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

there was a 71 percent decline in hospitalizations in NVSN

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

NVSN data, there was a 56 percent drop.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chromes decision actually makes a lot of sense, from a security perspective. When we model how people read URLs, they tend to be “lazy” and accept two URLs as equal if they’re similar enough. Removing or taking focus away from less critical parts makes users focus more on the part that matters and helps reduce phishing. It’s easier to miss problems with https://www.bankotamerica.com/login_new/existing/login_portal.asp?etc=etc&etc=etc than it is with bankotamerica, with the com in a subdued grey and the path and subdomain hidden until you click in the address bar.
It’s the same reason why they ended up moving away from the lock icon. Certs are easy to get now, and every piece that matches makes it more likely for a user to skip a warning sign.

The final piece is that often each of those services would be on a different computer entirely, each with a different public IP address. Otherwise the port is sufficient to sperate most services on a common domain.

There was a good long while where IP addresses were still unutilized enough that there was no reason to even try being conservative.