plant lover, cookie monster, shoe fiend
20098 stories
·
20 followers

Why did I get rejected? | Girl on the Net

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
7 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

‘Northanger Abbey’ (1811) by Jane Austen – Buddy Read Master Post

1 Share

I‘m going to use this master post to share my thoughts on each chapter of ‘Northanger Abbey’ as I read it. I’ll add the most recent chapter read to the top of the post, so the chapters will appear in reverse order.

Chapter 1

Jane Austen’s tongue was clearly pushed deep into her cheek as she wrote this. Even without having read the Gothic Romances that she is satirising, I can feel the sting of this lampoon as she lists all the ways in which Catherine Morland lacks the attributes necessary to be “an heroine”.

{I love that “an”. I was taught that words starting with an H should be treated like words starting with a vowel and so got an “an” in front of them. Today, Grammerly wants me to “correct my article usage” and use “a” instead. I’m going to stick with the Jane Austen version.}

I like that Austen’s portrait of the ten-year-old Catherine does more than satirise the image of a gothic heroine, it draws a picture of a lively, active, not particularly gifted, young girl whose parents allow her the freedom to have a good time. The message I took from this was that if Catherine is a real girl, then all those gothic heroines are the unreal imaginings of authors with little inclination to introduce reality into their narratives.

Yet Catherine is fated to be the heroine of this story, and so things must change. It begins when Catherine’s perception of herself shifts. I love how Austen descibes the shift:

“At fifteen, appearances were mending; she began to curl her hair and long for balls; her complexion improved, her features were softened by plumpness and colour, her eyes gained more animation, and her figure more consequence. Her love of dirt gave way to an inclination for finery, and she grew clean as she grew smart; she had now the pleasure of sometimes hearing her father and mother remark on her personal improvement. “Catherine grows quite a good-looking girl — she is almost pretty today,” were words which caught her ears now and then; and how welcome were the sounds! To look almost pretty is an acquisition of higher delight to a girl who has been looking plain the first fifteen years of her life than a beauty from her cradle can ever receive.”

I loved that ‘…almost pretty today” and its joyous reception.

Sadly, Catherine’s evolution into an heroine is retarded by the lack of suitable men for her to fall in love with, so she spends two years living out of range of the male gaze.

I like the conspiratorial style in which this is written. Austen is speaking directly to the reader, confident of a shared perception of absurdity and appreciation of suble wit. Austen knows that the reader recognises that Catherine in on what the scriptwriters today are taught to think of as “The Hero’s Journey” and so says:

“But when a young lady is to be a heroine, the perverseness of forty surrounding families cannot prevent her. Something must and will happen to throw a hero in her way.”

So when Catherine is invited to go to Bath with some neighbours, we know her Hero’s Journey has begun.

To me, this direct-to-camera style felt like a very modern approach, not something written in 1811. It’s the sort of thing I’d see in a smart modern comedy that expects the audience to understand all the genre references and applaud the many ways in which they are being made fun of. I found myself imagining Jane Austen writing a satirical story lampooning Star Wars and Star Trek.







Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Canada could cost The Americas its measles-elimination status

1 Comment

The Americas — North, Central, and South — is the only region of the world that has ever managed to stop endemic transmission of measles. But that hard-won victory against the highly contagious virus is on the verge of being rolled back.

This week an expert committee of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) is meeting in Mexico City to study measles transmission data from the region. Canada’s massive — by contemporary standards — and long-running measles outbreak is almost certain to trigger a finding that the country’s, and thus the entire region’s, status as having eliminated measles has been lost.

Though largely symbolic, losing measles elimination status will smart for the country, which had stopped ongoing measles transmission for more than a quarter century. Canada was declared measles free in 1998; the United States followed two years later, in 2000.

There is perhaps a remote chance the committee — known as the regional verification commission for measles, rubella, and congenital rubella syndrome — will need additional data before reaching a conclusion. But two things are quite clear: The Canadian outbreak, though slowing dramatically, has not stopped, and the virus strain associated with this outbreak has now been transmitting in Canada for more than a year. 

“It’s still going on,” Natasha Crowcroft, Canada’s acting chief public health officer, told STAT in an interview last week. “We’re not surprised by that. It’s obviously disappointing.”

Measles-free countries are always at risk of having the virus introduced from elsewhere, in a sick tourist or traveler; that alone does not lead to the loss of measles elimination status. But if such a spark ignites a chain of transmission that extends for 12 months, the virus is considered to be endemic, meaning the country is no longer deemed to be measles-free. Loss of measles elimination status in one country in a region results in the entire region losing elimination status.

Daniel Salas, executive manager of the special program for comprehensive immunization at PAHO, didn’t want to prejudge the commission’s deliberations. “We’re going to listen to what Canada is going to show, all the evidence, all the research that they have done, investigations of cases and all of that,” he said in an interview.

But experts who have been following the situation and understand the complexities of controlling measles outbreaks believe the writing is on the wall.

“I would say elimination status for the region is probably at risk,” said Paul Rota, who retired as chief of the viral vaccine-preventable diseases branch at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May, and who serves on the regional verification commission for measles, rubella, and congenital rubella for the World Health Organization’s Western Pacific region. (PAHO is one of the WHO’s six regional offices.)

“That’s my expectation of the outcome of that meeting, unfortunately,” Sarah Wilson, deputy chief of communicable diseases control at Public Health Ontario, told STAT. 

Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, has recorded nearly 2,400 measles cases this year, all but 54 of which were part of the ongoing national outbreak. Ontario believes transmission there has stopped; its outbreak was declared over on Oct. 6.

Canada overall has recorded more than 5,100 confirmed and probable measles cases in 2025, and two deaths of babies born with congenital measles who were infected in utero. The country hasn’t seen this scale of measles transmission in decades.

Chart of annual measles cases in CanadaPublic Health Agency of Canada

“It’s tremendously disappointing,” said Lynora Saxinger, an infectious diseases specialist at the University of Alberta. “I never in my life thought I’d see a massive measles outbreak in Canada. Most of my career in [infectious diseases], there’s been 10 cases a year or less.”

The outbreak began in October 2024, when someone infected abroad attended a wedding in New Brunswick, in eastern Canada. From there, the virus has spread across nine of Canada’s 10 provinces and to the Northwest Territories.

Saxinger is not alone in being surprised by the size of the outbreak, though details of where infections are happening help to put the number of cases and the vast geographic spread into context.

Like the measles outbreak earlier this year in West Texas, the lion’s share of the Canadian cases have occurred among members of close-knit religious communities that eschew contact with the wider world — homeschooling their children and seeking medical care only if it’s urgently needed. 

Public health officials have been hesitant to name the groups, for fear of further alienating them and undermining efforts to gain their help to control spread. But in a memo to Ontario medical officers of health last spring, the province’s Chief Medical Officer of Health Kieran Moore reported that cases were being disproportionately seen in Mennonite, Amish, and other Anabaptist communities.

“I think this has been one of the challenges of this outbreak,” Wilson said. It’s been “a bit of a balancing act between communication about where the outbreak is occurring, the populations at risk, but balancing that with a very real risk of stigmatization of communities. And especially communities in which local public health units are really trying to … build and regain trust.” 

Many members of these communities, which are found in pockets across the country, are under-vaccinated or unvaccinated. There had been no cases of measles reported within these communities in Ontario since before Canada achieved measles elimination status in 1998, Wilson said, meaning the pool of susceptible people was large and included adults as well as children. That has been evidenced by the fact that 51 of Ontario’s cases were in pregnant people.

Wilson said she’s seen some people try to characterize the outbreak as a post-Covid phenomenon — driven by the decline in uptake of vaccines for a variety of illnesses that multiple countries have reported in the wake of the pandemic. But she said in this case, the conditions were years in the making.

“It really predates Covid by not just many years [but] many decades when you look at the ages impacted,” she said.


Rota agreed, noting the same is true of the West Texas outbreak, and a large outbreak in northern Mexico. All three of these outbreaks are believed to be linked. Combined, they have resulted in 28 measles deaths so far this year: 23 in Mexico, three in the United States, and two in Canada.

“In some respect, the susceptibility that’s causing the outbreaks now has actually been there for a while, because these are really being fueled by these under-vaccinated populations,” he said. “They’ve been vulnerable for a while. And … the virus got there.”


Similar outbreaks have occurred in the region in the past. In 2014, there was a large outbreak among Amish communities in Ohio. An outbreak among orthodox Jewish communities in New York City and nearby counties that started in 2018 brought the United States perilously close to losing elimination status in the autumn of 2019.

Should the Americas lose measles elimination status as a result of this week’s meeting, it won’t be for the first time. The region was first declared measles free in 2016, but a large outbreak in Venezuela erased that accomplishment in 2018. Brazil lost its elimination status the following year. Venezuela proved to the regional verification commission that it had stopped endemic spread in 2023. Brazil followed in 2024, allowing the Americas to again claim measles elimination status.

Once the current outbreak is extinguished in Canada, the country could regain its measles-free status if it can show the regional verification commission that it has gone 12 months without endemic transmission. 

Crowcroft, who is also the vice president for infectious diseases and vaccination programs at the Public Health Agency of Canada, thinks the end of the Canadian outbreak is in sight. “We’re pretty confident … we’re at the tail end of it.” But as a former member of PAHO’s regional verification commission, she knows that regaining elimination status isn’t a simple process. It’s not enough to claim that transmission has stopped. A country must show that its surveillance systems are robust enough to detect chains of transmission, if they are occurring.

Asked if she’s worried about the message that could be sent because a country as affluent as Canada couldn’t stop transmission within a year, Crowcroft reframed the question.

“I’m more concerned … that we learn the lessons of this being a reflection of the global situation, and how much we do depend on each other,” she said. “Whether high income, low income, or middle income, wherever, we’re all dependent on each other to get ahead of measles.”

Saxinger sees the milestone as a call to action. 

“I think it’s a big wake-up call. I think we’ve been coasting on luck during a period of drifting vaccine rates for quite a long time now,” she said. “The fact that it’s been really, really difficult to control is just a solid reminder that measles is just really, really hard.”

Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
Religion is a deadly virus
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Bad Gums Tied to Big Brain Risks | MedPage Today

1 Comment
  • Periodontal disease was linked to increased white matter damage, raising concerns for brain health.
  • Poor oral health also raised the risk of ischemic stroke and major cardiovascular events.
  • Neurologists were urged to include oral health as part of comprehensive brain disease prevention.

Gum disease was linked with white matter hyperintensities, an imaging marker of cerebral small vessel disease, data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort showed.

Among 1,143 ARIC participants, periodontal disease was associated with the highest quartile of white matter hyperintensity volume (adjusted OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.01-2.40), reported Souvik Sen, MD, MS, MPH, of the University of South Carolina in Columbia, and co-authors in Neurology Open Access.

In a parallel study of 5,986 ARIC participants, the incidence of ischemic stroke over a 21-year follow-up period was 4.1% for people with oral health, 6.9% for people with periodontal disease, and 10.0% for people with concurrent periodontal disease and dental caries. Periodontal disease with caries was associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke (HR 1.86, 95% CI 1.32-2.61) and major adverse cardiovascular events (HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.10-1.69) compared with oral health.

"The most obvious implication of these data is that oral health plays a role in stroke risk, an already well-documented association, and may contribute to white matter hyperintensity pathogenesis, a relationship that is less well explored," observed Leonardo Pantoni, MD, PhD, of the University of Milan.

White matter hyperintensities are a silent expression of cerebrovascular disease, Pantoni noted in an accompanying editorial.

However, they are "in no way a benign neuroimaging finding," he emphasized. "A large body of evidence has shown that severe white matter hyperintensities are associated with an increased risk of dementia, mortality, and various functional deficits."

These two studies strongly suggest that good oral health may help prevent white matter hyperintensity burden and reduce stroke risk, Pantoni pointed out.

"Neurologists, like many other specialists, are probably not accustomed to considering oral health as part of cerebrovascular disease prevention," he stated. "These observations suggest that neurologists should consider incorporating lifestyle interventions such as oral health into stroke prevention strategies, as an adjunct to pharmacologic approaches."

The ongoing ARIC study began in 1987, enrolling nearly 16,000 people ages 45 to 65 years in four U.S. communities. Participants had multiple consecutive follow-up visits since the study began. The Dental ARIC ancillary study was conducted from 1996 to 1998.

In the white matter hyperintensity analysis, 800 ARIC participants were classified as having periodontal disease and 343 had periodontal health. Sen and co-authors divided participants into quartiles based on white matter hyperintensity volume. Those in the highest quartile had a volume of more than 21.36 cm³; those in the lowest quartile had a volume of less than 6.41 cm³.

Imaging measures of cerebral small vessel disease included white matter hyperintensity volume, cerebral microbleeds, and lacunar infarcts. Cerebral microbleeds or lacunar infarcts were not associated with periodontal disease, which "may be explained by a lack of statistical power or by different pathogenetic aspects among these features of cerebral small vessel disease," Pantoni suggested.

In the ischemic stroke analysis, 1,640 people had oral health, 3,151 had periodontal disease only, and 1,195 had concurrent periodontal disease and dental caries. This analysis also showed that regular dental care was tied to lower odds of periodontal disease (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.86) and periodontal disease with caries (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.15-0.25).

The findings suggest that mechanisms involving systemic inflammation from dental disease may play a role in brain health, Sen and colleagues noted. If future studies confirm a link between gum disease and white matter hyperintensities, "it could offer a new avenue for reducing cerebral small vessel disease by targeting oral inflammation," Sen said in a statement.

A limitation of both studies is that oral health was assessed once and changes in dental health over time weren't captured, the researchers acknowledged.

Please enable JavaScript to view the
Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
Floss abs use a soft toothbrush!
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

NOAA cancels funding for data collection crucial to tsunami warning systems

1 Share

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is halting a contract that makes it possible for the federal agency to accurately monitor for potential tsunamis in Alaska – and quickly warn at-risk communities.

The Alaska Earthquake Center for decades has collected data from seismology stations across the state and directly fed the information to NOAA’s National Tsunami Center, in Palmer. If the data indicates an earthquake that could lead to a tsunami, the Tsunami Center sends out a warning message within minutes.

Or at least that’s how it worked historically, including on Thursday morning, when an earthquake struck between Seward and Homer.

But that’s about to change. In late September, the federal agency advised the Alaska Earthquake Center that it does not have funding available for that work.

“We are anticipating direct data feeds to stop in mid-November,” said Mike West, the Alaska State Seismologist and director of the Alaska Earthquake Center, which is part of the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Geophysical Institute.

The news comes amid the Trump administration’s effort to dramatically slash federal spending – including by proposed cuts to key weather and climate programs within NOAA.

West said the change is a big deal. NOAA’s National Weather Service holds the federal responsibility for tsunami warnings, and has historically been a primary supporter of seismic data collection in Alaska. But the agency doesn’t actually collect much of that data itself.

“Without this contract,” West said, “they lose data from dozens and dozens of sites all around the state, and specifically – or maybe more urgently – a handful of sites out in the Aleutians and the Bering that have been there for decades specifically for this purpose.”

The potential fallout isn’t isolated to Alaska. West provided an example: the 1946 tsunami that originated near the Aleutians, and killed more than 150 people in Hawaii.

“The tsunami threats from Alaska are not just an Alaska problem,” West said.

The contract was supposed to re-start October 1. But after funding did not arrive as expected, West reached out to the agency on Sept. 23. A NOAA official advised him via email a week later that the agency did not have the budget to support the long-standing contract.

West said the Earthquake Center is grappling with the situation but that its NOAA data feeds and tsunami-specific work will wind down in November.

“We are not going to continue operating those stations in the Aleutians that are entirely NOAA supported,” he said. “We’re not going to just keep doing it.”

NOAA did not respond to a request for comment. NOAA Tsunami Warning Coordinator David Snider declined to comment for this story.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
2 days ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Key Ukraine town faces 'multi-thousand' Russian force, top commander admits

1 Comment

James LandaleDiplomatic correspondent, in Kyiv

Reuters Artillerymen of the 152nd Separate Jaeger Brigade fire an M114 self-propelled howitzer towards Russian troops near PokrovskReuters

Pokrovsk is a key hub whose capture could unlock Russian efforts to seize the rest of the region

Ukraine's top military commander has admitted his soldiers are facing "difficult conditions" defending Pokrovsk - a key eastern front-line town - against massed Russian forces.

Gen Oleksandr Syrskyi said Ukrainian troops were facing a "multi-thousand enemy" force - but denied Russian claims that they were surrounded or blocked.

He confirmed that elite special forces had been deployed to protect key supply lines which, army sources said, were all under Russian fire.

The defence ministry in Moscow reported that Ukrainian troops were surrendering and 11 of their special forces had been killed after landing by helicopter, something denied by Kyiv.

In Saturday's posts on Telegram, Gen Syrskyi said he was "back on the front" to personally hear the latest reports from military commanders on the ground in the eastern Donetsk region.

In a short video, Syrskyi is seen studying battlefield maps with other commanders, including the head of Ukraine's military intelligence, Kyrylo Budanov.

It is unclear when and where the footage was recorded.

Ukrainian media earlier reported that Budanov was in the region to personally oversee the operation by the special forces.

The deployment of special forces suggests officials in Kyiv are determined to try to hold on to the town, which Russia has been trying to seize for more than a year.

Ukraine's 7th Rapid Response Corps said on Saturday Ukrainian troops "have improved [their] tactical position" in Pokrovsk - but the situation remained "difficult and dynamic".

Late on Friday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stressed that the defence of Pokrovsk was a "priority".

There have been growing reports of Russian advances around the strategic town to the west of the Russian-seized regional capital of Donetsk.

Reuters Drone shot of Ukrainian forces leaving a helicopter in a muddy field.Reuters

Russia claimed to have killed Ukrainian special forces who landed near the town by helicopter

Images shared with news agencies late on Friday appear to show a Ukrainian Black Hawk helicopter deploying about 10 troops near Pokrovsk, although the location and date could not be verified.

Russia's defence ministry said it had thwarted the deployment of Ukrainian military intelligence special forces north-west of the town, killing all 11 troops who landed by helicopter.

DeepState, a Ukrainian open-source monitoring group, estimates about half of Pokrovsk is a so-called "grey zone" where neither side is in full control.

A military source in Donetsk told the BBC that Ukrainian forces were not surrounded but their supply lines were under fire from Russian troops.

The US-based Institute for the Study of War said Ukrainian forces had "marginally advanced" during recent counter-attacks north of Pokrovsk, but said the town was "mainly a contested 'grey zone'".

Moscow wants Kyiv to cede the Donetsk and the neighbouring Luhansk regions (collectively known as Donbas) as part of a peace deal, including the parts it currently does not control.

Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, and currently controls about 20% of Ukrainian territory, including the Crimean peninsula Moscow annexed in 2014.

Pokrovsk is a key transport and supply hub whose capture could unlock Russian efforts to seize the rest of the region.

But Kyiv also believes its capture would help Russia in its efforts to persuade the US that its military campaign is succeeding - and, therefore, that the West should acquiesce to its demands.

Washington has grown increasingly frustrated with the Kremlin's failure to move forward with peace negotiations - culminating in US President Donald Trump placing sanctions on two largest Russian oil producers and axing plans for a summit with President Vladimir Putin.

Zelensky has publicly agreed with Trump's proposal for a ceasefire that would freeze the war along the current front lines.

Putin is refusing to do so, insisting on his maximalist pre-invasion demands that Kyiv and its Western allies see as a de facto capitulation of Ukraine.

Additional reporting by Jaroslav Lukiv

Read the whole story
sarcozona
3 days ago
reply
Being America’s proxy or relying on the US will never end well for your country. Look at Canada, burning all its foreign capital on the US’s pyre only to be threatened with annexation
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories