferguson, a man with a rich history of making absurd pandemic models from foot and mouth disease to swine flu.

So how did these scientists who make up in the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) become so powerful and influential? 

Why do our politicians seem to ignore the fact that many of these scientists have a long history of getting many of these things wrong in the past? 

Why do all of our politicians, even our Prime Minister, dance to their tune?

I have an answer to the above questions. There's a very disturbing story circulating from those 'in the know' explaining how this strange situation came about. I must warn you, it makes for very uncomfortable reading.

To understand the story, you need to understand the background. 

Most members of the public are unaware that the NHS Trusts and the scientists we see in committees such as SAGE are connected. And I mean VERY connected.

For example, did you know that Imperial College London - who have been advising the Governments SAGE committee - are connected to Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust who run FIVE hospitals: Charing Cross Hospital, Hammersmith Hospital, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, St Mary's Hospital and Western Eye Hospital? 

In 2019/20 Imperial College Healthcare had a turnover of £1.3 billion, employed approximately 13,000 people and treated about 1.3 million patients. 

The connections between the people who run our NHS hospitals and the medical scientific community are completely incestuous. They could be considered one and the same. There are 217 Trusts in the UK and they employ 800,000 of the 1.2 million NHS's staff.

The 'story' goes that back in March 2020 the NHS managers began to panic. They were in a panic that the virus looked like it was becoming a pandemic, and a pandemic would reveal what many of us have suspected for years - that most NHS hospitals are not fit for purpose and would be unable to cope with a pandemic. 

More importantly, they were terrified that a pandemic would mean increased scrutiny on the NHS and shine a spotlight on just how badly they've been running the NHS for years. They would be asked questions such as: why does the NHS cost us so much money yet when a nasty flu arrives, it can't cope? Why was the NHS not prepared for a pandemic? Where has all the money been going? 

The NHS is a big black hole where money just disappears. It's been like that for decades. Money gets swallowed up by layers and layers of management and fat-cat types who squeeze it dry with their bloated salaries and cushy contracts. If a pandemic was to hit, the spotlight would go on, the game would be up, and the NHS gravy train would grind to a halt. 

So, the NHS managers approached the Government. They told them that a pandemic was coming and the NHS was not prepared for it. They told them the NHS would not be able to cope with it and - this is the really important bit - threatened to blame it all on the Government for underfunding the NHS

They effectively blackmailed the Government. 

They insisted that if the Government didn't want to be blamed for the NHS's failure to cope with the pandemic, they must let the NHS managers run the pandemic response and call the shots. The NHS managers colleagues and cronies in the medical scientific community would step in to the SAGE committee and 'advise' the Government how to respond. The Government had no choice but to take this scientific advice or else. 

The completely co-ordinated responses to the pandemic we've seen from from the Government, the NHS managers, and the scientists makes sense now. And now we know why for the last 9 months they've pushed so forcefully for us to 'Protect the NHS' and 'Clap for Carers' etc.

The final sweetener for the Government was that if the Government were to come under fire from the public for getting anything wrong in their virus response, they could refer us to the scientists who would, in turn, blame an ever changing virus, blame the data, blame the modelling, or even blame the public for not doing what they advised. 

Just as an aside, scientists actually don't care a jot about criticism, it's water off a ducks back to them. They still keep their lucrative teaching jobs, their NHS trust jobs, and their Government research grants no matter what (just look at the criticism Professor Neil Ferguson has had over the years yet he still remains gainfully employed, he doesn't give a hoot)! 

So, with a pandemic on the way, Boris jumped at the chance and accepted the NHS managers deal. He didn’t have much choice politically - what politician wouldn't take a deal that absolves them of any blame should things go wrong, especially with something so big.

And that’s why it's scientists from SAGE, not politicians, who dictate to us whether we can leave our homes or not.

I’m always wary of any advice that comes from scientists, especially those who are closely connected to big sprawling inefficient organisations like the NHS and the Government. The professional and social connections that these scientists have with the NHS Trusts, the Government, the Universities, and big pharmaceutical companies is akin to a massive spiders web. The money involved is so colossal that the 'science' produced rarely emerges unbiased because these scientists usually have so many fingers in so many different pies. 

You really never know which way the wind is blowing with these people. 

Sometimes it's the scientists who call the shots and tell the Government what to do (which is what happened in the case of of the old Beijing Boak). 

Other times it's the Government calling the shots, luring scientists with massive research grants to ensure the 'outcome' suits the Governments agenda. 

Either way, the science that gets produced and the decisions taken based on that science always seems to fit perfectly with whatever they needed. How convenient!

I've seen it all happen before. 

I'm old enough to remember when Margaret Thatcher wanted to move the energy sector away from fossil fuels. The public were understandably wary of this change. Nobody wanted a nuclear power station on their doorstep. The miners didn't want to see the coal industry decimated and their communities destroyed. The steel workers were under threat too because the steel foundries were fossil fuel based. 

So Maggie paid the scientists to do research for her. She asked them to come up with something she could use to 'sell' her new energy policy of to the British public, something that would give her an excuse to get rid of fossil fuels. In reality she was secretly looking for an excuse to get rid of the trade-union loving coal miners and steel workers who's industries relied on fossil fuels. 

And Voila, 'Global Warming' was born.

I remember the 'Global Warming' era well. Some of you younger folks may not be familiar with the term 'Global Warming. It was enormously successful at destroying jobs, destroying families, destroying communities, and destroying peoples lives, especially in the poorest areas of the country. 

But you won't hear the term 'Global Warming' much nowadays. It kinda fell out of favour when people eventually tumbled to the fact that after years of warning us about Global Warming, Rothesay still wasn't getting as sunny as Benidorm! 

Too many awkward questions were being asked about 'Global Warming'. So they gave it a makeover and changed its name to...'Climate Change'. 

To this day you can’t get a teaching job in the scientific community, nor can you get funding for research projects in the public or private sector unless you agree to push the 'Climate Change' agenda. 

And that's why you see so many climate change loving politicians and activists trotting out well-worn phrases such as 'the science is settled' and 'all the scientists agree'. The science is NOT settled and all the scientists do NOT agree. It's just that any scientist who dares to offer a differing opinion about Global Warming or Climate Change gets excluded, ostracised, booted out, and silenced. 

It's a scandal, one of the biggest scandals of our time. 

We elect politicians to make decisions, not biased scientists.

Unfortunately it doesn't look like things are going to change any time soon. I suspect our politicians will continue to 'follow the science' no matter whether it's biased science, science they've been blackmailed in to taking, or just science they've invented themselves.

I hope that when the old Beijing Boak pandemic is finally over, maybe we'll be able to look back on it all and see who really made the decisions and why.

We may discover that this pandemic was never really about protecting the NHS, it was all about protecting a group of people much higher up the NHS ladder...

Monday 7 December 2020

Scientists Or Activists?

Dr Anthony Fauci is not an idiot. 

He's a physician and immunologist who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984. He also heads the USA's virus team. 

So when the illustrious Dr Fauci says the UK have been sloppy over their decision to approve their vaccine so soon and states that we have cut corners, then we should listen to him, shouldn't we?

Actually, no, we shouldn't listen to him. We should totally ignore him.

Because Fauci is a political activist rather than a doctor. He's a disgrace to his profession.

How do we know this? 

Well, because after Fauci went on national TV and criticised how quickly the UK Government had approved the vaccine, the UK Government immediately called him up and gave him a real roasting for his false claims - and, surprise surprise, the very next day, the bold Fauci retracted his statement and trotted out the usual political excuse that he was taken out of context and misunderstood.

He wasn't taken out of context and he wasn't misunderstood. He knew exactly what he was saying. And he knew exactly that what he was saying was untrue.

The real reason Fauci criticised the UK's vaccine approval process was because he wanted to be first to approve a vaccine. 

Fauci has quite an ego it seems. 

It really doesn't get more disgusting than this. Think about it. A doctor who cares more about winning a popularity contest than saving human lives. 

Fauci, it would seem, appears quite happy to see Britons continue to die for a wee bit longer, just as long as he can win the race to get a vaccine approved before us. 

It's disgusting. Fauci is disgusting.

Full marks to Jeremy Vine who I'm not usually a fan of. He aired both Fauci clips on TV, the one where Fauci criticised the UK for bringing the vaccine out too soon, then the other one of him retracting his statement after a 'wee word' from the UK government.

However Fauci is not alone.

The European Union made similar claims last week. They stated that Britain hadn’t properly checked and read through all the relevant papers they should have checked before approving the vaccine. 

Just like Fauci, the EU's statement was untrue. 

Their reason for criticising the UK was similar to Fauci. The EU were being criticised by their own member states for taking too long to give the vaccine approval. No surprise there of course, the EU have two speeds, dead slow and stop. Instead of the EU admitting that they are so full of red-tape they're slower than a week in Barlinnie, they lied to try and justify their inefficiency. They pretended they were being more meticulous than the UK and that's why it was taking them so long. Despicable.

Yes folks, politicians don't mind trading human lives for popularity. Welcome to the murky world of politics.

Anyway, pretty much every country with a vaccine has now approved it, so let's move on and talk about the actual vaccines themselves. 

I have a couple of questions. Not criticisms, just questions. I'm as happy as anyone that a vaccine is now available. Here they are:

1. Why did all these various big pharmaceutical companies - all creating different vaccines - all announce their vaccines in the same week? Surely after working separately on vaccines for many months it's a bit co-incidental that they all announced vaccines within days of each other? What were the chances of that happening?

2. Why were all the various vaccines all over the world all approved within days of each other? Was this just another co-incidence? What are the chances of that happening?

3. The United States Presidential Election took place on the 3rd November 2020 and a vaccine was announced on the 9th November 2020, just 6 days AFTER the US election,  If a vaccine had been announced 6 days BEFORE the US election could that have changed the election result? Fauci and the EU - who are no fans of Trump - have already demonstrated to us that they consider a vaccine to be more important to them politically than saving human lives. So is the holding back of announcing a vaccine until after the US election something they would do? I'm only asking...

Fauci and the EU have both publicly bad-mouthed the UK. They purposely harmed us just so they can score political points. They wanted to be first in the race to approve a vaccine and they didn't care that their comments may have helped erode the British publics confidence in the vaccine. 

Their comments could well discourage people in the UK who urgently need this vaccine from taking it, and that's not good. It could ultimately cost British lives. 

But do these doctor-activists like Fauci and the EU white coats care? 

Nope, doesn't seem so. 

It’s the same old story, they don’t care about anyone or anything, as long as it suits their agenda and their ego.

Sunday 6 December 2020

Lockdown, Phases 1,2,3,4, Circuit-Breakers, Tiered Systems, Level 1,2,3,4

So what restrictions are we in now?


Phase 1,2,3, or 4?

A Circuit-Breaker?

A Tiered System?

Level 1,2,3 or 4? 

Take your pick, it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference really. 

They're all just buzzwords the government use to mean the same thing. 

Oh don’t you worry, the politicians will argue till the cows come home that each one of those terms is different but, well, when you’re stuck at home and can’t go out and about freely, then a lockdown, is a lockdown, is a lockdown.

So why do politicians ‘invent’ different words and terminology for the same bloody thing?

Oh that’s easy. 

It’s all about compliance.

If you tell the population to lockdown too many times, they’ll eventually get fed up and ignore your lockdown orders, it's just human nature. 

This especially holds true when you've told them that a short lockdown will cure the problem, then you extend the short lockdown to make it a longer lockdown. Then when that doesn’t cure the problem you introduce another lockdown to cure the problem your original lockdown didn't cure (while promising that this next lockdown will cure the problem). People understandably feel that if the first lockdown didn't do what you promised, then how will another one do it? And anyway, why should they ever trust anything you ever say again?


So the politicians need to find another way to get around 'lockdown fatigue' if they want us to continue to comply with their orders.

And that's why they change the terminology. 

Politicians believe the public don’t notice when they use different words for the exact same thing. As far as politicians are concerned, the public are stupid. The public don't notice these things.

Or do they?

I see now that the politicians are bringing in 'behavioural psychologists' to advise them. They've realised that the public are not responding well to their restrictions any more and they need to find new ways to encourage the public to continue obeying their lockdown orders. Politicians are beginning to realise that the public are not quite as stupid as they first thought.

Changing terminology to manipulate the public isn’t anything new. Politicians have always twisted things around to suit their own agenda. 

Comedian George Carlin talked about the about the term ‘shell shock’ years ago. He pointed out how it was changed to ‘battle fatigue’, then it became ‘operational exhaustion’, and finally ended up as ‘post traumatic stress disorder’. Each name change removed its emotional impact and dehumanised it to the point where it just became a benign, nondescript medical term.

Take a look at the video below, it’s only a couple of minutes long.

Then let me know if you think we’re in a lockdown, a phase 1,2,3, or 4, a circuit-breaker, a tiered system, or level 1,2,3, or 4...

Saturday 5 December 2020

Community Carers Abandoned During Covid-19

Incredible as it may sound to normal decent folks out there, carers in our community are being sent out on the front line, risking Covid-19, to take care of the most vulnerable in our society, but are then being abandoned without pay when they catch Covid-19 from doing that valuable work.

I have been contacted by a community care professional working in one of the Scottish council areas which is currently a hotbed for Covid-19. Her job entails visiting various vulnerable people with health issues in their own homes.
Earlier this month she tested positive for Covid-19, so she immediately informed her employer and dutifully isolated herself for 14 days.
But her employer has now informed her that they will NOT be paying her for the 14 days she had to isolate with Covid-19 and have further advised her that she is only entitled to the Scottish Governments Statutory Sick Pay of £94/week. 

She is now concerned about paying her rent, council tax, and other bills this month. Christmas for her and her family this year is looking VERY bleak. 

There is something seriously wrong when the Scottish Government are quite happy to put health professionals directly in harms way from Covid-19, yet drop them like a stone and refuse to support them in any meaningful way, forcing them in to hardship, when they become harmed by Covid-19.
It's quite sickening to watch the Scottish Government give other workers furlough payments of up to £2500/month to sit safely in their own homes, while health care professionals who we rely on to help us in this fight against Covid-19 get just £94/week thrown at them when they get ill. 

These are people who we are sending out in to the community, risking their own health and their families health, to care for the most vulnerable in our society. Yet we throw them absolute scraps of just £94/week when they catch Covid-19 from doing this essential job.
The Scottish Government should hang their heads in shame.

These health workers are already on low wages of just £9.25/hr. Most of them already live hand to mouth, from one pay cheque to the next. They have no option but to accept this horribly unfair treatment from the Scottish Government. 


By no stretch of the imagination can the Scottish Governments policy towards our care workers be viewed as being in any way conducive to combatting Covid-19 in our country. It's a well known fact throughout the care industry that many low paid care workers purposely do NOT use the Governments Protect Scotland app because they cannot afford for Protect Scotland to contact them and make them take 14 days off work!

Fortunately there are many decent and conscientious people working in our care industry and my source who contacted me is one of them. 

She did the right thing. She immediately stopped working and isolated when she tested positive for Covid-19. 

But now she is being penalised financially for it. 

The First Minister should answer the question of whether she thinks the Scottish Governments treatment of our community carers is FAIR.

It's a reasonable question, don't you think?

If you are as outraged as me about this situation, don't bother contacting Conservative leader Ruth Davidson or Labour's Richard Leonard to ask them to put this question to Nicola Sturgeon at the next First Minister's questions. 

I've already done that.

Conservative leader Ruth Davidson just told the poor carer she should apply for Government handouts (which she's not entitled to because you must be on benefits to get these). 

And as for Labour's Richard Leonard, well he didn't even have the decency to bother with a reply.

Friday 4 December 2020

Fudging The Figures?

Is the Scottish Government fudging the figures?

Sometimes what a Government doesn't say can be just as important as what they do say.

For example, we know there are currently 279 hospitals in Scotland and 585 ICU beds available with mechanical ventilation.

Today, John Swinney from the Scottish Government presented the usual daily briefing (not sure where Nicola was, she doesn't seem to do Fridays any more, perhaps she likes a long weekend, who knows).

In the figures John Swinney presented today, he said that 965 people are currently in hospital with the virus.

But what he didn't say is that if you divide that figure of 965 by the number of hospitals in Scotland (279), the average number of people in hospital in Scotland with the virus right now is less than 4 people per hospital.

Next, he said that there are 65 people with the virus in ICU's today. 

Again, what he didn't say is this means that probably 214 hospitals in Scotland (77% of our hospitals) have NO patients in ICU with the virus today. 

Nor did he say that this also means only 12% of our ICU bed capacity for virus patients is currently being used today.

Let me be clear, I’m not trying to play down the seriousness of this virus, I’ve had it myself and it was pretty nasty, I couldn’t breathe properly for 2 days, and it was a scary time. I’m absolutely not a virus denier, nor am I anti-vax.

I’m just curious why the Scottish government are so keen to give us virus figures every day but don’t seem quite so keen to give us proper context to those figures?

Politicians will always present data in a way that suits their own political agenda and I'm fine with that, it's just politics. 

But this disease is different. The virus figures are vitally important to all of us. Lives and livelihoods are being lost every day due to the decisions our politicians are making. When you have a disease like this which is so severe that politicians are willing to destroy a whole economy because of it, it's not something insignificant. 

It's perfectly reasonable that we should expect full transparency and full explanations illustrating the proper context to the figures the Scottish government throw out at us each day. 

I love fudge, I just get wary when politicians try to sell it to me. 

Because when they do, the only thing that's usually been cooked is the books, and the only fudge you get in the end is their fudged figures.