Vaccination against shingles turns out to also protect people against dementia.

The authors explain how they concluded that the vaccine is protective, rather than being correlated with something else that affects the likelihood of a dementia diagnosis.

The study took advantage of the way the shingles vaccine was introduced in Wales: the vaccine was initially offered to everyone who was 79 years old (born between September 2, 1933 and September 1, 1934). It was then offered each year to people who had reached their 79th birthdays. (The vaccine was never offered to anyone born on or before September 1, 1933.) This let the researchers compare people of very close to the same age. They checked, and found no other health intervention with the same cut-off date.

The vaccine did protect against shingles (as expected). It didn't protect against any common medical problems

Wen they broke the data down by gender, the vaccine was definitely protective for women, and enough smaller for men that it may not be statistically significant.

The authors' suggestions for future research include whether protective effect wears off over time, in which case booster vaccines might be useful; whether the vaccine can be useful in treating as well as preventing cognitive impairment; and the broader question of causes of dementia.

Also, these results are for the older shingles vaccine (Zostavax), not the current vaccine, Shingrix.
The question being either "what was the shortest term of a British prime minister? p "who served the shortest term as British prime minister?" or the trickier "how long was the shortest term of a British prime minister?'

Someone in Ireland is probably already taking bets on whether Truss's successor will beat that record. (British bookmakers aren't supposed to take bets on British elections, and this may fall within that.)

Also, the Grauniad has a list of n"shortest-serving world leaders." Two men are tied for shortest, one on a technicality--the Guiness book of World Records is counting the never-proclaimed Louis XIX of France:

He was, apparently king only between the time of his father’s abdication signature and that of his own, both of which were on the same document.
redbird: closeup of me drinking tea, in a friend's kitchen (Default)
( Jan. 6th, 2021 07:40 pm)
The world is on fire, again or still; I have nothing new and coherent to say about that, but I sent email to my Congresswoman and senators to say "thank you" for defending democracy. Not that Clark, Warren, and Markey need to be told to do the right thing--I got the idea from someone whose congressperson does need to be leaned on for that--but a thank you seems like a good idea right now.

Other than that, I have given in somewhat to doomscrolling. But I am also making dinner, because trying to live on ice cream, tea, and apple pie would not be good for me, mentally or physically.

I had meant to post last night that we saw [personal profile] adrian_turtle for a few hours, but didn't get around to it, and then, aaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrgh, as [personal profile] rushthatspeaks put it.
redbird: closeup of me drinking tea, in a friend's kitchen (Default)
( Mar. 1st, 2020 09:24 pm)
The World Health Organization is issuing daily coronavirus situation reports, addressed to researchers, doctors, and the general public. The first page is an executive summary: updated numbers of cases, risk assessments, and four short paragraphs about what's in the rest of the report.

Today's report includes a page on clinical management of patients with COVID-19, more detailed surveillance data, an article on preparedness for healthcare professionals, and recommendations and advice for the public. As of 1 March 2020, they're saying "If you are not in an area where COVID-19 is spreading, or have not travelled from an area where COVID-19 is spreading, or have not been in contact with an infected patient, your risk of infection is low."
"Polish chef hailed as hero after chasing down London Bridge terrorist with 5-foot Narwhal tusk."

That's from yesterday's Irish Post

(The context is serious, but how often do you hear about someone using a unicorn horn in battle?)
At the end of a BBC article about Brexit appears the following:

Do you have any questions about the Brexit bill and what happens next?

Use this form to ask your question:

[text entry box]
In some cases your question will be published, displaying your name and location as you provide it, unless you state otherwise. Your contact details will never be published. Please ensure you have read the terms and conditions.


I think they're serious.

Anyone who *got* to the end of the article has questions about what happens next. But I don't think the BBC can answer them, because they don't know either.

Meanwhile, xkcd has an unusual suggestion for this problem. But Randall Munroe knows he's joking.
[The court just ruled that since Johnson had no right to prorogue Parliament, legally it never happened. I just commented to [personal profile] rydra_wong:]

I was looking at the CBC website (which is where I tend to start for non-local news), saw that, and realized I needed the Guardian. And then walked into the kitchen and told my mother 'in case you haven't looked at the news in the last half hour, Parliament will be sitting at 11:30 tomorrow morning.'

I really like John Bercow.
Tags:
I'm posting about this because we can all use some good news:

I used to live in New York, and sent some letters and postcards last fall to help flip the state senate, and am very pleased by this package of reforms, which Governor Cuomo has promised to sign. It includes nine days of early voting, preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds, and federal and state primaries on the same day. (That last should significantly increase turnout for state primary races.) They also gave preliminary approval for no-reason-needed absentee voting and Election Day voter registration--preliminary because, according to the article, that part will require amending the state constitution--and they're considering automatic voter registration.

This isn't perfect: New York election law is baroque, and not by accident. My father was a lawyer, with an arcane and not-very-profitable sideline specialty in election law; he told me that half of the election law cases in the United States were in New York. I don't think this law will change the complexities of the rules for getting on the ballot, but we can hope that's in the pipeline.
We ([personal profile] adrian_turtle, [livejournal.com profile] cattitude, and I) went to the Boston Women's March today. We got there late, because we hadn't allowed for the size of the T crowds and resulting delays, but we got there, and spent a couple of hours standing around, too far away to hear the speeches, and reading and admiring other people's signs. The crowd was much bigger than anyone expected, meaning we left not only without marching, but without being able to see for sure where the march was leaving the Common.

This was Adrian's first large rally, and I think Cattitude's first at all; I've done this before, sometimes in less pleasant circumstances, like the counter-inaugural in January 2001. For this one we had nice weather, and the local government clearly on our side; Attorney General Healey's speech was quoted as echoing the ACLU and saying that Trump will see us, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in court.

ETA:Cattitude had in fact done this before, though less often than I have, but he dislikes crowds and was glad to have us there to keep him company.

Next time, I hope to have a sign, or at least some more buttons for my coat. (I expect there will be a lot of next times.) I had a number of pins that I threw away a move or two ago, on the theory that I hadn't worn them this century; if I still had it, I'd be pinning "SILENCE=DEATH" onto my coat again.

Side note: the MBTA was running extra trains (relative to a normal Saturday) and prioritizing moving people around over collecting fares, so just had the gates open at Harvard when we got there around 10:20, and at Park Street both when we got to the rally and when we left. We all grumble a lot about the MBTA, with reason, but sometimes they get it right.
John McAfee, founder of the eponymous anti-virus company, is wanted for questioning in a murder case. Officially he is a "person of interest" and there is no arrest warrant; unofficially, he has told Wired that he is hiding out because he fears the police will try to kill him. But he doesn't want to leave Belize.
The Appellate Division (the second-highest court in New York) has reaffirmed that New York state recognizes marriages, including same-sex marriages, performed elsewhere. In the specific case, the question was about benefits for an employees wife: the two women got married in Ontario. This is in line with a century of previous rulings, some of them affirming that other marriages that New York would not itself solemnize, were valid here if performed elsewhere.

“The Legislature may decide to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages solemnized abroad,” a five-judge panel of the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court ruled unanimously in rejecting a 2006 lower court decision. “Until it does so, however, such marriages are entitled to recognition in New York.”

For more than a century, the court noted, New York State has recognized valid out-of-state marriages. Moreover, it said that the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest judicial body, has said the Legislature may enact laws recognizing same-sex marriages. “In our view, the Court of Appeals thereby indicated that the recognition of plaintiff’s marriage is not against the public policy of New York,” the court held.



This state is unlikely to prohibit such recognition, even though the majority leader of the state senate is, for now, blocking a vote on the same-sex marriage bill. The assembly passed it last year, and I expect would do so again, and Gov. Spitzer has said he will sign it if/when it reaches him.

State and New York City agencies had already been recognizing such marriages for the purposes of employee benefits--when Spitzer was attorney general, he made that policy, citing "full faith and credit"--but this goes further. A few New Yorker residents had marriages to same-sex partners recognized because they were legally married in Massachusetts, but that state is currently granting marriage licenses to same-sex pairs only if at least one is a Massachusetts resident. There's no such limitation on getting married in Canada, and Montreal and Ontario are right next door to us.
The Appellate Division (the second-highest court in New York) has reaffirmed that New York state recognizes marriages, including same-sex marriages, performed elsewhere. In the specific case, the question was about benefits for an employees wife: the two women got married in Ontario. This is in line with a century of previous rulings, some of them affirming that other marriages that New York would not itself solemnize, were valid here if performed elsewhere.

“The Legislature may decide to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages solemnized abroad,” a five-judge panel of the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court ruled unanimously in rejecting a 2006 lower court decision. “Until it does so, however, such marriages are entitled to recognition in New York.”

For more than a century, the court noted, New York State has recognized valid out-of-state marriages. Moreover, it said that the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest judicial body, has said the Legislature may enact laws recognizing same-sex marriages. “In our view, the Court of Appeals thereby indicated that the recognition of plaintiff’s marriage is not against the public policy of New York,” the court held.



This state is unlikely to prohibit such recognition, even though the majority leader of the state senate is, for now, blocking a vote on the same-sex marriage bill. The assembly passed it last year, and I expect would do so again, and Gov. Spitzer has said he will sign it if/when it reaches him.

State and New York City agencies had already been recognizing such marriages for the purposes of employee benefits--when Spitzer was attorney general, he made that policy, citing "full faith and credit"--but this goes further. A few New Yorker residents had marriages to same-sex partners recognized because they were legally married in Massachusetts, but that state is currently granting marriage licenses to same-sex pairs only if at least one is a Massachusetts resident. There's no such limitation on getting married in Canada, and Montreal and Ontario are right next door to us.
redbird: closeup of me drinking tea, in a friend's kitchen (Default)
( Jul. 1st, 2007 07:56 pm)
“Reverend Billy has a First Amendment right to recite the First Amendment.” —Norman Siegel
redbird: closeup of me drinking tea, in a friend's kitchen (Default)
( Jul. 1st, 2007 07:56 pm)
“Reverend Billy has a First Amendment right to recite the First Amendment.” —Norman Siegel
The press seem far too credulous about Khalid Mohammed's alleged confession. The BBC at least mentions Amnesty International's pointing out that the statement may have been coerced, but I feel as though I'm the only person looking at these stories and thinking "show trial." Maybe he did everything he said, maybe he did none of it, maybe he's been dead for a year and they'll announce three weeks from now that he's had a fatal heart attack.

To believe the claims that Khalid Mohammed confessed to these crimes means taking the words of the U.S. government for what he said. In the general case, it's not prudent to accept the prosecution's unsupported claims about a defendant. It's not just that the statement may have been coerced: it may never have been made at all. A blacked-out transcript isn't strong evidence.

In the second, I can't think of any motivation anyone involved in this has to be telling the truth: even if Mohammed said everything they claim he did, he may well be lying. He has reason to believe that, best case, he's stuck for life in Guantanamo, away from everyone he knows and cares about. A death sentence might seem like a relief in comparison.

Also, assuming he is an Al-Qaeda supporter, not a random person arrested by mistake, he might think it's tactically useful to draw attention to himself and away from Al-Qaeda members who are still free in the world and could plot further actions. And "we also were going to do X, Y, and Z" might just be a way of making the organization look bigger and more dangerous. Meanwhile, the people running those tribunals want us all to believe that Al-Qaeda is big and dangerous, but that they have captured one of the most important leaders of that group.

[crossposting from my weblog]

Tags:
The press seem far too credulous about Khalid Mohammed's alleged confession. The BBC at least mentions Amnesty International's pointing out that the statement may have been coerced, but I feel as though I'm the only person looking at these stories and thinking "show trial." Maybe he did everything he said, maybe he did none of it, maybe he's been dead for a year and they'll announce three weeks from now that he's had a fatal heart attack.

To believe the claims that Khalid Mohammed confessed to these crimes means taking the words of the U.S. government for what he said. In the general case, it's not prudent to accept the prosecution's unsupported claims about a defendant. It's not just that the statement may have been coerced: it may never have been made at all. A blacked-out transcript isn't strong evidence.

In the second, I can't think of any motivation anyone involved in this has to be telling the truth: even if Mohammed said everything they claim he did, he may well be lying. He has reason to believe that, best case, he's stuck for life in Guantanamo, away from everyone he knows and cares about. A death sentence might seem like a relief in comparison.

Also, assuming he is an Al-Qaeda supporter, not a random person arrested by mistake, he might think it's tactically useful to draw attention to himself and away from Al-Qaeda members who are still free in the world and could plot further actions. And "we also were going to do X, Y, and Z" might just be a way of making the organization look bigger and more dangerous. Meanwhile, the people running those tribunals want us all to believe that Al-Qaeda is big and dangerous, but that they have captured one of the most important leaders of that group.

[crossposting from my weblog]

Tags:
redbird: closeup of me drinking tea, in a friend's kitchen (Default)
( Jan. 3rd, 2007 08:53 pm)
(This has already been all over my friends list.)

Keith Ellison, D-MN, is taking his Congressional oath of office on Thomas Jefferson's personal copy of the Koran.

I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
I went looking to see which Senators and Representatives had had the decency (or courage?) to vote against torture and arbitrary imprisonment yesterday. I wound up at a Washington post page sorted by party, which told me that Lincoln Chaffee is the only honorable Republican in the U.S. Senate. The others, including McCain, voted in favor.

Then I saw that I can also get the totals sorted by state, region, "boomer status," gender, next election year, or astrological sign.

And I wonder that I expect sanity from a country in which people who actually pay attention to politics are expected to think that's a useful or interesting sort. But I'm not just wanting, and mourning the lack of, sanity: I want ordinary human decency.
.

About Me

redbird: closeup of me drinking tea, in a friend's kitchen (Default)
Redbird

Most-used tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style credit

Expand cut tags

No cut tags