5 times as many African Americans die of overdoses in SF, compared to other groups
SAN FRANCISCO (KRON) — Fifty-nine people died of accidental drug overdoses in San Francisco in January. While that is still too many, health officials say things are moving in the right direction.
'Since April, we have seen a monthly, year over year, decline in overdose deaths. In 2024 we saw the lowest number of overdoses since the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner started tracking this in 2020,' said Dr. Naveena Bobba, acting director of the San Francisco Department of Public Health.
This car model continues dominance in CA sales for third straight year
At a news conference Wednesday, San Francisco public health officials said they remain concerned that African Americans are dying at a rate five times higher than any other community in the city. As a result, the Department of Public Health is expanding access to medications to treat those addicted to opioids
'Last year, we launched on-demand buprenorphine with a focus of nighttime telehealth outreach in the Tenderloin,' said Bobba. 'And we are happy to say we are on track to bring the service to the Bayview neighborhood. This spring, we will be in the Bayview getting people on the phone with a doctor when they want treatment.'
'Buprenorphine, what it did for me, it gave me time and space so that I could recover, and I didn't have to deal with those, those cravings and I got a chance to rebuild my life,' said Shavonne Allen, who is in recovery.
Celebrity chef Tyler Florence abruptly walks away from Union Square kiosks
Allen is featured in the department's 'Living Proof' campaign and does outreach with the community group Code Tenderloin
'When I see the other Shavonnes out there, I'm able to share my story and represent what living proof looks like, and that recovery and returning to a meaningful, purposeful life is possible,' she said.
The SF Public Health Department said it's also partnering with various African American organizations to better reach that community.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
2 days ago
- Fast Company
5 lessons on finding truth in an uncertain world
Adam Kucharski is a professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and an award-winning science writer. His book, The Rules of Contagion, was a Book of the Year in The Times, Guardian, and Financial Times. A mathematician by training, his work on global outbreaks has included Ebola, Zika, and COVID. He has advised multiple governments and health agencies. His writing has appeared in Wired, Observer, and Financial Times, among other outlets, and he has contributed to several documentaries, including BBC's Horizon. What's the big idea? In all arenas of life, there is an endless hunt to find certainty and establish proof. We don't always have the luxury of 'being sure,' and many situations demand decisions be made even when there is insufficient evidence to choose confidently. Every field—from mathematics and tech to law and medicine—has its own methods for proving truth, and what to do when it is out of reach. Professionally and personally, it is important to understand what constitutes proof and how to proceed when facts falter. Below, Adam shares five key insights from his new book, Proof: The Art and Science of Certainty. Listen to the audio version—read by Adam himself—in the Next Big Idea App. 1. It is dangerous to assume something is self-evident. In the first draft of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers wrote that 'we hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal.' But shortly before it was finalized, Benjamin Franklin crossed out the words 'sacred and undeniable,' because they implied divine authority. Instead, he replaced them with the famous line, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident.' The term 'self-evident' was borrowed from mathematics—specifically from Greek geometry. The idea was that there could be a universal truth about equality on which a society could be built. This idea of self-evident, universal truths had shaped mathematics for millennia. But the assumption ended up causing a lot of problems, both in politics and mathematics. In the 19th century, mathematicians started to notice that certain theorems that had been declared 'intuitively obvious' didn't hold up when we considered things that were infinitely large or infinitely small. It seemed 'self-evident' didn't always mean well-evidenced. Meanwhile, in the U.S., supporters of slavery were denying what Abraham Lincoln called the national axioms of equality. In the 1850s, Lincoln (himself a keen amateur mathematician) increasingly came to think of equality as a proposition rather than a self-evident truth. It was something that would need to be proven together as a country. Similarly, mathematicians during this period would move away from assumptions that things were obvious and instead work to find sturdier ground. 2. In practice, proof means balancing too much belief and too much skepticism. If we want to get closer to the truth, there are two errors we must avoid: we don't want to believe things that are false, and we don't want to discount things that are true. It's a challenge that comes up throughout life. But where should we set the bar for evidence? If we're overly skeptical and set it too high, we'll ignore valid claims. But if we set the bar too low, we'll end up accepting many things that aren't true. In the 1760s, the English legal scholar William Blackstone argued that we should work particularly hard to avoid wrongful convictions. As he put it: 'It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.' Benjamin Franklin would later be even more cautious. He suggested that 'it is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer.' 'We don't want to believe things that are false, and we don't want to discount things that are true.' But not all societies have agreed with this balance. Some communist regimes in the 20th century declared it better to kill a hundred innocent people than let one truly guilty person walk free. Science and medicine have also developed their own traditions around setting the bar for evidence. Clinical trials are typically designed in a way that penalizes a false positive four times more than a false negative. In other words, we don't want to say a treatment doesn't work when it does, but we really don't want to conclude it works when it doesn't. This ability to converge on a shared reality, even if occasionally flawed, is fundamental for science and medicine. It's also an essential component of democracy and justice. Rather than embracing or shunning everything we see, we must find ways to balance the risk that comes with trusting something to be true. 3. Life is full of 'weak evidence' problems. Science is dedicated to generating results that we can have high confidence in. But often in life, we must make choices without the luxury of extremely strong evidence. We can't, as some early statisticians did, simply remain on the fence if we're not confident either way. Whether we're sitting on a jury or in a boardroom, we face situations where a decision must be made regardless. This is known as the 'weak evidence' problem. For example, it might be very unlikely that a death is just a coincidence. But it also might be very unlikely that a certain person is a murderer. Legal cases are often decided on the basis that weak evidence in favor of the prosecution is more convincing than weak evidence for the defendant. Unfortunately, it can be easy to misinterpret weak evidence. A prominent example is the prosecutor's fallacy. This is a situation where people assume that if it's very unlikely a particular set of events occurred purely by coincidence, that must mean the defendant is very unlikely to be innocent. But to work out the probability of innocence, we can't just focus on the chances of a coincidence. What really matters is whether a guilty explanation is more likely than an innocent one. To navigate law—and life—we must often choose between unlikely explanations, rather than waiting for certainty. 4. Predictions are easier than taking action. If we spot a pattern in data, it can help us make predictions. If ice cream sales increase next month, it's reasonable to predict that heatstroke cases will too. These kinds of patterns can be useful if we want to make predictions, but they're less useful if we want to intervene in some way. The correlation in the data doesn't mean that ice cream causes heatstroke, and crucially, it doesn't tell us how to prevent further illness. 'Often in life, prediction isn't what we really care about.' In science, many problems are framed as prediction tasks because, fundamentally, it's easier than untangling cause and effect. In the field of social psychology, researchers use data to try to predict relationship outcomes. In the world of justice, courts use algorithms to predict whether someone will reoffend. But often in life, prediction isn't what we really care about. Whether we're talking about relationships or crimes, we don't just want to know what is likely to happen—we want to know why it happened and what we can do about it. In short, we need to get at the causes of what we're seeing, rather than settling for predictions. 5. Technology is changing our concept of proof. In 1976, two mathematicians announced the first-ever computer-aided proof. Their discovery meant that, for the first time in history, the mathematical community had to accept a major theorem that they could not verify by hand. However, not everyone initially believed the proof. Maybe the computer had made an error somewhere? Suddenly, mathematicians no longer had total intellectual control; they had to trust a machine. But then something curious happened. While older researchers had been skeptical, younger mathematicians took the opposite view. Why would they trust hundreds of pages of handwritten and hand-checked calculations? Surely a computer would be more accurate, right? Technology is challenging how we view science and proof. In 2024, we saw the AI algorithm AlphaFold make a Nobel Prize-winning discovery in biology. AlphaFold can predict protein structures and their interactions in a way that humans would never have been able to. But these predictions don't necessarily come with traditional biological understanding. Among many scientists, I've noticed a sense of loss when it comes to AI. For people trained in theory and explanation, crunching possibilities with a machine doesn't feel like familiar science. It may even feel like cheating or a placeholder for a better, neater solution that we've yet to find. And yet, there is also an acceptance that this is a valuable new route to knowledge, and the fresh ideas and discoveries it can bring.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
SF SoMA sex shop sued for allegedly selling ‘toxic' mouth gags
SAN FRANCISCO (KRON) — A decades-old sex shop in San Francisco's SoMa (South of Market) neighborhood is being sued for allegedly selling mouth gags laced with toxic chemicals without a clear warning label. A civil case filed on Friday, June 6 by Seven Hills LLP on behalf of Blue Sky Forever says that Mr. S. Leather Co., Incorporated violated a health and safety code for not letting customers know about the dangers of a product called 'The Jaw Master Gag' and the 'harms caused by exposures to di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate ('DEHP'), a toxic chemical found in and on gags manufactured, imported, distributed, sold, and offered for sale.' See court document hereDownload Mr. S Leather is located at 385 8th St. and has been in business since 1979. 'Detectable levels of DEHP are found in and on the gags Defendants manufacture, import, sell and distribute for sale in California,' the suit adds, saying that exposures to DEHP can cause birth defects and other reproductive issues. On its website, Mr. S. Leather states, 'We've been designing and producing exceptional bondage gear as well as leather, neoprene & sports clothing for kinky guys since 1979…When you're ready for the good stuff – Mr. S Leather is a place you'll want to check out.' The court document says the case is actionable, thanks to Proposition 65, and that Mr. S. Leather could face civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day for each violation. 'On October 24, 2003, pursuant to Proposition 65 implementing regulations, the State of California listed DEHP as a chemical known to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm,' says the suit. 'DEHP became subject to the 'clear and reasonable warning' requirements one year later, on October 24, 2004.' KRON4 reached out to Mr. S. Leather before the publication of this article and will update this story with a provided statement. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Kaiser cuts dozens of Bay Area jobs in latest round of statewide layoffs
SAN FRANCISCO (KRON) — Kaiser cut dozens of jobs across the Bay Area this week in the latest round of statewide layoffs from the health care provider. The layoffs will impact personnel at Kaiser Foundation Hospitals across the state, according to a filing with the Employment Development Department. In the Bay Area, a total of 40 jobs will be cut with layoffs impacting facilities in Oakland, Berkeley, Fremont, Pleasanton, San Francisco, and Vallejo. Statewide, a total of 55 jobs will be cut with layoffs impacting workers in Harbor City, Pasadena, Walnut, Fair Oaks, Los Angeles County, Yorba Linda, Irvine, Roseville, and San Diego. What's behind the ongoing Bay Area tech layoffs? 'Nobody is safe,' expert says The job cuts were announced on Monday and took immediate effect. All of the layoffs were described as permanent in state filings. The latest layoffs follow a previous round of job cuts at Kaiser back in April when the Oakland-based health care provider cut 40 jobs across the state, including 17 in the Bay Area. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
