No, OK, I do understand why. But it is a real pain …
Yesterday morning I had my ‘flu jab. I do this every year as (a) I’m now over 65 and (b) I have diabetes so I’m considered to be at “high risk”.
By mid-afternoon yesterday I was feeling rough. Last night I might as well have had ‘flu, I felt so awful — and I was so hot you could have fried an egg on me. (What a nasty idea!) I felt marginally better this morning and luckily I’ve gradually been improving as today has gone on.
Every year follows a similar pattern. 10+ years ago when I first started having ‘flu jabs they would make me feel rough for maybe half a day; on one classic occasion I felt awful for just one hour.
However a few years ago, when the vaccine contained “bird ‘flu” it knocked me out for over a week. Each year since then the vaccination has affected me for at least two full days, usually starting about24 hours after the injection. Consequently I scheduled this year’s shot when I knew I had three four days clear afterwards. It’s just as well I did, although if it has knocked me down for little more than 24 hours this year that’s definitely progress.
Yes, I do understand why this happens. Although the vaccine cannot give you ‘flu (the constituent strains are either live but attenuated or are totally inactive) like all vaccines they stimulate the immune system into producing antibodies — that’s what they’re supposed to do. And it is this reaction of the immune system, which thinks the body is being attacked, which causes the “illness” side-effects. What’s curious is that not everyone get these side-effects; and of course there are a small number of people (eg. those who are allergic to eggs) who cannot have the vaccine (or have to have an expensively produced alternative).
While the side effects are not pleasant they generally only last a day or two, and for my money they are far better than having real ‘flu which could last 2 weeks even without complications.
It’s just a nuisance to have to go through this every year. However until a way is found to produce a reliable “one shot forever” ‘flu vaccine we are stuck with annual injections. The ‘flu viruses are so variable, and they mutate so quickly, that the vaccine has to be changed every year. The game is to pre-guess which strains are most likely to be active during ‘flu season — for the northern hemisphere this guess has to be taken in February for the following winter; that’s because of the time required to produce the vaccine. When the experts guess right the vaccine is maybe 75-80% effective; guess wrong (as happened last year because of a late mutation) and effectiveness may be down at around 10%.
So while having a ‘flu jab is an annual PITA, it is one which for me is worth it. Until we get a universal vaccination, that is.
Category Archives: ramblings
Brexit Scrutiny
Law and Lawyers reports that the House of Lords EU Select Committee has issued a new report, Brexit: Parliamentary Scrutiny.
There are three key findings:
- It would be in the interests of Government, Parliament and the public for Parliament to vote on the Government’s Brexit negotiation guidelines before Article 50 is triggered.
- Too much is at stake — including many key aspects of domestic policy — for Ministers and officials to be allowed to take decisions behind closed doors, without parliamentary and democratic scrutiny.
- Allowing Parliament to provide timely and constructive commentary throughout the negotiations would increase the likelihood of Parliament and the public accepting the final deal.
But critically, as Law and Lawyers quotes from the report:
The forthcoming negotiations on Brexit will be unprecedented in their complexity and their impact upon domestic policy … it seems … inconceivable that [the executive] should take the many far-reaching policy decisions that will arise in the course of Brexit without active parliamentary scrutiny.
[The government must] recognise a middle ground between the extremes of micromanagement and mere accountability after the fact.
Within this middle ground, Parliament, while respecting the Government’s need to retain room for manoeuvre, should be able both to monitor the Government’s conduct of the negotiations, and to comment on the substance of the Government’s negotiating objectives as they develop. Only if these principles are accepted will Parliament be able to play a constructive part in helping the Government to secure the best outcome for the United Kingdom. Such scrutiny will also contribute to a greater sense of parliamentary ownership of the process, strengthening the Government’s negotiating position and increasing the likelihood that the final agreement will enjoy parliamentary and public support.
Which, in my view, is quite correct. However I perceive two flies in the ointment:
- There is an underlying assumption that government will actually listen to, and act upon, the views expressed in Parliament and not just ride roughshod over Parliament’s wishes. Governments (of whatever persuasion) don’t have good track record on this.
- Having full and open Parliamentary debate and scrutiny perforce puts the content of that debate in the public domain, and thus exposes, in advance, the likely negotiating strategy to “the enemy”, thus allowing the EU to easily negate the UK’s position. That is unlikely to bring about the best possible outcome for the UK, although it is the only strategy which is likely to provide buy-in from the electorate without accusations of fudge and the protection of the elite’s vested interests.
Honest, open and considered Parliamentary scrutiny is essential.
How Long?
As of about 3 o’clock this afternoon, Noreen and I have been married for 37 years! Eeeeekk!
That’s 10 years more than we haven’t been married!
I can’t decide whether if feels like forever or feels like for never. It just is; it’s like an old shoe that is so comfortable you don’t know you’re wearing it. Although like all shoes you get a stone in it occasionally — indeed, contrary to the usual tenet, marriage is a bed of roses: it looks pretty but has thorns too!
Back in 1979 we were still coming out of the hippie-ness of the 60s and 70s, and we were still students at heart — we still are! So we did the wedding our way, slightly eccentrically. There wasn’t a lot of money around — the country was crawling its way out of recession, we didn’t have any spare money, neither did Noreen’s mother, nor my parents. So we did it all ourselves, made it all up as we went along, did our own thing, very simply, and still had a good time.
We were married at St Peter’s, Acton Green; at the north end of Chiswick where it merges into Acton. We had been living there for about 4 months, and going to church, so it seemed sensible to get married there. St Peter’s was Anglo-Catholic, and sufficiently high church that it even satisfied our RC friends.
We lived just 400 yards from the church, so we walked to church, from our flat. No, cars; what’s the point when it is less than a 5 minute walk? My best man was my friend Victor, from my post-grad days, who was old enough to be my father. Noreen had three “maids of honour” all her own age — friends from school and university — and all four had made their own frocks. Noreen was given away by another university friend, her mother did the flowers and one of my aunts made a cake.
The reception was in the church hall next door and the vicar (who was later unfrocked!) made us a present of his fees. So the only think we had to pay lots of good money for was the caterer and the wine. And a few days away in Salisbury.
Total, a few hundred pounds. All in contrast to weddings, even then, which were costing thousands. And worse today when tens of thousands get spent.
Ah and like today, it was a lovely, bright, sunny, warm day.
Every year on our anniversary, Noreen and I look at each other and ask “How have we done it?”. We still don’t know! But I did wonder today, to Noreen, whether we might manage another 37 years. Now that would be something as we’d both be over 100!
Banking on the Mattress
So a couple of weeks ago the Bank of England reduced interest rates lower than ever to 0.25%.
They hope this is going to stimulate the economy. It isn’t. At least, as Mary Dejevsky pointed out in the Guardian a couple of weeks ago ever-lower interest rates have failed; so why should they work now?
Anyone with a mortgage has never had it so good. They are paying peanuts in interest. Meanwhile those of us who paid off our mortgagees years ago and are now the much vilified savers are being shafted — savings interest is struggling to match inflation.
The banks seem to have forgotten that people like me, the savers, are an essential part of their business. Without our money coming in, they don’t have money to lend. They need us, just as they need the pension funds etc.
But all the banks have ever done is shaft my generation. When we started our mortgage in 1981 we were paying 14.5% interest on it; within six months that was 17.5%. And we were being encouraged to save for our retirement — which we did as much as we could. That was barely sustainable; and totally unsustainable compared with today’s rates. We were being priced out. No wonder the bubble burst and people ended up in negative equity and the banking sector with a merry-go-round of toxic debt.
Having saved, against the odds, we are now being shafted for having done so by not getting a decent return on our investments. We’d almost be as well off with our investments in the Bank of Mattress. And we’re supposed to feel happy about this; go out and spend our money; make the economy grow and recover.
Sorry but why the f*** should I? That money you want me to spend has to support me for maybe another 20 (or more) years. If you aren’t going to give me a decent return on investing it, then I’m going to hold onto it for dear life and milk as much as I can from all of it.
On the same day as Mary Dejevsky’s piece, Simon Jenkins wrote (also in the Guardian):
Want to avoid recession? Then shower UK households with cash.
Just give people the money. Give them cash, dole it out, increase benefits, slash VAT, hand it to those most likely to spend it: the poor. Put £1,000 into every debit account. Whatever you do, don’t give it to banks. They will just hoard it or use it to boost house prices.
Britain is suffering from a classic liquidity trap. There is insufficient demand. Yet all the Bank of England [has done is] wring its hands, blame Brexit and go on digging the same old holes.
They are labelled lower interest rates, quantitative easing and more cash for banks. Those policies have been in place for some seven years. They have failed … Not one commentator … thought cutting interest rates to 0.25% would make any difference to the threat of recession.
And again …
In the present climate, there is not the slightest risk of inflation — the traditional hazard of monetary expansion: £1,000 “printed” and moved from the Bank into every household account would still cost less (at £30bn) than Hinkley Point or HS2 … There could be vouchers, scrappage schemes, Christmas bonuses and, horror of horrors, cash for the undeserving poor. Why not try it? All else has failed.
Yes, and out of the change from cancelling HS2 you could probably give every university student a decent maintenance grant and/or scrap student fees!
It’s a novel idea. Raising saving rates would be another. For indeed all else has failed.
It’s time for a new and different approach.
It might even be a vote-catcher!
Piloerection
Piloerection — more commonly known as goosebumps …
We all get goosebumps.
But I have recemtly found out two things about this common phenomenon — one is general and the other seemingly specific to me.
Firstly piloerection (hairs standing up) is interesting because it is a demonstration of evolution not happening. We are all familiar with the cat with its fur fluffed out and tail bushed, usually when confronted with an aggressor. We’re all also familiar with the robin, or pigeon, fluffed up in the winter against the cold. Both these are the original uses of what we still have as goosebumps.
The way this works is that the tiny muscles around the hair follicles (or equivalent for feathers) react to cold or to adrenalin (produced in response to fear, or excitement). In contracting these tiny muscles pull the hair into a more erect state and cause the little bumps around the hair follicle. Humans have lost (most of) their fur, but we’ve not lost the response mechanisms to cold or which stimulate production of adrenalin. So we still get goosebumps, although they apparently confer no advantage on us. There is no cost, the reactions aren’t deleterious, so there has been no evolutionary pressure to remove the reaction. This is one of a number of traits which (some of) us exhibit and which are evolutionary remnants; others include our tails, widom teeth and appendix.
Like everyone I get goosebumps, and the tingling sensation of the skin that usually goes along with them. And, also like most, this is strongest on the forearms. But what I’ve noticed recently is that this is more marked on the right side of my body than the left. Sometimes it is only on my right side. Sometimes both sides but the right predominates. Whether it has always been like this I don’t know, but I think it probably has. I find this strange and I can neither find, nor conjure up, a satisfactory explanation. Does anyone have any clues?
Not Me Guv …
Wrong Message?
Spotted this Ladybird book today in the window of Ealing Oxfam Bookshop. I think I’m slightly worried about the message …
Click the image for a larger view
Note to Self
Astute or Stupid?
So Theresa May is now Prime Minister. And one of her first decisions must have taken quite a lot of balls to pull off.
She has named Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary.
I’m not sure if this is a very stupid, or a very astute, move.
If Boris continues to be a complete clown, regularly tactless and a loose cannon, it could well turn out to be a very stupid move. In such circumstances would you want him dealing with Russia, or China, or Iraq? Or “owning” MI6 or the Diplomatic Corps?
On the other hand there is an argument that if you have a trouble-maker or a loose cannon, you keep them out of mischief by giving them a big job. One where they have to do some work, to behave, to think, to be tactful and diplomatic. And a job where they are close to you, where you can keep them on a short leash and keep a beady eye on what they’re doing. If that’s how this works out it is a very astute move.
But even better than this, it could be Boris’s comeuppance. Maybe someone has finally been able to call his bluff. Because as Foreign Secretary he is going to have to be involved in the Brexit negotiations. And he’ll have to be dealing with his counterparts in Europe, who know full well he is the clown who largely got us into this almighty mess. He could get a very rough ride, especially if he starts being the pillock we know he can be. He might just finally have had his balls nailed to the mast.
I would like to think this is a very astute move by Mistress May. If it is, and if she carries on in this vein, we should expect quite a few more egos having their balls broken. And that could be quite a good thing.
Interesting times we live in!
Good Deed
It isn’t often that one gets the chance to a really good deed for the day, and dig someone else out of the midden. And what’s more someone you don’t know, and will likely never meet again.
On Saturday morning I was in central London and stopped for a coffee in the Brunswick Centre. On leaving the Centre I was stopping to get some cash from the machine outside the small Sainsbury’s store. As I approached it a large, foreign-looking, middle-aged man walked away and into the Sainsbury’s store … leaving the cash machine beeping at nobody.
As I approached I could see that he’d left his money in the mouth of the machine! Duh!
Luckily there was no-one else much in the immediate vicinity. Arriving within seconds at the machine I removed the money, folded it and held onto it. I considered running after the man, but figured this would be pointless given my crocked knees, especially as he was unlikely to disappear from the store in the minute it would take me to get money for myself. So I did just that.
I then wandered into the Sainsbury’s store, easily located the man, who was quite distinctive, and handed him his notes. Needless to say he was profusely grateful.
I’ve no idea how much money was involved as I didn’t count it; it looked like about £50. I could have had a nice little bonus at someone else’s expense. But I didn’t.
However I did get something back. The satisfaction of saving some guy’s embarrassment. Oh and a £25 win on Saturday evening’s National Lottery.
It isn’t that often one gets to do a significantly good deed for a random stranger. But it feels good when you do.