I'm sitting in the Detroit airport killing time. I am on my way home from Utah. I've been here for over 3 hours and have 3 more hours to go....So, what are some things to do in an airport?
Eat. I always eat in airports even when I'm not hungry. I eat because I'm bored.
Read. I finished one novel on the plane, finished the Salt Lake City Sunday paper, and just picked up another paperback. I was debating between something light and trashy, something light and fast paced, something I've wanted to read for awhile but that would require some effort. I ended up with light and fast paced.
TV. I watched the end of the Detroit Red Wings Chicago Black Hawks hockey game. I guess this is for the championship. Everyone seemed really excited that Detroit won. I also caught part of Obama's speech at Notre Dame.
People watch. Lots of kids, couples, and elderly. It isn't much fun to watch young men or business travellers. Teenage and young women are pretty boring, too. Kids are the most fun. Couples can be the most funny.
Surf the net. That's what I've been doing, but not much happens on Sunday..
Well, this took about 1o minutes to write, 2 hours 50 minutes to go....
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Notes on health effects
I just returned from the meetings of the Population Association of America. First, I'll note that I now feel like an "old timer" there, so few of the people look familiar. I need to learn who the young demographers are. Since we don't have a graduate program here that attracts many demography students, I feel out of touch with those just starting their careers.
There was a paper I liked that laid out a lifecourse framework for looking at health effects of socio-economic status. The authors put forth three types of explanations. First, there is the cumulative risk hypothesis. This set of ideas all rest on the notion that risks are distributed differently by SES and that over the lifecourse you can either accumulate advantage or disadvantage. So, for instance, exposure to poor living conditions, inadequate nutrition, high rates of infectious disease, etc. can lead to health problems later in life. Conversely, exposure to good diet, high levels of physical activity, no smoking, and others can lead to better health.
The second hypothesis is a pathways hypothesis. There is a chain of risk that starts early in life that proceeds over time. For instance, you may have a poor diet, leading to obesity, leading to metabolic syndrome, leading to diabetes and heart disease.
The third hypothesis is a latency model. Here, there are deemed to be critical times in development that can affect later health. The primary argument is that there are intrauterine conditions during fetal development that will have consequences for health later in life. If there is stress or poor nutrition during these times, there is a predisposition for later life health problems to develop.
I'm not sure which set of ideas appeals to me the most. I suppose the first, the cumulative risk model. It seems to fit my anecdotal evidence. Also, I suppose, you could argue that the other two models are special cases of the first.
There was a paper I liked that laid out a lifecourse framework for looking at health effects of socio-economic status. The authors put forth three types of explanations. First, there is the cumulative risk hypothesis. This set of ideas all rest on the notion that risks are distributed differently by SES and that over the lifecourse you can either accumulate advantage or disadvantage. So, for instance, exposure to poor living conditions, inadequate nutrition, high rates of infectious disease, etc. can lead to health problems later in life. Conversely, exposure to good diet, high levels of physical activity, no smoking, and others can lead to better health.
The second hypothesis is a pathways hypothesis. There is a chain of risk that starts early in life that proceeds over time. For instance, you may have a poor diet, leading to obesity, leading to metabolic syndrome, leading to diabetes and heart disease.
The third hypothesis is a latency model. Here, there are deemed to be critical times in development that can affect later health. The primary argument is that there are intrauterine conditions during fetal development that will have consequences for health later in life. If there is stress or poor nutrition during these times, there is a predisposition for later life health problems to develop.
I'm not sure which set of ideas appeals to me the most. I suppose the first, the cumulative risk model. It seems to fit my anecdotal evidence. Also, I suppose, you could argue that the other two models are special cases of the first.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
H1N1 virus
Well, the whole swine flu, H1N1 virus scare, is getting old. A student in the school my boys attend has a confirmed case of the virus. She had been vacationing in Mexico and then became ill. As a result, they have closed the school for over a week. There was no school and Thursday or Friday, and then no school all this coming week. I think, at least given the information from the CDC at this point, that this is overkill. The girl had been in school for a week before falling ill. Since her illness, no other cases have been reported. Her immediate family is not testing positive. I saw her in the shopping mall the day before she was tested, so she was already ill then--should we quarantine the whole shopping mall?
Now we have over 800 kids sitting around for a week without any school. They are having parties, going to movies, bowling, generally spreading their germs around the whole community. Maybe it would be safer to keep them in the school--bring in their toothbrushes and sleeping bags and let them all stay there quarantined together! The parents would like that better.
There are so few cases, and so few fatalities at this point that I don't see the justification for these measures. We have times when 20% of the students are out with some respiratory or gastrointestinal ailment and we don't close school--we let the disease run its course.
Well, I guess a few weeks time will let us know if this was the right move or extreme over-caution.
Now we have over 800 kids sitting around for a week without any school. They are having parties, going to movies, bowling, generally spreading their germs around the whole community. Maybe it would be safer to keep them in the school--bring in their toothbrushes and sleeping bags and let them all stay there quarantined together! The parents would like that better.
There are so few cases, and so few fatalities at this point that I don't see the justification for these measures. We have times when 20% of the students are out with some respiratory or gastrointestinal ailment and we don't close school--we let the disease run its course.
Well, I guess a few weeks time will let us know if this was the right move or extreme over-caution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)