#UK Health Security Agency

[news-buzz]

Tuberculosis signs: See a health care provider when you have sure sort of cough Information Buzz

If in case you have this sure sort of cough, it’s best to see a health care provider urgently as one sort of sickness is on the rise. Instances of tuberculosis have elevated in England, in keeping with knowledge from earlier this 12 months, reviews The Mirror. Whereas coughs are widespread within the winter months, this 12 months it’s best to ensure you monitor your cough when you have one. If it…

[insidecroydon]

700 Londoners admitted to hospital as covid numbers soar

Doctors fear that New Year’s Eve parties and events could become super-spreader events, as the number of winter virus cases soars and the number of people testing positive for covid continues to rise in London. In the run-up to Christmas, London had the highest rate of covid in England, with data from the UK Health Security Agency estimating that around 6.1% of Londoners had the virus – more than…

[banglakhobor]

New COVID Variant: গলা ও মাথা ব্যথা, সঙ্গে হাঁচি? করোনার নতুন ভ্যারিয়েন্টে আক্রান্ত নন তো!

জি ২৪ ঘণ্টা ডিজিটাল ব্যুরো: করোনা এখন নিয়ন্ত্রণে বলেই জানা ছিল। কিন্তু এরই মধ্যে ছন্দপতন। ফের মিলল করোনার খবর। এবার আর এক নতুন ভ্যারিয়েন্ট। ২০২৩ সালের গোড়া থেকেই নিম্নমুখী করোনার গ্রাফ। সম্প্রতিই বিশ্ব স্বাস্থ্য সংস্থার (World Health Organization) প্রধান টেডরস অধানম ঘেব্রেয়াসুস জানিয়েছিলেন, করোনার শেষের শুরু হয়ে গিয়েছে। প্রাণঘাতী এই সংক্রমণ নিয়ে চিন্তা কমতেও তাই শুরু করেছিল। কিন্তু এরই মধ্যে…

[urbanchats]

First Human Case of H1N2 Strain Detected in the UK Sparks Global Health Concerns

[theloverstomb]

‘Fragile Microbiomes’ by bio-artist Anna Dumitriu

1. SYPHILIS DRESS- This dress is embroidered with images of the corkscrew-shaped bacterium which causes the sexually transmitted disease syphilis. These embroideries are impregnated with the sterilised DNA of the Nichols strain of the bacterium - Treponema pallidum subsp. pallidum - which Dumitriu extracted with her collaborators.

2. MICROBE MOUTH- The tooth at the centre of this necklace was grown in the lab using an extremophile bacterium which is part of the species called Serratia (Serratia N14) that can produce hydroxyapatite, the same substance that tooth enamel is made from.

The handmade porcelain teeth that make up this necklace have been coated with glazes derived from various bacterial species that live in our mouths and cause tooth decay and gum disease, including Porphyromonas gingivalis, which can introduce an iron-containing light brown stain to the glaze.

3. TEETH MARKS: THE MOST PROFOUND MYSTERY- In his 1845 essay “On Artificial Teeth”, W.H. Mortimer described false teeth as “the most profound mystery” because they were never discussed. Instead, people would hide the stigma of bad teeth and foul breath using fans.

This altered antique fan is made from animal bone and has been mended with gold wire, both materials historically used to construct false teeth (which would also sometimes incorporate human teeth). The silk of the fan and ribbon has been grown and patterned with two species of oral pathogens: Prevotella intermedia and Porphyromonas gingivalis. These bacteria cause gum disease and bad breath, and the latter has also recently been linked to Alzheimer’s disease.

4. PLAGUE DRESS- This 1665-style 'Plague Dress' is made from raw silk, hand-dyed with walnut husks in reference to the famous herbalist of the era Nicholas Culpeper, who recommended walnuts as a treatment for plague. It has been appliquéd with original 17th-century embroideries, impregnated with the DNA of Yersinia pestis bacteria (plague). The artist extracted this from killed bacteria in the laboratory of the National Collection of Type Cultures at the UK Health Security Agency.

The dress is stuffed and surrounded by lavender, which people carried during the Great Plague of London to cover the stench of infection and to prevent the disease, which was believed to be caused by 'bad air' or 'miasmas'. The silk of the dress references the Silk Road, a key vector for the spread of plague.

5. BACTERIAL BAPTISM- based on a vintage christening gown which has been altered by the artist to tell the story of research into how the microbiomes of babies develop, with a focus on the bacterium Clostridioides difficile, originally discovered by Hall and O’Toole in 1935 and presented in their paper “Intestinal flora in new-born infants”. It was named Bacillus difficilis because it was difficult to grow, and in the 1970s it was recognised as causing conditions from mild antibiotic-associated diarrhoea to life-threatening intestinal inflammation. The embroidery silk is dyed using stains used in the study of the gut microbiome and the gown is decorated with hand-crocheted linen lace grown in lab with (sterilised) C. difficile biofilms. The piece also considers how new-borns become colonised by bacteria during birth in what has been described as ‘bacterial baptism’.

6. ZENEXTON- Around 1570, Swiss physician and alchemist Theophrastus Paracelsus coined the term ‘Zenexton’, meaning an amulet worn around the neck to protect from the plague. Until then, amulets had a more general purpose of warding off (unspecified) disease, rather like the difference today between ‘broad spectrum’ antibiotics and antibiotics informed by genomics approaches which target a specific organism.

Over the next century, several ideas were put forward as to what this amulet might contain: a paste made of powdered toads, sapphires that would turn black when they leeched the pestilence from the body, or menstrual blood. Bizarre improvements were later made: “of course, the toad should be finely powdered”; “the menstrual blood from a virgin”; “collected on a full moon”.

This very modern Zenexton has been 3D printed and offers the wearer something that genuinely protects: the recently developed vaccine against Yersinia pestis, the bacterium that causes plague.

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved on our archive

It's frustrating how this article admits that vaccination does not substantially stop spread, but it give the reader no further information. Mask up. Improve ventilation. Filter the air. Distance when you can. Those are actual, implementable advice that keeps covid from spreading, and it has to be done by the public at large to keep individuals safe. It's much less effective when the nebulous "high risk" are left to fend for themselves while everyone else pretends that it's 2019 forever.

By Kelly Ashmore

The XEC strain is 'just getting started' and is rapidly spreading throughout Europe and the rest of the world, experts have warned

Experts have issued a warning about a new, "stronger" Covid variant that is "just getting started" and spreading rapidly across Europe and the rest of the world. The XEC strain, first identified in Germany in June, has now been linked to 15 countries across three continents. As colder weather approaches, specialists anticipate this strain will become the dominant variant.

In California, Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, said: "XEC is just getting started now around the world and here. And that's going to take many weeks, a couple of months, before it really takes hold and starts to cause a wave," according to the LA Times. He added, "XEC is definitely taking charge. That does appear to be the next variant. But it's months off from getting into high levels."

Experts have issued a warning about a new, "stronger" Covid variant that is "just getting started" and spreading rapidly across Europe and the rest of the world. The XEC strain, first identified in Germany in June, has now been linked to 15 countries across three continents. As colder weather approaches, specialists anticipate this strain will become the dominant variant.

In California, Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, said: "XEC is just getting started now around the world and here. And that's going to take many weeks, a couple of months, before it really takes hold and starts to cause a wave," according to the LA Times. He added, "XEC is definitely taking charge. That does appear to be the next variant. But it's months off from getting into high levels."

What is Covid XEC? The Covid XEC is a recombinant variant of Covid-19, resulting from a combination of the BA. 1 and BA.

2 Omicron subvariants. While some Covid strains have proven more severe than others over the past years, it will take additional time for health professionals to determine the severity of symptoms associated with the XEC strain.

The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has not yet provided detailed information on the XEC variant.

However, recent statistics from the UKHSA have shown a 4.3 per cent increase in Covid-19 cases, but a decrease in virus-related deaths. The weekly figures revealed an increase of 1,587 Covid cases as of September 4.

Despite recording 102 deaths in the week ending August 30, this was a decrease of 20.9 per cent (27) from the previous week. Furthermore, hospital admissions due to the virus also fell by six per cent to 1,465, in the week up to August 29.

What are the symptoms of Covid XEC? The strain presents symptoms similar to those of a typical cold and flu. These include shortness of breath, high fever, persistent cough, loss of taste or smell, and feelings of fatigue or exhaustion.

Classic cold symptoms such as headache, sore throat, runny or blocked nose, loss of appetite, diarrhoea, and general malaise are also common. While most people will recover within a few weeks, some may require hospitalisation and others may need longer.

How to stay protected As with earlier Covid variants, the same precautions should be taken against the newest variant, including regular booster doses and vaccinations. Vaccines remain the best defence against serious illness, hospitalisation, and even death, even if they may not completely prevent infection.

If you're vulnerable to the virus or share a home with someone who is, donning a face mask can offer some protection, particularly in crowded or poorly ventilated indoor spaces. Boosting indoor ventilation where possible can further reduce the risk of falling ill.

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

What I don't think I've said before is that my agency is a law enforcement agency and we do similar investigations to this

I work on the side of law firms coming in to do internal investigations - particularly in the UK. You obviously know what you’re talking about, but I just want to reaffirm for the anon and other readers that it’ll take months.

Organisations sometimes unknowingly open Pandoras box when they start an investigation like this, because all kinds of misconduct they had not known about must now also be dealt with. That makes the deadlines even more squishy.

Would love to have your take on the national security aspects to the PoW’s diagnosis and continued treatment. I bet H&M is going to want to find out more information too, which fits in nicely on your recent posts around him being a security risk (I’m the Pegasus anon and highly enjoyed them).

Very old ask from March 22nd.

So now knowing that Kate actually did have cancer, was seriously ill, and was also downplaying her diagnosis and condition, that changes my thinking a little.

I do think one of the reasons they've been very careful with Kate's diagnosis and treatment is because of the national security impact. For instance, if Kate's actual treatment was publicly known - she goes to chemo on these days, she's being treated at this hospital, her drugs are X, Y, Z - then a bad actor or a threat can absolutely do some damage. They can taint the medical supply, they can call paparazzi to the hospital, they can sneak cameras into the treatment center, they can stage an emergency that takes resources away from the oncology unit.

If the type of cancer Kate had or the chemo treatment she was undergoing meant she needed to be a on a specific diet and if that was known, then obviously someone could try to send her a tainted gift basket or they have a spoiled product that they give to a known Wales associate (like a Turnip Toff or a Middleton friend) and they pass it on to Kate (which is how Pippa used to merch sometimes, in early Cambridge days) who doesn't suspect anything because that person is cleared by RPOs. And this is something that the BRF is actually concerned about - I read somewhere once that they don't accept food products or food gifts and if any is given to them on walkabout or engagements, it's immediately tossed.

Now let's think about that hack/unauthorized access to Kate's medical files back in March. What could someone do with that information? Well, aside from her diagnosis, her symptoms, her treatment plan, they could learn who her doctors and care team are and go after them - stalk them, harass them, blackmail them, endanger their families, etc. They might also learn where Kate's pharmacy is or other private medical information like maybe if she had any miscarriages, what other medications she might be on, what her allergies are, her parents' medical history, etc. and all of that is something that a bad actor can exploit to their advantage, everything from exposing Kate to her allergen to killing her doctor and assuming their identity to treat her.

Not to mention the fact that anyone who goes through a major operation like Kate did in January and who goes through chemo becomes incredibly immunocompromised. All they have to do is get someone with COVID or a flu or shingles or some other kind of biotoxin or contagious illness next to Kate and her condition worsens.

(Just a quick aside her to remind everyone that someone who's immunocompromised from chemo the way Kate is isn't going to be frolicking in the woods with people who aren't in her bubble. Michael and Carole are in the video because they're in Kate's health bubble. Charles and Camilla aren't in the video because they aren't in Kate's bubble and they're not in Kate's bubble because Charles has his own bubble because he's also immunocompromised from his own cancer and his own treatment and no one wants to risk Charles or Kate getting worse because of something "crossing over" from one person's treatment into the other's.)

And what happens if you take Kate out of the picture? We're not killing her here - we're just saying she becomes incapacitated or sidelined in some way. But take Kate out of the picture, now all of a sudden you have the entire future of the monarchy at risk. William becomes vulnerable. George becomes vulnerable. Charlotte and Louis become vulnerable. We're not talking about their physical security or their physical well-being here; we're talking about their mental and emotional health and as we've seen in Harry, that -- in the hands of the wrong person -- becomes incredibly dangerous. And since William is the next king and George the future king, that 100% is a matter of national security.

It is all farfetched, it does sound Bondian, but that's what national security is. It's considering every single possibility that could happen, assessing how likely it could happen and what kind of impact would come from it happening, and mitigating as much of that as possible.

So how do you mitigate the threat to national security posed by Kate's health crisis? You don't tell anyone the specifics. You keep it private. You downplay it to the best of your abilities.

Now, specific to the Sussexes, and why William and Kate (or even the RPOs or even the BRF) wouldn't want them to know the whole truth of her condition and health, it's absolutely all the shadiness that the Sussexes are involved with. There's rumors of Russian support. We know they have microphones and Netflix cameras with them all the time. We know that the Sussexes are boundary-stomping privacy invaders who blab about every tiny morsel of information they get - or don't get. We know that the Sussexes want to be King and Queen of people's hearts, King and Queen of culture, and the actual King and Queen of the UK, the realms, and the Commonwealth.

If something happens to Kate, then Harry and Meghan aren't even waiting in the wings; they're already running on stage with their plastic crowns. And I think they know that, because without Kate, William's attention turns 100% to the children, which leaves an opening for Charles to bring Harry back and we know that Harry won't come back without Meghan. So if Harry and Meghan are both back, then they become even bigger red flags to the monarchy and the BRF because they're also bringing the damage of the last 5 years - grudges from 2018/2019, the alleged Russian supporters, Oprah, Netflix cameras, Sussex Squad, all their crony kiss-ass reporters, etc. Bad, bad, bad news all around. You might as well turn the Buckingham Palace throne room into a gift shop now because the second Harry and Meghan are back in, they're selling the monachy to the highest bidder - but will it be Oprah? Will it be Netflix? Will it be any Russians? Will it be Nacho? Will it be QVC and the Home Shopping Network? Will it be Penguin Random House?

So not telling Harry and Meghan anything about what Kate's doing isn't just national security best practices; it's complete and total self-preservation of the monarchy for George. Because if Meghan was able to do that to Harry, imagine what she and Harry can both do to William and George together when William and George's world has been totally rocked and shattered.

Edit: added some clarification. I mention COVID here as an example of someone with an illness who could seriously worsen an immunocompromised person's health. I'm not debating COVID vaccinations, protocols, or precautions and any more comments/replies about COVID will be removed.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

How to design a tech regulation

TONIGHT (June 20) I'm live onstage in LOS ANGELES for a recording of the GO FACT YOURSELF podcast. TOMORROW (June 21) I'm doing an ONLINE READING for the LOCUS AWARDS at 16hPT. On SATURDAY (June 22) I'll be in OAKLAND, CA for a panel (13hPT) and a keynote (18hPT) at the LOCUS AWARDS.

It's not your imagination: tech really is underregulated. There are plenty of avoidable harms that tech visits upon the world, and while some of these harms are mere negligence, others are self-serving, creating shareholder value and widespread public destruction.

Making good tech policy is hard, but not because "tech moves too fast for regulation to keep up with," nor because "lawmakers are clueless about tech." There are plenty of fast-moving areas that lawmakers manage to stay abreast of (think of the rapid, global adoption of masking and social distancing rules in mid-2020). Likewise we generally manage to make good policy in areas that require highly specific technical knowledge (that's why it's noteworthy and awful when, say, people sicken from badly treated tapwater, even though water safety, toxicology and microbiology are highly technical areas outside the background of most elected officials).

That doesn't mean that technical rigor is irrelevant to making good policy. Well-run "expert agencies" include skilled practitioners on their payrolls – think here of large technical staff at the FTC, or the UK Competition and Markets Authority's best-in-the-world Digital Markets Unit:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/13/kitbashed/#app-store-tax

The job of government experts isn't just to research the correct answers. Even more important is experts' role in evaluating conflicting claims from interested parties. When administrative agencies make new rules, they have to collect public comments and counter-comments. The best agencies also hold hearings, and the very best go on "listening tours" where they invite the broad public to weigh in (the FTC has done an awful lot of these during Lina Khan's tenure, to its benefit, and it shows):

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events/2022/04/ftc-justice-department-listening-forum-firsthand-effects-mergers-acquisitions-health-care

But when an industry dwindles to a handful of companies, the resulting cartel finds it easy to converge on a single talking point and to maintain strict message discipline. This means that the evidentiary record is starved for disconfirming evidence that would give the agencies contrasting perspectives and context for making good policy.

Tech industry shills have a favorite tactic: whenever there's any proposal that would erode the industry's profits, self-serving experts shout that the rule is technically impossible and deride the proposer as "clueless."

This tactic works so well because the proposers sometimes are clueless. Take Europe's on-again/off-again "chat control" proposal to mandate spyware on every digital device that will screen everything you upload for child sex abuse material (CSAM, better known as "child pornography"). This proposal is profoundly dangerous, as it will weaken end-to-end encryption, the key to all secure and private digital communication:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jun/18/encryption-is-deeply-threatening-to-power-meredith-whittaker-of-messaging-app-signal

It's also an impossible-to-administer mess that incorrectly assumes that killing working encryption in the two mobile app stores run by the mobile duopoly will actually prevent bad actors from accessing private tools:

https://memex.craphound.com/2018/09/04/oh-for-fucks-sake-not-this-fucking-bullshit-again-cryptography-edition/

When technologists correctly point out the lack of rigor and catastrophic spillover effects from this kind of crackpot proposal, lawmakers stick their fingers in their ears and shout "NERD HARDER!"

https://memex.craphound.com/2018/01/12/nerd-harder-fbi-director-reiterates-faith-based-belief-in-working-crypto-that-he-can-break/

But this is only half the story. The other half is what happens when tech industry shills want to kill good policy proposals, which is the exact same thing that advocates say about bad ones. When lawmakers demand that tech companies respect our privacy rights – for example, by splitting social media or search off from commercial surveillance, the same people shout that this, too, is technologically impossible.

That's a lie, though. Facebook started out as the anti-surveillance alternative to Myspace. We know it's possible to operate Facebook without surveillance, because Facebook used to operate without surveillance:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3247362

Likewise, Brin and Page's original Pagerank paper, which described Google's architecture, insisted that search was incompatible with surveillance advertising, and Google established itself as a non-spying search tool:

http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/papers/google.pdf

Even weirder is what happens when there's a proposal to limit a tech company's power to invoke the government's powers to shut down competitors. Take Ethan Zuckerman's lawsuit to strip Facebook of the legal power to sue people who automate their browsers to uncheck the millions of boxes that Facebook requires you to click by hand in order to unfollow everyone:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/02/kaiju-v-kaiju/#cda-230-c-2-b

Facebook's apologists have lost their minds over this, insisting that no one can possibly understand the potential harms of taking away Facebook's legal right to decide how your browser works. They take the position that only Facebook can understand when it's safe and proportional to use Facebook in ways the company didn't explicitly design for, and that they should be able to ask the government to fine or even imprison people who fail to defer to Facebook's decisions about how its users configure their computers.

This is an incredibly convenient position, since it arrogates to Facebook the right to order the rest of us to use our computers in the ways that are most beneficial to its shareholders. But Facebook's apologists insist that they are not motivated by parochial concerns over the value of their stock portfolios; rather, they have objective, technical concerns, that no one except them is qualified to understand or comment on.

There's a great name for this: "scalesplaining." As in "well, actually the platforms are doing an amazing job, but you can't possibly understand that because you don't work for them." It's weird enough when scalesplaining is used to condemn sensible regulation of the platforms; it's even weirder when it's weaponized to defend a system of regulatory protection for the platforms against would-be competitors.

Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no libertarians in government-protected monopolies. Somehow, scalesplaining can be used to condemn governments as incapable of making any tech regulations and to insist that regulations that protect tech monopolies are just perfect and shouldn't ever be weakened. Truly, it's impossible to get someone to understand something when the value of their employee stock options depends on them not understanding it.

None of this is to say that every tech regulation is a good one. Governments often propose bad tech regulations (like chat control), or ones that are technologically impossible (like Article 17 of the EU's 2019 Digital Single Markets Directive, which requires tech companies to detect and block copyright infringements in their users' uploads).

But the fact that scalesplainers use the same argument to criticize both good and bad regulations makes the waters very muddy indeed. Policymakers are rightfully suspicious when they hear "that's not technically possible" because they hear that both for technically impossible proposals and for proposals that scalesplainers just don't like.

After decades of regulations aimed at making platforms behave better, we're finally moving into a new era, where we just make the platforms less important. That is, rather than simply ordering Facebook to block harassment and other bad conduct by its users, laws like the EU's Digital Markets Act will order Facebook and other VLOPs (Very Large Online Platforms, my favorite EU-ism ever) to operate gateways so that users can move to rival services and still communicate with the people who stay behind.

Think of this like number portability, but for digital platforms. Just as you can switch phone companies and keep your number and hear from all the people you spoke to on your old plan, the DMA will make it possible for you to change online services but still exchange messages and data with all the people you're already in touch with.

I love this idea, because it finally grapples with the question we should have been asking all along: why do people stay on platforms where they face harassment and bullying? The answer is simple: because the people – customers, family members, communities – we connect with on the platform are so important to us that we'll tolerate almost anything to avoid losing contact with them:

https://locusmag.com/2023/01/commentary-cory-doctorow-social-quitting/

Platforms deliberately rig the game so that we take each other hostage, locking each other into their badly moderated cesspits by using the love we have for one another as a weapon against us. Interoperability – making platforms connect to each other – shatters those locks and frees the hostages:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/facebooks-secret-war-switching-costs

But there's another reason to love interoperability (making moderation less important) over rules that require platforms to stamp out bad behavior (making moderation better). Interop rules are much easier to administer than content moderation rules, and when it comes to regulation, administratability is everything.

The DMA isn't the EU's only new rule. They've also passed the Digital Services Act, which is a decidedly mixed bag. Among its provisions are a suite of rules requiring companies to monitor their users for harmful behavior and to intervene to block it. Whether or not you think platforms should do this, there's a much more important question: how can we enforce this rule?

Enforcing a rule requiring platforms to prevent harassment is very "fact intensive." First, we have to agree on a definition of "harassment." Then we have to figure out whether something one user did to another satisfies that definition. Finally, we have to determine whether the platform took reasonable steps to detect and prevent the harassment.

Each step of this is a huge lift, especially that last one, since to a first approximation, everyone who understands a given VLOP's server infrastructure is a partisan, scalesplaining engineer on the VLOP's payroll. By the time we find out whether the company broke the rule, years will have gone by, and millions more users will be in line to get justice for themselves.

So allowing users to leave is a much more practical step than making it so that they've got no reason to want to leave. Figuring out whether a platform will continue to forward your messages to and from the people you left there is a much simpler technical matter than agreeing on what harassment is, whether something is harassment by that definition, and whether the company was negligent in permitting harassment.

But as much as I like the DMA's interop rule, I think it is badly incomplete. Given that the tech industry is so concentrated, it's going to be very hard for us to define standard interop interfaces that don't end up advantaging the tech companies. Standards bodies are extremely easy for big industry players to capture:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/30/weak-institutions/

If tech giants refuse to offer access to their gateways to certain rivals because they seem "suspicious," it will be hard to tell whether the companies are just engaged in self-serving smears against a credible rival, or legitimately trying to protect their users from a predator trying to plug into their infrastructure. These fact-intensive questions are the enemy of speedy, responsive, effective policy administration.

But there's more than one way to attain interoperability. Interop doesn't have to come from mandates, interfaces designed and overseen by government agencies. There's a whole other form of interop that's far nimbler than mandates: adversarial interoperability:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interoperability

"Adversarial interoperability" is a catch-all term for all the guerrilla warfare tactics deployed in service to unilaterally changing a technology: reverse engineering, bots, scraping and so on. These tactics have a long and honorable history, but they have been slowly choked out of existence with a thicket of IP rights, like the IP rights that allow Facebook to shut down browser automation tools, which Ethan Zuckerman is suing to nullify:

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

Adversarial interop is very flexible. No matter what technological moves a company makes to interfere with interop, there's always a countermove the guerrilla fighter can make – tweak the scraper, decompile the new binary, change the bot's behavior. That's why tech companies use IP rights and courts, not firewall rules, to block adversarial interoperators.

At the same time, adversarial interop is unreliable. The solution that works today can break tomorrow if the company changes its back-end, and it will stay broken until the adversarial interoperator can respond.

But when companies are faced with the prospect of extended asymmetrical war against adversarial interop in the technological trenches, they often surrender. If companies can't sue adversarial interoperators out of existence, they often sue for peace instead. That's because high-tech guerrilla warfare presents unquantifiable risks and resource demands, and, as the scalesplainers never tire of telling us, this can create real operational problems for tech giants.

In other words, if Facebook can't shut down Ethan Zuckerman's browser automation tool in the courts, and if they're sincerely worried that a browser automation tool will uncheck its user interface buttons so quickly that it crashes the server, all it has to do is offer an official "unsubscribe all" button and no one will use Zuckerman's browser automation tool.

We don't have to choose between adversarial interop and interop mandates. The two are better together than they are apart. If companies building and operating DMA-compliant, mandatory gateways know that a failure to make them useful to rivals seeking to help users escape their authority is getting mired in endless hand-to-hand combat with trench-fighting adversarial interoperators, they'll have good reason to cooperate.

And if lawmakers charged with administering the DMA notice that companies are engaging in adversarial interop rather than using the official, reliable gateway they're overseeing, that's a good indicator that the official gateways aren't suitable.

It would be very on-brand for the EU to create the DMA and tell tech companies how they must operate, and for the USA to simply withdraw the state's protection from the Big Tech companies and let smaller companies try their luck at hacking new features into the big companies' servers without the government getting involved.

Indeed, we're seeing some of that today. Oregon just passed the first ever Right to Repair law banning "parts pairing" – basically a way of using IP law to make it illegal to reverse-engineer a device so you can fix it.

https://www.opb.org/article/2024/03/28/oregon-governor-kotek-signs-strong-tech-right-to-repair-bill/

Taken together, the two approaches – mandates and reverse engineering – are stronger than either on their own. Mandates are sturdy and reliable, but slow-moving. Adversarial interop is flexible and nimble, but unreliable. Put 'em together and you get a two-part epoxy, strong and flexible.

Governments can regulate well, with well-funded expert agencies and smart, adminstratable remedies. It's for that reason that the administrative state is under such sustained attack from the GOP and right-wing Dems. The illegitimate Supreme Court is on the verge of gutting expert agencies' power:

https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/05/us-supreme-court-may-soon-discard-or-modify-chevron-deference

It's never been more important to craft regulations that go beyond mere good intentions and take account of adminsitratability. The easier we can make our rules to enforce, the less our beleaguered agencies will need to do to protect us from corporate predators.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/20/scalesplaining/#administratability

Image: Noah Wulf (modified) https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thunderbirds_at_Attention_Next_to_Thunderbird_1_-_Aviation_Nation_2019.jpg

CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

[melhindips]

American activist shot dead in occupied West Bank

A 26-year-old American woman has been shot dead in the occupied West Bank during a protest.

Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, who is of Turkish descent, is reported to have been taking part in a protest against Jewish settlement expansion in the town of Beita near Nablus.

Ms Ezgi Eygi was allegedly shot by Israeli troops, according to local media reports. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) say they are aware of the incident and looking into it.

The American activist was rushed to a hospital in Nablus with a gunshot to the head and was later pronounced dead, AFP news agency reported.

According to reports by Palestinian media, the 26-year-old had been involved in a campaign to protect farmers from Israeli settler violence.

It comes after Israeli forces withdrew from Jenin city and its refugee camp in the occupied West Bank, following a major nine-day operation there.

During the operation, at least 36 Palestinians were killed - 21 from Jenin governorate - the Palestinian health ministry says. Most of the dead have been claimed by armed groups as members, but the ministry says children are also among those killed.

In the past 50 years, Israel has built settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, where more than 700,000 Jews now live.

Settlements are held to be illegal under international law - that is the position of the UN Security Council and the UK government, among others - although Israel rejects this.

[ralfmaximus]

The NHS has sounded an alarm with a 10-day Covid warning, calling for vigilance as the number of cases climbs. According to recent figures released by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), there's been a 17.8% week-on-week increase in Covid infections in England and a sharp 27.3% rise in related fatalities.

Do you long for the early days of 2020?

Do you miss the uncertainty & fear of impending pandemic?

Well... miss it no more! We're probably ramping up for COVID 2024: The Re-Re-Pandemicking Part II / Electric Boogaloo!

Note however that this is entirely a UK problem, since here in AMERICA we know that viruses are a hoax, banning masks in public reduces mass shootings, and God hates furries for making students shit in litter boxes. Sigh.

[liesmyteachertoldme]

A New Type of War

While many still have not realized it, we are at war. The aggressors are government intelligence and security agencies that have turned their weapon of choice — information — against their own citizens.

And, while the organizations doing the CIA's dirty work may have changed, the basic organizational structure is the same as it was in 1967. Taxpayer money gets funneled through various federal departments and agencies into the hands of nongovernmental agencies that carry out censorship activities as directed. As recently reported by investigative journalists Alex Gutentag and Michael Shellenberger:6

"The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) are nongovernmental organizations, their leaders say.

When they demand more censorship of online hate speech, as they are currently doing of X, formerly Twitter, those NGOs are doing it as free citizens and not, say, as government agents.

But the fact of the matter is that the US and other Western governments fund ISD, the UK government indirectly funds CCDH, and, for at least 40 years, ADL spied on its enemies and shared intelligence with the US, Israel and other governments.

The reason all of this matters is that ADL's advertiser boycott against X may be an effort by governments to regain the ability to censor users on X that they had under Twitter before Musk's takeover last November.

Internal Twitter and Facebook messages show that representatives of the US government, including the White House, FBI, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as well as the UK government, successfully demanded Facebook and Twitter censorship of their users over the last several years."

What we have now is government censorship by proxy, a deeply anti-American activity that has become standard practice, not just by intelligence and national security agencies but federal agencies of all stripes, including our public health agencies.

September 8, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's injunction banning the White House, the surgeon general, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI from influencing social media companies to remove so-called "disinformation."7

According to the judges' decision,8 "CDC officials provided direct guidance to the platforms on the application of the platforms' internal policies and moderation activities" by telling them what was, and was not, misinformation, asking for changes to platforms' moderation policies and directing platforms to take specific actions.

"Ultimately, the CDC's guidance informed, if not directly affected, the platforms' moderation decisions," the judges said, so, "although not plainly coercive, the CDC officials likely significantly encouraged the platforms' moderation decisions, meaning they violated the First Amendment."

Unfortunately, as mentioned earlier, the U.S. government is not acting alone. Governments around the world and international organizations like the World Health Organization are all engaged in censorship, and when it comes to medical information, most Big Tech platforms are taking their lead from the WHO. And, if the WHO's pandemic treaty9 is enacted, then the WHO will have sole authority to dictate truth. Everything else will be censored.

[liminalweirdo]

NHS Calls for 10-Day Isolation for New XEC COVID Strain as Cases Rise; Experts Warn of Worsening Symptoms and Possible Return of Masks and Social Distancing The NHS has issued a critical alert recommending a 10-day isolation due to a sharp rise in COVID-19 cases in the UK. Recent UK Health Security Agency data shows a 17.8% week-on-week increase in infections and a 27.3% rise in related fatalities. As of October 9, there were 3,496 new COVID-19 cases reported, an increase of 529 from the previous week. The death toll rose to 163, an increase of 35, while hospital admissions reached 2,622, up by 149 cases. The NHS stated that you can remain infectious for "up to 10 days." You can also catch or spread COVID-19 if you: Do not have symptoms Are fully vaccinated Have had the virus before

Therefore, if you test positive for Covid, the NHS says you should:

Try to stay at home and avoid contact with other people for five days after the day you took your test if you are 18 years old or over

Avoid meeting people who are more likely to get seriously ill from viruses, such as people with a weakened immune system, for 10 days after the day you took your test.

If you have symptoms of COVID-19 or have tested positive, there are things you can do to help you avoid passing it on to other people, including those you live with:

Cover your mouth and nose when you cough or sneeze and encourage children to do this

Regularly clean surfaces you touch often (such as door handles and remote controls) and in shared spaces, such as kitchens or bathrooms

Try to stay away from other people, including those you live with, until you feel better

Let people who need to come into your home know that you’ve tested positive or have symptoms

Think about asking friends, family or neighbours to get food and other essentials for you

avoid indoor or crowded places (including public transport or large social gatherings) or places where there is not much fresh air if you need to leave your home

Wear a face covering when it's hard to stay away from other people

Let healthcare professionals know about your positive test result or symptoms if you’re asked to attend an appointment in person.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Britain’s lead public health body has a staggering lack of control over billions of pounds of spending, and there is no plan for stockpiling vaccines or personal protective equipment (PPE) for a future pandemic, a damning MPs’ report has found. The public accounts committee was highly critical of the repeated governance and financial failings at the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), which was set up with great fanfare under Boris Johnson. Meg Hillier, the committee chair, said it would be “utterly inexcusable” for the government to have failed to make serious preparations for future health emergencies and warned the lack of a plan for stockpiling could leave health workers once again exposed to danger as they were in 2020. The committee lambasted the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), which oversees UKHSA, for lacking a strategy for reserves of PPE, vaccines and medicines despite its mandate to protect the country’s health security. The MPs were particularly critical of the decision for it to be led by Prof Dame Jenny Harries, a former deputy chief medical officer for England, saying she was “appointed into a role, as accounting officer and chief executive, of which she had no previous experience”.

[...]

Hillier said it was “completely staggering that an organisation envisaged as a foundation stone of our collective security was established with a leadership hamstrung by a lack of formal governance, and financial controls so poor that billions of pounds in NHS test and trace inventory can no longer be properly accounted for”.

[saintmeghanmarkle]

Allegedly and Pure Speculation from Benjamin Smallbook on Quora Tonight - Its Time We Turned Up The Heat in the Markle Kitchen. Is this plausible? Is our Saint angering British Media to the Brink? by u/daisybeach23

Allegedly and Pure Speculation from Benjamin Smallbook on Quora Tonight - “It’s Time We Turned Up The Heat in the Markle Kitchen.” Is this plausible? Is our Saint angering British Media to the Brink? From Quora:Journalists at one of the UK’s top news agencies are getting together with colleagues at France’s biggest agency, Agence France Press, to put pressure on Markle and her husband, to come clean about the kids that nobody can mention. I believe, but have no firm evidence of this, other than whispers, that the Anglo-French media operation is being supported by the Palace.Clearly the Palace feels that enough is enough. Maybe they think that now is the time to regroup, and introduce Eugenia and Beatrice as A-lister working Royals. The recent health scares in the Family seems to have focused the minds of the ‘men in grey suits’ at the Palace.The awful news is soon to be released that the Princess of Wales has been suffering from an undisclosed form of cancer. The new direction, with a new start, doesn’t need any distraction from the duplicitous actress and her husband.Press-releases have flown from Montecito, and they have angered those who have been gagged.One press-release told, “The Duchess of Sussex has instructed Jake Rosenberg, a New York-based photographer, to take pictures of Prince Archie and his sister Princess Lilibet. The photoshoot will coincide with the launch of the Duchess’s lifestyle and cookery brand, American Riviera Orchard.”But what angered people was the sentence, “The photos of the children will be for our own family, and not distributed for general use.”What game is this woman playing? And what stupidity is the public displaying by going along with this idiotic charade?No births have ever been officially medically verified, and her pregnancies were suspect, to say the least. Remember, Markle and her dipsy husband lied to us about the birth of the ‘Archie Doll’. Their announcement stated The Actress was in labour, when in reality, the ‘child’ had already been born! And when Harry was filmed holding a baby which was supposedly only two hours old, he said, “It’s surprising how babies change in the first two weeks.” What the hell was that all about?The late Queen would have been informed by her own security services, long before the immaculate birth took place! It would be naïve to think otherwise. At the same time, the media would have been issued with a gagging order. From that day on, none of the UK national publications mentioned ‘surrogacy, Markle and fake pregnancy’ in the same sentence. In fact, they couldn’t even announce that a gagging order was in place.Even the birth certificates were suspect, as was the non-naming of the Godparents. The paparazzi were out in force, but not one picture emerged of any cars leaving or driving back to Frogmore Cottage. This is one big scam that hopefully will be busted very soon.Rumours as to why the Royal Family is going along with this, are rife. Blackmail and ‘playing the race card’ are top of the list. The Royal Family is as white as white can be, and the despicable woman knows it. She also knows what she’s doing. post link: https://ift.tt/jBsziPG author: daisybeach23 submitted: March 23, 2024 at 06:09AM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit disclaimer: all views + opinions expressed by the author of this post, as well as any comments and reblogs, are solely the author's own; they do not necessarily reflect the views of the administrator of this Tumblr blog. For entertainment only.

[collapsedsquid]

That will take some doing. Covid vaccines could be developed so quickly because of years of research on the Mers and Sars viruses. To prepare for the next onslaught we must compile inventories of potentially dangerous strains and tighten global surveillance. We can try to predict which pathogens are most likely to provoke zoonotic mutation. Above all, we can start work now on the early stages of vaccine development for the dangerous diseases we already know. Of course, this will cost money. But compared with other major investments, scientific breakthroughs come cheap. To push at least one vaccine against the 11 epidemic infectious diseases to phase 2 trials has been costed at less than $8.5bn. In her book Disease X, the science writer Kate Kelland estimates that $50bn would pay for a comprehensive vaccine library. To expect that funding to come from the private sector is unrealistic. The work is too expensive and high risk and the returns too uncertain. Philanthropy and public-private partnerships may work. But ultimately it is governments that should foot the bill. Unfortunately, in public policy, pandemic preparedness is all too often relegated to the cash-starved budgets of development agencies or squeezed into strained health budgets. Where such spending properly belongs is under the flag of industrial policy and national security. Biotech is one of the most promising areas of future economic growth, combining research, high-tech manufacturing and service sector work. As the IMF declared: “vaccine policy is economic policy.” And pandemic preparedness belongs under national security because there is no more serious threat to a population. A far larger percentage of the UK died of Covid between 2020 and 2023 (225,000 out of 67mn) than were killed by German bombs in the second world war (70,000 out of 50mn).

Long been my crank opinion that if we want to "reindustrialize" to restore competitiveness with China that biotech would be a good way to do it, going to take China a while to lose the reputation for being the maker of knock-off products and adulterated food, you can deal with that if you want to sell cheap steel or solar panels but for pharma it's more of an issue.

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved on our archive (Thousands of reports, sources, and resources! Daily updates!)

By Robert Stevens

A COVID wave fuelled by the XEC variant is leading to hospitalisations throughout Britain.

According to the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), the admission rate for patients testing positive for XEC stood at 4.5 per 100,000 people in the week to October 6—up significantly from 3.7 a week earlier. UKHSA described the spread as “alarming”.

Last week, Dr. Jamie Lopez Bernal, consultant epidemiologist at the UKHSA, noted of the spread of the new variant in Britain: “Our surveillance shows that where Covid cases are sequenced, around one in 10 are the ‘XEC’ lineage.”

The XEC variant, a combination of the KS.1.1 and KP.3.3 variants, was detected and recorded in Germany in June and has been found in at least 29 countries—including in at least 13 European nations and the 24 states within United States. According to a New Scientist article published last month, “The earliest cases of the variant occurred in Italy in May. However, these samples weren’t uploaded to an international database that tracks SARS-CoV-2 variants, called the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID), until September.”

The number of confirmed cases of XEC internationally exceeds 600 according to GISAID. This is likely an underestimation. Bhanu Bhatnagar at the World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe noted that “not all countries consistently report data to GISAID, so the XEC variant is likely to be present in more countries”.

Another source, containing data up to September 28—the Outbreak.info genomic reports: scalable and dynamic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 variants and mutations—reports that there have been 1,115 XEC cases detected worldwide.

Within Europe, XEC was initially most widespread in France, accounting for around 21 percent of confirmed COVID samples. In Germany, it accounted for 15 percent of samples and 8 percent of sequenced samples, according to an assessment from Professor Francois Balloux at the University College London, cited in the New Scientist.

Within weeks of those comments the spread of XEC has been rapid. Just in Germany, it currently accounts for 43 percent of infections and is therefore predominant. Virologists estimate that XEC has around twice the growth advantage of KP.3.1.1 and will be the dominant variant in winter.

A number of articles have cited the comments made to the LA Times by Eric Topol, the Director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in California. Topol warns that XEC is “just getting started”, “and that’s going to take many weeks, a couple months, before it really takes hold and starts to cause a wave. XEC is definitely taking charge. That does appear to be the next variant.”

A report in the Independent published Tuesday noted of the make-up of XEC, and its two parent subvariants: “KS.1.1 is a type of what’s commonly called a FLiRT variant. It is characterised by mutations in the building block molecules phenylalanine (F) altered to leucine (L), and arginine (R) to threonine (T) on the spike protein that the virus uses to attach to human cells.

“The second omicron subvariant KP.3.3 belongs to the category FLuQE where the amino acid glutamine (Q) is mutated to glutamic acid (E) on the spike protein, making its binding to human cells more effective.”

Covid cases are on the rise across the UK, with recent data from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) indicating a 21.6 percent increase in cases in England within a week.

There is no doubt that the spread of XEC virus contributed to an increase in COVID cases and deaths in Britain. In the week to September 25, there were 2,797 reported cases—an increase of 530 from the previous week. In the week to September 20 there was a 50 percent increase in COVID-related deaths in England, with 134 fatalities reported.

According to the latest data, the North East of England is witnessing the highest rate of people being hospitalised, with 8.12 people per 100,000 requiring treatment.

Virologist Dr. Stephen Griffin of the University of Leeds has been an active communicator of the science and statistics of the virus on various public platforms and social media since the start of the pandemic. He was active in various UK government committees during the height of the COVID-19. In March 2022, he gave an interview to the World Socialist Web Site.

This week Griffin spoke to the i newspaper on the continuing danger of allowing the untrammelled spread of XEC and COVID in general. “The problem with COVID is that it evolves so quickly,” he said.

He warned, “We can either increase our immunity by making better vaccines or increasing our vaccine coverage, or we can slow the virus down with interventions, such as improving indoor air quality. But we’re not doing those things.”

“Its evolutionary rate is something like three or four times faster than that of the fastest seasonal flu. So you’ve got this constant change in the virus, which accelerates the number of susceptible people.

“It’s creating its own new pool of susceptibles every time it changes to something that’s ‘immune evasive’. Every one of these subvariants is distinct enough that a whole swathe of people are no longer immune to it and it can infect them. That’s why you see this constant undulatory pattern which doesn’t look seasonal at all.”

There are no mitigations in place in Britain, as is the case internationally, to stop the spread of this virus. Advice for those with COVID symptoms is to stay at home and limit contact with others for just five days. The National Health Service advises, “You can go back to your normal activities when you feel better or do not have a high temperature”, despite the fact that the person may well still be infectious. Families are advised that children with symptoms such as a runny nose, sore throat, or mild cough can still “go to school or childcare' if they feel well enough.

The detection and rapid spread of new variants disproves the lies of governments that the pandemic is long over and COVID-19 should be treated no differently to influenza.

Deaths due to COVID in the UK rose above 244,000 by the end of September. It is only a matter of time before an even deadlier variant emerges. Last month, Sir Chris Whitty, England’s chief medical officer, told the ongoing public inquiry into COVID-19 “We have to assume a future pandemic on this scale [the global pandemic which began in 2020] will occur… That’s a certainty.”