among newborns (0–2 months), RSV hospitalizations fell 52 percent

there was a 71 percent decline in hospitalizations in NVSN

0 to 7 months old—RSV-NET showed a 43 percent drop in hospitalizations

NVSN data, there was a 56 percent drop.

Shit like that is fucking huge, and makes me get some happy misty eyes thinking of the people whose lives have just been made better because of this.
30 to 40 thousand kids kept out of the hospital. Some heart wrenching portion of that as lives saved.
Every year. And that’s in the US alone!

I hope the researchers who worked on this feel appropriately proud.

Suggest she talk to her OB sooner rather than later. The window for the maternal vaccination is reasonably narrow, and some places where you might routinely get a vaccine aren’t accustomed to it yet and might take longer than expected to work through it. (If they give the vaccine too early the antibodies don’t transfer as helpfully, and too late and they don’t have enough time to develop and transfer)

My wife had a hell of a time getting it from the usual place we get flu and COVID shots because it was a more nuanced criteria and they, reasonably, didn’t want to give a treatment outside of approved guidelines. Eventually the OB said the back and forth was silly and had someone go get a dose from the hospital pharmacy and just gave it during the office visit.

It’s literally a lifesaver. We had twins that were born premature, which is a major risk factor. At six months we all got it, and one was miserable but fine, and the other required a relatively non-invasive hospital stay for extra monitoring for a few days.
Given the giant risk factors we had, without the vaccines it would have been a much more scary time, and it was already basically textbook Not-a-great-time.

I feel like I could be persuaded either way, but I lean towards allowing them during sentencing.
I don’t think “it’s an appeal to emotion” is a compelling argument in that context because it’s no longer about establishing truth like the trial is, but about determining punishment and restitution.

Justice isn’t just about the offender or society, it’s also indelibly tied to the victim. Giving them a voice for how they, as the wronged party, would see justice served seems important for it’s role in providing justice, not just the rote application of law.

Obviously you can’t just have the victim decide, but the judges entire job is to ensure fairness, often in the face of strong feelings and contentious circumstances.

Legitimately interested to hear why your opinion is what it is in more detail.

I took no offense, just explaining that there are too many verbs for me to say “yes” or “no”, and so I couldn’t reply to your yes or no question other than with a restatement of my feelings.

Hearsay is allowed in sentencing statements, and Arizona allows those statements to be in a format of their choice.

It’s the phase of the process where the judge hears opinions on what he should sentence the culprit to, so none of it is evidence or treated as anything other than an emotive statement.

In this case, the sister made two statements: one in the form of a letter where she asked for the maximum sentence, and another in the form of this animation of her brother where she said that he wouldn’t want that and would ask for leniency.

It’s gross, but it’s not the miscarriage of justice that it seems like from first glance. It was accepted in the same way a poem titled “what my brother would say to you” would be.

Reading a bit more, during the sentencing phase in that state people making victim impact statements can choose their format for expression, and it’s entirely allowed to make statements about what other people would say. So the judge didn’t actually have grounds to deny it.
No jury during that phase, so it’s just the judge listening to free form requests in both directions.

It’s gross, but the rules very much allow the sister to make a statement about what she believes her brother would have wanted to say, in whatever format she wanted.

Jessica Gattuso, the victim’s right attorney that worked with Pelkey’s family, told 404 Media that Arizona’s laws made the AI testimony possible. “We have a victim’s bill of rights,” she said. “[Victims] have the discretion to pick what format they’d like to give the statement. So I didn’t see any issues with the AI and there was no objection. I don’t believe anyone thought there was an issue with it.”

Gattuso said she understood the concerns, but felt that Pelkey’s AI avatar was handled deftly. “Stacey was up front and the video itself…said it was AI generated. We were very careful to make sure it was clear that these were the words that the family believed Christopher would have to say,” she said. “At no point did anyone try to pass it off as Chris’ own words.”

The prosecution against Horcasitas was only seeking nine years for the killing. The maximum was 10 and a half years. Stacey had asked the judge for the full sentence during her own impact statement. The judge granted her request, something Stacey credits—in part—to the AI video.

From a different article quoting a former judge in the court:

“There are going to be critics, but they picked the right forum to do it. In a trial with a jury you couldn’t do it, but with sentencing, everything is open, hearsay is admissible, both sides can get up and express what they want to do,” McDonald said.

“The power of it was that the judge had to see the gentleness, the kindness, the feeling of sincerity and having his sister say, ‘Well we don’t agree with it, this is what he would’ve wanted the court to know’,” he said.

I don’t like it, and it feels dirty to me, but since the law allows them to express basically whatever they want in whatever format they want during this phase, it doesn’t seem harmful in this case, just gross.

I actually think it’s a little more gross that the family was able to be that forthright and say that the victim would not want what they were asking for, and still ask for it.

It says in the article that the judge gave the maximum sentence.

The sister who created the video gave a statement as herself asking for something different from what she believed her brother would have wanted, which she chose to express in this fashion.

I don’t think it was a good thing to do, but it’s worth noting that the judges statement is basically “that was a beautiful statement, and he seemed like a good man”, not an application of leniency.

That’s a lot of verbs for a simple answer.

I’m fine with medical experts making medical decisions based on patient needs and scientific consensus.
Scientific consensus is currently in flux because recent studies have conflicted with earlier studies.
Advising that different treatment options take priority while additional research is done isn’t wrong.

When elected officials and the general public start dictating what treatments people are allowed to get regardless of medical opinion or patient wishes I start to get concerned that it’s less about patient care and more about public opinion.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25362284-hegseth-police-report/

https://apnews.com/article/hegseth-sex-assault-payment-trump-6674cc8cfee654c374725948e01ff666

As with all things legal in nature, he raped someone in the lay sense of the word. Legally speaking, he was accused and investigated for sexual assault, with law enforcement finding sufficient grounds to forward the case to prosecutors, who declined to press charges due to lack of sufficient evidence. He later paid the woman $50,000 not to sue in civil court.

What’s insufficient for the courts is more than enough to justify calling him a rapist, particularly since the police usually decline to refer rape cases to prosecutors at all, when they’re even reported to police in an investigative capacity.

I would push back slightly on the term “ban”.
The US has parties pushing for a ban, which entails it becoming a punishable offense to offer the treatment to children.
As far as I’m aware, European countries have shifted standards of care in response to changing data, and De-Emphasized the treatment in favor of other avenues.

European policies are notably different from the outright bans for adolescents passed in 22 U.S. states, some of which threaten doctors with prison time or investigate parents for child abuse. The European countries will still allow gender treatments for certain adolescents and are requiring new clinical trials to study and better understand their effects.

“We haven’t banned the treatment,” said Dr. Mette Ewers Haahr, a psychiatrist who leads Denmark’s sole youth gender clinic, in Copenhagen. Effective treatments must consider human rights and patient safety, she said. “You have to weigh both.”

Although I tend to align with the American academy of pediatrics, as long as it’s a reasoned, evidence based conversation developing standards of care that are then applied by the care team working with the patient and their parents it seems appropriate to me. That leaves the standards of “good medicine” in the realm of public experts, and the specifics of treatment to the experts directly working with the person in question and let’s them make the appropriate choices and consultation.

And your concern is that people can’t take issue with more than one thing at once? Did those stupid things he’s done recently make him not a rapist with a concerning alcohol problem?

Come to think of it, why does it matter if he raped someone before being appointed or not? We shouldn’t have a rapist as the secretary of defense regardless of when he did it. Likewise we shouldn’t have someone with a concerning alcohol problem handling classified military information.

Frankly speaking, “drunken rapist” is the closest you’re going to get to a “middle of the road” concern about a candidate. Not that it mattered, since as you point out, only the left seems to care about “not putting rapists in positions of high power”.

It’s weird how we let children do all sorts of medically warranted things with parental consent under the consultation of a medical professional. It’s almost like if consent is the issue, then the entire topic is a non-issue because we’ve already got a system in place.
You don’t need to consent to other people’s children’s medical care. It’s none of your business. Fuck off you nosy bastard.

None of that, or your oft mentioned papers, have anything to do with the fact that it’s a vanishingly rare occurrence and not worth caring about. I honestly do not care if a trans woman is better at basketball or not. It’s sports, it doesn’t really matter unlike “respecting people”, which does matter.

As for 3… Has it ever happened? And what does it have to do with transgender people? Do they check your ID for gender on the way into the bathroom? What’s to stop a cis man from walking into a woman’s bathroom and doing whatever you’re afraid of without a disguise? Do you think cross dressing and a wig will make people just let the assault happen?
Do you think women will be more comfortable with a bearded man in the bathroom? Because that’s what you’re advocating for. If trans women can’t use the women’s room because a cis man might sneak it, then trans men must use the women’s room, which makes it easier for said cis man to sneak in. A cis man looks a lot more like a trans man than a cis man looks like a trans woman.

How concerned are you about making sure that police don’t get into women’s spaces and commit evil acts? The barrier to becoming a cop is lower than changing your gender, so the path of least resistance is to become a cop. You’ll probably get a paid vacation while they investigate your evil too.
And that’s not a hypothetical by the way. There are more sexual assaults by on-duty police officers than by trans persons in total, or by trans impersonators. Far more. So if you’re concerned for women’s safety, start there. Or almost anywhere else, statistically.

So, in your mind, setting aside differences in politics and raising concerns about the secretary of defense drinking to excess at work, regularly getting black out drunk, and losing inhibitions while intoxicated to the point of needing to pay someone $50k to drop rape charges is a “purity test”?

Or is it only a purity test when someone says something you agree with is actually a really shitty sentiment?

Maybe you should make note of how “the left” isn’t one person. Being able to find someone for every topic who has a very strong reaction doesn’t make it make sense to combine their opinions and extrapolate that to everyone.

1. Good thing we have doctors involved to help kids and parents make informed choices then. Kinda like how I don’t like the idea of fucking with kids internal organs, and trust licensed professionals and standards organizations to set baselines of care and apply them to individuals.
2. It’s such a vanishingly rare phenomenon that it’s just not even worth bothering with. A woman born as a woman with naturally higher testosterone levels also has an advantage, but we rarely see freakouts around “person with inmate physical advantage who spent a lot of time training shouldn’t be able to compete against people without an inmate physical advantage”. Michael Phelps has unusually long arms and big feet, but we don’t group athletes in most sports by anything other than gender.
3. That doesn’t have anything to do with transgender people. We also don’t really see it happening, so it’s a weird one to be concerned with. You’re more likely to encounter someone dressing up as a police officer and doing bad things, or actually being a police officer. Weirdly no protracted social dialogue about how to handle police officers detaining and sexually assaulting women. There’s also the “hilarious” flip side: if you tell trans people they can’t use their genders bathroom because you’re concerned a man will dress like a woman and go into the woman’s room, then you’re suddenly going to find the transmen back in the women’s room, meaning your sneaky pervert no longer even needs a disguise.

You make it sound like someone hacked him. Someone sent him a message including references to the topic and he replied. The person he sent the messages to said “wow, that’s pretty shitty” and shared it.

There are pretty minimal privacy expectations when it comes to messages you send strangers on the Internet.

Fair. Not intending to convey sympathy for companies and the people in them that supported Nazism, to be clear.
They’re not people that can have opinions to flip-flop. They’re legal fictions made of people who are now dead.

Walk me through that analogy, and what point you’re trying to make. My hammer doesn’t typically have unexpected interactions with things I’m not hammering. When I build a bookshelf, I don’t have to make sure my desk is clean to keep people I let borrow books from unlocking my front door without a key.

Do you think that improper setuid isn’t a common enough vulnerability to have a name and designation?

What constitutes a security nightmare if not something that requires a large and annoying amount of work, and can be made insecure by a mistake somewhere else?

It’s precisely a good bell-weather! It means that the cold money monsters think gay people and their supporters have more money, and hate doesn’t have the power to punish them. It also means that good people who work for the company feel safe saying “donating resources to LGBT teen suicide prevention would be great… Advertising?” And the money monsters don’t disagree, and the bad people don’t have enough sway to squash it.

Rainbow capitalism is a parasite that feeds on social tolerance. It’s gross that it showed up, but it couldn’t unless society was in an at least moderately healthy place.

Just don’t fall into the trap of personifying the companies that do many people do.

Oh, I’m not defending BMW or any company in specific regarding Nazism. I’m saying the actions and beliefs of dead people who used to run the company are the wrong reasons for cynicism, particularly in the context of a violent and coercive regime.
A company doesn’t have opinions so it can’t support anything, good or evil. It makes as much sense to be cynical of “posters” because there have also been evil posters.