ReportWire

Tag: young children

  • 2 Babies Among 4 Killed in ‘Traumatic’ House Fire: ‘Our Family Is Shattered’

    NEED TO KNOW

    • Two babies, aged 5 months and 20 months, a teenage girl and a man have been killed in a house fire in Queensland, Australia

    • The blaze started on Thursday, Nov. 6, according to local reports

    • Two others escaped the fire and were taken to the hospital

    Two babies are among four people who were killed in a house fire in Queensland, Australia.

    On Thursday, Nov. 6, a young boy and girl, a teenage girl and a man died following a fire at a home in the town of Emerald, according to news.com.au and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

    The young children were identified as siblings Desmond, 5 months, and Maddison, 20 months, while the man was identified as Matthew Chilly, per news.com.au.

    The children and Chilly were inside the home when the fire broke out at around 6:50 a.m. Two others managed to escape the blaze and were taken to the hospital, per the outlet and ABC.

    Youtube/9 News Australia

    Tributes laid near the home in Emerald in Queensland

    Senior Sergeant Peter McFarlane told news.com.au that the survivors were suffering from psychological distress. He said the relationships between those who had died would be provided at a later time, per ABC.

    When emergency services arrived at 7 a.m., neighbors were reportedly using garden hoses to try and stop the blaze, according to news.com.au. The home was found fully engulfed in flames by fire crews, per ABC.

    “It’s been quite traumatic on all emergency services and obviously our priority is the families and extended families of the victims, but also emergency services workers who will require some support in coming days,” McFarlane said, per news.com.au.

    “It was a very sad and tragic scene inside and outside of that fire,” he added. “We have a lot of families gathered around there, and as I said, they are very tight knit families, extended families here in Emerald, and they are gathering around to support each other.”

    PEOPLE has contacted the Queensland Police Service and the Queensland Fire Department for comment.

    A GoFundMe page has been created by the aunt of Desmond and Maddison’s father, Jake Symes, to raise funds for funeral expenses, per the outlet.

    “It breaks my heart to be writing this. In the early hours of 6 November 2025, my nephew Jake Symes lost his entire world — his two beautiful children, Maddison (1 year, 8 months) and Desmond (5 months) — in a tragic house fire in Emerald,” the description on the page by Sally Woulfe reads.

    “In one night, Jake lost everything — his babies, his home, and every belonging he owned. As a young father, he is now facing the unimaginable pain of having to lay both of his children to rest,” Woulfe adds.

    Emerald Fire and Rescue - Station 65 Facebook Queensland Fire and Rescue

    Emerald Fire and Rescue – Station 65 Facebook

    Queensland Fire and Rescue

    “Our family is shattered. Maddison was full of life and laughter, always smiling and curious about the world around her,” Woulfe continues. “Little Desmond was a gentle, happy baby whose laughter brought light to everyone who met him. Their bond was pure love — and they were taken far too soon.”

    “We are reaching out to the community for help to raise $15,000 to cover funeral expenses and to help Jake begin to rebuild his life,” the page adds. At the time of publication, the page had raised nearly $2,000 Australian dollars — around $1290.

    Queensland Premier David Crisafulli told press on Thursday that the tragedy was “incredibly sad,” per news.com.au.

    “When you deal with smaller towns, there is no doubt that those connections will be felt and the loss will be felt so deeply,” he said.

    Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE’s free daily newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from juicy celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.

    Authorities are investigating the cause of the fire. McFarlane told ABC that an e-scooter is among the lines of inquiry.

    Read the original article on People

    Source link

  • The Mothers Who Aren’t Waiting to Give Their Children Cystic-Fibrosis Drugs

    The Mothers Who Aren’t Waiting to Give Their Children Cystic-Fibrosis Drugs

    At six months pregnant, Sonja Lee Finnegan flew from Switzerland to France to buy $20,000 worth of drugs from a person she had never met. The drug she was after, Trikafta, is legal in Switzerland and approved for cystic fibrosis, a rare genetic disease that fills the lungs with thick mucus. Finnegan could not get it from a doctor, because she herself does not have cystic fibrosis. But the baby she was carrying inside her does, and she wanted to start him on the Trikafta as early as possible—before he was even born.

    She felt so strongly because Trikafta is, without exaggeration, a miracle drug. As I wrote in the latest issue of this magazine, the daily pills have in the past five years transformed cystic fibrosis from a fatal disease into one where most patients can live an essentially normal life. Trikafta, a combination of three drugs, is not a cure, and it does not entirely reverse organ damage already caused by CF, but patients who grew up believing they would die young are instead saving for retirement. And children born with CF today can expect to live to a ripe old age, as long as they start the drugs early.

    How early is best? The drugs are officially approved for CF patients as young as 2, but a handful of enterprising mothers in the United States have gotten it prescribed off-label, to treat children diagnosed in the womb. Where doctors are more cautious, mothers are still pushing the limits of when to start the drugs. A mom in Canada sent her husband across the border to get Trikafta from someone in the United States. And Finnegan flew to France to meet a patient willing to sell their excess supply.

    Getting hold of Trikafta is in fact the hardest part. Parents told me of both insurance plans and obstetricians skeptical of a powerful new medication never tested in pregnant women—and not without reason. Trikafta has side effects, and it is new enough that not all of its ramifications are fully understood. But Finnegan pored over all the research she could find and decided that Trikafta was worth it. For $20,000, she bought a five-months supply—a relative bargain compared with Trikafta’s list price of $300,000-plus a year in the United States.

    To her, it was worth $20,000 for her son to avoid CF complications that can require major surgery at birth. It was worth $20,000 to prevent permanent damage to his organs that begins even in utero. She felt lucky she could afford it at all. Trikafta in pregnancy is not currently standard practice, but a miracle drug was out there. For her son, she would figure out a way to get it.


    The very first expecting moms on Trikafta were women with CF taking the drugs for themselves. Not long after the medication became available, in the fall of 2019, doctors noticed a baby boom in the CF community. Trikafta, it turns out, affects more than the lungs; it can also reverse the infertility common in women with CF, thought to be caused by unusually thick cervical mucus. (Most men with CF are born infertile, because the vas deferens, which carries sperm, never develops.)

    Experts worried at first about what Trikafta could do to developing fetuses. “People were like, ‘Don’t do this. We don’t know if it’s a teratogen’”—a substance that causes birth defects, says Ted Liou, the director of the adult-CF center at the University of Utah. (The CF doctors quoted in this article have all conducted clinical trials for or received speaking or consulting fees from Vertex, the manufacturer of Trikafta and several other drugs for CF.) That fear turned out to be unfounded: Hundreds of babies later, there has been, at least anecdotally, no uptick in severe birth defects.

    Doctors started to see hints that Trikafta in utero could help babies with CF too. Of the hundreds of children born to mothers on Trikafta, only a few of the babies had CF themselves. This is because cystic fibrosis is a recessive disorder, meaning a mother with CF could have a child with CF only if the father also passed on a CF mutation. But the first documented case came to the attention of Christopher Fortner, the director of the CF center and pediatric-CF program at SUNY Upstate, who published a case report in 2021. Trikafta, he told me, made a clear difference for this baby girl.

    Cystic fibrosis is caused by an imbalance of salt and water in the body, and this affects developing organs even before birth. One in five infants with CF are born with an intestinal blockage caused by meconium—the normally sticky black stool of newborns—that has turned too thick and hard to pass. This is called meconium ileus, and in the worst cases, the intestines can rupture. Emergency surgery is necessary. Elsewhere in the body, the pancreas never forms properly with CF. “By the time they’re born, their pancreas is really not a functional organ,” Fortner said. Adults on Trikafta still have to take pancreatic enzymes with every meal, but there is some evidence that young children can gain pancreatic function if they begin the CF drugs early enough.

    When this baby girl was born, though, her meconium and her pancreas levels were normal from the very start; the standard newborn screening for CF would have never caught her. Fortner started her on enzymes as a precaution, but he stopped them after a week. She is 3 years old now and in preschool. Unlike generations of CF kids before her, she will never have to see the school nurse for enzymes every time she wants to eat. And she may never suffer the recurring lung infections that once made CF ultimately fatal. “The life she’s living,” Fortner said, “that was a whole lot like a cure to me.”


    Moms who do not have CF themselves have a much harder time getting their unborn children on Trikafta. In 2021, Yolanda Huffhines’s second child was diagnosed with CF prenatally, after a genetic test was recommended because Huffhines’s first child had cystic fibrosis. The diagnosis did not come as a shock this time, but she began to worry when the baby showed signs of meconium ileus while still in utero.

    After coming across a study in ferrets, Huffhines brought the idea of Trikafta to her doctors, who were not all enthused. Her obstetrician in particular was against it. But she found that CF doctors were more willing to weigh the well-known risks of cystic fibrosis—especially meconium ileus—against the less well-known risks of Trikafta. She asked Patrick Flume, who directs the adult-CF center at the Medical University of South Carolina, what he would do if it were his wife and child. He told her he would get Trikafta, and he agreed to help.

    Even with a sympathetic doctor, getting Trikafta wasn’t easy. First, Flume tried giving her a stash from a patient who no longer needed it, which was vetoed because his hospital couldn’t ensure that it had been properly stored. Then he asked the manufacturer, Vertex, which also said no. (The company told me it couldn’t provide Trikafta to anyone outside the drug’s official indications.) Finally, Flume told me, he decided to write a prescription as if the mother were his patient. When the insurance company asked if she had at least one copy of a specific CF mutation that Trikafta was developed for, he answered yes, truthfully. Because Huffhines is a carrier, she does have one copy. She started Trikafta at 32 weeks, and by the time her daughter was born, the meconium ileus had disappeared.

    Huffhines’s experience on Trikafta was not entirely smooth, though. The drugs come with some well-documented side effects, such as cataracts and liver damage, that have to be monitored, Flume told me, as with any new drug. Although Trikafta during pregnancy went fine for Huffhines, she started to experience unusual symptoms when she continued the medication so her daughter could get it through breast milk. Her usual migraines started going “through the roof,” and her scheduled blood work revealed that her liver enzymes had gone haywire—a sign of liver damage. She had to stop.

    Quitting Trikafta cold turkey could be harmful for newborns, though, which Huffines knew from studying the ferret research. (Suddenly withdrawing, Fortner told me, may cause pancreatitis.) She wondered: Was it possible to give a baby Trikafta directly? The pills would be too big, obviously, but her husband had scales for gunpowder that could weigh down to the milligram. She got a new one overnighted, and she began crushing the pills to give to her daughter—a technique that has since been taught to other moms. Her daughter did well. Huffhines’s doctors ended up publishing a case report in 2022—the first documenting a carrier of CF taking Trikafta.

    The long-term impacts of being on Trikafta in utero still need to be studied. The oldest child is still only 3. In adults, a small minority who have started Trikafta have reported sudden and severe anxiety, insomnia, depression, or other neuropsychiatric symptoms. The link is not fully proven or understood in adults, and it’s completely unexplored for fetal brain development. Elena Schneider-Futschik, a pharmacologist at the University of Melbourne, told me she is collaborating with researchers in the United Kingdom to get long-term developmental data on children exposed to Trikafta before birth. For now, she said, “we don’t know.”

    Fortner, who has heard from several pregnant mothers since his first case report, said he does not deter parents already set on getting Trikafta, but he does not, in all cases, push them toward it, either. Given the unknowns, he’s not sure that the benefits outweigh the risks. The clearest exceptions are cases of meconium ileus, in which doing nothing comes with its own costs. Flume told me about a recent patient whose baby was showing signs of an intestinal blockage and whose insurance initially denied Trikafta. The medication was eventually approved—but the mom went into labor the day she was due to start. Her baby needed emergency surgery. “This is something that did not need to happen,” he said.


    By the time Finnegan, in Switzerland, went looking for Trikafta last year, she had the earlier cases as models. Her baby wasn’t showing signs of meconium ileus, but she didn’t want to wait until he did, if he was going to end up down that path. Although her doctors were supportive, they could not get her Trikafta. That’s why she had to take unorthodox measures.

    She took her first pill in August, and her son was born in October with a working pancreas and no intestinal blockage. He is far too young for this to matter, but she hopes that the Trikafta allowed his vas deferens to develop normally too. Someday, he might want children of his own, and the impacts of getting Trikafta in utero might carry over into the next generation.

    Finnegan has been documenting her experience on social media, where she says her posts have inspired other pregnants moms to get on Trikafta for their unborn children. She knows of about 20 now, and after she got in touch with Schneider-Futschik, the researcher decided to survey these moms too. Meanwhile, Finnegan is sharing the stories of other moms as well, making note of details such as how long the mom was on Trikafta, what side effects she experienced, whether meconium ileus was resolved, and if insurance covered the drugs—a case series, of sorts, presented on Instagram. They are still few enough that every case is notable. In the future, though, all of this might become the utterly unremarkable standard of care.

    Sarah Zhang

    Source link

  • GoFundMe Is a Health-Care Utility Now

    GoFundMe Is a Health-Care Utility Now


    GoFundMe started as a crowdfunding site for underwriting “ideas and dreams,” and, as GoFundMe’s co-founders, Andrew Ballester and Brad Damphousse, once put it, “for life’s important moments.” In the early years, it funded honeymoon trips, graduation gifts, and church missions to overseas hospitals in need. Now GoFundMe has become a go-to for patients trying to escape medical-billing nightmares.

    One study found that, in 2020, the number of U.S. campaigns related to medical causes—about 200,000—was 25 times higher than the number of such campaigns on the site in 2011. More than 500 campaigns are currently dedicated to asking for financial help for treating people, mostly kids, with spinal muscular atrophy, a neurodegenerative genetic condition. The recently approved gene therapy for young children with the condition, by the drugmaker Novartis, costs about $2.1 million for the single-dose treatment.

    Perhaps the most damning aspect of all this is that paying for expensive care with crowdfunding is no longer seen as unusual; instead, it is being normalized as part of the health system, like getting blood work done or waiting on hold for an appointment. Need a heart transplant? Start a GoFundMe in order to get on the waiting list. Resorting to GoFundMe when faced with bills has become so accepted that in some cases, patient advocates and hospital financial-aid officers recommend crowdfunding as an alternative to being sent to collections. My inbox and the Bill of the Month project (run by KFF Health News, where I am the senior contributing editor, and NPR) have become a kind of complaint desk for people who can’t afford their medical bills, and I’m gobsmacked every time a patient tells me they’ve been advised that GoFundMe is their best option.

    GoFundMe itself acknowledges the reliance of patients on the company’s platform. Ari Romio, a spokesperson for the company, said that “medical expenses” is the most common category of fundraiser it hosts. But she declined to say what proportion of campaigns are medically related, because people starting a campaign self-select the purpose of the fundraiser. They might choose the family or travel category, she said, if a child needs to go to a different state for treatment, for example. So although the company has estimated in the past that a third of the funds raised on the site are medical-related, that could be an undercount.

    Andrea Coy of Fort Collins, Colorado, turned to GoFundMe in 2021 as a last resort after an air-ambulance bill tipped her family’s finances over the edge. Her son Sebastian, then a year old, had been admitted with pneumonia to a local hospital and then transferred urgently by helicopter to Children’s Hospital Colorado in Denver when his oxygen levels dropped. REACH, the air-ambulance transport company that contracted with the hospital, was out-of-network, and billed the family nearly $65,000 for the ride—more than $28,000 of which Coy’s insurer, UnitedHealthcare, paid. Even so, REACH continued sending Coy’s family bills for the remaining balance, and later began regularly calling Coy to try to collect, enough that she felt the company was harassing her, she told me.

    Coy made multiple calls to her company’s human-resources department, REACH, and UnitedHealthcare for help in resolving the case. She applied to various patient groups for financial assistance and was rejected again and again. Eventually, she got the outstanding balance knocked down to $5,000, but even that was more than she could afford on top of the $12,000 the family owed out-of-pocket for Sebastian’s actual treatment.

    That’s when a hospital financial-aid officer suggested she try GoFundMe. But, as Coy said, “I’m not an influencer or anything like that,” so the appeal “offered only a bit of temporary relief—we’ve hit a wall.” They have gone deep into debt and hope to climb out of it.

    In an emailed response, a spokesperson for REACH noted that they could not comment on a specific case because of patient-privacy laws, but that, if the ride occurred before the federal No Surprises Act went into effect, the bill was legal. (That act protects patients from such air-ambulance bills and has been in force since January 1, 2022.) But the spokesperson added, “If a patient is experiencing a financial hardship, we work with them to find equitable solutions.” What is “equitable”—and whether that includes seeking an additional $5,000, beyond a $28,000 insurance payment, for transporting a sick child—is subjective, of course.

    In many respects, research shows, GoFundMe tends to perpetuate socioeconomic disparities that already affect medical bills and debt. If you are famous or part of a circle of friends who have money, your crowdfunding campaign is much more likely to succeed than if you are middle-class or poor. When the family of the former Olympic gymnast Mary Lou Retton started a fundraiser on another platform, *spotfund, for her recent ICU stay at a time when she was uninsured, nearly $460,000 in donations quickly poured in. (Although Retton said she could not get affordable insurance because of her preexisting condition—dozens of orthopedic surgeries—the Affordable Care Act prohibits insurers from refusing to cover people because of their prior medical histories, or charging them abnormally high rates.)

    And given the price of American health care, even the most robust fundraising can feel inadequate. If you’re looking for help to pay for a $2 million drug, even tens of thousands is a drop in the bucket.

    Rob Solomon, the CEO of the platform from 2015 to March 2020, who was named one of Time magazine’s 50 most influential people in health care, has said that he “would love nothing more than for ‘medical’ to not be a category on GoFundMe.” He told KFF Health News that “the system is terrible. It needs to be rethought and retooled. Politicians are failing us. Health-care companies are failing us. Those are realities.”

    But despite the noble ambitions of its original vision, GoFundMe is a privately held for-profit company. In 2015, the founders sold a majority stake to a venture-capital investor group led by Accel Partners and Technology Crossover Ventures. And when I asked about medical bills being the most common reason for GoFundMe campaigns, the company’s current CEO, Tim Cadogan, sounded less critical than his predecessor of the health system, whose high prices and financial cruelty have arguably made his company famous.

    “Our mission is to help people help each other,” he said. “We are not, and cannot, be the solution to complex, systemic problems that are best solved with meaningful public policy.”

    And that’s true. Despite the site’s hopeful vibe, most campaigns generate only a small fraction of the money owed. Almost all of the medical-expense campaigns in the U.S. fell short of their goal, and some raised little or no money, a 2017 study from the University of Washington found. The average campaign made it to just about 40 percent of the target amount, and there is evidence that yields—measured as a percent of their target—have gotten worse over time.

    Carol Justice, a recently retired civil servant and a longtime union member in Portland, Oregon, turned to GoFundMe after she faced a mammoth unexpected bill for bariatric surgery at Oregon Health & Science University.

    She had expected to pay about $1,000, the amount left in her deductible, after her health insurer paid the $15,000 cap on the surgery. She didn’t understand that a cap meant she would have to pay the difference if the hospital, which was in-network, charged more.

    And it did, leaving her with a bill of $18,000, to be paid all at once or in monthly $1,400 increments. “That’s more than my mortgage,” she told me. “I was facing filing for bankruptcy or losing my car and my house.” She made numerous calls to the hospital’s financial-aid office, many unanswered, and received only unfulfilled promises that “we’ll get back to you” about whether she qualified for help.

    So, Justice said, her health coach—provided by the city of Portland—suggested starting a GoFundMe. The campaign yielded about $1,400, just one monthly payment, including $200 from the health coach and $100 from an aunt. She dutifully sent each donation directly to the hospital.

    In an emailed response, the hospital system said that it couldn’t discuss individual cases, but that “financial assistance information is readily available for patients, and can be accessed at any point in a patient’s journey with OHSU. Starting in early 2019, OHSU worked to remove barriers for patients most in need by providing a quick screening for financial assistance that, if a certain threshold is met, awards financial assistance without requiring an application process.”

    This particular tale has a happy-ish ending. In desperation, Justice went to the hospital and planted herself in the financial-aid office, where she had a tearful meeting with a hospital representative who determined that—given her finances—she wouldn’t have to pay the bill.

    “I’d been through the gamut and just cried,” she said. She told me that she would like to repay the people who donated to her GoFundMe. But so far, the hospital won’t give the $1,400 back.



    Elisabeth Rosenthal

    Source link

  • Beware Noodle Soup

    Beware Noodle Soup

    When the weather turns frigid, there is only one thing to do: make a pot of chicken-noodle soup. On the first cold afternoon in early December, I simmered a whole rotisserie chicken with fennel, dill, and orzo, then ladled it into bowls for a cozy family meal. Just as I thought we’d reached peak hygge, my five-month-old son suddenly grabbed my steaming bowl and tipped the soup all over himself. Piercing screams and a frenzied taxi ride to the pediatric emergency room ensued.

    My husband and I waited in the ER with our pantsless, crying child, racked with guilt. But when we told doctors and nurses what had happened, they seemed unperturbed. As they bandaged my son’s blistering skin, they explained that children get burned by soup—especially noodle soup—all the time. “Welcome to parenthood,” a nurse said, as we boarded an ambulance that transferred us to a nearby burn unit.

    That children are frequently scalded by hot liquids makes perfect sense. But soup? Indeed, soup burns “are very common,” James Gallagher, the director of the Burn Center at Weill Cornell Medicine and NewYork–Presbyterian, where I’d brought my son, told me. After hot tap water, soup is a leading cause of burn-related visits to the hospital among young children in the United States. An estimated 100,000 American children are scalded by spilled food and beverages each year—and in many cases, soup is the culprit. Pediatric soup injuries happen so frequently that an astonishing amount of scientific literature is dedicated to it, generating terms such as meal-time morbidity, starch scalds,  and the cooling curve of broth.

    Anyone can get burned by soup, yet kids can’t help but knock things over. Infants have minimal control over their grabby little hands, and older children still lack balance and coordination. Give them a bowl of soup, or even put one near them, and you have a recipe for disaster. Consider instant noodle soup—the kind prepared by pouring boiling water into a Styrofoam container with dried noodles, or filling it with water and microwaving it. In one small study from 2020, 21 children ages 4 to 12 carried foam cups of blue paint—meant to mimic containers of instant noodles—from a microwave toward a table. Blue splashes on their white shirts revealed that nearly one in five children spilled the “soup,” most commonly on their arms.

    Part of the danger is the nature of soup itself. Boiling water is hot enough to scald skin. But salt, oil, and other ingredients raise water’s boiling point, meaning that soup can reach a much higher temperature and cause greater injury, Gallagher said. Soup also stays hotter for longer, prolonging the potential for harm: A 2007 study found that certain soups took more time to cool than tap water after being boiled. Even when slightly cooled, to about 150 degrees Fahrenheit, it can cause “a significant scald burn,” one commentary noted.

    Not all soups are created equal. As the authors of the 2007 study found, noodles “may adhere to the skin” and cause a deep burn, calling to mind the stinging tentacles of a jellyfish. They may also stay hot longer than expected. “Noodles do seem to be particularly problematic,” Wendalyn Little, a professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at Emory University School of Medicine who studies soup burns, told me. Hearty soups are generally more hazardous than brothy ones: Engineers who studied two kinds of canned soup—chunky (chicken noodle) versus runny (tomato)—concluded that the former can lead to more severe burns because its solid constituents prevent it from flowing off the skin. “A runny soup seems a lot like water, but what if it’s a New England clam chowder? That’s real thick and stays in place,” Gallagher said. The chicken soup I’d made for my family was on the brothy side, but the orzo made it particularly viscous. (Thank goodness I hadn’t made gloopy congee that day.)

    For these reasons, perhaps the most dangerous soup of all is instant noodle soup. Nearly 2,000 American kids get burned by it annually, according to one estimate; in an analysis published earlier this year, this kind of soup caused 31 percent of pediatric scalds in a Chicago hospital over a decade. These products are dangerous for reasons beyond their contents. They tend to be packaged in tall, flimsy containers that are perilously easy to topple. Microwaveable versions can be dangerous for kids who haven’t yet fully grasped that a room-temperature product, heated for several minutes in a microwave, can come out piping hot. “Fluids like that can be superheated such that when you touch them, there’s almost like a mini explosion,” splashing boiling liquid onto skin, Gallagher explained.

    Soup burns can be quite serious. In a few cases, the burns can be so severe that they require tube feeding or intravenous narcotics. The 2007 study of children scalded by instant noodle soup noted that all of them had “at least second-degree burns,” which damage the first two layers of skin and usually erupt into blisters. The children who were burned on their upper body—mostly young kids, who tend to reach toward objects on elevated surfaces—stayed in the hospital for an average of 11 days.

    In most cases, however, burns from soup are painful but not life-threatening. Scarring, if it occurs at all, is worst in childhood, then fades away, Gallagher said. If burns do happen, he told me, immediately remove any clothes or diapers soaked with hot liquid, then run cool water over the injury for 20 minutes and call your doctor. Avoid applying ice to the injured area, he added, because doing so can damage tissue.

    Kids move on quickly. It’s the parents who deal with long-term consequences. “There’s a special kind of guilt when your baby is burned,” Gallagher said. A week after the incident, my family returned to the burn unit for a follow-up visit. Parents with small children filled the waiting room; we exchanged knowing glances. A nurse removed a thick bandage from my son’s thigh. Fortunately, unlike his parents, he emerged without a scar.

    Yasmin Tayag

    Source link

  • I Spent $85 to Eat Breakfast With Santa

    I Spent $85 to Eat Breakfast With Santa

    For all of my life, I thought eating breakfast with Santa was totally normal. Every year, he would come to my church in western New York and sit in the corner of the reception hall for a few hours. (Sometimes, he was played by my dad or my cousin Frank.) The kids would eat pancakes and drink hot chocolate in his presence and work up their courage. Whenever they felt ready, they could meet the big guy and discuss whatever they needed to. And then they would get a candy cane.

    Random adult members of the congregation sometimes joined too, usually because they knew the man under the beard and had no complaint with a hot breakfast. It was all very casual. So I didn’t think it would be a big deal when I mentioned to my mother this year that my favorite minor-league baseball team, the Brooklyn Cyclones, was planning to hold a breakfast-with-Santa event at their stadium in Coney Island and that I intended to go. She is a woman who has, to this day, never conceded to me or my siblings that Santa does not exist (he finally left us a retirement note last year). I thought she would appreciate this and say something like “Fun!” Instead, she looked at me with concern and said, “It’s really not appropriate to go to that without children.”

    Really? It’s not inappropriate to go to the Brooklyn Cyclones’ stadium at other times without children, but as soon as Santa gets there, I’m banned? I found myself polling friends and people at work about whether it was okay for me to go, and then I received a second surprise: Many people in my life hadn’t heard of breakfast with Santa at all. “Maybe it’s a Rust Belt or northern thing?” one suggested. Pancakes and Santa? A regional thing? A regional thing and only for children?

    I contacted a Santa Claus expert—Jacqueline Woolley, a psychology professor at the University of Texas at Austin, who was at the time preparing for an academic conference about Santa—in hopes of finding some backup. She had never heard of breakfast with Santa. “When you mentioned it, I looked online and apparently it’s been around for many years,” she told me.

    It has, all over the country, and I love it. But I’m now experiencing a small personal crisis. I don’t think I’m what one of my friends called a “Christmas adult,” a seasonal version of the so-called Disney adults who are obsessed with the Magic Kingdom. I think I’m just a woman who enjoys a special little outing at Christmastime. So, I decided to go to breakfast with Santa by myself this year in defiance of all those closest to me. The idea was to revisit a childhood tradition with the mind of a grown-up to see if it held up—and to see if partaking felt “inappropriate.” (The idea was also: pancakes on The Atlantic’s dime.) Could a case be made for breakfast with Santa, not just for children but for everyone?

    To maximize the intensity of the experience, I picked the breakfast with Santa on the sixth floor of Macy’s, the famous department store in Midtown Manhattan—arguably the birthplace of the modern concept of interacting one-on-one with Santa Claus (and of the set of Miracle on 34th Street, a charming but ultimately evil movie about manipulating your mother into leaving a gorgeous Manhattan apartment to move to Long Island). Breakfast would be $75—or $85 if I wanted a seat by the windows, which I did. I got an 8:30 a.m. reservation on Saturday.

    One thing I couldn’t consider in so many words as a kid was the fact that Santa is an adult, a stranger, and a celebrity. Most people, if they’re normal, aren’t comfortable walking into a new room and immediately approaching someone like that with the goal of asking them for something. The idea of the breakfast is that you get a longer festive experience, plenty of time to adjust to your surroundings and to the task at hand before executing it. “Santa is not just a stranger,” the child psychologist and writer Cara Goodwin pointed out when I posed this to her. From the perspective of a child, he’s also a stranger who is potentially judging them.

    Goodwin takes her own kids to a breakfast with Santa at a hotel in Charlottesville, Virginia. “Even if they’re not excited to meet Santa, you can say, ‘Okay, well, we’re going to have pancakes.’ That could be something they are motivated to do.” Then, while they’re eating their pancakes, Santa is just kind of walking around, so they get a chance to see him before they have to talk with him. This should take off some of the pressure, though the strategy is not without risk, obviously: If a kid is already starting to wonder whether Santa is real, they may find it suspicious that Santa is eating breakfast with them at a random hotel in Virginia.

    This wouldn’t be an issue for me, because, if the real Santa were going to have breakfast somewhere, the Macy’s in New York City would actually make sense. But thinking about the pancakes did help me get out the door. To avoid seeming overzealous, I wore a black turtleneck and an ankle-length brown skirt—one of the drearier outfits that has ever been worn to a breakfast with Santa. On the way to Manhattan, I watched a YouTube video of a previous breakfast with Santa at Macy’s to see if anybody was eating alone. The answer was no.

    I was seated, naturally, in between two families with young children. A little girl to my right, who was wearing the same red dress as her sister (classic) was trying to eat the whole ball of butter from the middle of the table (also classic). Three beautiful carolers in chic little white jackets, red gloves, and full stage makeup came over to sing “It’s the Most Wonderful Time of the Year” and “Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree” to our table cluster. They were great. I thought they must be among the hardest-working women in New York City show business, just singing their way from one end of the Macy’s dining room to the other, then back again, then back again.

    I was sorting through a generously full basket of mini pastries in the middle of my table when a woman in a suit came over and leaned down to my seated level. “Are you ready to meet Santa?” she asked me. I’m so glad she phrased it that way. “To meet Santa?” I said, stupidly. “No, actually, I’m not quite ready yet.” A few minutes later, a waiter brought me some coffee and asked, “Have you seen Santa yet?” I respected everybody’s commitment to talking with me about Santa as if he were real and actually there, even though there weren’t any children close enough to hear our conversation.

    “Even if you’re not Christian, we’re all pretending that Santa Claus is a real person,” Thalia Goldstein, an associate professor at George Mason University who co-authored a 2016 study with Woolley on belief in Santa Claus, told me. (There is a rich body of academic research on the psychology of Santa Claus, going back to at least the 1970s.) Goldstein referred to Santa Claus as a type of “cultural pretend play” that both kids and adults engage in. Like the professionals at Macy’s, she argued, everyone makes casual reference to Santa as a basic fact of the world. (This reminded me that, when I texted a friend to ask if she would go to breakfast with Santa with me, she didn’t say, “No, Santa Claus isn’t real.” She said, “Unfortunately, I can’t interact with Santa.”) (Because she’s Jewish.)

    “We as adults enjoy the tradition as well,” Woolley agreed when I repeated Goldstein’s point to her. Then I said that I had naturally been wary of coming off as an eccentric by attending breakfast with Santa alone. (The worst part about defying your mother is, of course, the possibility that she might be right.) There’s a thin but bright line between the totally acceptable behavior of referring casually to Santa as if he’s real—or implying that he is, by, for example, hanging a stocking on the mantel in your apartment—and the much more concerning act of appearing sincerely unable to give him up (“Christmas adults”). Woolley confessed that she had once been asked—as a Santa Claus expert with an impressive academic affiliation—to appear in a Macy’s ad campaign promoting belief in Santa Claus. They just wanted her to say “I believe in Santa Claus,” but she told them no. “I couldn’t make myself do that,” she said. She didn’t want to lie on TV, which seemed weirder than lying to her own children.

    Lucky for me, I wasn’t on television. Also, nobody really cares what you’re doing, almost ever, and I was enjoying myself. After my pancakes and my mimosa and my two coffees and my four or five Tater Tots and my two pieces of sausage and my bites of scrambled eggs and my tiny yogurt parfait, I was full and ready to meet Santa. I had only three minutes left in my allotted one hour at breakfast, so I flagged down my waiter and asked if it was too late. He went to find a manager. I did some nervous texting. Finally, the woman in the suit came back for me and led me over to Santa’s corner. “Have fun,” she said, not rudely, as she deposited me in line. “Are you the next family?” a woman dressed as an elf asked. (They treated me like an entire family of four the whole time I was there, which was why I was served so much food.)

    Santa and I had a warm and brief interaction. We took a photo together. He asked what I wanted for Christmas, and I said, “Oh, world peace,” to which he replied, “You have to find that within your heart.” This made no sense, but it was just right. I had a new Christmas memory: an irrational conversation with a guy in a fake beard who might have been younger than me, whose presence nevertheless added a whisper of magic to the experience of otherwise normal breakfast food and an otherwise dreary December day.

    Kaitlyn Tiffany

    Source link

  • You Really Don’t Want to Be Thirsty in a Heat Wave

    You Really Don’t Want to Be Thirsty in a Heat Wave

    The heat—miserable and oppressive—is not abating. Today, a third of Americans are under a heat alert as temperatures keep breaking records: Phoenix has hit 110 degrees Fahrenheit for two weeks straight, while this weekend Death Valley in California could surpass the all-time high of 130 degrees.

    Even less extreme heat than that can be dangerous. Recently, in Texas, Louisiana, part of Arizona, and Florida, there have been reports of deaths from heat, and many more hospitalizations. The toll of a heat wave is not always clear in the moment: A new report suggests that last summer’s historic heat wave in Europe killed more than 60,000 people.

    Ideally, you’d stay in the air-conditioned indoors as much as possible. That’s not an option for everyone. The other thing to do is stay hydrated. The importance of getting enough fluid is hard to overstate—and often underappreciated: Last month, the Texas state legislature banned local governments from mandating water breaks for construction workers. In the heat, hydration “impacts everything,” Stavros Kavouras, the director of the Hydration Science Lab at Arizona State University, in Phoenix, told me. And with temperatures continuing to rise, it’s essential to get it right.

    Serious dehydration is really, really bad for you. Your blood volume decreases, which makes your heart work less effectively. “Your ability to thermoregulate declines,” Kavouras told me, “so your body temperature is getting higher and higher.” You might feel weak or dizzy. Your heart rate rises; it gets harder to focus. The worst-case scenario is heatstroke, when your body stops being able to cool itself—a  potentially fatal medical emergency.

    In extreme temperatures, heat injuries can happen quicker than you might think. Given that the human body is mostly water, you might assume that there is some to spare, but inconveniently, this is not the case. “If you lose even 10 percent of [the water] your body has, you are entering the zone of serious clinical dehydration,” Kavouras said. “And if you look at optimal health, even losing just 1 percent of your body weight impacts your ability to function.” There are two basic ways your body cools itself when it gets hot. One is to send more blood to the skin, which releases heat from the core of your body, and is the reason you turn red when you’re overheated. The other is to sweat. It evaporates off your body, and in the process, your body loses excess heat. You can’t cool yourself as effectively if you’re not properly hydrated. At the same time, one of your main cooling mechanisms is actively dehydrating, which means the goal is not just to be hydrated, but to stay that way.

    What that takes depends on many factors rather than a single universal rule, but in general, the danger zone is “high humidity with anything above 90 degrees,” Kavouras said, at which point, “it’s actually dangerous” just to be outside. The more active you are in the heat, and the hotter and more humid it is, the greater the risk—and the more important proper hydration becomes. The standard water target in the U.S. during non-heat-wave times is 3.7 liters a day for men and 2.7 liters for women. When it’s very, very hot out, you need more. Even if you spend most of the day in the bliss of AC, you are almost certainly leaving the house at some point.

    Instead of trying to figure out what that precise amount should be, Kavouras recommends you focus on two things instead. “No. 1, keep water close to you. If you have water close to you, or whatever healthy beverage, you’ll end up drinking more, just because it’s closer,” he said. And second: Keep an eye on how often you pee—pale urine, six to seven times a day, or every two to three hours, is good. You want it to be “basically like a Chablis, a Riesling, Pinot Grigio, or champagne-colored,” John Higgins, a sports cardiologist at McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, in Houston, told me. “If you notice the urine is getting darker, like a Chardonnay- or Sauvignon Blanc–type of thing, that generally means you are dehydrated.”

    Certain groups are especially at risk. Older adults are more prone to dehydration, as are young children, people who are pregnant, and people taking certain medications—blood-pressure medications, for example. None of this requires you to take in extra fluids per se, just that you need to be even more careful that you’re getting enough.

    As for what to drink, as a go-to beverage, straight water is hard to beat. Water with fruit slices floating in it has the benefit of feeling like something from a luxury hotel. Carbonated water is also good—you might not be able to drink quite as much of it, which is a potential drawback, but “there is no mechanism in your GI system that will make sparkling water less effective at hydrating you,” Kavouras said. You probably want to avoid downing giant buckets of coffee—caffeine is a diuretic in large quantities and Higgins warns against sugary drinks for the same reason. (A daily iced coffee is fine.) If you’re doing hours of heavy sweating, then you might work in some (less sugary) sports drinks. But for the majority of people, water remains the ideal. Food can also be a fluid source: “Make sure you’re eating a diet that’s rich in vegetables and fruits that have water content,” William Adams, the director of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro’s Hydration, Environment and Thermal (H.E.A.T) Stress Lab, advised. Alcohol, which causes you to lose fluid, is definitively unhelpful.

    There are lots of water myths out there. Can you go too hard? Technically, it’s possible to over-hydrate, causing an electrolyte imbalance, but all three experts agreed that for most people, this isn’t really a concern. You can find arguments for drinking hot drinks in the summer—the idea being that they increase the amount you sweat, thereby promoting cooling. But Kavouras is emphatic that you’re better off with cold drinks, which cool your body, he said. In the moments before a race, marathon runners will sometimes take it one step further, slurping ice slurries to lower their body temperature. For good old-fashioned drinking water, about 50 degrees Fahrenheit is best—roughly the temperature of cool water from the tap.

    One final key to staying hydrated: Start early. A lot of people, Higgins said, are lightly dehydrated all the time, heat wave or not. “So particularly when you first wake up in the morning, typically you are in a dehydrated state.” Accordingly, he recommends that people drink about a standard water bottle’s worth—roughly 17 ounces—as soon as they wake up. The other thing people forget about, he said, is what happens when they come back inside after enduring the outdoors. “You keep sweating,” he pointed out. In other words: hydrate, and then keep hydrating.

    As crucial as hydration is, it is not a miracle. “It doesn’t mean that you can say, ‘I hydrate well, so I’ll go out for a run in the 120-degree weather, and I’ll be fine because I’m drinking a lot,’” Kavouras said. “It doesn’t work this way.” Still, it is a simple but effective tool. As heat waves like this one become even more frequent, many more people will need to learn how to become attuned to their hydration. And perhaps adequate water can be a perverse sort of comfort: You can’t control the unrelenting heat, but you likely can control your water intake. In a heat wave, it helps to have a glass-half-full attitude—and an emptied glass of water.


    This story is part of the Atlantic Planet series supported by HHMI’s Science and Educational Media Group.

    Rachel Sugar

    Source link

  • Ron DeSantis’s Joyless Ride

    Ron DeSantis’s Joyless Ride

    Real-life Ron DeSantis was here, finally. In the fidgety flesh; in Iowa, South Carolina, and, in this case, New Hampshire. Not some distant Sunshine State of potential or idealized Donald Trump alternative or voice in the far-off static of Twitter Spaces. But an actual human being interacting with other human beings, some 200 of them, packed into an American Legion hall in the town of Rochester.

    “Okay, smile, close-up,” an older woman told the Florida governor, trying to pull him in for another photo. DeSantis and his wife, Casey, had just finished a midday campaign event, and the governor was now working a quick rope line—emphasis on quick and double emphasis on working. The fast-talking first lady is much better suited to this than her halting husband. He smiled for the camera like the dentist had just asked him to bite down on a blob of putty; like he was trying to make a mold, or to fit one. It was more of a cringe than a grin.

    “Governor, I have a lot of relatives in Florida,” the next selfie guy told him. Everybody who meets DeSantis has relatives in Florida or a time-share on Clearwater Beach or a bunch of golf buddies who retired to the Villages. “Wow, really?” DeSantis said.

    He was trying. But this did not look fun for him.

    Retail politicking was never DeSantis’s gift. Not that it mattered much before, in the media-dominated expanse of Florida politics, where DeSantis has proved himself an elite culture warrior and troller of libs. DeSantis was reelected by 19 points last November. He calls himself the governor of the state “where woke goes to die,” which he believes will be a model for his presidency of the whole country, a red utopia in his own image.

    What does the on-paper promise of DeSantis look like in practice? DeSantis has performed a number of these in-person chores in recent days, after announcing his presidential campaign on May 24 in a glitchy Twitter Spaces appearance with Elon Musk.

    As I watched him complete his rounds in New Hampshire on Thursday—visits to a VFW hall, an Elks Club, and a community college, in addition to the American Legion post—the essential duality of his campaign was laid bare: DeSantis is the ultimate performative politician when it comes to demonstrating outrage and “kneecapping” various woke abuses—but not so much when it comes to the actual in-person performance of politics.

    The campaign billed his appearance in Rochester as a “fireside chat.” (The outside temperature was 90 degrees, and there was no actual fire.) The governor and first lady also held fireside chats this week at a welding shop in Salix, Iowa, and at an event space in Lexington, South Carolina. The term conjures the great American tradition started by President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression. Those were scary times—grim visages of malnourished kids and food riots and businessmen selling pencils on the street. FDR’s cozy evenings around the radio hearth were meant to project comfort and avuncular authority.

    Sitting on gray armchairs onstage in Rochester—Casey cross-legged and Ron man-spread—the DeSanti reassured their audience that the Florida governor was the candidate best equipped to protect Americans from contemporary threats no less serious than stock-market crashes and bank closures. He was focused on a distinct set of modern menaces: “woke indoctrination” and “woke militaries” and “woke mind viruses” and “woke mobs” that endanger every institution of American life. He used woke more than a dozen times at each event (I counted).

    Also, DeSantis said he’s a big supporter of “the death penalty for pedophiles” (applause); reminded every audience that he’d sent dozens of migrants to “beautiful Martha’s Vineyard” (bigger applause); and promised to end “this Faucian dystopia” around COVID once and for all (biggest applause).

    Also, George Soros (boo).

    Casey talked at each New Hampshire stop about the couple’s three young children, often in the vein of how adorably naughty they are—how they write on the walls of the governor’s mansion with permanent markers and leave crayon stains on the carpets. Ron spoke in personal terms less often, but when he did, it was usually to prove that he understands the need to protect kids from being preyed upon by the various and ruthless forces of wokeness. One recurring example on Thursday involved how outrageous it is that in certain swim competitions, a girl might wind up being defeated by a transgender opponent. “I’m particularly worried about this as the father of two daughters,” DeSantis told the Rochester crowd.

    This played well in the room full of committed Republicans and likely primary voters, as it does on Fox. Clearly, this is a fraught and divisive issue, but one that’s been given outsized attention in recent years, especially in relation to the portion of the population it directly affects. By comparison, DeSantis never mentioned gun violence, the leading cause of death for children in this country, including many in his state (the site of the horrific Parkland massacre of 2018, the year before he became governor). DeSantis readily opts for the culture-war terrain, ignoring the rest, pretty much everywhere he goes.

    His whole act can feel like a clunky contrivance—a forced persona railing against phony or hyped-up outrages. He can be irascible. Steve Peoples, a reporter for the Associated Press, approached DeSantis after a speech at a VFW hall in Laconia and asked the governor why he hadn’t taken any questions from the audience. “Are you blind?” DeSantis snapped at Peoples. “Are you blind? Okay, so, people are coming up to me, talking to me [about] whatever they want to talk to me about.”

    No one in the room cared about this little outburst besides the reporters (who sent a clip of it bouncing across social media within minutes). And if the voters did care, it would probably reflect well on DeSantis in their eyes, demonstrating his willingness to get in the media’s face.

    Journalists who managed to get near DeSantis this week unfailingly asked him about Donald Trump, the leading GOP candidate. In Rochester, NBC’s Gabe Gutierrez wondered about the former president’s claim that he would eliminate the federal government’s “administrative state” within six months of a second term. “Why didn’t you do it when you had four years?” DeSantis shot back.

    In general, though, DeSantis didn’t mention Trump without being prompted—at least not explicitly. He drew clear, if barely veiled, contrasts. “I will end the culture of losing in the Republican Party,” he vowed Thursday night in Manchester. Unsaid, obviously, is that the GOP has underperformed in the past three national elections—and no one is more to blame than Trump and the various MAGA disciples he dragged into those campaigns.

    “Politics is not about building a brand,” DeSantis went on to say. What matters is competence and conviction, not charisma. “My husband will never back down!” Casey added in support. In other words: He is effective and he will follow through and actually do real things, unlike you-know-who.

    “Politics is not about entertainment,” DeSantis said in all of his New Hampshire speeches, usually at the end. He might be trying to prove as much.

    Mark Leibovich

    Source link

  • The Marijuana-Legalization Conundrum – Medical Marijuana Program Connection

    The Marijuana-Legalization Conundrum – Medical Marijuana Program Connection

    … for their views about marijuana legalization.
    Laurie laments the … lack of regulation for marijuana advertising. Despite the multiple … that clearly show that marijuana adversely affects the developing … of alcohol, what makes marijuana different?
    Russell has been …

    Original Author Link click here to read complete story..

    MMP News Author

    Source link

  • Norovirus Is Almost Impossible to Stop

    Norovirus Is Almost Impossible to Stop

    In one very specific and mostly benign way, it’s starting to feel a lot like the spring of 2020: Disinfection is back.

    “Bleach is my friend right now,” says Annette Cameron, a pediatrician at Yale School of Medicine, who spent the first half of this week spraying and sloshing the potent chemical all over her home. It’s one of the few tools she has to combat norovirus, the nasty gut pathogen that her 15-year-old son was recently shedding in gobs.

    Right now, hordes of people in the Northern Hemisphere are in a similarly crummy situation. In recent weeks, norovirus has seeded outbreaks in several countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. Last week, the U.K. Health Security Agency announced that laboratory reports of the virus had risen to levels 66 percent higher than what’s typical this time of year. Especially hard-hit are Brits 65 and older, who are falling ill at rates that “haven’t been seen in over a decade.”

    Americans could be heading into a rough stretch themselves, Caitlin Rivers, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, told me, given how closely the U.S.’s epidemiological patterns tend to follow those of the U.K. “It does seem like there’s a burst of activity right now,” says Nihal Altan-Bonnet, a norovirus researcher at the National Institutes of Health. At her own practice, Cameron has been seeing the number of vomiting and diarrhea cases among her patients steadily tick up. (Other pathogens can cause gastrointestinal symptoms as well, but norovirus is the most common cause of foodborne illness in the United States.)

    To be clear, this is more a nauseating nuisance than a public-health crisis. In most people, norovirus triggers, at most, a few miserable days of GI distress that can include vomiting, diarrhea, and fevers, then resolves on its own; the keys are to stay hydrated and avoid spreading it to anyone vulnerable—little kids, older adults, the immunocompromised. The U.S. logs fewer than 1,000 annual deaths out of millions of documented cases. In other high-income countries, too, severe outcomes are very rare, though the virus is far more deadly in parts of the world with limited access to sanitation and potable water.

    Still, fighting norovirus isn’t easy, as plenty of parents can attest. The pathogen, which prompts the body to expel infectious material from both ends of the digestive tract, is seriously gross and frustratingly hardy. Even the old COVID standby, a spritz of hand sanitizer, doesn’t work against it—the virus is encased in a tough protein shell that makes it insensitive to alcohol. Some have estimated that ingesting as few as 18 infectious units of virus can be enough to sicken someone, “and normally, what’s getting shed is in the billions,” says Megan Baldridge, a virologist and immunologist at Washington University in St. Louis. At an extreme, a single gram of feces—roughly the heft of a jelly bean—could contain as many as 5.5 billion infectious doses, enough to send the entire population of Eurasia sprinting for the toilet.

    Unlike flu and RSV, two other pathogens that have bounced back to prominence in recent months, norovirus mainly targets the gut, and spreads especially well when people swallow viral particles that have been released in someone else’s vomit or stool. (Despite its “stomach flu” nickname, norovirus is not a flu virus.) But direct contact with those substances, or the food or water they contaminate, may not even be necessary: Sometimes people vomit with such force that the virus gets aerosolized; toilets, especially lidless ones, can send out plumes of infection like an Air Wick from hell. And Altan-Bonnet’s team has found that saliva may be an unappreciated reservoir for norovirus, at least in laboratory animals. If the spittle finding holds for humans, then talking, singing, and laughing in close proximity could be risky too.

    Once emitted into the environment, norovirus particles can persist on surfaces for days—making frequent hand-washing and surface disinfection key measures to prevent spread, says Ibukun Kalu, a pediatric infectious-disease specialist at Duke University. Handshakes and shared meals tend to get dicey during outbreaks, along with frequently touched items such as utensils, door handles, and phones. One 2012 study pointed to a woven plastic grocery bag as the source of a small outbreak among a group of teenage soccer players; the bag had just been sitting in a bathroom used by one of the girls when she fell sick the night before.

    Once a norovirus transmission chain begins, it can be very difficult to break. The virus can spread before symptoms start, and then for more than a week after they resolve. To make matters worse, immunity to the virus tends to be short-lived, lasting just a few months even against a genetically identical strain, Baldridge told me.

    Day cares, cruise ships, schools, restaurants, military training camps, prisons, and long-term-care facilities can be common venues for norovirus spread. “I did research with the Navy, and it just goes through like wildfire,” often sickening more than half the people on tightly packed ships, says Robert Frenck, the director of the Vaccine Research Center at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. Households, too, are highly susceptible to spread: Once the virus arrives, the entire family is almost sure to be infected. Baldridge, who has two young children, told me that her household has weathered at least four bouts of norovirus in the past several years.

    (A pause for some irony: In spite of norovirus’s infectiousness, scientists did not succeed in culturing it in labs until just a few years ago, after nearly half a century of research. When researchers design challenge trials to, say, test new vaccines, they still need to dose volunteers with norovirus that’s been extracted from patient stool, a gnarly practice that’s been around for more than 50 years.)

    Norovirus spread doesn’t have to be a foregone conclusion. Some people do get lucky: Roughly 20 percent of European populations, for instance, are genetically resistant to common norovirus strains. “So you can hope,” Frenck told me. For the rest of us, it comes down to hygiene. Altan-Bonnet recommends diligent hand-washing, plus masking to ward off droplet-borne virus. Sick people should isolate themselves if they can. “And keep your saliva to yourself,” she told me.

    Rivers and Cameron have both managed to halt the virus in their homes in the past; Cameron may have pulled it off again this week. The family fastidiously scrubbed their hands with hot water and soap, donned disposable gloves when touching shared surfaces, and took advantage of the virus’s susceptibility to harsh chemicals and heat. When her son threw up on the floor, Cameron sprayed it down with bleach; when he vomited on his quilt, she blasted it twice in the washing machine on the sanitizing setting, then put it through the dryer at a super high temp. Now a couple of days out from the end of their son’s sickness, Cameron and her husband appear to have escaped unscathed.

    Norovirus isn’t new, and this won’t be the last time it hits. In a lot of ways, “this is back to basics,” says Samina Bhumbra, the medical director of infection prevention at Riley Children’s Hospital. After three years of COVID, the world has gotten used to thinking about infections in terms of airways. “We need to recalibrate,” Bhumbra told me, “and remember that other things exist.”

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

  • A Republican Congresswoman’s Lasting Regret

    A Republican Congresswoman’s Lasting Regret

    Among the things Jaime Herrera Beutler remembers about January 6, 2021, is that her husband managed to turn off the television just in time.

    He was at home with their three young children in southwestern Washington State when the riot began. It had taken him a few moments to make out the shaky footage of the mob as it tore through the Capitol. Then he started to recognize the hallways, the various corridors that he knew led to the House floor, where his wife was preparing to break from her party and speak in favor of certifying the 2020 presidential election for Joe Biden. He grabbed the remote before the kids could register what was about to happen.

    It was a few moments later that Herrera Beutler, huddled among her Republican colleagues, heard the door. “I will never forget the pounding,” she told me recently: Boom, boom, boom.

    Before January 6, Herrera Beutler was a purple-district congresswoman who had spent most of her 12-year tenure removed from controversy, passing legislation on bipartisan issues such as maternal health and endangered wildlife while maintaining a social conservatism that kept her in good standing with the base. In the weeks that followed the insurrection, however, when she and nine other House Republicans voted to impeach President Donald Trump, the 44-year-old found herself the pariah of a party whose broader membership, for most of her career, had not precisely known she existed. Today, when the 118th Congress is sworn in, she, like all but two of the Republicans who voted to impeach, will find herself out of office.

    In an interview with The Atlantic about her six terms in the House and the Trump-backed primary challenge that ousted her, Herrera Beutler remained convinced of Trump’s culpability for the events of January 6. Yet she appeared still bewildered that a crisis of such magnitude had come to pass, and that not even her own constituents were immune to Trump’s propaganda about the 2020 election and the insurrection itself. “I didn’t know that I had so many people who would be like, ‘What are you talking about? This was a peaceful protest,’” she told me. “I had no idea the depth of misinformation people were receiving, especially in my own home.”

    Throughout our conversation, it was clear that the insurrection’s fallout hadn’t changed Herrera Beutler the way it had Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger, the two Republicans who sat on the January 6 committee and who have publicly committed themselves to keeping Trump out of office. These and other Republicans who retired or lost their seats after voting to impeach Trump have seemed liberated to speak about the GOP’s widespread delusion over election fraud. But Herrera Beutler is different: refusing to say that the forces of Trumpism have triggered a fundamental shift in her party, even as her own career was upended by them. Despite two years of hindsight, she seems to have rationalized her party’s continued promotion of lies concerning January 6 as a function of tactical error—believing that had Republicans and Democrats agreed to proceed with witnesses during Trump’s impeachment trial, and had she communicated the stakes differently back home, her base would have rejected the conspiracy theories and accepted Trump’s guilt. “I know a majority of the Republicans who disagree with me on impeachment, had they seen and talked to the people that I had, and had they seen what I saw—I have no doubt about where they would have come down,” she said. “I really don’t.”

    That Herrera Beutler has arrived at this conviction might seem naive but is in many ways understandable. For the better part of 12 years, she has been reinforced in the idea that the Republicans in her district are ideologically independent, cocooned from the national party as it leaps from one identity to the next. In her first bid for Congress, at the height of the Tea Party wave, she easily beat challengers from the right to become, at just 31 years old, the first Hispanic to represent Washington State in Congress. She had barely unpacked before the media christened her the future of her party. To the disappointment of the Republican leadership, however, the young and charismatic statehouse veteran wasn’t terribly interested in developing a national profile. Over the next several years, Herrera Beutler instead oriented her office around the hyperlocal work her constituents seemed to prefer—efforts such as expanding the forest-products industry and protecting the Columbia River’s salmon and steelhead runs from sea lions.

    On January 6, Herrera Beutler’s career moved onto alien terrain. Immediately after the insurrection, she directed her staff to start making calls, to find out where Trump had been during the rioting and why. Late that afternoon, she texted White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows for answers—“We need to hear from the president. On TV,” she sent, to no response—and, on January 11, two days before the impeachment vote, she privately pressed Kevin McCarthy for his impression of Trump’s culpability. During their conversation, the House minority leader confessed that the president had refused his pleas over the phone to call off the rioters—that as they smashed the windows of McCarthy’s office, Trump accused him of not caring enough about purported election fraud. For Herrera Beutler, it was enough to prove Trump’s guilt. In a press release the next day, and later a town hall back in her district, she invoked the conversation with McCarthy to explain her decision to vote to impeach.

    At the time, she hadn’t thought twice about airing the details of the Trump-McCarthy call. In the context of the various other things that she and the public had learned by that point, she told me, “I didn’t think it was unique or profound.” In fact, for McCarthy’s reputation, it was. The California Republican would soon make something of a penance visit to Trump at Mar-a-Lago, despite having been, according to Herrera Beutler and other (anonymous) Republican members who were privy to details of the call, terrified and livid at the height of the insurrection, acutely aware of Trump’s real-time recognition of the danger and refusal to do anything about it. Before long, Herrera Beutler’s revelation about the Trump-McCarthy call became the lead story on CNN. Jamie Raskin, the House Democrat managing Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate, suddenly wanted to know everything about this congresswoman he had hardly heard of.

    For Herrera Beutler, the attention was unlike anything she’d experienced. “I wasn’t trying to insert myself into the national conversation,” she told me. “I wasn’t trying to be the, you know …” She trailed off, seemingly trying to say something like the truth teller. She was open to testifying in the impeachment trial and contacted Nancy Pelosi’s counsel about how to proceed, according to reporting by Rachael Bade and Karoun Demirjian in Unchecked, yet the House speaker’s attorney never relayed the message to Raskin and his staff. With zero surefire commitments from Republican witnesses to Trump’s conduct during the riot, and facing pressure from his own party not to gum up the 46th president’s honeymoon period with proceedings against the 45th, Raskin rushed the trial to a close.

    If Herrera Beutler had pushed more publicly to testify, would Raskin have charged ahead and subpoenaed others? Would it have changed the final vote in the Senate? It’s impossible to say. But for Herrera Beutler, the outcome remains bound up in regret. She said it was “overwhelming” when she began to realize “that good people, honest people, amazing people that I knew” believed, for example, that antifa had orchestrated the riot. “Because, at that point, what could I do?” In retrospect, she believes that pushing ahead with a full trial, before public opinion about January 6 could “bake,” as she puts it, might have plugged the flow of conspiracies in her district and elsewhere. The implication, left unsaid, is that it also might have changed the outcome of her primary. “Had we made everything as public as we could at that moment, I think that we could have come to a better agreed-upon actual history of what happened,” she said. “That’s the only thing that I wish I had known—I moved into this thinking we all had the same information, and we didn’t.”

    Though she said she appreciates the “sense of duty” of the lawmakers on the January 6 committee—whose final report was published just before we spoke—Herrera Beutler was pessimistic about the resonance of their work. “The challenge for me with the committee was that the 70 million people who voted for Trump are never going to get anything out of that,” she said. “And that’s who I wanted to move.”

    This past August, a Trump-backed Republican and former Green Beret named Joe Kent, who had promoted the former president’s lies about the 2020 election, defeated Herrera Beutler in the Third Congressional District’s jungle primary. (Two months later, Kent narrowly lost the general election to Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, who will be the first Democrat in the seat since Herrera Beutler took office in 2011.) On the one hand, Herrera Beutler seems clear-eyed about the forces behind her loss. “It’s just turned into such a tit-for-tat on personality things, and I think my base has definitely at times wanted to see more of that from me,” she said. “And that’s probably part of why the guy in my race made it as far as he did, because that was his oxygen—scratching that itch and making people feel justified in their ideas.”

    On the other hand, Herrera Beutler at various times in our conversation expressed an optimism about the future of Republican politics that seemed unmoored from the fact that her party’s base had rejected her. In criticizing both Republican and Democratic lawmakers she called “members in tweet only,” she said she often wondered what their constituents think “when they don’t get anything done—like when they can’t help a local hospital with a permit, or when Grandma can’t get her spouse’s disability payment from the VA.” “I don’t know if they just speechify when they go home,” she said, “but I know that the American people are going to get tired of that. It’s just a question of when, and under what circumstance.” The broader results of the midterm elections, in which numerous Republicans in the mold of Kent ultimately lost to Democrats, would seem to prove her point. But the results of countless Republican primaries, including the victories of election deniers such as Kari Lake in Arizona, indicate that the “when” is likely still far off.

    Perhaps one reason Herrera Beutler insists that a “restoration is coming” for the Republican Party: She’s probably going to run again. She won’t say so definitively; she told me she’s looking forward to living in one place with her family and “just being functional.” “I mean, would I be shocked if I ran for something? At some point in my future? No,” she said. The sheer possibility might explain her unwillingness to speak candidly about her party’s current leaders, even two years after the cumulative letdown of January 6. Reports have suggested that her long and friendly relationship with McCarthy, for instance, ruptured after she inadvertently exposed his two-faced response to the insurrection. Bade and Demirjian have written that the House Republican leader exploded at Herrera Beutler, making her cry. (In a joint statement, McCarthy and Herrera Beutler denied that this happened.) When I asked Herrera Beutler for her thoughts about McCarthy’s current bid for the speakership, she demurred, saying, “I don’t want to be the one who comments on that.”

    It wasn’t her place, she reasoned. She no longer has a voice in how the House Republican conference chooses to lead. And in the end, even if she is reluctant to acknowledge it, few things constitute more of an indictment of her party than this. All of the qualities that once fueled Herrera Beutler’s rise are still there. She is still a young Hispanic woman in a party that skews old, white, and male. She still rhapsodizes about individual liberty, still considers herself a social conservative in a moment when the Republican stance on abortion seems as unpopular as it ever has. But in little more than a decade, Herrera Beutler has gone from being the future of the party to a casualty of one vote.

    Three thousand miles away from Capitol Hill, she begins the work of moving on. She wants to continue to serve the public, she told me, but as a private citizen for the first time since her 20s, she’s still trying to figure out what that means. “I need a cause, something that gives me something to fight for,” she said. “And I just don’t know yet what that’s going to be.”

    Elaina Plott Calabro

    Source link

  • The Strongest Signal That Americans Should Worry About Flu This Winter

    The Strongest Signal That Americans Should Worry About Flu This Winter

    Sometime in the spring of 2020, after centuries, perhaps millennia, of tumultuous coexistence with humans, influenza abruptly went dark. Around the globe, documented cases of the viral infection completely cratered as the world tried to counteract SARS-CoV-2. This time last year, American experts began to fret that the flu’s unprecedented sabbatical was too bizarre to last: Perhaps the group of viruses that cause the disease would be poised for an epic comeback, slamming us with “a little more punch” than usual, Richard Webby, an influenza expert at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, in Tennessee, told me at the time.

    But those fears did not not come to pass. Flu’s winter 2021 season in the Southern Hemisphere was once again eerily silent; in the north, cases sneaked up in December—only to peter out before a lackluster reprise in the spring.

    Now, as the weather once again chills in this hemisphere and the winter holidays loom, experts are nervously looking ahead. After skipping two seasons in the Southern Hemisphere, flu spent 2022 hopping across the planet’s lower half with more fervor than it’s had since the COVID crisis began. And of the three years of the pandemic that have played out so far, this one is previewing the strongest signs yet of a rough flu season ahead.

    It’s still very possible that the flu will fizzle into mildness for the third year in a row, making experts’ gloomier suspicions welcomingly wrong. Then again, this year is, virologically, nothing like the last. Australia recently wrapped an unusually early and “very significant” season with flu viruses, says Kanta Subbarao, the director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza at the Doherty Institute. By sheer confirmed case counts, this season was one of the country’s worst in several years. In South Africa, “it’s been a very typical flu season” by pre-pandemic standards, which is still enough to be of note, according to Cheryl Cohen, a co-head of the country’s Centre for Respiratory Disease and Meningitis at the National Institute for Communicable Diseases. After a long, long hiatus, Subbarao told me, flu in the Southern Hemisphere “is certainly back.”

    That does not bode terribly well for those of us up north. The same viruses that seed outbreaks in the south tend to be the ones that sprout epidemics here as the seasons do their annual flip. “I take the south as an indicator,” says Seema Lakdawala, a flu-transmission expert at Emory University. And should flu return here, too, with a vengeance, it will collide with a population that hasn’t seen its likes in years, and is already trying to marshal responses to several dangerous pathogens at once.

    The worst-case scenario won’t necessarily pan out. What goes on below the equator is never a perfect predictor for what will occur above it: Even during peacetime, “we’re pretty bad in terms of predicting what a flu season is going to look like,” Webby, of St. Jude, told me. COVID, and the world’s responses to it, have put experts’ few forecasting tools further on the fritz. But the south’s experiences can still be telling. In South Africa and Australia, for instance, many COVID-mitigation measures, such as universal masking recommendations and post-travel quarantines, lifted as winter arrived, allowing a glut of respiratory viruses to percolate through the population. The flu flood also began after two essentially flu-less years—which is a good thing at face value, but also represents many months of missed opportunities to refresh people’s anti-flu defenses, leaving them more vulnerable at the season’s start.

    Some of the same factors are working against those of us north of the equator, perhaps to an even greater degree. Here, too, the population is starting at a lower defensive baseline against flu—especially young children, many of whom have never tussled with the viruses. It’s “very, very likely” that kids may end up disproportionately hit, Webby said, as they appear to have been in Australia—though Subbarao notes that this trend may have been driven by more cautious behaviors among older populations, skewing illness younger.

    Interest in inoculations has also dropped during the pandemic: After more than a year of calls for booster after booster, “people have a lot of fatigue,” says Helen Chu, a physician and flu expert at the University of Washington, and that exhaustion may be driving already low interest in flu shots even further down. (During good years, flu-shot uptake in the U.S. peaks around 50 percent.) And the few protections against viruses that were still in place last winter have now almost entirely vanished. In particular, schools—a fixture of flu transmission—have loosened up enormously since last year. There’s also just “much more flu around,” all over the global map, Webby said. With international travel back in full swing, the viruses will get that many more chances to hopscotch across borders and ignite an outbreak. And should such an epidemic emerge, with its health infrastructure already under strain from simultaneous outbreaks of COVID, monkeypox, and polio, America may not handle another addition well. “Overall,” Chu told me, “we are not well prepared.”

    At the same time, though, countries around the world have taken such different approaches to COVID mitigation that the pandemic may have further uncoupled their flu-season fate. Australia’s experience with the flu, for instance, started, peaked, and ended early this year; the new arrival of more relaxed travel policies likely played a role in the outbreak’s beginning, before a mid-year BA.5 surge potentially hastened the sudden drop. It’s also very unclear whether the U.S. may be better or worse off because its last flu season was wimpy, weirdly shaped, and unusually late. South Africa saw an atypical summer bump in flu activity as well; those infections may have left behind a fresh dusting of immunity and blunted the severity of the following season, Cohen told me. But it’s always hard to tell. “I was quite strong in saying that I really believed that South Africa was going to have a severe season,” she said. “And it seems that I was wrong.” The long summer tail of the Northern Hemisphere’s most recent flu season could also exacerbate the intensity of the coming winter season, says John McCauley, the director of the Worldwide Influenza Centre at the Francis Crick Institute, in London. Kept going in their off-season, the viruses may have an easier vantage point from which to reemerge this winter.

    COVID’s crush has shifted flu dynamics on the whole as well. The pandemic “squeezed out” a lot of diversity from the influenza-virus population, Webby told me; some lineages may have even entirely blipped out. But others could also still be stewing and mutating, potentially in animals or unmonitored pockets of the world. That these strains—which harbor especially large pandemic potential—could emerge into the general population is “my bigger concern,” Lakdawala, of Emory, told me. And although the particular strains of flu that are circulating most avidly seem reasonably well matched to this year’s vaccines, the dominant strains that attack the north could yet shift, says Florian Krammer, a flu virologist at Mount Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine. Viruses also tend to wobble and hop when they return from long vacations; it may take a season or two before the flu finds its usual rhythm.

    Another epic SARS-CoV-2 variant could also quash a would-be influenza peak. Flu cases rose at the end of 2021, and the dreaded “twindemic” loomed. But then, Omicron hit—and flu “basically disappeared for one and a half months,” Krammer told me, only tiptoeing back onto the scene after COVID cases dropped. Some experts suspect that the immune system may have played a role in this tag-team act: Although co-infections or sequential infections of SARS-CoV-2 and flu viruses are possible, the aggressive spread of a new coronavirus variant may have set people’s defenses on high alert, making it that much harder for another pathogen to gain a foothold.

    No matter the odds we enter flu season with, human behavior can still alter winter’s course. One of the main reasons that flu viruses have been so absent the past few years is because mitigation measures have kept them at bay. “People understand transmission more than they ever did before,” Lakdawala told me. Subbarao thinks COVID wisdom is what helped keep Australian flu deaths down, despite the gargantuan swell in cases: Older people took note of the actions that thwarted the coronavirus and applied those same lessons to flu. Perhaps populations across the Northern Hemisphere will act in similar ways. “I would hope that we’ve actually learned how to deal with infectious disease more seriously,” McCauley told me.

    But Webby isn’t sure that he’s optimistic. “People have had enough hearing about viruses in general,” he told me. Flu, unfortunately, does not feel similarly about us.

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link