Young Scottish woman's holiday nightmare after 'sun cream mix up'
Hally Galletta was making the most of the UK heatwave at an outdoor swimming pool. The 23-year-old forgot her own sun cream and instead applied some of her friend's tanning oil, assuming it had SPF in it.
And after four hours in 32C (89F) heat, her face had turned bright red. Hally's face started to swell, and the next morning she was in agony and could barely open her eyes.
READ MORE: Ryanair flight 'utter chaos' as passengers 'jump off wing' with 18 people injured
READ MORE: Edinburgh man was 'spending £400 a month on takeaways' before going on Mounjaro
READ MORE - Oasis fans say gig-goer 'didn't deserve' ticket as they spot what she's doing
READ MORE - Alan Titchmarsh makes 'heartbreaking' find after returning home with wife
"It was a hot day - 32C with a UV index of eight," Hally, from Perth, told What's the Jam. I normally wear SPF every single day, but that morning I forgot to put it on.
"I knew my friend was bringing tanning oil and I used that, not realising it didn't have any SPF in it. I was only in the sun for about four hours.
"When we left the pool, my face was red, but I didn't think too much of it because I'd never had a bad sunburn before.
"Later that evening, it started to swell. I put on some aftersun and hoped it would be better by morning, but when I woke up, I could barely open my left eye, and the pain was awful.
"I kept trying to manage it at home with aloe vera, antihistamines, ibuprofen and ice, but nothing helped. The next day, my skin felt even tighter, more painful, and then it started to blister and peel."
Join Edinburgh Live's Whatsapp Community here and get the latest news sent straight to your messages.
Hally says her face was so red and swollen that people were staring at her in the street. Her face is still recovering, and Hally worries there will be long-term damage to her skin.
She said, "It was really noticeable. People were staring when I was out, and when I went to work, everyone was asking if I needed to go home or see a doctor.
"My friends and family were really concerned. My face is still healing. It's peeling and sore, and I'm planning to see a doctor soon to check everything is okay and that there's no long-term damage."
Hally is sharing her story to raise awareness of the importance of wearing sun cream.
She added, "It's been such a wake-up call. I think a lot of people my age still think more about getting a tan than protecting their skin, but I'll never leave the house without SPF 50 on my face again.
"It's really not worth the pain or the risk. I'm just praying my face goes back to normal soon."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
If You Invested $10K In Omega Healthcare Investors Stock 10 Years Ago, How Much Would You Have Now?
Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below. Omega Healthcare Investors Inc. (NYSE:OHI) is a real estate investment trust that primarily invests in skilled nursing and assisted living facilities in the U.S. and the U.K. It is set to report its Q2 2025 earnings on July 31. Wall Street analysts expect the company to post EPS of $0.75, up from $0.71 in the prior-year period. According to Benzinga Pro, quarterly revenue is expected to reach $295.80 million, up from $252.75 million a year earlier. Don't Miss: Invest early in CancerVax's breakthrough tech aiming to disrupt a $231B market. . Tired of Grid Failures and Charging Deserts? This Startup Has a Solar Fix and $25M+ in Sales — The company's stock traded at approximately $34.79 per share 10 years ago. If you had invested $10,000, you could have bought roughly 287 shares. Currently, shares trade at $36.67, meaning your investment's value could have grown to $10,540 from stock price appreciation alone. However, Omega Healthcare also paid dividends during these 10 years. Omega Healthcare's dividend yield is currently 7.31%. Over the last 10 years, it has paid about $27.11 in dividends per share, which means you could have made $7,792 from dividends alone. Summing up $10,540 and $7,792, we end up with the final value of your investment, which is $18,332. This is how much you could have made if you had invested $10,000 in Omega Healthcare stock 10 years ago. This means a total return of 83.32%. However, this figure is significantly less than the S&P 500 total return for the same period, which was 256.40%. Trending: Named a TIME Best Invention and Backed by 5,000+ Users, Kara's Air-to-Water Pod Cuts Plastic and Costs — Omega Healthcare has a consensus rating of "Buy" and a price target of $36.28 based on the ratings of 20 analysts. The price target implies around 1% potential downside from the current stock price. The company on May 1 announced its Q1 2025 earnings, posting FFO of $0.75, beating the consensus estimate of $0.74, while revenues of $276.80 million came in below the consensus of $288.69 million, as reported by Benzinga. "We are pleased with our first quarter results, as we continue to grow FAD per share, while further de-levering the balance sheet. We have accretively invested approximately $423 million year-to-date through April 30th and, as a result, we are increasing our 2025 AFFO guidance to be between $2.95 and $3.01 per share from our previous guidance of between $2.90 and $2.98 per share," said CEO Taylor Pickett. Check out this article by Benzinga for four analysts' insights on Omega Healthcare. Given no expected upside potential, growth-focused investors may not find Omega Healthcare stock attractive. Conversely, the stock can be a good option for income-focused investors, who can benefit from the company's solid dividend yield of 7.31%. Read Next: Maximize saving for your retirement and cut down on taxes: . , which provides access to a pool of short-term loans backed by residential real estate with just a $100 minimum. Image: Shutterstock This article If You Invested $10K In Omega Healthcare Investors Stock 10 Years Ago, How Much Would You Have Now? originally appeared on
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Bereavement leave to be extended to miscarriages before 24 weeks
Parents who experience a miscarriage before 24 weeks of pregnancy will be entitled to bereavement leave under a planned law change. The government is set to amend the Employment Rights Bill to give parents the legal right to take time off work to grieve if they experience pregnancy loss at any stage. As it stands, bereavement leave is only available to parents who lose an unborn child after 24 weeks of pregnancy. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said the change will give "people time away from work to grieve". "No one who is going through the heartbreak of pregnancy loss should have to go back to work before they are ready," Rayner said. Parents are currently entitled to a fortnight's leave if they suffer pregnancy loss after 24 weeks, or if a child younger than 18 dies. The extended right to leave will be for "at least" one week, though the exact length is still being consulted on. The Employment Rights Bill, which includes further measures to protect in law the right of employees to have time off to grieve the loss of a loved one, is already making its way through Parliament. Labour MP Sarah Owen, who chairs the Women and Equalities Committee, has previously campaigned for the change. In 2021, she told MPs that after her own miscarriage she felt physically better in a few days but had "all the classic signs" of grieving. "I could not eat, I could not sleep. I really did not hold much hope that life would ever get brighter," she said. In March, business minister Justin Madders told MPs he accepted the principle of bereavement leave for pregnancy loss and promised to look at adding the right to the Employment Rights Bill. Vicki Robinson, chief executive of the Miscarriage Association, welcomed the announcement. She said it was "a hugely important step that acknowledges the often very significant impact of pre-24-week loss, not only for those experiencing the physical loss, but for their partners too". Government backs miscarriage bereavement leave Paid leave for bereaved parents is 'crucial' 'I went back after 3 days': Calls for miscarriage bereavement leave
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Patients would rather see a GP than pharmacists and nurses, study finds
Patients would much rather see a GP than a pharmacist or nurse, new research suggests. A study found that people often like to see a GP and still prefer in-person appointments, considering them the 'gold standard'. The review of 33 existing studies, from the University of Southampton, also found patients often like to choose a specific doctor to maintain continuity of care. Trust and confidence decreased when patients wanted to see a GP but were directed to a nurse or other health worker instead, it added. The study noted people also wanted easier ways to book GP appointments, clearer phone options, shorter recorded messages, and simple online routes with quick responses. It comes after the Government published its 10-year health plan which intends to massively increase use of the NHS App, as well as recruit more GPs. An improved app will give patients more control over booking, moving and cancelling appointments, as well as quicker access to medics and other forms of care. The new study, published in the British Journal of General Practice, suggested confidence and trust scores appeared to be lower when people wanted a face-to-face appointment and received a call instead. The public also wanted clear details on the roles of different NHS workers, it found. Lead author Helen Atherton, professor of primary care research, said: 'Patients want a deeper connection with their doctor's practice, better communication, and the choice to see the right professional in the best way for them. 'The NHS needs to better understand what people want so it can shape its services to work for patients. 'Ignoring these fundamental needs will only exacerbate the issues it currently faces.' Writing in the journal, Prof Atherton and colleagues added: 'Patients wanted a nearby practice, with clean waiting rooms, easy appointment booking using simple systems and with short waiting times, and to be kept informed about the process.' In particular, researchers found that, for medication reviews and long-term conditions, patients preferred seeing someone they were familiar with. The research also suggested that, where a patient's condition was worsening, 69.5% of patients reported preferring to consult a GP than a pharmacist and 42.7% strongly agreed or agreed that they would prefer to consult with a GP rather than a pharmacist. Professor Kamila Hawthorne, chair of the Royal College of GPs, said: 'It's really encouraging to see how much patients value the care, and continuity of care, their GP provides – there are some things that only a GP can do for their patients, but it's also important that patients don't feel somehow short-changed if they're offered an appointment with another member of our highly-skilled multi-disciplinary team. 'Not all patients need to see a GP. Procedures such as blood tests, routine management of non-complex long-term conditions, the monitoring of repeat prescriptions, or assessment of a painful joint, for example, can be carried out by some of the various other members of the team who now work in general practice, such as nursing staff, mental health professionals, clinical pharmacists and physiotherapists. 'This also alleviates workload on GPs, allowing us to spend time with those patients with complex health needs who really do need our expert medical attention. 'However, we know that even when working as part of multi-disciplinary teams, patients often struggle to access their GP when they need to – and we share their frustrations. 'This is due to decades of under-funding of general practice and poor workforce planning, which has meant patient need for our care has escalated in recent years, while GP numbers have sadly not risen in step. 'We need thousands more GPs, and the recently published 10-Year health plan commits to providing these. 'We're now looking ahead to the revised long-term workforce plan, due later this year, to see how the Government plans to recruit more GPs and keep more GPs in the profession for longer – but also address some of the nonsensical issues GPs are reporting that they can't find appropriate employment upon qualification.' Henry Gregg, chief executive of the National Pharmacy Association, said: 'It's not surprising that people want to see a GP when they go to a GP surgery but all our research and experience shows that people are very happy to visit a pharmacy if they can access treatment or advice quickly without having to wait to see a GP. 'Pharmacists are highly trained medical professionals who offer first-class care for a range of ailments quickly and conveniently and will send patients to a GP or hospital if needs be. 'Increasingly people will be able to pop into a community pharmacy and see a highly qualitied pharmacist for things like screening, check-ups, HRT, weight management or ongoing care without lengthy waits, freeing their NHS colleagues in hospitals and GPs to do more and offering patients the choice and convenience we all want to see.' Royal College of Nursing chief nursing officer, Lynn Woolsey, said: 'Nursing staff are an integral part of any general practice delivering a range of services to patients. 'They lead public health clinics, run screening and vaccination programmes, support patients in the management of chronic disease and can diagnose and prescribe.'
