All posts by medical

Immunology

The pros and cons of Freedom Daya view from immunology – The BMJ – The BMJ

Currently, there is much discussion of the UK governments vision to end all covid-19 restrictions in England on 19 July, so-called Freedom Day. This is the endpoint of the UK governments covid-19 roadmap. A postponement was previously put in place because the final condition for ending lockdownthat no new variant had appeared to raise new concernshad been missed due to steeply rising cases caused by the delta variant. As Freedom Day approaches, new cases of covid-19 are rising steeply, with projections that this may rise to 100,000 cases/day. That would be a worse trajectory than the UKs European neighbours or the USA.

The case that the end of covid restrictions will proceed as planned on 19 July is predicated on the point that, despite the enormous caseload, this no longer carries the same ramifications as in the first two waves. The link between infection, hospitalisation, and death has been weakened by the highly successful vaccines and vaccination programme. Transmission is high, but hospitalisations and fatal cases are low. To clarify, the vaccines in use, in most people, generate good levels of neutralising antibodies and substantially reduce the chance of serious infection and death by delta after two doses. The problem is the most people caveatthose at the lower end of the distribution of neutralising antibodies are susceptible to breakthrough infection. [1,2] Secondary school children are currently ineligible for vaccination, and yet are susceptible to infection and have proved an excellent viral incubator during this wave. At the time of writing, concerns about the race to unlock are being raised by experts, including Mike Ryan, the WHOs executive director for health emergencies, who has warned of the epidemiological stupidity of ending covid restrictions, and other leading public health experts who have published an open letter in The Lancet.

The polarisation of the debate bears witness to the fact that the cost benefit analysis is now more nuanced than in early 2021, when 1800 deaths were reported in a single day and the risks were immediate and self evident. With the UK among those countries with the privilege of relatively high vaccination levels and daily fatalities in double figures, it seems only right to ask what level of intervention is appropriate to our relationship with the virus as it is today and is likely to be in the future.

Among the arguments raised in support of Freedom Day are that we have to move on (the now or never), re-establish normality, and rejuvenate the economy. Israel is cited as a country achieving this, even in the face of a growing wave of delta breakthrough cases.

The difficulty is that the national situation and the interlinked global situation are far from under control. Allowing the virus freedom to circulate at high transmission levels in a partially vaccinated population is a concern. It is a real-life, population-level embodiment of viral immunologists laboratory experiments to model the emergence of immune-escape mutants. Such real-world vaccine escape variants are indeed starting to be sequenced [3]. The delta variant has replaced alpha as the dominant variant at present, but the possibility of other global variants coming around the curve remains. If the past 18 months have taught us anything, it is that virus outbreaks traverse the world fast, even in the face of border controls.

Lastly, there is the concern about the long term cost, in the form of new cases of long covid. We still cannot fully assess the time course of this disease process, but certainly there are hundreds of thousands of people whose lives have not yet returned to normal after more than a year. It is known that long covid ensues after SARS-CoV-2 infection, across the severity spectrum, and irrespective of asymptomatic or severe/hospitalised outcome. There is thus no reason to assume that an infection wave in a partially vaccinated population will incur less than the predicted 10-20% of all infections leading to long covid. This suggests a period in which we tolerate up to 10-20,000 people per day, many of them children and young adults, entering the pool of individuals with long covid.

Its important to move forward, but the list of cons reminds us that this virus is an ongoing, formidable, and unforgiving foe, demonstrating time after time the high cost of the smallest miscalculation. This supports a case for continued caution and to go slowly and steadily with a stepwise, evidence-based easings of restrictions.

Daniel Altmann, professor, Department of Immunology and Inflammation, Imperial College London.

Rosemary Boyton, professor, Department of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, UK & Lung Division, Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, London, UK.

Competing interests: none declared.

References:

Continued here:
The pros and cons of Freedom Daya view from immunology - The BMJ - The BMJ

Immunology

Canada took a risk delaying second COVID-19 vaccine doses. Now, its vaccination campaign is one of the best in the world – AAMC

Maria Sundaram, PhD, an epidemiologist and postdoctoral fellow at the University of Torontos Dalla Lana School of Public Health, watched from afar in March and April as many of her friends and family in the United States received their first and second doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.

It was a very interesting mix of emotions, says Sundaram, who grew up in the United States. Many of us have experienced vaccine envy, watching other people get a vaccine before us, [but there was] simultaneous relief that my friends were getting protected.

Meanwhile, in Canada, vaccine supply remained scarce. Despite purchasing more than five times the number of vaccine doses needed to cover its entire population, the Canadian government experienced challenges obtaining the vaccines from the European countries that were manufacturing them. As a result, it lagged behind other wealthy countries on vaccination rates for months until the supply began to increase in May.

Finally, in mid-May, Sundaram who works for a hospital but does her research from home was able to get a dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine and was given an appointment for her second dose in September.

The four-month gap between doses more than three months longer than the 21 days that the company recommends based on clinical trial data was a result of the Canadian governments decision to focus on giving first doses to as many people as possible before administering second doses (except to those in the highest risk groups, such as people living in long-term care facilities). The delayed second dose strategy followed that of the United Kingdom, which faced a surge caused by the alpha variant in the early months of 2021 but broke from the United States strategy of sticking to the dosing regimen tested in clinical trials.

Theres been a bit of luck involved in the approach that Canada has used.

Eric Arts, PhDProfessor and Canada research chair in viral control at Western University in London, Ontario

The decision was controversial. At one point, even Canadas chief scientific advisor, Mona Nemer, PhD, called it a population level experiment when speaking with CBC News.

Still, faced with a COVID-19 surge in March and April that strained hospitals and a lack of vaccine supply, Canada took a risk.

They had to come up with strategies that would provide some protection, says Alon Vaisman, MD, an infectious disease physician at University Health Network at the University of Toronto. The thinking was, Can I protect both of us at 80% [efficacy] versus me at [almost] 100% [efficacy] and you at 0%? That was the philosophy.

Now, as Canadas vaccination rate has skyrocketed in recent weeks covering nearly 70% of the population with at least one dose, passing the United States 55% and most other nations and its cases and hospitalizations have tapered, it seems that the risk is paying off.

Theres been a bit of luck involved in the approach that Canada has used, says Eric Arts, PhD, a professor and Canada research chair in viral control at Western University in London, Ontario. It was an approach that was quite successful.

Many scientists, including top U.S. infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci, MD, have said that the best vaccination strategy is to adhere as closely as possible to the dosing regimen tested in the clinical trials: two doses of the Pfizer vaccine spaced 21 days apart or two doses of the Moderna vaccine spaced 28 days apart.

We feel strongly that we will go by the science, which has dictated for us the optimal way to get the 94 to 95 percent response, which is, in fact, durable for the period of time that weve been following it, Fauci explained at a White House press briefing on Feb. 3.

ICUs were full, people were being helicoptered out. It [was] extremely important to use every tool in our tool box.

Maria Sundaram, PhDEpidemiologist and postdoctoral fellow at the University of Torontos Dalla Lana School of Public Health

But the United States, which contracted with manufacturing plants on its soil, had access to far more doses more quickly than Canada. Although vaccines in the United States were initially limited and reserved for people in higher risk categories such as front-line workers and older adults, there was enough supply to make all adults in the country eligible for a shot by mid-April.

At that time, Canada was at the peak of a third wave of cases that was threatening to overwhelm its hospitals in some regions.

In Toronto, we had a very serious situation, Sundaram recalls. ICUs were full, people were being helicoptered out. It [was] extremely important to use every tool in our tool box.

Anticipating this, Canadas National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommended extending the time between first and second doses to four months on March 3 even longer than the three months that the United Kingdom had implemented.

The data supporting that was pretty much nonexistent, Vaisman says. There was a small gamble taken on what the efficacy was going to be like.

The decision was ethically complicated, according to Jonathan Kimmelman, PhD, director of the Biomedical Ethics Unit at McGill University in Montreal.

One of the variables that was not nailed down [in clinical trials] was how long you should wait between the first and second dose to maximize the effect, he explains. There was incredible pressure to get the vaccine out.

In a perfect world, Kimmelman says, the clinical trials would have tested spacing out the vaccine doses at different intervals to see which one was most effective. Instead, researchers focused on testing the shortest effective interval.

Still, all clinical trials have limitations.

This is no different for public health than it is for medicine, he explains. When you run a clinical trial of a drug, its rare that [doctors prescribe] that drug under the exact conditions of the trial.

In fact, some scientists said that further spacing out the doses would likely increase the effectiveness of the vaccines.

The government didnt work independently; they consulted a lot with the scientists and vaccinologists, says Arts. A lot of my colleagues felt that the rapid immunization between first and second doses was not necessary. You want to boost a secondary response with a vaccine. If you immunize too quickly from first dose, your primary response hasnt come down yet [and its] not always very efficient.

And as more data have emerged from the delayed dosing, it seems that spacing out the doses can result in a stronger immune response. One study in the United Kingdom released in May found that people over the age of 80 who received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine 12 weeks apart had three times more antibodies than those who received the doses three weeks apart. Another U.K. study at the University of Oxford found that further spacing between doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine also increased antibody production.

Canada also took a different approach than the United States by advising people that they could mix and match their vaccines: People who had received an AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine for the first dose could choose either the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine for the second dose, and those who received a first dose of one mRNA brand could get the other for the second dose. This change came about as a result of some controversy surrounding the safety of the AstraZeneca vaccine in some populations earlier this year as well as shortages of the Pfizer vaccine for some time.

[Mix-and-matching] provided a lot of flexibility. It ensured vaccines werent staying in freezers where they dont offer protections.

Craig Jenne, PhDAssociate professor in the Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Infectious Diseases at the University of Calgary in Alberta

The shift allowed Sundaram to get her second vaccine dose months ahead of her scheduled appointment by switching to Moderna. Because of her knowledge of how other vaccines have been mixed in a similar way in the past and her understanding of how vaccines work, she was confident the two mRNA vaccines were essentially interchangeable.

Historically, we havent been watching the developing of vaccines, she explains. We havent asked, Hey, what brand is this flu shot?

Another University of Oxford study found that mixing a dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine with a dose of the Pfizer vaccine elicited a strong immune response, although there have been few real-world studies about the efficacy of mixing the two types of vaccine.

[Mix-and-matching] provided a lot of flexibility, says Craig Jenne, PhD, an associate professor in the Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Infectious Diseases at the University of Calgary in Alberta. It ensured vaccines werent staying in freezers where they dont offer protections.

While the single doses of COVID-19 vaccine have helped protect Canadas population so far, the focus is now pivoting to ramping up second doses even, in many cases, cutting short the four-month delay.

This change is being made to stay ahead of the highly transmissible delta variant, which was first identified in India and quickly became dominant in the United Kingdom and the United States. Laboratory studies are finding that single doses of the Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca vaccines are providing far less protection against this variant. One study in England suggested that one dose of the AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccine could provide as little as 33% effectiveness against symptomatic disease from the delta variant, compared with 50% against the alpha variant. However, two doses remained 60% and 88% effective, respectively.

One of the most challenging things about infectious disease pandemics is that the last inches are exactly as hard as the first hundred miles. Were not safe until all of us are safe.

Maria Sundaram, PhDEpidemiologist and postdoctoral fellow at the University of Torontos Dalla Lana School of Public Health

As of July 9, Canada was quickly gaining on the United States fully vaccinated rate of 47% of the population, which has now slowed to a crawl. On June 1, less than 6% of Canadas population was fully vaccinated, but on July 8, it had reached 40%, according to Our World in Data.

Arts compared the United States and Canadas vaccine strategies to the fable about the tortoise and the hare, saying that although the United States had a quick start like the hare, Canadas slower approach seems to be poised to win the proverbial race because of less vaccine hesitancy.

If everyone who got the first dose gets their second, well be OK, Vaisman says.

But successfully ending the pandemic cannot be done by individual countries, Sundaram cautions. As long as the virus is allowed to spread in unvaccinated communities, it has the opportunity to mutate and potentially evade vaccine protection.

Canada ordered a lot of vaccines, and that came at a cost to a lot of other countries, she says. One of the most challenging things about infectious disease pandemics is that the last inches are exactly as hard as the first hundred miles. Were not safe until all of us are safe.

Read more:
Canada took a risk delaying second COVID-19 vaccine doses. Now, its vaccination campaign is one of the best in the world - AAMC

Anatomy

‘Anatomy of a Murder’ Dissected | Northern Today – Northern Today

Author and former Army Judge Advocate Eugene Milhizer will give a free presentation on his book, Dissecting Anatomy of a Murder, on Thursday, July 29. The event begins at 2 p.m. at the Central U.P. and Northern Michigan University Archives in 126 Harden Hall at NMU. A book signing will follow.

Milhizer carefully and intelligently unravels the trial, book and movie based on one of the most famous criminal trials of the 20th century. He explores the 1952 murder in Big Bay and community attitudes about the crime. He tells the fascinating story of Anatomy of a Murder author John Voelker, who served as defense counsel for the resulting trial and then adapted the real-life courtroom drama into fictional form as a great novel. He also looks back on production of the groundbreaking film inspired by Voelker's novel, directed by Otto Preminger.

Milhizer's book considers several discrete legal and ethical issues that the novel and film raise. These include the implications of a criminal attorney explaining the law to a client in a manner that may suggest a dubious defense. It also reflects upon broader questions, such as the proper role of a jury and the impact of community standards in a criminal trial. It evaluates the capacity of the criminal justice system to achieve true justice within the context of what Voelker called the settled procedures and ancient rules of the law. And ultimately, it chronicles what some have called the greatest legal war story ever told.

For three years, Milhizer held a teaching appointment at the Judge Advocate General's School at the University of Virginia. In 2001, he joined the Ave Maria School of Law faculty, where his course offerings have included criminal procedure, criminal law, national security law, and military law.

See the original post here:
'Anatomy of a Murder' Dissected | Northern Today - Northern Today

Anatomy

Cannes: Anatomy of a Standing Ovation for The French Dispatch – The New York Times

CANNES, France Wes Anderson has been waiting a long time for The French Dispatch to premiere at the Cannes Film Festival.

A star-studded comedic anthology about the final issue of a literary magazine, The French Dispatch was meant to debut here last year until the pandemic prevented the festival from being held. Instead of putting his movie out in the interim, Anderson held on to it for another year, and at Monday nights glitzy Cannes premiere, he finally got his wish.

So did the film festival. Cannes runs mainly on auteur worship and movie stars, and The French Dispatch offered heaping helpings of both. Cast members, including Timothe Chalamet, Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Benicio Del Toro and Owen Wilson, all turned out in support of Andersons film, contributing to what is almost certainly the biggest movie premiere that has been held since the pandemic began.

Cannes responded in kind, and the audience at the Grand Thtre Lumire offered The French Dispatch a nine-minute standing ovation after the closing credits rolled. These epic-length orgies of applause are one of the festivals best-known quirks, but to outsiders, the ovations must be baffling: Does the audience really stand up and clap for that long? Wouldnt that get old fast?

Let me explain how a Cannes standing ovation works, using last nights standing O for The French Dispatch as the minute-by-minute model. Its an ovation that Anderson must have been anticipating for over a year, even if it appeared that he wanted it to end as soon as it began.

1 second in: The credits end, the lights go on, and the cheering audience gets to its feet. A cameraman scurries toward the middle of the theater, where Anderson and his cast are sitting. As he films them, the image is simultaneously broadcast on the Lumires big screen, which gooses the crowds applause even further.

6 seconds in: Though Anderson has risen from his seat, the rest of his cast pointedly stays seated. Nervous, he tries to coax them to stand alongside him, but the actors hold fast: They want Anderson to have his own moment where he can be singularly applauded for his work.

36 seconds in: A half-minute of adulation is about all the visibly uncomfortable Anderson can stand. To his right are Chalamet and the actress Lyna Khoudri, who play French revolutionaries in the film, and Anderson pleads with them to stand up. They begin to, but when Chalamet looks around and sees that no other actor has risen, he stays in his seat.

45 seconds in: Murray stands up and waves to the cheering audience. You can see the rest of the cast doing mental calculations: Well, if Bill Murray is going to stand, then I guess its time to get up. They all rise.

1 minute and 10 seconds in: Murray pulls out a fan and begins to whip cool air at his director. Hey, if the standing ovation is going to go on for several minutes, you might as well sprinkle in some comic bits to pass the time.

1 minute and 30 seconds in: The actor Mathieu Amalric pulls out his iPhone and starts recording a video of the cast. Fitting, since everyone else in the Lumire has an iPhone trained on them, too.

1 minute and 50 seconds in: Swinton goes down the line of her co-stars, giving del Toro and Adrien Brody double kisses on the cheek. Let me attempt to describe Swintons outfit, which consists of a satiny pink blouse, glittery green sleeves and an orange skirt: She looks like the most glamorous fruit plate youve ever seen.

2 minutes in: How can a standing ovation at Cannes possibly sustain itself past two minutes? Heres the trick: The Lumire cameraman, who has previously been recording a wide shot of the cast, now moves to sustained close-ups of each actor. This allows the audience to give each of the performers their own round of applause, and its also why Cannes films with a large ensemble tend to get longer ovations.

2 minutes and 20 seconds in: While the camera is panning from a close-up of Amalric to Khoudri, Brody races from his place at the very end of the cast lineup and heads to where the action is. He hugs Amalric, who is near the front of the line, and the camera pulls back to cover him.

2 minutes and 37 seconds in: Now Chalamet gets his close-up. Thank you, Chalamet says as the audience applauds wildly. He then points to Anderson, encouraging the cameraman to film him instead.

2 minutes and 55 seconds in: Anderson is standing with Wilson and seems wholly uninterested in enduring another half-minute of the audiences prolonged attention. The camera instead locates Swinton, a Cannes veteran who is in three films here this year. Though she is a seasoned pro at accepting a standing ovation, Swinton shakes her head no and points to her director. Eventually, she takes the initiative and pushes the camera toward Anderson herself.

3 minutes and 23 seconds in: The cameraman lingers on a close-up of Anderson, which whips the tired crowd into another round of whoops and cheers. But its clear the director doesnt know what to do with himself when hes the sole focus of the frame. Hes saved by Murray, who comes in for another hug.

3 minutes and 53 seconds in: Brody leans in to kiss Anderson on the cheek and tousles his hair. We are not even halfway through this thing.

4 minutes and 30 seconds in: Swinton takes the taped Tilda Swinton placard from her seat and affixes it to the back of Chalamets silver jacket. We have reached the improv-comedy portion of the night.

5 minutes and 25 seconds in: After locating del Toro at the end of the lineup of actors, the cameraman has now fulfilled his obligation to let each of the performers have their own solo session of applause. So what will keep the ovation going? Cast mischief. The camera drifts back to Chalamet, who hides his face with the Tilda Swinton sign. Swinton snatches it from his hands and tapes it onto his back again, where it belongs.

5 minutes and 50 seconds in: Now hugging Brody, Chalamet turns to the camera and makes the L.A. fingers hand gesture. Brody blows a very serious kiss to the camera.

6 minutes and 5 seconds in: Yes, were going into Minute 6. Anderson pulls out a pink handkerchief and wipes his brow. He appears to be teary-eyed.

6 minutes and 35 seconds in: Chalamet turns to Anderson and bows in an Im not worthy salute. The applause is starting to flag a little. Its time to pull out the big guns.

7 minutes and 7 seconds in: Anderson is handed a microphone. He winces and tries to turn it away, but Cannes officials press it into his hands anyway.

7 minute and 15 seconds in: Anderson, who lives in Paris, begins to speak to the audience in French. He calls the premiere un honneur pour moi, but after seven seconds of that, he turns to Chalamet and cracks in English, I dont know what else to say. The audience laughs and Anderson adds, I hope we come back with another one soon. Thank you so much.

7 minutes and 30 seconds in: Andersons short speech was enough to resuscitate the crowd, and the applause surges back to its initial levels.

7 minutes and 50 seconds in: Several French-accented cries of Bravo! are heard as Anderson tucks his long hair behind his ears and scans the audience.

8 minutes and 24 seconds in: Murray goes over to Anderson and suggests that hes ready to leave. Anderson could not possibly agree more, racing up the aisle so quickly that he bumps into the cameraman, who is still filming him.

8 minutes and 40 seconds in: It appears the cameraman has blocked Andersons path. He wont get away that easily! Instead, Anderson is forced to stand in the aisle and absorb even more applause and encouraging whistles from the crowd. The expression on his face is somewhere between an awkward grimace and pure, stunned joy, which is what nearly nine minutes of a standing ovation will do to you.

9 minutes in: The cameraman relents and allows Anderson to move forward. As the director and his cast leaves the theater, the ovation finally subsides. The French rush outside to smoke, the Americans rush outside to tweet, and in a few different languages, I hear one plaintive question: Is there an after-party?

Go here to see the original:
Cannes: Anatomy of a Standing Ovation for The French Dispatch - The New York Times

Anatomy

Penn State football: Anatomy of a position group The wide receivers – rivals.com

Starting this week, Blue White Illustrated will begin a new series breaking down each Penn State position group and how it was constructed, also touching on its outlook ahead of the 2021 season and looking further forward. We continue the series with Penn State's wide receivers

Quarterbacks

Running Backs

Tight Ends

The contrast between how Penn State fans felt about their wide receivers heading into the 2020 season and how they feel about that position group with the 2021 season looming couldn't be much greater.

Concern and trepidation have been replaced by confidence and assurance with Penn State looking toward a season-opening date with Wisconsin.

Jahan Dotson emerged from his status as a relative unknown to become the Big Ten's leading receiver in 2020. His decision to return for another season in Happy Valley was a huge boost to everyone of a blue and white persuasion.

Similarly, Parker Washington had a fantastic season for a true freshman, finishing with 489 yards and six touchdowns in nine games.

It was an impressive campaign from that duo and one, in Washington's case, specifically that may have been even better under normal circumstances, considering he had almost no chance to develop a rapport with Sean Clifford before the season.

"It was a weird year in general," Clifford said. "Jahan obviously had been here, but with the new guys, I really didn't get a to meet them or throw to them until fall camp because we were separated because of COVID and then we were in different camps and we were practicing differently.

"The first time I threw to Parker was actually two weeks before the first game."

With those two standouts in the fold, there's reason to be excited about Penn State's top two options at that position.

The rest, though, is still up in the air.

There's no clear-and-obvious option to take up the mantle as Penn State's third wideout in 2021. Could it be one of the veterans like Cam Sullivan-Brown or Daniel George? Will a younger player like KeAndre Lambert-Smith emerge?

It's anyone's guess, and Penn State's staff will have to sort out Penn State's depth to ensure that the complementary pieces around Dotson and Washinton can do their part to ensure this group has a successful season.

So, now that we've covered the present, how does the future look at wideout for the Nittany Lions?

That could partially depend on what Lonnie White Jr. decides.

The four-star wideout was drafted this week by the Pittsburgh Pirates, and must now decide whether to pursue professional baseball or play for the Nittany Lions.

Penn State has pulled in at least one four-star or better wide receiver in every recruiting class since 2017, meaning the Nittany Lions should have plenty of options to choose from down the line.

Their 2022 class at that position looks like it could be special, too.

Anthony Ivey and Kaden Saunders are both exciting prospects who could have a big future with the Nittany Lions. Mehki Flowers fits that bill, too, but it seems likely that his future with Penn State is played out at the safety position.

There are plenty of variables within the room including the future of Marquis Wilson, who took snaps at wideout this spring after starting his Penn State career as a corner.

But even with some uncertainties, the future at wideout for the Nittany Lions looks bright.

Read the original:
Penn State football: Anatomy of a position group The wide receivers - rivals.com

Anatomy

Anatomy of a Goal: Miguel Berry secures a Hell is Real draw – Massive Report

Welcome to the Anatomy of a Goal, where each week we dissect one goal (or near goal) from a previous Columbus Crew match.

For match 12 of the 2021 MLS season, the first Hell is Real match at FC Cincinnatis TQL Stadium, we take a look at Miguel Berrys first goal for the Crew that gave Columbus a come-from-behind draw against the teams southern Ohio rivals.

Heres a look at the goal from the Black & Golds young striker.

The first Hell is Real Derby of 2021 could not have started any better for the home side, still looking for their first win at TQL Stadium. Within the first 30 seconds of the match, FC Cincinnati was able to grab a 1-0 lead. Luciano Acosta doubled the lead in the 24th minute, and a Harrison Afful red card from a second yellow card in the 42nd minute saw the Crew looking up at the scoreboard down a man and two goals with just over one half to play.

Lucas Zelarayan worked some more of his magic to cut the lead to one goal just before halftime. FCC held the possession edge in the second half but the Black & Gold still managed to create some attacking chances despite playing down a man.

Berrys game-tying goal begins from a bit of Cincinnati possession. Liga MX and MLS veteran Edgar Castillo possesses the ball under slight pressure from Berry and can either play a long pass up the field toward Brenner, hit a quick touch pass to Yuya Kubo, make a square pass to Caleb Stanko play a drop-back pass to Gustavo Vallecilla.

Castillo opts for the more difficult pass forward to Brenner, who is marked by Saad Abdul-Salaam.

Castillos pass is off target, allowing Abdul-Salaam to easily intercept the ball.

Abdul-Salaam carries the ball forward and finds himself with five options. He can play a pass up the sideline to Berry, attempt a long pass forward to Crew debutant Erik Hurtado, carry the ball forward, play a short pass into the path of Isaiah Parente or try a square pass to Darlington Nagbe.

Abdul-Salaam continues the quick counter attack, opting for the attacking pass to Hurtado.

Hurtado takes an awkward touch but is able to collect the under Stankos defensive pressure. Notice Zelarayan, the most dangerous player on the field, standing totally unmarked in the middle of the field.

Hurtados collection takes him around Stanko and he uses his next touch to hit a long drop pass back to Aboubacar Keita, with Zelarayan still unmarked nearby.

Keita approaches the ball under pressure from Brandon Vazquez. The Columbus Homegrown player must use his first touch to either dribble around Vazquezs pressure or make one of three passing choices: a touch forward to Nagbe, a long pass forward to an un-marked Zelarayan or a square pass to Pedro Santos.

Keita hits a well-placed, but a bit heavy, first-touch pass right to Zelarayan.

Zelarayan takes a moment to collect the ball before starting his turn upfield. The Black & Gold attacker is pressured by Franko Kovacevic (21) on one side while Stanko will attempt to prevent him from turning toward the FCC goal.

Zelarayan beats Kovacevics light pressure and then is able to jump over Stankos outstretched leg.

The Crews No. 10 turns toward the goal and surveys his options. He can either play a diagonal pass forward to Abdul-Salaam, try a long, through ball to Berry, attempt a pass between Kubo and Stanko to Nagbe or attempt to carry the ball forward.

Zelarayan spots Berry and hits a perfectly weighted through ball into the path of the young striker.

Rather than collect the ball and slow down his momentum, Berry lets the ball run out in front of him and maintains his pace. This savvy move allows Berry to easily beat Vallecilla and turn toward the goal.

The ball, perfectly paced by Zelarayan, rolls in front of Berry who finds himself chasing the ball with no outfield defenders between him and the goal.

Berry approaches the ball and must decide what to do with his first touch as Kenneth Vermeer attempts to close down the play. The Columbus striker can use his first touch to take a touch around Vermeer, take a shot over Vermeer toward the goal or play a quick pass into the path of Hurtado.

Vermeer slides into his path and Berry decides to shoot a chipped shot over the FC Cincinnati goalkeeper.

Vermeer has gotten low as Berry chips a low-driven shot over him.

Vermeer is unable to get a touch on the ball.

Berrys shot beats Vermeer and takes a bounce in the middle of the six-yard box, sliding...

...into the back of the net!

Findings:

Read the original here:
Anatomy of a Goal: Miguel Berry secures a Hell is Real draw - Massive Report

Anatomy

Anatomy of . . . India batter Shafali Verma | Sport | The Sunday Times – The Times

FactfileAge 17Birthplace Rohtak, Haryana

Tests 1Batting avg 79.5Highest score 96

ODIs 3Batting avg 26Highest score 44

T20 internationals 25Batting avg 27.7Strike rate 145.19 (Ranking: No 1)

Veggie is bestVerma used the enforced break in the cricket schedule to work on her fitness and physicality, adopting a strict vegetarian diet and cutting out all snacks and junk food which helped her lose six kilos in weight and increase her muscle denseness. I didnt know much about these things [diet and nutrition] but when you play international cricket, the fitness trainers constantly work on your bodies. I do miss my pizza and Doraemon though she said. There is also the small matter in the next year, of her

See the article here:
Anatomy of . . . India batter Shafali Verma | Sport | The Sunday Times - The Times

Anatomy

The Anatomy – and End – of Daniel Negreanus Tournament Futility – PocketFives

Daniel Negreanu was all smiles. In front of him were multiple stacks of Euros and in his hand was a World Series of Poker bracelet the sixth of his career. He was posing for winners photos in front of a backdrop that included the Eiffel Tower.

It was October, 2013, and Negreanu had just won the 25,000 High Roller at WSOP Europe and in the process, claimed his second WSOP Player of the Year award. It was his 40th career live tournament victory and he was just a month away from being inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame. Little did he know what was coming.

It was another 2,821 days nearly eight years before Negreanu won another live tournament. Posed for another winner phot. That streak of tournament futility ended on Tuesday, when he defeated rising star David Coleman heads up to win Event #7 ($50,000 NLHE) of the PokerGO Cup. Between that memorable night in Paris and Tuesday night in Las Vegas, there were multiple close calls through the years. And millions of dollars lost.

The time between victories included ten runner-up in-the-money finishes. A feat deemed so spectacular that Doug Polk recently created a video about it. Outside of finishing one spot behind Phil Hellmuth in a Poker After Dark sit-n-go, most of Negreanus nine other second place results came in high-profile spots.

The first two came at the 2014 World Series of Poker in Las Vegas. First, he lost to Paul Volpe heads up in the $10,000 No Limit Deuce event. Then came what was arguably the most high-profile runner-up finish in poker history. Negreanu lost to Daniel Colman in the second-ever $1 million buy-in Big One for One Drop. He walked away from that with $8,288,001 in earnings while Colman took home $15,306,668 for his win.

In April 2017, he posted back-to-back runner-up finishes in a pair of $25,400 buy-in Mixed Game High Roller events at the Bellagio before returning to the WSOP that summer. There he finished behind Abe Mosseri in the $10,000 Omaha Hi-Lo Championship event. In November of that year, Dan Smith took home $1,404,000 for beating Negreanu heads up in a $100,000 Super High Roller at the Bellagio. His Poker After Dark second place finish came a month later.

In 2018, he finished second to Justin Bonomo in the $300,000 Super High Roller Bowl. His most recent runner-up finishes came at the 2019 WSOP. He lost to John Hennigan in the $10,000 Seven Card Stud Championship before falling to Keith Tilston in the $100,000 Super High Roller event.

The difference between winning and finishing second in all of those events was worth $11,088,018.

Poker fans were given a treat when some trash talk on social media between Negreanu and longtime nemesis Polk turned into the closest thing to heads-up-for-rolls weve ever seen between two elite players. Negreanu and Polk agreed to play 25,000 hands of $200/$400 No Limit Holdem online and Polk promised that he was going back up the truck and put a financial hurt on Negreanu.

Polk did just that. While it wasnt a tournament loss, over the four months of action, Polk beat Negreanu at the tables for $1.2 million and hung another L on Negreanus board.

Between April and June, Negreanu squared off with Phil Hellmuth three times on PokerGOs High Stakes Duel II, a heads up freezeout where the buy-in doubles for each consecutive match. In the first match, which had a $50,000 buy-in, Negreanu had Hellmuth facing a 20-1 chip deficit only to have the 15-time WSOP bracelet winner mount a comeback to take the opening match. A month later, with the buy-in now $100,000, Hellmuth defeated Negreanu in the second match. The third match, which cost $200,000 to enter, also went to Hellmuth and as was his option after winning three straight, Hellmuth exited stage right with $350,000 of Negreanus money.

The 10 runner-up finishes, the three losses to Hellmuth, and the seven-figure loss to Polk werent the only close calls that Negreanu had in between wins. He came third nine times, fourth three times, and wound up in fifth place in three other events.

He also suffered the indignity of being named the 2019 WSOP Player of the Year in November 2019, only to have the win overturned after a data-entry error erroneously awarded him points in an event he didnt cash in. Once the numbers were re-run, he wound up in third place.

It wasnt all bad news for Negreanu. Between the WSOP Europe title and the PokerGO Cup tournament win, he finished in the money 99 times and had total earnings of $21,860,360.

Read the original here:
The Anatomy - and End - of Daniel Negreanus Tournament Futility - PocketFives

Anatomy

‘Grey’s Anatomy’ Fans Argue That Alex Karev’s Violent Streak Never Actually Went Away – Showbiz Cheat Sheet

Greys Anatomy fans have fallen in love with many characters throughout its 18 seasons. Unfortunately, several of them left the series for one reason or another. However, the shocking ending for Dr. Alex Karev (Justin Chambers) left some supporters speechless.

Additionally, the exit didnt surprise longtime fans for one obvious reason.

Greys Anatomy premiered on ABC on March 27, 2005. When the show came out, viewers met surgical interns Alex, Meredith Grey (Ellen Pompeo), Cristina Yang (Sandra Oh), George OMalley (T.R. Knight), and Izzie Stevens (Katherine Heigl).

RELATED: Greys Anatomy Fans Have Strong Opinions On How Showrunners Are Dealing With Justin Chambers Mysterious Exit

From the beginning, Alex stood out from the crowd. The surgeons arrogant attitude and harsh comments made him the hospitals resident villain. As the show progressed, though, Alex showed more of his softer side. When Alex and Izzie started dating in season 4, Alex proved his love to her when she received a cancer diagnosis. Soon, they got married, but Izzie eventually left her husband after thinking he got her fired from the residency program in season 6.

Eventually, Alex met Jo Wilson (Camilla Luddington). After several years of dating, they married during season 14. However, shortly after their second wedding, Alex left Jo for Izzie. In season 16, episode 16, Leave A Light On, Alex explained to Meredith, Jo, Dr. Miranda Bailey (Chandra Wilson), and Dr. Richard Webber (James Pickens, Jr) that he left Seattle to be with Izzie and their kids. The exit happened after Chambers left Greys Anatomy in Jan. 2020.

RELATED: Greys Anatomy: Ellen Pompeo Reacts to Justin Chambers Exit on Twitter and It Will Break You

Although Chambers didnt appear in Alexs final episode, the episode paid homage to his 16 seasons. After Leave A Light On aired, many fans were surprised to see Alexs character development shift fast. While leaving one woman for another was something the character would do in earlier episodes, viewers watched him change significantly as the seasons progressed.

In a Reddit thread, one user suggested that Alexs abrupt exit wasnt surprising. According to the fan, Alex never changed his ways throughout his 16-season run.

Alexs character development wasnt as great as people think, the fan shared. He was still beating people up close to the end of his run.

After pointing out Alexs explosive fight with Dr. Andrew DeLuca (Giacomo Gianniotti) in season 12, they also said his exit was complete garbage. However, they ended the comment by stating that Izzie and Alex were a much better pair than Jo.

RELATED: Greys Anatomy: Can the Show Survive Without Alex Karev?

Following Alexs exit, some Greys Anatomy fans still wish he never left Jo or Meredith behind. Although Greys showrunner Krista Vernoff admitted that the characters farewell felt like a betrayal to some fans, she believes his story received a proper ending.

It felt OK to our writers, who also grew up with these characters, she told Variety. These people are real to us, too. And that felt like the way we could say goodbye to Alex.

Currently, there are no plans for Alex to come back to Grey Sloan. Since Greys Anatomy, Chambers has been laying low. However, the actor recently signed on to play Marlon Brando in Paramount+s upcoming limited series, The Offer (via Comingsoon).

Read this article:
'Grey's Anatomy' Fans Argue That Alex Karev's Violent Streak Never Actually Went Away - Showbiz Cheat Sheet