Blurblogs
Global
Popular
Log in
sarcozona's blurblog
plant lover, cookie monster, shoe fiend
20103 stories
·
20 followers

‘I’ve stopped being eligible for the Covid vaccine and I’ve caught it three times in six months’
Thursday November 6th, 2025 at 2:28 PM

1 Share

A woman who had half her lung removed has called for the Covid vaccine to be given the same priority as the flu jab after she caught the virus three times in the months since she was dropped from the eligibility list.

Ella Halpern-Matthews, a historian from Kent, has a severe respiratory illness and has been asthmatic since birth.

She had half a lung removed due to cystic adenomatoid malformation and suffers from chronic chest infections, which make her more vulnerable to common colds and Covid. However, she stopped being eligible for an NHS booster vaccine earlier this year when the health service updated its criteria.

The 27-year-old takes precautions to protect herself by wearing a high-quality face mask and she avoids crowded, poorly ventilated spaces such as the London Underground. Despite this, she has still caught Covid three times since her last booster jab.

She says her health condition makes her feel “cut off from society”, forcing her to miss out on parties, concerts or family birthdays.

She said: “If I want to protect my health, I’m essentially forced to be a hermit and forgo community and life in public.”

She added: “Beyond the physical and mental exhaustion of infection, it’s been extremely difficult navigating the UK social scene, because no one wants to talk about Covid, no one tests when they’re sick, and people don’t like to cancel plans when they’re unwell.”

Ms Halpern-Matthews says she has had “frank difficult conversations with friends and loved ones” over testing and mask wearing and is now “actively seeking out new Covid-conscious friends”.

Seasonal Covid vaccination eligibility in England is now only available to adults aged 75 and over, older adult care home residents, and people who are immunosuppressed, according to The Green Book, which acts as a guide on immunisation to UK health professionals.

Ella Halpern-Matthews, 27, a historian from Kent, has a severe respiratory illness and has been asthmatic since birth

Ella Halpern-Matthews, 27, a historian from Kent, has a severe respiratory illness and has been asthmatic since birth (Supplied)

This represents a change from Autumn 2024, which included adults aged 65 to 74, or those aged six months and over in a clinical risk group.

Ms Halpern-Matthews used to fall into the immunosuppressed category, but since this spring, the NHS have tightened its criteria to only apply to those who are taking an immunosuppressant medication. Her last Covid jab was last year, and she has had a total of eight vaccines since 2021, all free on the NHS.

NHS Kent and Medway, Ms Halpern-Matthews’s local provider, said it was unable to comment on the details of individual cases, but said that it follows national vaccination guidance.

However, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), which sets national guidelines, said the Green Book’s list of immunosuppressed individuals is “not exhaustive” and “the prescriber may need to apply clinical judgment” to take into account the risk of Covid exacerbating any underlying disease.

Ms Halpern-Matthews has been forced to crowdfund for her next jab because she says she cannot afford to pay a private provider, with vaccines in the UK priced at anywhere between £75 to £120 from independent pharmacies.

She said: “Honestly, I’m broke. If I could afford to pay out of pocket, I would. But also, I guess some of it is about raising awareness of just how dire the situation is here.

Last winter, the NHS delivered 9.8 million vaccinations to protect those eligible against Covid-19, including over a quarter of a million care home residents

Last winter, the NHS delivered 9.8 million vaccinations to protect those eligible against Covid-19, including over a quarter of a million care home residents (AFP/Getty)

“You can get the Covid vaccine in France for under €10, you can get it across the EU for less. If I were to pay for the Eurostar and do a day trip to France and get it, it could cost me less than a private jab here in the UK on my preferred proverbial doorstep.”

“This is a really clear example of the two-tier health system we have now, where people who can afford private healthcare can just go and do all this themselves, and have a private GP and are able to access all these essential life-saving medicines.”

Leyla Hannbeck, chief executive of the Independent Pharmacies Association (IPA), described the NHS flu and Covid jab booking system as “chaos” and said some pharmacists had told her patients had become aggressive when told they were not eligible for an NHS Covid jab.

She said: “The NHS booking system this year is poor and has confused everyone. It allows age group 65 to 74 patients to book an appointment and self-declare themselves as immunosuppressed, even if they aren’t and the definition of immunosuppressed is not clear to them.”

The IPA raised concerns in August when the JCVI announced its decision to exclude patients aged 65 to 74 who are not immunosuppressed.

Ms Hanbeck added: “This is particularly worrying as there are reports of a new Covid strain. Last year, there were a lot of hospitalisations due to winter viruses; hence it is concerning that instead of increasing public protection by vaccinating a bigger cohort, they decided to limit it.

“Poor systems and poor communication by decision makers, leaving community pharmacies on the front line on their own to manage the chaos, is not helping patient care.”

Read the whole story
sarcozona
3 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Serious mental illness tied to increased risk of long COVID
Thursday November 6th, 2025 at 2:27 PM

1 Share

News brief

Depressed person on end of dock SanderStock / iStock

Adults with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or recurrent major depressive disorder—especially those who are older, Black or Hispanic, have chronic conditions, have public health insurance, or were hospitalized during infection—are at elevated risk for long COVID, according to an analysis published yesterday in JAMA Network Open.

To determine whether adults with serious mental illness (SMI) are more vulnerable to long COVID (also called postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 [PASC]) than those without SMI, a team led by a Weill Cornell Medicine researcher conducted a longitudinal cohort study from March 2020 to April 2023.

The study was based on the electronic health records of more than 1.6 million COVID-19 patients aged 21 years and older from 30 days to 6 months after infection. The average patient age was 52 years, 61.4% were women, 12.6% were Black, 13.5% were Hispanic, and 51.3% were White. 

Risk factors for persistent symptoms

A total of 15.9% of participants had an SMI, and 24.8% developed PASC. Those with an SMI were at a 10% higher risk for PASC (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.08 to 1.11). 

These results suggest the need for coordinated approaches that simultaneously treat and seek to prevent PASC among adults with serious mental illnesses.

"The increased COVID-19 infection and mortality risks of adults with SMI are due in part to limited general medical care access, treatment adherence challenges, and the presence of comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes," the researchers wrote. 

A PASC risk factor was older age compared with ages 22 to 34 years (OR for 35 to 44 years, 1.04; OR for 45 to 64, 1.11; OR for 65 and older, 1.18).

Other contributing factors were Black or Hispanic versus White race (Black OR, 1.08; Hispanic OR, 1.12), chronic disease versus none (OR for Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI] scores of 1 to 3, 1.13; OR for scores of 4 or higher, 1.23), hospitalization for infection versus none (OR, 1.80; hospitalization with ventilation, 2.17). Relative to public health insurance, commercial insurance was tied to lower odds of PASC (OR, 0.85).

"These results suggest the need for coordinated approaches that simultaneously treat and seek to prevent PASC among adults with serious mental illnesses," the authors concluded.

CIDRAP and CEPI launch resources to track development of coronavirus vaccines

News brief

lab vials iStock

Today the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP, which publishes CIDRAP News), in partnership with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), launched a new digital home for the Coronavirus Vaccines R&D Roadmap (CVR) Initiative with expanded features for researchers, investors, policymakers, and the public.

In a University of Minnesota news release, the initiative called the revamped site "a global, open-access platform designed to track scientific progress toward the development of broadly protective coronavirus vaccines"—those that protect against multiple coronaviruses, such as SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, and MERS-CoV, which causes Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

The new site boasts three integrated components:

  • Coronavirus Vaccine Technology Landscape: a curated, continually updated database of coronavirus vaccines in preclinical and clinical development, including broadly protective vaccine candidates against SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV.
  • R&D Progress Tracker: an interactive tool that monitors scientific advances and reports progress toward achieving the roadmap's goals and milestones in five areas: virology, immunology, vaccinology, animal and human infection models, and policy and financing.
  • CVR Scholar Hub: a resource center that features literature reviews, data syntheses, and other materials supporting researchers in coronavirus vaccine development.

The roadmap—originally launched in 2023 with funding from The Rockefeller Foundation and the Gates Foundation—outlines key goals and milestones to guide global coronavirus vaccine R&D. With CEPI's investment, and in collaboration with 50 global scientific experts, the new initiative serves to monitor progress in these priority research areas and further catalyze coronavirus vaccine development, which is critical for future preparedness and response.

Our goal is to turn information into actions—accelerating discovery, collaboration and preparedness for the next coronavirus threat.

"Knowledge is power when preparing for pandemic threats, so the more scientific information on coronaviruses we can develop and make accessible for researchers and policymakers worldwide, the stronger our defences when the next coronavirus rears its ugly head," said Nadia Cohen, PhD, CEPI's coronavirus vaccine program lead.

CIDRAP Director Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, added, "We now have a centralized, open-access resource that allows scientists, funders, and policymakers to see in real time where progress is being made and where critical gaps remain. Our goal is to turn information into actions—accelerating discovery, collaboration and preparedness for the next coronavirus threat."

Suspected measles case-patient refuses testing in Salt Lake County

News brief

measles Christopher Badzioch / iStock

Southern Utah has become the epicenter of measles activity in the United States in the past 2 months, but so far, Salt Lake County has not reported any infections. But a new probable case reported by the Salt Lake County Health Department changes that.

Officials said a Salt Lake County resident is likely the area’s first case of measles but is refusing to submit to confirmatory testing. 

The patient has declined to be tested, or to fully participate in our disease investigation, so we will not be able to technically confirm the illness.

"The patient has declined to be tested, or to fully participate in our disease investigation, so we will not be able to technically confirm the illness or properly do contact tracing to warn anyone with whom the patient may have had contact," said Dorothy Adams, MPA, executive director at the health department, in a press statement. "But based on the specific symptoms reported by the healthcare provider and the limited conversation our investigators have had with the patient, this is very likely a case of measles in someone living in Salt Lake County."

Adams urged cooperation with health officials, emphasizing the importance of contact tracing in measles outbreaks. 

59 cases in Utah so far 

So far this year, Utah has confirmed 59 measles cases, with most detections in Washington County, where a measles outbreak in the town of Hildale has fueled a Southwest measles cluster with neighboring Colorado City, Arizona.

Prior to this year, there had only been one confirmed measles case in Utah since 2020, a patient identified in 2023. 

Preventive gut decontamination strategy fails to reduce death in ventilated patients, trial finds

News brief

Digestive tract micribiota ChrisChrisW / iStock

A randomized controlled trial in Australia and Canada found that selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) did not reduce the incidence of in-hospital death, researchers reported yesterday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In the trial, a team led by investigators from the University of Toronto and the University of New South Wales randomly assigned 26 ICUs in Australia and Canada to use SDD or to continue standard care for two 12-month periods in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome was in-hospital death from any cause at 90 days. Microbiologic secondary outcomes included new positive cultures for bloodstream infections and antibiotic-resistant organisms.

The principal aim of SDD, which involves the application of a topical oral antibiotic paste to the oropharynx and stomach in combination with intravenous antibiotics, is to prevent the development of lower respiratory tract infections that can result from an overgrowth of gram-negative bacteria and yeast from upper gastrointestinal tract in mechanically ventilated patients. While more than 75 trials and systematic reviews have found that SDD is associated with reductions in mortality, adoption has been low because of concerns about the development of SDD-associated antibiotic resistance.

No reduction in in-hospital deaths

A total of 20,000 patients were involved in the trial, with 9,289 enrolled in the randomized trial and 10,711 included in an ecological assessment of microbiologic outcomes. At 90 days, 1,174 (27.9%) of 4,215 patients in the SDD group and 1,494 (29.5%) of 5,065 in the standard-care group had died before hospital discharge. The odds ratio for death in the SDD group relative to the standard-care group was 0.93. 

New bloodstream infections occurred in 4.9% of the patients in the SDD group and in 6.8% of those in the standard-care group (adjusted mean difference, −1.30 percentage points), while antibiotic-resistant organisms were cultured in 16.8% and 26.8%, respectively (adjusted mean difference, −9.6 percentage points). 

In the ecologic assessment, noninferiority of SDD was not confirmed for the development of new antibiotic-resistant organisms. Adverse events were reported in 12 patients (0.3%) in the SDD group and in no patients in the standard-care group.

Avian flu detected in house mice in Washington state

News brief

mouse in house David DeHetre / Flickr cc

Six house mice in Grant County, Washington, have been identified as having avian influenza, a mammal detection that is likely linked to increased avian influenza among wild birds in the same county. 

According to an update from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the mice were collected on October 15.

Grant County, which is west of Spokane, recently had seven avian flu detections in wild birds, including several ducks and waterfowl. Those detections occurred on October 23. 

Avian influenza detections in both wild birds and commercial poultry have skyrocketed in recent weeks as birds migrate south. 

In case you missed it

This week's top reads

Our underwriters

Unrestricted financial support provided by

Read the whole story
sarcozona
3 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

This Physicist Says We Don’t Take COVID Seriously Enough | The Tyee
Thursday November 6th, 2025 at 2:26 PM

1 Comment

Swiss Re, a global insurance firm that analyzes mortality risk by forecasting future life expectancy trends, pegged that number of excess deaths at two per cent above the pre-pandemic annual mortality rate. When you extrapolate that number to North America’s population of 617 million, that works out to be 120,000 unanticipated dead people per year.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
3 hours ago
reply
"Swiss Re, a global insurance firm that analyzes mortality risk by forecasting future life expectancy trends, pegged that number of excess deaths at two per cent above the pre-pandemic annual mortality rate. When you extrapolate that number to North America’s population of 617 million, that works out to be 120,000 unanticipated dead people per year. "
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

China-critical UK academics describe ‘extremely heavy’ pressure from Beijing | Universities | The Guardian
Thursday November 6th, 2025 at 9:24 AM

The Guardian
1 Share

UK academics whose research is critical of China say they have been targeted and their universities subjected to “extremely heavy” pressure from Beijing, prompting calls for a fresh look at the sector’s dependence on tuition fee income from Chinese students.

The academics spoke out after the Guardian revealed this week that Sheffield Hallam University had complied with a demand from Beijing to halt research about human rights abuses in China, which had led to a big project being dropped.

One UK-based China scholar has since described being a victim of death threats and a smear campaign, while another was sanctioned for her work on human rights abuses against Uyghur Muslims and can no longer travel to China to conduct her research.

Others described “soft” or “indirect” pressure being brought to bear, leading academics to self-censor and risk-averse universities to avoid research that could bring them into conflict with China, which controls the flow of students to financially vulnerable UK universities.

In February, Sheffield Hallam, home to the Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice (HKC), a research institution focused on human rights, ordered one of its leading professors, Laura Murphy, to cease research on supply chains and forced labour in China.

Laura Murphy, a professor of human rights and contemporary slavery at Sheffield Hallam University, said a lot of academics felt it was too risky to speak out as they were worried about the consequences. Photograph: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian

Emails seen by the Guardian suggest commercial factors were a consideration in placing limits on Murphy’s work. In October, after threats of legal action, the university lifted the ban and apologised, but the eight-month suspension has raised fresh concerns about the chilling effect that pressure from Chinese authorities can have on UK universities.

Murphy told the Guardian: “I think that there are a lot of people who experience some version of this, typically more subtle, usually not so black and white. But it’s too risky to speak out against their university. They’re worried they might suffer consequences.”

Andreas Fulda, a political scientist and China scholar based at the University of Nottingham, is among those to have been targeted as a result of his critical scholarship and media commentary. At one point, “spoof” emails bearing his name were sent to his colleagues announcing his resignation and inviting them to his farewell drinks.

He does not know who sent the emails. There have also been death threats to him and his family. “What I’ve come to learn is that once you reach a certain perception threshold in the eyes of the Chinese security agencies, you are punished to dissuade you from airing your views,” he said.

Fulda said he hoped the Sheffield Hallam case would be a turning point, highlighting the risks of the current UK higher education funding model, in which universities are heavily reliant on the high tuition fees paid by international students, of which the largest group is from China.

Recent government promises to increase domestic tuition fees in line with inflation were welcomed by the sector, although plans for a 6% international student levy to fund the reintroduction of maintenance grants risks wiping out much of the benefit.

Fulda said: “What can be seen quite clearly is that the Chinese party state has considerable leverage and British universities have considerable vulnerabilities. I am afraid that we will experience many more Sheffield Hallam incidents in the future if universities do not stop cosying up to China.”

Jo Smith Finley, a reader in Chinese studies at Newcastle University, was sanctioned by China in 2021 for her work on human rights abuses against the Uyghurs. She said: “Ever since then, Newcastle University has been walking a very difficult tightrope in its treatment of me, because I’ve become a liability in a context where universities are all dependent on Chinese student tuition fees.

“It’s extremely heavy, the pressure that the Chinese authorities bring to bear, both on university representatives working in the PRC [People’s Republic of China] on recruitment and also on university managers in the UK.”

Other academics in the field were reluctant to comment publicly. Against a backdrop of mass redundancies across the sector, one academic said: “I’m scared I will lose my job if I talk about my experiences of working on China in British universities.”

Universities UK, which represents the sector, said: “UK universities are committed to upholding free speech and academic freedom. They work hard to protect these fundamental freedoms and meet significant legal duties in this area set out by the Office for Students. This commitment extends to international research and partnerships with institutions around the world.

“UK universities take any threats to the freedom of their staff or students extremely seriously and we work closely with the government to prevent this. Anyone working or studying at our universities should know that their rights to personal and academic freedom are protected when they are on British soil.”

Read the whole story
sarcozona
9 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

The Real Stakes, and Real Story, of Peter Thiel’s Antichrist Obsession | WIRED
Wednesday November 5th, 2025 at 5:49 PM

1 Comment

By Thiel’s telling, the modern world is scared, way too scared, of its own technology.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
I am not scared of technology, I am scared of Peter Thiel having control of it.
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Why did I get rejected? | Girl on the Net
Wednesday November 5th, 2025 at 8:13 AM

Comments on: Why did I get rejected?
1 Share
Image by the brilliant Stuart F Taylor

One of the things I often hear guys complain about when it comes to dating is that they got rejected (or sometimes ghosted) without understanding why. They wouldn’t mind a ‘no’ if there was some obvious incompatibility, but as far as they’re concerned they didn’t do anything ‘wrong’. Bear with me here dudes, because you might not like my answer, but if you’re earnestly asking this question then I have a few explanations you could consider.

As with all of my posts, this one is heavily influenced by my experience – I am mainly into men so my perspective comes from there. I also want to acknowledge that one of the reasons I struggled when dating recently was because my heart wasn’t in it. This was in large part down to personal shit, which I addressed a little in this post – it’s not you, it’s me. So the following piece doesn’t tell the full story of why I struggled to connect with anyone, and you should weigh it accordingly. I almost didn’t publish it at all, but in the end I decided that it still covers some useful ground that addresses a complaint I’ve heard a fair bit from guys in the comment section, and my response might be useful to those of you who are asking in earnest. Equally (or perhaps more) importantly, I hope it will be reassuring to women who repeatedly come up against the same problems I do.

Note: not everyone gets a straight-up ‘rejection’

During my most recent bout of dating, I tried to be kinder to myself when it came to ending interactions. Although I felt pretty guilty about it, because I am nothing if not led by the comments on this blog and conversations I have with men on social media, I bit the bullet and allowed myself to simply unmatch when I wasn’t feeling something, rather than taking on the responsibility of letting a guy down explicitly.

Why? Firstly because dating men, as a woman, is inherently a giant pile of admin and I don’t have the time to send individual, personally-crafted rejection messages to men who haven’t bothered to write much more than ‘hey!’. Secondly and more importantly, I don’t believe I have the right to inflict negative feedback on someone unless they’ve asked for it. It’s mean.

If it came to an in-person date, I do think I owe guys a little more. So although I would prefer to yank my own teeth out than give someone straightforward (but critical-sounding) feedback, if a guy were to ask me directly ‘why aren’t you up for a second date?’ then I’d try to articulate the reason as best I could. This is a risky strategy, as many women will know. Once a man I dated but did not have sex with emailed to ask why I’d said ‘no’ to the shag at the last minute. To this day I kick myself for taking time to send a thoughtful, diplomatic but honest answer because he responded with very bad grace. I should have just told him ‘no is a complete sentence’ and had done with it. Lesson learned.

Boring preamble, sorry, but I do think it’s important to show you my credentials before I launch into this: I aim to approach dating in a very considered and hopefully kind way. You might disagree with the conclusions I come to about what I do and don’t owe to men, but you can’t accuse me of not thinking (or overthinking) about the way I behave. I genuinely care about treating people fairly and kindly on dating sites. I try not to be rude or disrespectful to the people I meet, because they’re taking courage in hand to put themselves out there and that deserves basic decency in return. Nor am I someone who enters into dating chat when I have no intention of meeting anybody in person. If I’m dating, I’m in it for the win: I want to meet someone good, in person, and ideally build a connection that leads to a shit-hot relationship.

In order to do this, I have to reject (and, yes, sometimes ‘ghost’) a lot of men. Here are the top three reasons why I do that:

1. You were rude/frightening.

It absolutely boils my piss that I have to write this, but I think it’s important. It had been a while since I used dating apps and although I expected a bunch of spam and a hell of a lot of suitors who didn’t ask questions, I was extremely shocked by how many men appear to have grown quite rude and/or frightening. Maybe dudes just give less of a fuck as they get older, but here are a few genuine interactions I had on The Apps during my last ‘adventure’ on them:

  • A guy whose first message involved him rating me out of 10. He told me I was a ‘solid 9 on paper’ and that we should chat to see if I could maintain that score on a date. Call me old fashioned, but even if you’re sticking me in the top percentile I actually don’t want to be rated, ever!
  • A guy to whom I sent a playful, flirty first message relating to something fun he had on his profile, who responded by telling me ‘you can do better than that’ (!!). When I ignored that message (because it’s rude) he sent a follow-up at 2 in the morning scolding me for ‘ghosting’ him because I hadn’t continued the conversation.
  • A guy with whom I had what I thought was a lovely chat, where we swapped fun recommendations for bands and comedy, had some nice playful banter, and seemed to enjoy many things in common. I can’t stress enough how excited I was about this guy. We seemed to have a genuine connection and he was exactly My Kind Of Hot (beautifully tattooed and scruffy as all fuck). I had every intention of inviting him on a date the next time we spoke… until I woke up one morning to no fewer than SIXTEEN messages in my inbox, of an increasingly, aggressive sexual nature, almost certainly written while drunk or on drugs, over a period of THREE FULL HOURS in the middle of the night. My alarm bells rang so hard they fell off the walls, and once I’d unmatched him I avoided the site for a full week because opening it made me feel physically sick with fear.

2. You dropped the conversation

Me: That’s a cool festival pic – where was it taken? Do you do many festivals?

Him: Yeah that’s 2000 Trees, I love festivals. I do Glastonbury each year as well!

Me: Ah amazing, who’s the best act you’ve seen at one? I love Trees too – who’s on your ‘must see’ list this year?

Him: Really excited about [Band], and you should totally check out [other band] if you haven’t already.

If we’ve had a few back-and-forth messages during which I’ve asked you relevant things about stuff you put in your profile, and you have not asked me anything, then I’ll stop asking more and simply wait to see if you send me a question. If you don’t? Done. You dropped that, not me, and I don’t feel guilty about it.

3. A reason that is obvious to me but mysterious to you

This gets to the heart of what I want to write today, and I’m so sorry for bringing it screeching back to the number one problem I have when dating men, but it’s the number one problem for a reason: they do not ask me any questions.

I don’t mean ‘not asking questions’ is why any individual man got rejected (though it may well be), I mean that ‘not asking questions’ probably speaks directly to your confusion as to why you got rejected. If you’re upset that you keep getting rejected for seemingly no reason, ask yourself if it’s possible that the reason is screamingly obvious to your date, but not to you. The solution to this mystery might be there, just waiting for you to uncover, but if you haven’t asked your date anything about herself – her wants, her needs, her life, her past, her passions – it’s unsurprising that you can’t magically intuit the reason she’s decided you don’t match.

I ask a lot of questions on a first date, aiming to get a feel for what this person is like, what they want out of life, what brings them joy and how they might be when they’re in a relationship, and I hope it won’t surprise you to learn that the reasons I reject them usually spring from these enquiries. I already know what you look like, after all: I’ve seen your dating site pictures. I know we have some stuff in common: we’ve chatted interests before we meet in the pub. That meeting is there for me to apply a new layer of filtering: is this person self-aware? Are they kind? Do they reciprocate and match my energy when we’re chatting? Can they make me laugh? Do they have a compatible outlook when it comes to life, love, sex, etc? All that stuff. It’s through these questions that I work out whether you’re a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’.

But if those conversations are one-sided, then I am working with an extraordinary amount of information where you have practically nothing besides: ‘this woman makes me feel wanted and interesting.’

Of course you’re not going to reject me! I’ve basically been interviewing you, and who doesn’t love being asked insightful things about their life and opinions?! You have no idea which aspects of me might trigger you to say ‘no thanks’, because you have not been actively looking for them. The answer as to why you and I are incompatible is right there for the taking, you just need to pick it up: throw the questions back to me!

Incidentally, there’s a fantastic episode of The Dildorks podcast which tackles this ‘asking questions’ thing, and I found it very validating to hear that it isn’t just men in the UK who suck at asking them.

Informational imbalance

By the end of most of my dates, the information balance is extremely skewed. I know lots about you, and everything about me. You know everything about you but almost nothing about me. It’s understandable that you wouldn’t have some magical insight into our incompatibilities because you can’t read minds, and you haven’t asked for the information that you’d need to get to a useful answer.

This is best explained by example:

Me: So, talk me through your ideal Friday night. You’ve got money in your pocket, no work tomorrow, all the people you like are free to hang out if you want them to… what do you do?

Him: Oh! Well I’m actually big into movies and TV so honestly my ideal Friday night would be a Netflix-and-chill kind of deal… [this usually leads into him recommending me some films/TV box sets and telling me I absolutely must watch this one or that].

I’m trying so hard not to write that in a mean or sarcastic way, but allow me a sidebar eyeroll of frustration here please: I could live happily for the rest of my life if I never again had to sit through someone telling me I ‘must’ watch something. So many men have wasted time during dates boring on about how shocking it is that I’ve not seen Succession, or Always Sunny (that’s the one I get most often these days. It used to be Arrested Development, then Rick and Morty, then that cartoon about the man who is also a horse). It doesn’t matter that, early in the conversation, I tell them I don’t have a Disney+ subscription. Doesn’t matter that I tell them I prefer the occasional trash reality TV, Taskmaster, Lego Masters Australia, or silly Jason Statham movie. They continue to bore on at me anyway because this recommendation – THEIR recommendation – is surely the one that’s going to convert me into being a sofa-loving TV buff, where all the others have failed.*

ANYWAY. Ignoring my personal bugbear with TV recommendations, look at the conversation in italics above and ask yourself whether, when I reject this guy, he’ll instinctively realise it’s because our ideal Friday nights don’t match up. Would he know? Probably not. If he’d thrown the question back to me, he’d have learned that my ideal Friday starts in the pub with a group of friends, then moves on to a fun bouncy gig or perhaps a comedy night, ends with us having an afterparty at my flat (or somebody else’s), then ideally a bout of powerful, frantic sex when bedtime rolls round. Bosh.

Quite a different tone to his ideal Friday, and reason enough for him to reject me, never mind vice versa. If you want a partner to get stuck into box sets with, I am absolutely Not The One. I wouldn’t reject someone purely for this, of course, but I would use it as a basis to ask further questions – exploring whether he also enjoys gigs and parties or whether he’s naturally quite a homebody. No shade to homebodies, by the way: you do you. Just don’t expect me to do it with you all the time, because I’m me.

“Would you like to know mine?”

The interaction that really hammered this home to me was ironically one with a genuinely lovely guy who did ask me a lot of questions. We had a fantastic first date during which we talked a lot and laughed a lot and I got my hopes up that this connection might continue. So we planned a second date, and I turned up eager to get stuck in to the topics we’d not yet got round to discussing. Most notably: relationship history and attitudes towards sex.

I don’t put a tonne of sex stuff on my dating profiles, to be honest. I hint at kink but I keep it vague and mild, and I don’t tell people I am GOTN (obviously). I actually hate this, and I would love to be far more up front, but the problem is if you go too up front you just attract a bunch of men who want to choke you and spit in your mouth without caring that you have a personality. I mention my love of sex, because I need to meet someone who’s down with that, but it’s not the headline. So with this guy, I needed to find out where he was at sex-and-relationship wise.

I asked a couple of questions to open up a discussion about this: so, tell me what you’re looking for from dating. What’s your story so far? Can you give me a potted history of your relationships? His answer was vague and awkward, which is fine: discussing these topics isn’t easy for all of us, and I appreciate that I am quite direct. But coupled with my directness is a genuine need to be with someone who’s willing to talk fucking. To identify their relationship needs and share them with emotional honesty. I can help someone through this, if they aren’t used to doing it, but I am too old now to submit to giving guys the 101 basics of relationship comms. That’s partly why I ask the question. It turned out this guy had very little experience of relationships (which is, again, fine, and actually if I’m honest quite exciting to me) but something gave me pause. It wasn’t that he couldn’t answer my questions, it’s that the act of asking caused him to shut down. Where before he’d been curious about every aspect of my life, in this huge, significant-to-me area it was almost like he didn’t want to know. He didn’t ask me anything about my past in return, and when I prompted him (“Would you like to hear my potted history?”) he told me I didn’t need to disclose that if I didn’t want to. Which is true and fair but… I wanted to! He didn’t want to hear it though, so fair enough. I didn’t push.

That’s why he was a ‘no’ though. Because our relationship history was so wildly different, and rather than exploring this as an interesting point of difference and seeing if we could connect by sharing alternate perspectives, instead he wanted to shut the conversation down. Fair play, no shade to him. There are other people who’ll approach sex and relationships in similar ways, and I hope he finds one he likes – he really is a very lovely dude. He’s just not for me.

How to avoid rejection limbo

In conclusion, if you’re wondering why you get rejected during so many dating interactions, you might want to consider that even though it may be mysterious to you, the answer is obvious to your date/match. I am aware that we don’t all have the same conversational style, and that ‘asking questions/showing curiosity/examining the way the person sitting opposite you thinks and feels’ does not come naturally to everyone. Often when I write posts like this, I get criticism along the lines of ‘but I am neurodivergent in X, Y, Z way, and that means it is impossible for me to have conversations like this!’. Fair play. I think this is a skill that people learn, rather than one we’re innately born with, but I’m not going to argue the point because I don’t know enough about your individual challenges and perspective. If that’s you, that’s you, and I’m not going to deny your lived experience of what you find difficult when dating. But I’m trying to very honestly respond to a concern that a fair few guys have thrown at me in comments here or on social media, and I’d be doing you a disservice if I posted bullshit rather than my earnest opinion.

Most of the times I’ve rejected (or ghosted, or unmatched, or just stopped messaging) men, I personally think the reason is extremely obvious. They:

  • were rude or threatening
  • dropped the conversation or
  • were incompatible with me in a way that became apparent when I started asking questions.

Options 1 and 2 you can solve pretty easily: show your last messages to a friend and ask if they think you might have fallen into either of those categories. Assess the conversation and see if you think both you and your match were showing equal interest in each other. Examine your language and tone and consider whether – even if your intentions were lighthearted – you could have come across to a complete stranger as rude or threatening.

For option three? I am so sorry my loves, truly I am, but we’re going to have to return, once more, to the topic that will literally never go away until all men in London start approaching dates with curiosity…

ASK QUESTIONS!

I’ve had this post in draft for a while but not really worked out how to finish it off until yesterday, when I read this frankly terrifying story in Cosmo by Vera Papisova, about dating right-wing men to see if she could better understand them. She sat down with some appalling individuals and asked for their perspectives on dating, relationships and life in general. The piece ends on this beautifully-made point:

On our last date, we were walking through a park when I told him we couldn’t keep seeing each other, that I disagreed with most of his beliefs and didn’t align with the future he wanted. Confused, he replied that from his point of view, we actually agreed on most things.

No, I said, we didn’t, which he would know if he’d asked me any questions about myself. He still leaned in and tried to kiss me. We never saw each other again.

So there you have it. Ask questions! Be curious about the other person! Not because they might be a journalist secretly gathering material for a Cosmo story (though that’d be fun, I’d love to date a secret journalist), but because it’s more than possible the answer to ‘why aren’t we compatible’ is flashing bright neon signs that you just aren’t actually looking at. This particular dude went on at least two dates with a left-leaning journalist then spent so much time monologuing about his own right-wing opinions he was completely blindsided when she revealed that hers were different. It’s an extreme example, but it neatly illustrates a problem that I suspect is quite common, one you might want to think about if you repeatedly find yourself baffled as to why your matches aren’t working out.

Perhaps framing the boring advice to ‘ask questions’ in this way might help where my other attempts to hammer the message home have failed. Asking questions doesn’t just allow you to find out more about your date, it may also save you heartache and confusion down the line. Somewhere buried in your date’s responses there is probably a plausible answer to the question ‘why aren’t we compatible?’.

If you can’t bring yourself to ask questions out of curiosity, ask so you have a better understanding of why your date might say ‘no’ to seeing you again.

Postscript: TV show recommendations

*More on the ‘recommending me TV shows’ thing. Having pondered this a little, I actually think my issue with guys who do this comes down – again – to a lack of questions/curiosity. Too often these recommendations are framed in such a way that implies this guy knows me, even though he has not asked about my likes or listened to what I’ve said. If someone listened carefully when I talked about the sorts of things I enjoy (‘Oh, you like Taskmaster? Have you seen [other similar show where comedians Do A Thing]?’ I’d be very receptive. I have recently been reading a bunch of awesome books off the back of some gushing enthusiasm from a guy I’m banging. And they’re great, I love them. I love them because he hasn’t just recommended every single thing he loves, he has carefully selected recommendations based on things I’ve said I enjoy. Unfortunately, what tends to happen more often is that a guy raves about his favourite TV show then tells me ‘you HAVE to watch it, I think you’d LOVE it!’.

Well… why do you think that? What is it about what I have told you that makes this recommendation specific to my tastes? Usually the answer is ‘nothing’ – he doesn’t know anything about my tastes because he hasn’t asked or listened, he’s just telling me about something he loves and assuming I’ll feel the same way. And ‘projecting your opinions onto me, like I’m a blank slate on which you’re writing’ is not the same as connecting with the person I actually am.

It’s OK for you to love something that I don’t – in fact, it’s very common! And it can be fun to swap stories about the things we love, so each of us can bask in the joy the other person feels about Their Thing (as long as you give equal time to MY things too, of course). But when you assume I’ll love stuff just because you do, you’re telling me something significant about how you view me (and maybe women in general): that I am not an independent person with my own thoughts and opinions, I am valuable if and only if I am the same as you, or am willing to become so. Miss me with that.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories