World's oldest person, soccer-loving Brazilian nun, dies at 116
The world's oldest living person, a Brazilian nun — and beloved soccer superfan — has died at 116, her religious congregation said.
Sister Inah Canabarro died at home of natural causes on Wednesday. Her nephew said her body 'had gradually stopped' working and that she had no known major illnesses.
Canabarro, who was also a teacher, always celebrated her birthday with a cake in the shape of the stadium of her beloved team — Sport Club Internacional, a Brazilian professional soccer club based in Porto Alegre in southern Brazil where she lived, according to BBC News.
3 Canabarro celebrating her 112th birthday in May 2020 with a cake and scarf for her favorite soccer team.
@SCInternacional / X
She had celebrated her last birthday wearing the team's scarf.
In fact, she was such a superfan that the team always wished her a happy birthday, and they shared a message of condolences after news broke of her passing.
'We bid farewell to Sister, celebrating her legacy of spirituality and compassion and wishing strength to her friends and family,' the club posted on X.
Canabarro said what she loved about her soccer team is that it represented the people.
'Whether rich or poor, it doesn't matter—it's for the people,' she said.
3 Sports Club International regularly shared news about their superfan Sister Inah Canabarro.
@SCInternacional / X
Canabarro, who said her Catholic faith was the key to her longevity, passed away just shy of her 117th birthday on May 27.
She had maintained good health through the years — only needing a walker at the age of 110 when she began having mobility issues.
She recovered from a hospitalization for COVID-19 in October 2022, making her one of the oldest known survivors of the disease.
For her 110th birthday, she was honored by Pope Francis.
3 Canabarro was honored by Pope Francis when she turned 110.
AP
Canabarro took the title of the oldest living person following the death of Japan's Tomiko Itooka, who also passed away at 116, back in December.
The world's oldest person is now Ethel Caterham, a 115-year-old British woman.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If You're Confused by the New COVID Vaccine Guidelines for Kids & Pregnant People, Read This
Confused about the new COVID-19 vaccine guidelines for children and pregnant people? Trust us, you're not alone. It all started on May 27, when Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that the U.S. would no longer recommend COVID-19 shots for healthy children over 6 months or healthy pregnant people — a move that shocked most healthcare providers. Not only did the announcement upend the typical vaccine recommendation process, it also targeted a vaccine with good safety and efficacy data. Then, just a few days later, the CDC walked back part of RFK's statement regarding children's vaccines. The agency announced COVID shots would stay on the schedule for healthy children 6 months to 17 years old, as long as the children and their caregivers consulted with a doctor or provider — a caveat even doctors found confusing. 'My neck still hurts from the whiplash,' Dr. Molly O'Shea, MD, FAAP, an official spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and a faculty at the Children's Hospital of Michigan General Pediatrics Continuity Clinic, said on a briefing hosted by the non-profit HealthyWomen this week. More from SheKnows Elon Musk's Daughter Vivian Reveals One of Their Last Tense Interactions - Nearly 5 Years Ago RFK is a known vaccine skeptic, but it's highly unusual for the Health Secretary to make such decisions unilaterally, as multiple experts pointed out during the briefing. So ultimately, what does this mean for children and pregnant people when it comes to getting vaccinated for COVID? Are these shots still necessary, and will insurance still foot the bill for them if without this government backing? Here's what we know so far, according to experts in the briefing. The COVID vaccine is still considered very effective for children and pregnant people, with lower risks than the infection itself. Early in the pandemic, pregnant people and children often suffered significant outcomes from COVID, explained Dr. Margot Savoy, MD, MPH, FAAFP, senior vice president of education, inclusiveness and physician well-being at the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). 'For pregnant people, in particular, the risk of ending up in the ICU, the risk of ending up on a ventilator, and the risk of death were just remarkably high, much more than you would expect,' she explained during the briefing. Once the vaccine became available, 'those rates declined,' Dr. Savoy said. In fact, the serious outcomes that many worried would be side effects from the vaccine — things like miscarriage, preeclampsia, blood clots, or premature delivery — were actually more likely to happen as side effects from COVID itself, not the vaccine. 'If you find yourself vaccinated, the rates of all of those things actually go down to almost none,' Dr. Savoy explained. Plus, there's the fact that vaccinated pregnant people pass their immunity to their fetus. That means that the vaccine protects the pregnant person themselves; their fetus, against stillbirth and premature delivery; and the baby, once they're born, by conferring protection in their first six months, Dr. Savoy explained. That's a good thing, because 'babies are very high risk' when it comes to respiratory infections like COVID, added Dr. Alice Sato, MD, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center and a member of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Advocacy Task Force at the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society. 'Because they have such small airways… just a little bit of inflammation can make a baby get into trouble with their breathing a lot faster,' Dr. Sato explained. '[Babies] had very high hospitalizations, even with the last wave [of COVID-19.]' Children of any age can also experience long COVID — Dr. Sato said the most recent estimate was that 6 million children in the US were suffering from it — leading to symptoms like fatigue and fussiness. COVID can also lead to missing crucial periods of time from school or preschool. Getting vaccinated can help shorten those periods and protect them from those kinds of complications. 'In my vaccinated patients who get COVID, they get mild COVID, if they get it at all — and they aren't as apt to get long COVID,' Dr. O'Shea said. The vaccines are also still considered safe, the doctors agreed. In short, 'the recommendations have changed, but the science hasn't changed,' said Kate Connors, senior director of public affairs at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. So what are those new recommendations? The CDC no longer recommends COVID vaccination during pregnancy, which 'seems to be following a unilateral decision from the HHS Secretary,' Connors noted, referencing RFK Jr. 'It was made without any of the input of the experts at the CDC, the members of ACIP [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices], certainly without feedback from organizations like ACOG, and so we're very concerned about this.' She noted that ACOG continues to recommend COVID vaccination for pregnant people. For children, the new recommendations are less cut-and-dry. After initially saying the US no longer recommends COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children over 6 months (with exceptions for children with certain medical conditions), the CDC now says it recommends a 'collaborative decision-making [approach] with your pediatrician,' explained Dr. O'Shea. 'Healthy children with no underlying health conditions can, in collaboration with their pediatrician, make a decision about whether or not they want to have their child vaccinated this coming fall against COVID-19.' However, this unusual caveat leaves the door open for insurance companies to rescind coverage of the vaccine, possibly forcing parents to pay out of pocket to vaccinate their children (more on that below). For Dr. Savoy, the 'really deeply troubling' part of these decisions is the lack of evidence to support them. 'I actually don't know what data was used to make the decisions that we're talking about today,' she said. 'The data that I have been able to see most recently continues to mark pregnant people as being incredibly high risk. There would be no situation in the data that I saw that would make me think that it makes sense to remove that recommendation.' The same goes for children, she added. COVID-19 remains a threat, Dr. Savoy emphasized. 'We keep having new variants show up. We keep having people end up in the hospital. We keep running out of beds in the ER. There's things that are still happening, even though they don't show up on the news.' This is one thorny question to come out of the changing guidelines. 'We don't know what's going to happen with insurance coverage, and we're very, very worried about it,' Connors said. That's because there's a direct connection between government vaccine recommendations and insurance coverage of those vaccines, Dr. Savoy explained. Insurance companies typically use government recommendations as a sign that a vaccine is safe and essential; when those recommendations are removed or weakened, the companies may see it as a sign (or an opportunity) to stop covering that vaccine. Connors also pointed out that we're only a few months from flu and RSV season, when vaccines become all the more essential for public health. 'This is a really tough time for these conversations, for these unanswered questions,' she said. All four experts continue to recommend COVID-19 vaccines for everyone, including pregnant people and children. Dr. Sato cited the 'incredible, robust' data that shows that the COVID-19 is safe, effective, and presents fewer risks of complications than an infection itself. 'The science has not changed,' added Connors. 'The COVID vaccine is safe and it is effective… [It's] the best tool that we have to prevent severe outcomes associated with COVID infection.' Dr. Savoy agreed. 'I would still strongly recommend that if you're a pregnant person, that you get vaccinated, not just to protect yourself, but… to protect the fetus and to protect your newborn infant on the other side of that delivery,' she stressed. 'I'm still willing to stand on that hill… And if you were bringing your child in for their visit, I would still say that your child needs to have at least that primary series as a routine recommendation.' Before you go, shop these products to soothe your child's cold symptoms: Best of SheKnows Amanda Seyfried, Megan Fox, & More Celebrities Who Have OCD 18 Baking Soda-Free Natural Deodorants That Won't Irritate Your Sensitive Pits 24 Celebrities Living With Autoimmune Disorders
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Nova Scotia Health approaching goal of reduced surgical waitlist
The interim head of the provincial health authority says enough progress has been made to reduce the surgical backlog in Nova Scotia that she's not looking over her shoulder. In December of 2022, Karen Oldfield vowed before the legislature's health committee — first asking for a Bible to swear upon before crossing her heart in the absence of the Good Book — that the backlog would be reduced by 10,000 people by mid-2025. At the time, the list stood at about 22,000 people. Such a decrease would bring the province in line with national benchmarks for surgical waitlists. "I'm not going to hell," Oldfield joked with reporters Friday following an appearance on a panel at a Halifax Chamber of Commerce luncheon to discuss innovation in health care. "We are 1,500 surgeries away from what we would consider to be an appropriate [waitlist]. With any luck, we will hit that this year." Statistics released by Nova Scotia Health show the province's waitlist as of April 1 of this year was 15,769 people. That's down from 17,369 people the same time the year before, and 19,917 people as of April 1, 2023. The procedures with the largest number of people waiting are cataract extraction (3,564), knee replacement (1,274) and hip replacement (783). Oldfield said the progress comes down to the health authority's ability to make a plan and stick to it. "There's no magic," she said. "It's focus and discipline to do it." Although the health authority announced in 2023 a premium for doctors willing to work outside traditional hours in order to cut into the backlog, Oldfield said the biggest factor in making progress has been getting staffing levels back to where they needed to be coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic. "We did lose a lot of staff. Not just because of COVID, but people — they burn out, they age out, they retire. So we've been through a period of resurgence." Oldfield said she would like to see more surgeries happening during off-hours, but there needs to be a certain level of staffing to be able to make that work and take full advantage of available operating room time and equipment. "When we have assets, you want to use your assets," she said. "And when they sit idle, that's not a good thing. So we still have lots of time across the province that these could be used." MORE TOP STORIES
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Minnesota state workers say they're ready to strike over return-to-office — and other labor news
Members of the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees picket in St. Paul on Wednesday, June 4. (Photo by Izzy Wagener/Minnesota Reformer) Take a seat in the Break Room, our weekly round-up of labor news in Minnesota and beyond. This week: State workers say they're strike ready; Job Corps students face homelessness; Minnesota surpasses 3 million jobs in 2024; and doctors and nurses picket across the state. State employees picketing outside negotiations between Minnesota budget officials and their union on Wednesday said they were absolutely willing to strike over Gov. Tim Walz's part-time return-to-office order that took effect this week. 'One-hundred percent I would. We can't just roll over here,' said Erin Malone, an auditor for the Department of Revenue, at a demonstration in St. Paul with more than 50 workers and supporters on Wednesday. The two unions representing nearly 40,000 state workers — the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — are also fuming over the state's health care proposals they estimate will raise many workers' costs by thousands of dollars a year. The administration says rising health care costs leave them no choice. The soonest state employees could strike is in late summer, once contracts expire on June 30, they complete 45 days of mediation and then provide 10 days notice. The union explained those details in a FAQ for their members posted late last month in another sign that negotiations are headed toward a volatile impasse. State employees haven't gone on strike since walking off the job for two weeks 2001, but MAPE President Megan Dayton says she's never seen her members so fired up by Walz's unilateral decision to force workers back to the office. Hundreds of workers showed up to multiple demonstrations organized by the union over two days this week. Under Walz's order, state employees must work in the office at least 50% of the time unless they live more than 50 miles away or receive an exemption. Walz argues the policy will improve collaboration, mentorship and workplace culture, with the added benefit of bringing bodies and dollars back to a forsaken downtown St. Paul. The policy officially began June 1, but some agencies have delayed implementation as they make space for employees to return. After the COVID-19 shifted office jobs to workers' homes, state agencies began downsizing their office footprint in anticipation of permanent remote work. The Department of Revenue, for example, reduced its leased office space by 35% since 2021, saving $2.45 million annually. Many workers argue they're more productive at home and complain that the order adds to their costs in parking and gas. Some also question the motive, suspecting Walz could be distancing himself from public unions ahead of another run for governor — or trying to nudge workers off the payroll as the state stares down fiscal uncertainty. The state has also proposed changing contract language to make it easier to lay off workers in the event of 'fiscal exigencies' such as federal funding cuts, as well as epidemics, natural disasters and national security emergencies. 'I think it's political posturing,' said Christine Retkwa, a data analyst at the Department of Human Services. 'It can't be collaboration if we've been more productive… It's not to save costs.' Walz's relationship with public sector unions, which have historically been an important political ally, have soured rapidly since he announced the policy in March without consulting the unions. The union compared Walz to Elon Musk, and Walz did not invite anyone from the union to attend his State of the State Address. Tens of thousands of students at Job Corps centers across the country are facing homelessness after the Trump administration's Labor Department announced it will eliminate the vocational training program for low-income teenagers and young adults. 'You don't hit the ground running, you just hit the ground period. Straight homeless – nothing. Just straight into the ground,' Tyrone Bills, one of more than 150 students at the Hubert H. Humphrey Job Corps Center in St. Paul, told Fox 9. Last Friday, the Labor Department gave students a week's notice to move out and abandon their free training to fill jobs in manufacturing, construction, law enforcement, health care and other high-growth industries. The department later extended the deadline, and then a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from killing the program. By then, many students had already moved out. Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, once an advocate for Job Corps, justified eliminating the $1.7 billion program because of 'serious incidents' as well as high costs and low student graduation rates. Just 38% of students graduate, with an average cost of more than $80,000 a year, according to the agency. The National Job Corps Association disputed these figures, saying graduation rates before COVID-19 have historically been above 60% while the cost is less than $50,000 per enrollee. Minnesota continued to have one of the country's strongest labor markets in 2024, adding 40,000 non-farm jobs to push the state above 3 million jobs for the first time, according to the second annual State of Working Minnesota report from the labor-backed think tank North Star Policy Action. In the Midwest, Minnesota has the highest median wages, the highest share of workers in unions and the highest rate of health insurance coverage. The state also has the lowest unemployment rate for Black residents in the region and the lowest fatal injury rate on the job. Wage inequality also declined, while union membership increased by nearly 7% (although this can fluctuate from year to year due to imprecise data, and the general trend has been down for unions.) Support for unions is near historic highs, and that's helped nearly triple the number of union elections over the past five years, according to the report. It wasn't all good news: unemployment ticked up while the median wage moved down from $26.43 to $25.52 in an unusual break from a nearly exclusive upward trend. There is also cause for concern, according to report author Aaron Rosenthal, given federal Republicans' drive to reduce spending on health insurance for the working poor to offset some of the costs of tax cuts largely benefitting the wealthy. Working families are increasingly reliant on health insurance through Medical Assistance, the state's version of Medicaid. The number of people insured through Medical Assistance in families with at least one full-time worker increased 165% over the past 15 years. In rural areas, roughly 18% of adults and 37% of children are insured through Medical Assistance, compared to 15% of adults and 30% of children in the Twin Cities metro area. National jobs data released on Friday showed hiring has slowed as Trump's trade war and federal cuts have put employers on edge, with nearly all of the 139,000 job gains for the month being concentrated in health care and hospitality. The federal government lost 22,000 jobs. In a first for Minnesota, newly unionized doctors, physician assistants and nurse practitioners picketed outside several Allina clinics on Tuesday as negotiations stalled over a first labor contract. (It was an informational picket and not a strike.) Frustrated with what they describe as factory-style health care, the clinicians voted by a wide margin to unionize with Doctors Council SEIU in October 2023, forming the nation's largest private-sector doctors union with more than 600 members across 60 Allina clinics in Minnesota and Wisconsin. But since then, union leaders say they've made little progress toward finalizing a first labor contract covering wages, benefits and working conditions — despite meeting with hospital leaders nearly 40 times. 'We're not seeing Allina come to the table with meaningful proposals,' said Dr. Chris Antolak, a family physician, outside Allina's clinic in Coon Rapids. Unionized nurses also took to the picket lines outside 11 hospitals in the Twin Cities and two in Duluth in their push for greater staffing levels to protect themselves from workplace violence and improve patient care. The Minnesota Nurses Association is negotiating contracts covering roughly 15,000 nurses at seven of the state's largest health systems. Contracts expired on May 31 at St. Luke's and Essentia in Duluth and will expire at the end of this month at Twin Cities hospitals run by Allina, Children's, M Health Fairview, HealthPartners and North Memorial. Union president Chris Rubesch has said a strike is on the table.
