#Why study in the UK in 2024

[the-proeducator-blog]

UK Education Trends 2025: In-Demand Courses and Emerging Fields for International Students

The UK remains a top destination for international students, offering a robust education system, cultural diversity, and opportunities to excel in globally competitive fields. If you're exploring higher education options in the UK, understanding emerging trends and in-demand courses is crucial for shaping your future career. Curious about what’s popular and rewarding? Learn about the Top 10 international course in the UK to discover programs that align with your career goals.

Why Choose the UK for Your Education in 2024?

As education evolves, the UK is at the forefront of blending traditional excellence with innovation. UK universities offer courses that are not only industry-aligned but also focus on preparing students for the jobs of tomorrow. Emerging fields such as artificial intelligence, climate science, and creative industries are now some of the fastest-growing disciplines attracting students from across the globe.

With its emphasis on cutting-edge research, interdisciplinary programs, and hands-on learning, the UK has solidified its position as a leader in global education trends.

Emerging Fields and In-Demand Courses for 2024

1. Artificial Intelligence and Data Science

The AI revolution is here, and UK universities are leading the charge with comprehensive programs in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and big data. Graduates of these programs are in high demand across industries such as technology, healthcare, and finance.

Key Career Roles: Data Scientist, AI Engineer, Machine Learning Specialist

Universities to Explore: University of Cambridge, Imperial College London

2. Climate Science and Sustainability

With increasing awareness about climate change, courses in environmental science, renewable energy, and sustainability are booming. The UK’s commitment to sustainability provides students with ample opportunities to work on real-world projects during their studies.

Key Career Roles: Environmental Scientist, Renewable Energy Consultant, Climate Analyst

Universities to Explore: University of Exeter, University College London

3. Digital Marketing and E-commerce

The rapid growth of the digital economy has made courses in digital marketing and e-commerce some of the most sought-after in 2024. UK universities are equipping students with skills in SEO, social media strategy, and online business models.

Key Career Roles: Digital Marketing Specialist, E-commerce Manager, SEO Analyst

Universities to Explore: University of Manchester, University of Edinburgh

4. Biotechnology and Life Sciences

As global healthcare challenges grow, courses in biotechnology, genomics, and pharmaceuticals have seen a rise in popularity. UK universities provide state-of-the-art facilities and research opportunities in these fields.

Key Career Roles: Biotechnologist, Clinical Research Associate, Genomic Analyst

Universities to Explore: King’s College London, University of Oxford

5. Creative Industries: Film, Media, and Gaming

The UK’s creative economy is flourishing, making courses in film production, media studies, and game design highly attractive. These programs emphasize creativity, storytelling, and the use of the latest technologies in production.

Key Career Roles: Game Developer, Film Director, Digital Content Creator

Universities to Explore: University of the Arts London, University of Warwick

Traditional Courses Still in High Demand

While emerging fields gain traction, traditional programs such as business administration, engineering, and medicine continue to be highly sought after. These courses provide strong foundational knowledge and lead to lucrative career opportunities.

Explore more about these programs by visiting Top 10 international course in the UK.

What Makes the UK Stand Out?

World-Class Education: Degrees from UK universities are globally recognized, opening doors to international careers.

Industry Connections: Programs often include internships and placements with top firms, giving students real-world exposure.

Diverse Learning Environment: With students from all over the world, the UK offers a truly global perspective.

Scholarship Opportunities: Generous scholarships and funding options make studying in the UK accessible for international students.

Tips for International Students

Research Thoroughly: Look for courses and universities that align with your interests and career aspirations.

Engage in Networking: Connect with alumni and industry professionals during your studies.

Embrace the Culture: The UK offers a rich cultural experience—take advantage of it!

Utilize Resources: Use university career services and online platforms to stay updated on job trends.

Conclusion

The UK continues to evolve as a hub for global education, offering programs that not only keep up with industry demands but also prepare students for the future. Whether it’s AI, sustainability, or digital marketing, the courses offered by UK universities equip students with skills to thrive in an ever-changing job market.

To learn more about the most popular programs and their career prospects, explore the Top 10 international course in the UK. Let 2024 be the year you take the first step toward your dream career in the UK!

This content is tailored to engage international students by highlighting exciting education trends in the UK and the bright future that awaits them.

[sophiamcdougall]

You're a reasonably informed person on the internet. You've experienced things like no longer being able to get files off an old storage device, media you've downloaded suddenly going poof, sites and forums with troves full of people's thoughts and ideas vanishing forever. You've heard of cybercrime. You've read articles about lost media. You have at least a basic understanding that digital data is vulnerable, is what I'm saying. I'm guessing that you're also aware that history is, you know... important? And that it's an ongoing study, requiring ... data about how people live? And that it's not just about stanning celebrities that happen to be dead? Congratulations, you are significantly better-informed than the British government! So they're currently like "Oh hai can we destroy all these historical documents pls? To save money? Because we'll digitise them first so it's fine! That'll be easy, cheap and reliable -- right? These wills from the 1850s will totally be fine for another 170 years as a PNG or whatever, yeah? We didn't need to do an impact assesment about this because it's clearly win-win! We'd keep the physical wills of Famous People™ though because Famous People™ actually matter, unlike you plebs. We don't think there are any equalities implications about this, either! Also the only examples of Famous People™ we can think of are all white and rich, only one is a woman and she got famous because of the guy she married. Kisses!"

Yes, this is the same Government that's like "Oh no removing a statue of slave trader is erasing history :(" You have, however, until 23 February 2024 to politely inquire of them what the fuck they are smoking. And they will have to publish a summary of the responses they receive. And it will look kind of bad if the feedback is well-argued, informative and overwhelmingly negative and they go ahead and do it anyway. I currently edit documents including responses to consultations like (but significantly less insane) than this one. Responses do actually matter. I would particularly encourage British people/people based in the UK to do this, but as far as I can see it doesn't say you have to be either. If you are, say, a historian or an archivist, or someone who specialises in digital data do say so and draw on your expertise in your answers. This isn't a question of filling out a form. You have to manually compose an email answering the 12 questions in the consultation paper at the link above. I'll put my own answers under the fold. Note -- I never know if I'm being too rude in these sorts of things. You probably shouldn't be ruder than I have been.

Please do not copy and paste any of this: that would defeat the purpose. This isn't a petition, they need to see a range of individual responses. But it may give you a jumping-off point.

Question 1: Should the current law providing for the inspection of wills be preserved?

Yes. Our ability to understand our shared past is a fundamental aspect of our heritage. It is not possible for any authority to know in advance what future insights they are supporting or impeding by their treatment of material evidence. Safeguarding the historical record for future generations should be considered an extremely important duty.

Question 2: Are there any reforms you would suggest to the current law enabling wills to be inspected?

No.

Question 3: Are there any reasons why the High Court should store original paper will documents on a permanent basis, as opposed to just retaining a digitised copy of that material?

Yes. I am amazed that the recent cyber attack on the British Library, which has effectively paralysed it completely, not been sufficient to answer this question for you.  I also refer you to the fate of the Domesday Project. Digital storage is useful and can help more people access information; however, it is also inherently fragile. Malice, accident, or eventual inevitable obsolescence not merely might occur, but absolutely should be expected. It is ludicrously naive and reflects a truly unpardonable ignorance to assume that information preserved only in digital form is somehow inviolable and safe, or that a physical document once digitised, never need be digitised again..At absolute minimum, it should be understood as certain that at least some of any digital-only archive will eventually be permanently lost. It is not remotely implausible that all of it would be. Preserving the physical documents provides a crucial failsafe. It also allows any errors in reproduction -- also inevitable-- to be, eventually, seen and corrected. Note that maintaining, upgrading and replacing digital infrastructure is not free, easy or reliable. Over the long term, risks to the data concerned can only accumulate.

"Unlike the methods for preserving analog documents that have been honed over millennia, there is no deep precedence to look to regarding the management of digital records. As such, the processing, long-term storage, and distribution potential of archival digital data are highly unresolved issues. [..] the more digital data is migrated, translated, and re-compressed into new formats, the more room there is for information to be lost, be it at the microbit-level of preservation. Any failure to contend with the instability of digital storage mediums, hardware obsolescence, and software obsolescence thus meets a terminal end—the definitive loss of information. The common belief that digital data is safe so long as it is backed up according to the 3-2-1 rule (3 copies on 2 different formats with 1 copy saved off site) belies the fact that it is fundamentally unclear how long digital information can or will remain intact. What is certain is that its unique vulnerabilities do become more pertinent with age."  -- James Boyda, On Loss in the 21st Century: Digital Decay and the Archive, Introduction.

Question 4: Do you agree that after a certain time original paper documents (from 1858 onwards) may be destroyed (other than for famous individuals)? Are there any alternatives, involving the public or private sector, you can suggest to their being destroyed?

Absolutely not. And I would have hoped we were past the "great man" theory of history. Firstly, you do not know which figures will still be considered "famous" in the future and which currently obscure individuals may deserve and eventually receive greater attention. I note that of the three figures you mention here as notable enough to have their wills preserved, all are white, the majority are male (the one woman having achieved fame through marriage) and all were wealthy at the time of their death. Any such approach will certainly cull evidence of the lives of women, people of colour and the poor from the historical record, and send a clear message about whose lives you consider worth remembering.

Secondly, the famous and successsful are only a small part of our history. Understanding the realities that shaped our past and continue to mould our present requires evidence of the lives of so-called "ordinary people"!

Did you even speak to any historians before coming up with this idea?

Entrusting the documents to the private sector would be similarly disastrous. What happens when a private company goes bust or decides that preserving this material is no longer profitable? What reasonable person, confronted with our crumbling privatised water infrastructure, would willingly consign any part of our heritage to a similar fate?

Question 5: Do you agree that there is equivalence between paper and digital copies of wills so that the ECA 2000 can be used?

No. And it raises serious questions about the skill and knowledge base within HMCTS and the government that the very basic concepts of data loss and the digital dark age appear to be unknown to you. I also refer you to the Domesday Project.

Question 6: Are there any other matters directly related to the retention of digital or paper wills that are not covered by the proposed exercise of the powers in the ECA 2000 that you consider are necessary?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 7: If the Government pursues preserving permanently only a digital copy of a will document, should it seek to reform the primary legislation by introducing a Bill or do so under the ECA 2000?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 8: If the Government moves to digital only copies of original will documents, what do you think the retention period for the original paper wills should be? Please give reasons and state what you believe the minimum retention period should be and whether you consider the Government’s suggestion of 25 years to be reasonable.

There is no good version of this plan. The physical documents should be preserved.

Question 9: Do you agree with the principle that wills of famous people should be preserved in the original paper form for historic interest?

This question betrays deep ignorance of what "historic interest" actually is. The study of history is not simply glorified celebrity gossip. If anything, the physical wills of currently famous people could be considered more expendable as it is likely that their contents are so widely diffused as to be relatively "safe", whereas the wills of so-called "ordinary people" will, especially in aggregate, provide insights that have not yet been explored.

Question 10: Do you have any initial suggestions on the criteria which should be adopted for identifying famous/historic figures whose original paper will document should be preserved permanently?

Abandon this entire lamentable plan. As previously discussed, you do not and cannot know who will be considered "famous" in the future, and fame is a profoundly flawed criterion of historical significance.

Question 11: Do you agree that the Probate Registries should only permanently retain wills and codicils from the documents submitted in support of a probate application? Please explain, if setting out the case for retention of any other documents.

No, all the documents should be preserved indefinitely.

Question 12: Do you agree that we have correctly identified the range and extent of the equalities impacts under each of these proposals set out in this consultation? Please give reasons and supply evidence of further equalities impacts as appropriate.

No. You appear to have neglected equalities impacts entirely. As discussed, in your drive to prioritise "famous people", your plan will certainly prioritise the white, wealthy and mostly the male, as your "Charles Dickens, Charles Darwin and Princess Diana" examples amply indicate. This plan will create a two-tier system where evidence of the lives of the privileged is carefully preserved while information regarding people of colour, women, the working class and other disadvantaged groups is disproportionately abandoned to digital decay and eventual loss. Current and future historians from, or specialising in the history of minority groups will be especially impoverished by this.  

[reasonsforhope]

Masterpost: Reasons I firmly believe we will beat climate change

Posts are in reverse chronological order (by post date, not article date), mostly taken from my "climate change" tag, which I went through all the way back to the literal beginning of my blog. Will update periodically.

Especially big deal articles/posts are in bold.

Big picture:

Mature trees offer hope in world of rising emissions (x)

Spying from space: How satellites can help identify and rein in a potent climate pollutant (x)

Good news: Tiny urban green spaces can cool cities and save lives (x)

Conservation and economic development go hand in hand, more often than expected (x)

The exponential growth of solar power will change the world (x)

Sun Machines: Solar, an energy that gets cheaper and cheaper, is going to be huge (x)

Wealthy nations finally deliver promised climate aid, as calls for more equitable funding for poor countries grow (x)

For Earth Day 2024, experts are spreading optimism – not doom. Here's why. (x)

Opinion: I’m a Climate Scientist. I’m Not Screaming Into the Void Anymore. (x)

The World’s Forests Are Doing Much Better Than We Think (x)

‘Staggering’ green growth gives hope for 1.5C, says global energy chief (x)

Beyond Catastrophe: A New Climate Reality Is Coming Into View (x)

Young Forests Capture Carbon Quicker than Previously Thought (x)

Yes, climate change can be beaten by 2050. Here's how. (x)

Soil improvements could keep planet within 1.5C heating target, research shows (x)

The global treaty to save the ozone layer has also slowed Arctic ice melt (x)

The doomers are wrong about humanity’s future — and its past (x)

Scientists Find Methane is Actually Offsetting 30% of its Own Heating Effect on Planet (x)

Are debt-for-climate swaps finally taking off? (x)

High seas treaty: historic deal to protect international waters finally reached at UN (x)

How Could Positive ‘Tipping Points’ Accelerate Climate Action? (x)

Specific examples:

Environmental Campaigners Celebrate As Labour Ends Tory Ban On New Onshore Wind Projects (x)

Private firms are driving a revolution in solar power in Africa (x)

How the small Pacific island nation of Vanuatu drastically cut plastic pollution (x)

Rewilding sites have seen 400% increase in jobs since 2008, research finds [Scotland] (x)

The American Climate Corps take flight, with most jobs based in the West (x)

Waste Heat Generated from Electronics to Warm Finnish City in Winter Thanks to Groundbreaking Thermal Energy Project (x)

Climate protection is now a human right — and lawsuits will follow [European Union] (x)

A new EU ecocide law ‘marks the end of impunity for environmental criminals’ (x)

Solar hits a renewable energy milestone not seen since WWII [United States] (x)

These are the climate grannies. They’ll do whatever it takes to protect their grandchildren. [United States and Native American Nations] (x)

Century of Tree Planting Stalls the Warming Effects in the Eastern United States, Says Study (x)

Chart: Wind and solar are closing in on fossil fuels in the EU (x)

UK use of gas and coal for electricity at lowest since 1957, figures show (x)

Countries That Generate 100% Renewable Energy Electricity (x)

Indigenous advocacy leads to largest dam removal project in US history [United States and Native American Nations] (x)

India’s clean energy transition is rapidly underway, benefiting the entire world (x)

China is set to shatter its wind and solar target five years early, new report finds (x)

‘Game changing’: spate of US lawsuits calls big oil to account for climate crisis (x)

Largest-ever data set collection shows how coral reefs can survive climate change (x)

The Biggest Climate Bill of Your Life - But What Does It DO? [United States] (x)

Good Climate News: Headline Roundup April 1st through April 15th, 2023 (x)

How agroforestry can restore degraded lands and provide income in the Amazon (x) [Brazil]

Loss of Climate-Crucial Mangrove Forests Has Slowed to Near-Negligable Amount Worldwide, Report Hails (x)

Agroecology schools help communities restore degraded land in Guatemala (x)

Climate adaptation:

Solar-powered generators pull clean drinking water 'from thin air,' aiding communities in need: 'It transforms lives' (x)

‘Sponge’ Cities Combat Urban Flooding by Letting Nature Do the Work [China] (x)

Indian Engineers Tackle Water Shortages with Star Wars Tech in Kerala (x)

A green roof or rooftop solar? You can combine them in a biosolar roof — boosting both biodiversity and power output (x)

Global death tolls from natural disasters have actually plummeted over the last century (x)

Los Angeles Just Proved How Spongy a City Can Be (x)

This city turns sewage into drinking water in 24 hours. The concept is catching on [Namibia] (x)

Plants teach their offspring how to adapt to climate change, scientists find (x)

Resurrecting Climate-Resilient Rice in India (x)

Edit 1/12/25: Yes, I know a bunch of the links disappeared. I'll try to fix that when I get the chance. In the meantime, read all the other stuff!!

Other Masterposts:

Going carbon negative and how we're going to fix global heating (x)

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Tech monopolists use their market power to invade your privacy

On SEPTEMBER 24th, I'll be speaking IN PERSON at the BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY!

It's easy to greet the FTC's new report on social media privacy, which concludes that tech giants have terrible privacy practices with a resounding "duh," but that would be a grave mistake.

Much to the disappointment of autocrats and would-be autocrats, administrative agencies like the FTC can't just make rules up. In order to enact policies, regulators have to do their homework: for example, they can do "market studies," which go beyond anything you'd get out of an MBA or Master of Public Policy program, thanks to the agency's legal authority to force companies to reveal their confidential business information.

Market studies are fabulous in their own right. The UK Competition and Markets Authority has a fantastic research group called the Digital Markets Unit that has published some of the most fascinating deep dives into how parts of the tech industry actually function, 400+ page bangers that pierce the Shield of Boringness that tech firms use to hide their operations. I recommend their ad-tech study:

https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/online-platforms-and-digital-advertising-market-study

In and of themselves, good market studies are powerful things. They expose workings. They inform debate. When they're undertaken by wealthy, powerful countries, they provide enforcement roadmaps for smaller, poorer nations who are being tormented in the same way, by the same companies, that the regulator studied.

But market studies are really just curtain-raisers. After a regulator establishes the facts about a market, they can intervene. They can propose new regulations, and they can impose "conduct remedies" (punishments that restrict corporate behavior) on companies that are cheating.

Now, the stolen, corrupt, illegitimate, extremist, bullshit Supreme Court just made regulation a lot harder. In a case called Loper Bright, SCOTUS killed the longstanding principle of "Chevron deference," which basically meant that when an agency said it had built a factual case to support a regulation, courts should assume they're not lying:

https://jacobin.com/2024/07/scotus-decisions-chevron-immunity-loper

The death of Chevron Deference means that many important regulations – past, present and future – are going to get dragged in front of a judge, most likely one of those Texas MAGA mouth-breathers in the Fifth Circuit, to be neutered or killed. But even so, regulators still have options – they can still impose conduct remedies, which are unaffected by the sabotage of Chevron Deference.

Pre-Loper, post-Loper, and today, the careful, thorough investigation of the facts of how markets operate is the prelude to doing things about how those markets operate. Facts matter. They matter even if there's a change in government, because once the facts are in the public domain, other governments can use them as the basis for action.

Which is why, when the FTC uses its powers to compel disclosures from the largest tech companies in the world, and then assesses those disclosures and concludes that these companies engage in "vast surveillance," in ways that the users don't realize and that these companies "fail to adequately protect users, that matters.

What's more, the Commission concludes that "data abuses can fuel market dominance, and market dominance can, in turn, further enable data abuses and practices that harm consumers." In other words: tech monopolists spy on us in order to achieve and maintain their monopolies, and then they spy on us some more, and that hurts us.

So if you're wondering what kind of action this report is teeing up, I think we can safely say that the FTC believes that there's evidence that the unregulated, rampant practices of the commercial surveillance industry are illegal. First, because commercial surveillance harms us as "consumers." "Consumer welfare" is the one rubric for enforcement that the right-wing economists who hijacked antitrust law in the Reagan era left intact, and here we have the Commission giving us evidence that surveillance hurts us, and that it comes about as a result of monopoly, and that the more companies spy, the stronger their monopolies become.

But the Commission also tees up another kind of enforcement: Section 5, the long (long!) neglected power of the agency to punish companies for "unfair and deceptive methods of competition," a very broad power indeed:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/10/the-courage-to-govern/#whos-in-charge

In the study, the Commission shows – pretty convincingly! – that the commercial surveillance sector routinely tricks people who have no idea how their data is being used. Most people don't understand, for example, that the platforms use all kinds of inducements to get web publishers to embed tracking pixels, fonts, analytics beacons, etc that send user-data back to the Big Tech databases, where it's merged with data from your direct interactions with the company. Likewise, most people don't understand the shadowy data-broker industry, which sells Big Tech gigantic amounts of data harvested by your credit card company, by Bluetooth and wifi monitoring devices on streets and in stores, and by your car. Data-brokers buy this data from anyone who claims to have it, including people who are probably lying, like Nissan, who claims that it has records of the smells inside drivers' cars, as well as those drivers' sex-lives:

https://nypost.com/2023/09/06/nissan-kia-collect-data-about-drivers-sexual-activity/

Or Cox Communications, which claims that it is secretly recording and transcribing the conversations we have in range of the mics on our speakers, phones, and other IoT devices:

https://www.404media.co/heres-the-pitch-deck-for-active-listening-ad-targeting/

(If there's a kernel of truth to Cox's bullshit, my guess it's that they've convinced some of the sleazier "smart TV" companies to secretly turn on their mics, then inflated this into a marketdroid's wet-dream of "we have logged every word uttered by Americans and can use it to target ads.)

Notwithstanding the rampant fraud inside the data brokerage industry, there's no question that some of the data they offer for sale is real, that it's intimate and sensitive, and that the people it's harvested from never consented to its collection. How do you opt out of public facial recognition cameras? "Just don't have a face" isn't a realistic opt-out policy.

And if the public is being deceived about the collection of this data, they're even more in the dark about the way it's used – merged with on-platform usage data and data from apps and the web, then analyzed for the purposes of drawing "inferences" about you and your traits.

What's more, the companies have chaotic, bullshit internal processes for handling your data, which also rise to the level of "deceptive and unfair" conduct. For example, if you send these companies a deletion request for your data, they'll tell you they deleted the data, but actually, they keep it, after "de-identifying" it.

De-identification is a highly theoretical way of sanitizing data by removing the "personally identifiers" from it. In practice, most de-identified data can be quickly re-identified, and nearly all de-identified data can eventually be re-identified:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/08/the-fire-of-orodruin/#are-we-the-baddies

Breaches, re-identification, and weaponization are extraordinarily hard to prevent. In general, we should operate on the assumption that any data that's collected will probably leak, and any data that's retained will almost certainly leak someday. To have even a hope of preventing this, companies have to treat data with enormous care, maintaining detailed logs and conducting regular audits. But the Commission found that the biggest tech companies are extraordinarily sloppy, to the point where "they often could not even identify all the data points they collected or all of the third parties they shared that data with."

This has serious implications for consumer privacy, obviously, but there's also a big national security dimension. Given the recent panic at the prospect that the Chinese government is using Tiktok to spy on Americans, it's pretty amazing that American commercial surveillance has escaped serious Congressional scrutiny.

After all, it would be a simple matter to use the tech platforms targeting systems to identify and push ads (including ads linking to malicious sites) to Congressional staffers ("under-40s with Political Science college degrees within one mile of Congress") or, say, NORAD personnel ("Air Force enlistees within one mile of Cheyenne Mountain").

Those targeting parameters should be enough to worry Congress, but there's a whole universe of potential characteristics that can be selected, hence the Commission's conclusion that "profound threats to users can occur when targeting occurs based on sensitive categories."

The FTC's findings about the dangers of all this data are timely, given the current wrangle over another antitrust case. In August, a federal court found that Google is a monopolist in search, and that the company used its data lakes to secure and maintain its monopoly.

This kicked off widespread demands for the court to order Google to share its data with competitors in order to erase that competitive advantage. Holy moly is this a bad idea – as the FTC study shows, the data that Google stole from us all is incredibly toxic. Arguing that we can fix the Google problem by sharing that data far and wide is like proposing that we can "solve" the fact that only some countries have nuclear warheads by "democratizing" access to planet-busting bombs:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/08/07/revealed-preferences/#extinguish-v-improve

To address the competitive advantage Google achieved by engaging in the reckless, harmful conduct detailed in this FTC report, we should delete all that data. Sure, that may seem inconceivable, but come on, surely the right amount of toxic, nonconsensually harvested data on the public that should be retained by corporations is zero:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/09/19/just-stop-putting-that-up-your-ass/#harm-reduction

Some people argue that we don't need to share out the data that Google never should have been allowed to collect – it's enough to share out the "inferences" that Google drew from that data, and from other data its other tentacles (Youtube, Android, etc) shoved into its gaping maw, as well as the oceans of data-broker slurry it stirred into the mix.

But as the report finds, the most unethical, least consensual data was "personal information that these systems infer, that was purchased from third parties, or that was derived from users’ and non-users’ activities off of the platform." We gotta delete that, too. Especially that.

A major focus of the report is the way that the platforms handled children's data. Platforms have special obligations when it comes to kids' data, because while Congress has failed to act on consumer privacy, they did bestir themselves to enact a children's privacy law. In 2000, Congress passed the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which puts strict limits on the collection, retention and processing of data on kids under 13.

Now, there are two ways to think about COPPA. One view is, "if you're not certain that everyone in your data-set is over 13, you shouldn't be collecting or processing their data at all." Another is, "In order to ensure that everyone whose data you're collecting and processing is over 13, you should collect a gigantic amount of data on all of them, including the under-13s, in order to be sure that not collecting under-13s' data." That second approach would be ironically self-defeating, obviously, though it's one that's gaining traction around the world and in state legislatures, as "age verification" laws find legislative support.

The platforms, meanwhile, found a third, even stupider approach: rather than collecting nothing because they can't verify ages, or collecting everything to verify ages, they collect everything, but make you click a box that says, "I'm over 13":

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/09/how-to-make-a-child-safe-tiktok/

It will not surprise you to learn that many children under 13 have figured out that they can click the "I'm over 13" box and go on their merry way. It won't surprise you, but apparently, it will surprise the hell out of the platforms, who claimed that they had zero underage users on the basis that everyone has to click the "I'm over 13" box to get an account on the service.

By failing to pass comprehensive privacy legislation for 36 years (and counting), Congress delegated privacy protection to self-regulation by the companies themselves. They've been marking their own homework, and now, thanks to the FTC's power to compel disclosures, we can say for certain that the platforms cheat.

No surprise that the FTC's top recommendation is for Congress to pass a new privacy law. But they've got other, eminently sensible recommendations, like requiring the companies to do a better job of protecting their users' data: collect less, store less, delete it after use, stop combining data from their various lines of business, and stop sharing data with third parties.

Remember, the FTC has broad powers to order "conduct remedies" like this, and these are largely unaffected by the Supreme Court's "Chevron deference" decision in Loper-Bright.

The FTC says that privacy policies should be "clear, simple, and easily understood," and says that ad-targeting should be severely restricted. They want clearer consent for data inferences (including AI), and that companies should monitor their own processes with regular, stringent audits.

They also have recommendations for competition regulators – remember, the Biden administration has a "whole of government" antitrust approach that asks every agency to use its power to break up corporate concentration:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/party-its-1979-og-antitrust-back-baby

They say that competition enforcers factor in the privacy implications of proposed mergers, and think about how promoting privacy could also promote competition (in other words, if Google's stolen data helped it secure a monopoly, then making them delete that data will weaken their market power).

I understand the reflex to greet a report like this with cheap cynicism, but that's a mistake. There's a difference between "everybody knows" that tech is screwing us on privacy, and "a federal agency has concluded" that this is true. These market studies make a difference – if you doubt it, consider for a moment that Cigna is suing the FTC for releasing a landmark market study showing how its Express Scripts division has used its monopoly power to jack up the price of prescription drugs:

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payers/express-scripts-files-suit-against-ftc-demands-retraction-report-pbm-industry

Big business is shit-scared of this kind of research by federal agencies – if they think this threatens their power, why shouldn't we take them at their word?

This report is a milestone, and – as with the UK Competition and Markets Authority reports – it's a banger. Even after Loper-Bright, this report can form the factual foundation for muscular conduct remedies that will limit what the largest tech companies can do.

But without privacy law, the data brokerages that feed the tech giants will be largely unaffected. True, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau is doing some good work at the margins here:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/16/the-second-best-time-is-now/#the-point-of-a-system-is-what-it-does

But we need to do more than curb the worst excesses of the largest data-brokers. We need to kill this sector, and to do that, Congress has to act:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/06/privacy-first/#but-not-just-privacy

The paperback edition of The Lost Cause, my nationally bestselling, hopeful solarpunk novel is out this month!

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/2024/09/20/water-also-wet/#marking-their-own-homework

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved in our archive (Daily updates!)

Under 1s account for 64 per cent of all childhood hospital admissions with Covid, study finds

By Tom Bawden

Under 1s account for 64 per cent of all childhood hospital admissions with Covid, study finds

Covid is almost as bad for babies now as it was in the early days of the pandemic, while the risk of serious illness among all other age groups has sharply reduced over time, a study has found.

Researchers found that 6,300 babies less than a year old were admitted to hospital, either wholly or partially because of Covid, in the year to August 2023.

As such, infants accounted for 64 per cent of all child admissions for Covid for that year, according to the new study, published in the Journal of Pediatrics.

The study shows the rate of hospital admissions among infants has hardly changed as the pandemic has progressed, with a total of 19,790 under-ones admitted between August 2020 and August 2023 (an average of 6,596 a year) – representing 43 per cent of all child admissions over that time.

Meanwhile, during the period when Delta was the dominant variant, from May to December 2021, infants made up less than 30 per cent of children’s admissions.

Taken together, these figures show that while serious cases fell sharply among children aged one and older, they are little changed among the under-ones.

The continuing high rate of hospitalisations among babies is largely because babies are born with no immunity to Covid and weak immune systems more generally.

This is in contrast to many older children, who have built some immunity from Covid infections and vaccines.

Most infants are only in hospital for a short time – about two days – but about 5 per cent needed intensive care.

“The pandemic is as bad as it ever was for babies. Under-ones are the only age group where admissions have not gone down over time,” said Professor Christina Pagel, of University College London.

“As children over one year old gained some immunity from infection or were vaccinated (with vaccination mostly in teens), their risk of needing hospital fell. But this doesn’t help infants in their first encounter with the virus.”

She expects the picture among infants to have been “about the same” in the year to August 2024 as they were the previous year, “as we’ve continued to see waves of Covid and immunity in newborns remains low”.

This is the first study to show that UK Covid hospitalisations among babies have hardly fallen during the pandemic.

Although a vaccine has been developed for children aged six months to four years, these are only given to those who are clinically vulnerable.

As such, the best protection a baby can get is if the mother is vaccinated during pregnancy – ideally in the third trimester, scientists say.

The baby builds up some protection from the mother’s vaccination “in utero” and boosts this further after birth from breastfeeding, when antibodies are passed on through breast milk. The vaccine also reduces the risk of the mother catching Covid and passing it to her baby.

Professor Pagel points out that vaccine uptake in pregnancy is quite low, at about 40 per cent, and urges more pregnant women to get vaccinated.

“Not enough infants are being offering the protection of a vaccine – from six months – and the benefits of maternal vaccinations aren’t be promoted enough,” she said.

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that a vaccination during pregnancy reduced risk of hospitalisation for Covid among infants under the age of six by 61 per cent.

Analysis by the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has shown that Covid hospitalisations in babies under 6 months old are higher than any other age group apart from over-75s – although the difference is that hospital admissions among that age group have fallen sharply over the course of the pandemic, even if they are still higher than for babies.

Dr Simon Williams, lecturer at Swansea University, who was not involved in the research, said: “The findings of this new study are very concerning and help to debunk the myth that Covid is harmless in children. Although a majority of children will not be seriously ill from Covid, this study shows that in some cases it can be serious, and particularly in babies, who are vulnerable and with low immunity.”

Sheena Cruickshank, professor of public engagement and biomedical science at the University of Manchester, who was also not involved in the study, said: “Young babies are exceptionally vulnerable to Covid as their immune systems are still developing.

“This paper shows that even while older children are being hospitalised less, this is not the case for younger children. If mothers are able to breastfeed and have been vaccinated during their later pregnancy, then their maternal antibodies can protect the baby.”

“However, takeup of these vaccines has not been quite as good as it could be leaving a lot of mums and their babies vulnerable,” she said.

Dr Mary Ramsay, director of immunisation at UK Health Security Agency, said: “The Covid vaccine for pregnant women is offered during a relatively short window during Autumn [October to December], so we advise them to take it up when it’s offered this year and not delay.

“This way the vaccine can protect more pregnant women and newborn babies, whatever stage of pregnancy they might be in and if they were to deliver prematurely.

“The Covid-19 vaccine is already offered to ‘babies over 6 months of age and children who have certain long-term conditions’, who are among those most at risk of severe illness.

“For other babies and children, Covid-19 will generally be a mild illness. Our surveillance shows that whilst infants under 6 months of age currently have the highest rates of hospitalisations, the number requiring intensive treatment remains relatively low.”

“As with all vaccination programmes, the JCVI keeps the Covid-19 vaccination programme under review and informed by best available evidence.”

Study: www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(24)00473-6/fulltext

[dandelionsresilience]

Dandelion News - December 15-21

Like these weekly compilations? Tip me at $kaybarr1735 or check out my Dandelion Doodles for 50% off this month!

1. 7 good things humanity did to combat climate change in 2024

“The UK […] closed its final coal power plant in October. [… In India,] the share of power provided by coal dropped below 50% for the first time since the 1960s. [… A non-profit] has provided solar energy to more than 6,000 of the poorest Nigerians.”

2. California Voters Said Yes to Prop 4, a Win for Birds, People, and Our Shared Future

“[…] Prop 4 will direct millions of dollars for water conservation and habitat restoration [… and] includes a requirement that at least 40% of its funding go to lower-income and climate-vulnerable communities.”

3. This Pennsylvania school is saving big with solar and EV school buses

“Steelton-Highspire’s solar arrangement will save it about $3.6 million over the next 20 years. As for the electric school buses, Steelton-Highspire is one of thousands of districts able to access federal rebates from a $5 billion program created by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.”

4. Autism Speaks Canada shuts down in January. Good.

“As Canada’s autistic-led advocacy group […] we are relieved that Autism Speaks Canada will be shutting down in January of 2025. This is an opportunity for autistics and our families to collaborate locally to build new, neuro-affirming spaces and projects.” [If you don’t know why this is a good thing, please click here]

5. LA Zoo hatches first-ever perentie lizards, one of largest lizard species in the world

“The LA Zoo is one of only three institutions accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums that have successfully reproduced them[….] Adult perentie lizards can reach more than 8 feet (2.4 meters) in length and can weigh more than 40 pounds (18 kilograms), the zoo said.”

6. Research reveals an inexpensive fix for California's struggling wildflowers

“[… R]aking [“dead, invasive grasses”] is decidedly less labor-intensive and more ecologically friendly [than other management techniques…, but doing so] increased plant diversity overall, reducing invasive grasses […] while increasing both native and exotic wildflowers[….]”

7. A new EV battery could last more than 8 times longer, travel farther

“[… A] typical battery lasts 2,400 cycles, while the new battery lasted more than 20,000 cycles. [… Used batteries could be repurposed] for grid storage on wind and solar farms, the study notes.”

8. Women who are homeless in Boston find safe space and care at 'HER Saturday'

“Women can get lots of other care on the spot — from sick visits and basic health screenings to Pap smears and contraception. [… They also come for] "The makeup, the snacking and the girl talks. And ... picking out a new outfit," said Pinky Valentine [“a homeless transgender woman”].”

9. ‘It absolutely took off’: five UK biodiversity success stories

“[…N]ew methods are emerging to preserve, improve and generate new habitat and, in many cases, attract back or reintroduce species not seen for decades. After a nudge, ecosystems are often doing much of the heavy work themselves.“

10. Personalized gifts really do mean that little bit more to your loved ones, says research

“Research has also shown that receivers of personalized gifts are more likely to take care of them. […] In this sense, gift-giving can be not just an emotional exchange, but also a more sustainable one. A carefully preserved [personalised] gift avoids waste and brings long-term satisfaction.”

December 8-14 news here | (all credit for images and written material can be found at the source linked; I don’t claim credit for anything but curating.)

[fanhackers]

Special Pre-Tony Awards Post

OK, a little bit of a self-plug here, but there’s so much great work in Theatre Fandom: Engaged Audiences in the Twenty-first Century (2025), edited by Kirsty Sedgman, Matt Hills, and me.  Theatre Fandom is the first book to really cross audience and fan studies and think of theatre fans as fans in a fandom. It’s part of the University of Iowa’s Fandom and Culture Series, which includes books such as Bridget Kies and Megan Connor’s Fandom, the Next Generation (2022), Katherine Anderson Howell’s Disability and Fandom (2024) and Rukmini Pande’s Fandom, Now in Color (2020). In addition to more theoretical essays about what fandom and fannish behavior looks like in theatre as opposed to TV or film, there are also essays on particular theatrical fandoms from a broad array of scholars from the US and the UK. Ruth Foulis writes about how Harry Potter fandom was extended by Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, and Louie Lang Norman writes about A Very Potter Musical. Sarah K. Whitfield has an essay on Hamilton fandom as a site of bisexual representation, and Emily Garside writes about being a Rent fan for decades. Laura MacDonald writes about East Asian fans who reproduce and cosplay their favorite Western musical theatre shows, and playwright Dominique Morisseau talks to Kirsty Sedgman about how black fans in particular are policed as theatrical audiences (sadly relevant this week with the Patti LuPone/ Audra McDonald/Kecia Lewis fued flaring up again.) (IYKYK.)

And that’s just some of what’s in the book.  All the scholars involved hope that this book will generate lots more scholarship on theatre and fandom.  Everyone knows that theatre kids (and theatre grownups!) are hugely fannish (this was absolutely why Glee was pitched to media fans), and yet there’s so little scholarly literature about fandom in theatre. What there is is mostly in Shakespeare studies: books like Shakespeare’s Fans: Adapting the Bard in the Age of Media Fandom (2020) by Johnathan Pope and The Shakespeare Multiverse  by Louise Geddes and Valerie M. Fazel.  Agata Luksa has written about Polish theatre fans in the 19th Century. Nemo Martin has written about the construction of race in online Les Mis fandom.  Trevor Boffone is writing about musical theatre fandom on TikTok.  But we need more, much much more!  

As we say in the book’s introduction:

Where, you might be wondering, is the chapter on Phans? What about the Hedheads (Hedwig and the Angry Inch), the Fansies (Newsies), the Fun Homies (Fun Home), the Maggots (Matilda), the Jekkies (Jekyll and Hyde), or the Ozians (Wicked)? Where is the fringe show cum hit BBC TV series cum celebrated theatre production Fleabag? Such absences may inspire future work, we hope, and we certainly call for it.

I mean, Sondheim is totally a fandom, right? (Sing out, Louise!)

--Francesca Coppa, Fanhackers volunteer

[mysticstronomy]

IS THE LARGEST STORM OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM IS MOVING??

Blog#445

Wednesday, October 16th, 2024.

Welcome back,

New observations of Jupiter’s Great Red Spot captured by the Hubble Space Telescope show that the 190-year-old storm wiggles like gelatin and shape-shifts like a squeezed stress ball.

The unexpected observations, which Hubble took over 90 days from December to March, show that the Great Red Spot isn’t as stable as it appears, according to astronomers.

The Great Red Spot, or GRS, is an anticyclone, or a large circulation of winds in Jupiter’s atmosphere that rotates around a central area of high pressure along the planet’s southern midlatitude cloud belt. And the long-lived storm is so large — the biggest in the solar system — that Earth could fit inside it.

Although storms are generally considered unstable, the Great Red Spot has persisted for nearly two centuries. But the observed changes in the storm appear related to its motion and size.

A time lapse of the images shows the vortex “jiggling” like gelatin and expanding and contracting over time.

Researchers described the observation in an analysis published in The Planetary Science Journal and presented Wednesday at the 56th annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society’s Division for Planetary Sciences in Boise, Idaho.

“While we knew its motion varies slightly in its longitude, we didn’t expect to see the size oscillate as well. As far as we know, it’s not been identified before,” said lead study author Amy Simon, a planetary scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, in a statement.

“This is really the first time we’ve had the proper imaging cadence of the GRS,” Simon said. “With Hubble’s high resolution we can say that the GRS is definitively squeezing in and out at the same time as it moves faster and slower. That was very unexpected.”

Astronomers have observed the iconic crimson feature for at least 150 years, and sometimes, the observations result in surprises, including the latest revelation that the storm’s oval shape can change dimensions and look skinnier or fatter at times.

Recently, a separate team of astronomers peered into the heart of the Great Red Spot using the James Webb Space Telescope to capture new details in infrared light. The Hubble observations were made in visible and ultraviolet light.

The study, published September 27 in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, revealed that the Great Red Spot is cold in the center, which causes ammonia and water to condense inside the vortex and create thick clouds. The research team also detected the gas phosphine within the storm, which could play “a role in generating those mysterious” red colors that make the Great Red Spot so iconic, said study coauthor Leigh Fletcher, a professor of planetary science at the UK’s University of Leicester, in a statement.

Originally published on https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org

COMING UP!!

(Saturday, October 19th, 2024)

"WHY DOES OUR UNIVERSE EXIST??"

[coochiequeens]

‘100% feminist’: how Eleanor Rathbone invented child benefit – and changed women’s lives for ever

She was an MP and author with a formidable reputation, fighting for the rights of women and refugees, and opposing the appeasement of Hitler. Why isn’t she better known today?

Ladies please reblog to give her the recognition she deserves

By Susanna Rustin Thu 4 Jul 2024

My used copy of the first edition of The Disinherited Family arrives in the post from a secondhand bookseller in Lancashire. A dark blue hardback inscribed with the name of its first owner, Miss M Marshall, and the year of publication, 1924, it cost just £12.99. I am not a collector of old tomes but am thrilled to have this one. It has a case to be considered among the most important feminist economics books ever written.

Its centenary has so far received little, if any, attention. Yet the arguments it sets out are the reason nearly all mothers in the UK receive child benefit from the government. Its author, Eleanor Rathbone, was one of the most influential women in politics in the first half of the 20th century. She led the National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship (Nusec, the main suffragist organisation, also formerly known as the National Union of Women Suffrage Societies) from 1919, when Millicent Fawcett stood down, until the roughly five million women who were not enfranchised in 1918 gained the vote 10 years later. In 1929, aged 57, she became an MP, and remained in parliament until her death in 1946. While there, she built up a formidable reputation based on her advocacy for women’s rights, welfare reform and the rights of refugees, and her opposition to the appeasement of Hitler.

It would not be true to say that Eleanor Rathbone has been forgotten. Her portrait by James Gunn hangs in the National Portrait Gallery. Twenty years ago she was the subject of a fine biography and she is remembered at Somerville college, Oxford – where she studied in the 1890s and ran a society called the Associated Prigs. (While the name was a joke, Rathbone did have a priggish side – as well as being an original thinker, tremendous campaigner, and stubborn, sensitive personality.) She also features in Rachel Reeves’s book The Women Who Made Modern Economics, although Reeves – who hopes shortly to become the UK’s first female chancellor – pays more attention to her contemporary, Beatrice Webb.

A thrilling tome … The Disinherited Family by Eleanor Rathbone. Photograph: Alicia Canter/The Guardian

But Rathbone, who came from a wealthy dynasty of nonconformist merchants, does not have anything like the name-recognition of the Pankhursts or Millicent Fawcett, or of pioneering politicians including Nancy Astor and Ellen Wilkinson. Nor does she enjoy the cachet of writers such as Virginia Woolf, whose polemic about women’s opportunities, A Room of One’s Own, was published five years after Rathbone’s magnum opus.

There are many reasons for Rathbone’s relative obscurity. One is that she was the first woman elected to parliament as an independent (and one of a handful of men at the time). Thus there is no political party with an interest in turning her into an icon. Having spent the past three years writing a book about the British women’s movement, I am embarrassed to admit that when I started, I didn’t know who she was.

Rathbone was not the first person to propose state benefits paid to mothers. The endowment of motherhood or family allowances, as the policy was known, was written about by the Swedish feminist Ellen Key, and tried out as a project of the Fabian Women’s Group, who published their findings in a pamphlet in 1912. But Rathbone pushed the idea to the forefront. A first attempt to get Nusec to adopt it was knocked back in 1921, and she then spent three years conducting research. The title she gave the book she produced, The Disinherited Family, reflected her view that women and children were being deprived of their rightful share of the country’s wealth.

The problem, as she saw it, was one of distribution. While the wage system in industrialised countries treated all workers on a given pay grade the same, some households needed more money than others. While unions argued for higher wages across the board, Rathbone believed the state should supplement the incomes of larger families. She opened the book with an archly phrased rhetorical question: “Whether there is any subject in the world of equal importance that has received so little consideration as the economic status of the family?” She went on to accuse economists of behaving as if they were “self-propagating bachelors” – so little did the lives of mothers appear to interest them.

Rathbone’s twin aims were to end wives’ dependence on husbands and reward their domestic labour. Family allowances paid directly to them could either be spent on housekeeping or childcare, enabling them to go out to work. Ellen Wilkinson, the radical Labour MP for Middlesbrough (and future minister for education), was among early supporters. William Beveridge read the book when he was director of the London School of Economics, declared himself a convert and introduced one of the first schemes of family-linked payments for his staff.

But others were strongly opposed. Conservative objections to such a radical expansion of the state were predictable. But they were echoed by liberal feminists including Millicent Fawcett, who called the plan “a step in the direction of practical socialism”. Trade unions preferred to push for a living wage, while some male MPs thought the policy undermined the role of men as breadwinners. Labour and the Trades Union Congress (TUC) finally swung behind family allowances in 1942. As the war drew to a close, Rathbone led a backbench rebellion against ministers who wanted to pay the benefit to fathers instead.

Rathbone celebrates the Silver Jubilee of the Women’s Vote in London, 20 February 1943. Photograph: Picture Post/Getty Images

It is for this signature policy that she is most often remembered today. At a time when hundreds of thousands of children have been pushed into poverty by the two-child limit on benefit payments, Rathbone’s advocacy on behalf of larger families could hardly be more relevant. The limit, devised by George Osborne, applies to universal and child tax credits – and not child benefit itself. But Rishi Sunak’s government announced changes to the latter in this year’s budget. From 2026, eligibility will be assessed on a household rather than individual basis. This is intended to limit payments to better-off, dual-income families. But the UK Women’s Budget Group and others have objected on grounds that child benefit should retain its original purpose of directly remunerating primary carers (the vast majority of them mothers) for the work of rearing children. It remains to be seen whether this plan will be carried through by the next government.

Rathbone once told the House of Commons she was “100% feminist”, and few MPs have been as single-minded in their commitment to women’s causes. As president of Nusec (the law-abiding wing of the suffrage campaign), she played a vital role in finishing the job of winning votes for women.

The last few years have seen a resurgence of interest in women’s suffrage, partly due to the centenary of the first women’s suffrage act. Thanks to a brilliant campaign by Caroline Criado Perez, a statue of Millicent Fawcett, the nonmilitant suffragist leader, now stands in Westminster, a few minutes walk from the bronze memorial of Emmeline Pankhurst erected in 1930. Suffragette direct action has long been a source of fascination. What is less well known is that militants played little part in the movement after 1918. It was law-abiding constitutionalists – suffragists rather than suffragettes – who pushed through the 1920s to win votes for the younger and poorer women who did not yet have them. Rathbone helped lead this final phase of the campaign, along with Conservative MP Nancy Astor and others.

Rathbone was highly critical of the militants, and once claimed that they “came within an inch of wrecking the suffrage movement, perhaps for a generation”. Today, with climate groups including Just Stop Oil copying the suffragette tactic of vandalising paintings, it is worth remembering that many women’s suffrage campaigners opposed such methods.

Schismatic though it was, the suffrage movement at least had a shared goal. An even greater challenge for feminists in the 1920s was agreeing on future priorities. Equal pay, parental rights and an end to the sexual double standard were among demands that had broad support. After the arrival in the House of Commons of the first female MPs, legislative successes included the removal of the bar on women’s entry to the professions, new rights for mothers and widows’ pensions. But there were also fierce disagreements.

Tensions between class and sexual politics were longstanding, with some on the left regarding feminism as a distraction. The Labour MP Marion Phillips, for example, thought membership of single-sex groups placed women “in danger of getting their political opinions muddled”. There was also renewed conflict over protective legislation – the name given to employment laws that differentiated between men and women. While such measures included maternity leave and safety rules for pregnant women, many feminists believed their true purpose was to keep jobs for men – and prevent female workers from competing.

Underlying such arguments was the question of whether women, once enfranchised, should strive for equal treatment, or push for measures designed to address their specific needs. As the debate grew more heated, partisans on either side gave themselves the labels of “old” and “new” feminists. While the former, also called equalitarians, wanted to focus on the obstacles that prevented women from participating in public life on the same terms as men, the new feminists led by Rathbone sought to pioneer an innovative, woman-centred politics. Since this brought to the fore issues such as reproductive health and mothers’ poverty, it is known as “maternalist feminism”.

Rathbone and other Liverpool suffragettes campaigning in 1910. Photograph: Shawshots/Alamy

The faultline extended beyond Britain. But Rathbone and her foes had some of the angriest clashes. At one international convention, Lady Rhondda, a wealthy former suffragette, used a speech to deride rivals who chose to “putter away” at welfare work, instead of the issues she considered important.

The specific policy points at issue have, of course, changed over the past century. But arguments about how much emphasis feminists should place on biological differences between men and women carry on.

Eleanor Rathbone did not live long enough to see the welfare state, including child benefit paid to mothers, take root in postwar Britain. Her election to parliament coincided with the Depression, and the lengthening shadows of fascism and nazism meant that she, like her colleagues, became preoccupied with foreign affairs. In the general election of 1935, the number of female MPs fell from 15 to nine, meaning Rathbone’s was one of just a handful of women’s voices. She used hers to oppose the policy of appeasement, and support the rights of refugees, including those escaping Franco’s Spain. During the war she helped run an extra-parliamentary “woman-power committee”, which advocated for female workers.

She also became a supporter of Indian women’s rights, though her liberal imperialism led to tensions with Indian feminists. During the war she angered India’s most eminent writer, Rabindranath Tagore, and its future prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, when she attacked the Congress party’s policy of noncooperation with Britain’s war effort. Tagore criticised what he called the “sheer insolent self-complacency” of her demand that the anti-colonial struggle should be set aside while Britain fought Germany.

Rathbone turned down a damehood. After their first shared house in Westminster was bombed, she and her life partner, the Scottish social worker Elizabeth Macadam, moved around the corner to a flat on Tufton Street (Macadam destroyed their letters, meaning that Rathbone’s intimate life remains obscure, but historians believe the relationship was platonic). From there they moved to a larger, quieter house in Highgate. On 2 January 1946, Rathbone suddenly died.

Rathbone’s blue plaque at Tufton Court. Photograph: PjrPlaques/Alamy

A blue plaque on Tufton Street commemorates her as the “pioneer of family allowances” – providing an alternative claim on posterity for an address more commonly associated with the Brexit campaign, since a house a few doors down became its headquarters. She is remembered, too, in Liverpool, where her experience of dispersing welfare to desperately poor soldiers’ wives in the first world war changed the course of her life, and where one of her former homes is being restored by the university.

I don’t believe in ghosts. But walking in Westminster recently, I imagined her hastening across St James’s Park to one of her meetings at Nancy Astor’s house near the London Library. Today, suffragettes are celebrated for their innovative direct action. But Rathbone blazed a trail, too, with her dedication as a campaigner, writer, lobbyist and “100% feminist” parliamentarian.

 Sexed: A History of British Feminism by Susanna Rustin is published by Polity Press (£20). To support the Guardian order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply

[docholligay]

Choose Your own Adventure: June 2024

Listen the quality is middling and I really really wish I had more time to work out the rough bits of this but it's 3021 words which is more than I've written in a month in a long, long time. So thank you all so much!

I’ve had nightmares ever since I was a kid. 

I guess that’s not actually all that impressive, plenty of people can say they’ve had nightmares since they were a kid. No, what I mean is, I’ve had the sort of nightmares where I dream too deep, and I can’t escape, since I was a kid. 

You ever dream too deep? Where you know you’re dreaming, but you can’t get yourself out of it. The most insane things can be happening around you--once I was trapped in Picasso’s Guernica, after I saw a picture of it in my sixth grade social studies book--but it must be real, because if it weren’t real, you could wake up. 

I was doing that. I couldn’t wake up, but I was in the most fucking insane situation of my life. Not a quite a nightmare, too strange to be a nightmare. Sitting in a historical house in England, surrounded by a bunch of people that aren’t real. Completely fake. Internationally trademarked, even. 

The fact that they weren’t real, however, wasn’t keeping me from building a fire in a glorious marble fireplace  while noted fictional characters Fareeha Amari and Haruka Tenoh moved furniture around, trying to get a space for everyone to draw their boundaries for the night. 

It was tense. Tension’s a lot more fun when you’re writing it instead of living it. 

Lena dropped an armful of wood beside me and crouched down, looking at the arrangement of logs. It’d be fair enough to question what I was doing. I’m good at building a fire, great even, but that supposes a number of things are true. I don’t know if they’re true here. Does wood even cure in the UK? It must, wood cures everywhere, but it’s just so goddamn damp here. 

“Set of matches upstairs.” She picked at the edge of one of the logs. “If you need.” 

I didn’t want her to go upstairs. I don’t know why, but it prickled across my skin. I don’t like it. There’s something odd about this place, beautiful as it is. Don’t get me wrong, I still wanted to wander around every inch of the house. The carved woods, the hand-knotted carpets, no one to tell me I couldn’t touch it, running my fingers across the flocked wallpaper. But I didn’t want her to. 

“Well, I’m just gonna look around here,” I stood up, stepping toward the mantle,  “has to be a match somewhere, it’s a fireplace for fuck’s sake. Can’t light it with hope. No need for you to run around all hell in the dark.” 

She chuckled appreciatively and got to her feet. 

“Oh, I’m alright.” She scratched the back of her head, “I’m the only one knows where it is. Improve everyone’s mood a bit, warm fire.” 

I’ve had these dreams all my life. The fastest way to get out of them, is to follow the rules of them. My brain wants these worlds to be real, and so they have to be real. If I call it a dream, if I try to break out, it closes in tighter. Dream people don’t like to know they’re fake dream houses like to stay firm on the ground. These dreams are waves to be ridden. That this one feels more real than anything I’ve ever had is all the more reason to be careful. All I needed to do was get through it. As soon as the tow truck pulls up, I would just fade into the dawn. I’ve done my part. 

But the reality of it. Even looking at Lena, I couldn’t imagine the perfection of her. Everything’s the way I know it, but have never seen. Her eyes are bright and brown and filled with stars. Her smile is crooked and constant, completely unself-consious. Her messy hair with its chestnut glimpses in the light. All perfect. But things I hadn’t imagined, either. Things that were completely correct, but I could never have written down. The barely-visible scar on her arm, from breaking it as a child. The rips in her sweater, lovingly darned. 

Was it like this for God, that his creations were made more real in their own time? 

Wow, comparing myself to God, that’s a fascinating level of arrogance on display as I’m freezing to death. 

“Haruka!” I call out behind me, “Can I use your lighter?” 

Lena looks at me. I shrug. 

“She smoked when we were in the van.” 

“Oh yeah!” She laughs and adds a small piece of tinder to the fire, “I forgot. She’s been round the backside of every pub we’ve stopped at.” 

Haruka tossed it, not leaving Mina’s side, not wanting to join the conversation. It doesn’t matter. She’s still young, and annoying, and I don’t expect it. If I could have picked, I’d meet forty year old Haruka. But the lighter is more important now, one step closer to waking up to my three year old running into the room. I’ve done this plenty of times. 

First fire. Then phone.

_________

Lena watched the fire catch, and then rose to her feet, offering Doc’s shoulder a pat. Everyone would be a better mood when they were a little warmer, and maybe Lena herself could cast off the strange feeling that had come over her since she went into the house. The house wasn’t talking to her, the house didn’t know her, the house wasn’t creeping around her like the ivy on the side of the house. 

Course not. 

That didn’t mean, though, that things weren’t odd. 

Fareeha was moving together couches and piling in bedding from another room. It was a good idea, they’d probably all have to spend the night here, and Lena ignored the twinge that she shouldn’t be using the fine coverlets, the down pillows. It was just like a thought said in another room, anyway. 

She should go apologize. She thought it would be funny to scare Fareeha--and it was--but Lena did whatever came to her mind first, and never thought a day, a month, a year past it. She should have known it would bother her, having spent so much time trying to professional in front of two people who wouldn’t know professional if it slapped them across the ass. Who, honestly, didn’t care about how well Fareeha ran the organization. 

But Fareeha did care, and Lena had upset her, and she cared about Fareeha even if she was an annoying stick in the mud who never met a rule she didn’t like. When you care about people, sometimes you have to pretend you care about other things as well. 

So she went to Fareeha’s side, and touched at the pillow on the couch in front of her, fluffing it slightly. 

“Listen, earlier, that’s the sort of thing you more or less expect from me andI I thought it’d be a bit of fun, and---alright, what I --I didn’t mean to embarrass you. In front of the posh poodles. Or what ‘ave you.” 

Fareeha barely looked up at her. “Who said that you embarassed me?” 

Lena gave a short sigh. Well, she’d done her part. Fareeha’s pride was what it was, and there wasn’t much to be done about it. 

“Right.” She looked at the shadows the fire threw upon the wall, squinting as if she could almost read them. “Strange place.” 

She said it quietly, almost to herself, but flicked her eyes back to Fareeha’s, knowing she would hear and hoping she would confirm it. Not quite a whisper, but most certainly a private conference. Fareeha said nothing, her eyes simply meeting Lena’s in silent assessment, but nothing was not a denial. Right, of course. Fareeha, for whatever her faults might be: Her stubborness and pride, for example, qualities that Lena herself most certainly did not embody, or, if she did, embodied them in a much less annoying way--for all that, she trusted Lena. She didn’t think Lena was crazy. 

She took the silence, as she took most silences, as leave to continue. 

“Don’t you wonder about this rain?”

“In England? No. I absolutely do not.” 

“It doesn’t rain like this.” Lena shook her head, trying to ignore the shadow play on the wall.  “It drizzles, London fog, grey, all that. Does this seem a drizzle to you? For hours now. Doesn’t strike you as odd. Just a bit? Something is not right.” 

Fareeha smiled. “We are,” she waved a hand and clapped it heavily on Lena’s shoulder, squeezing. “on a windswept moor, or something. You don’t hear ghosts, just Heathcliff howling.” 

Lena took a few steps back and shook Fareeha’s hand off her shoulder. 

“Right, first off, we ain’t in Yorkshire, this is Surrey. Buy a map. Second off, you’re really proud of finishing that book. Third off,” It reached a stage whisper, a wide gesture, “don’t bloody patronize me! Fareeha!”

“Fourth off, there’s a ghost in Wuthering Heights.” 

Lena and Fareeha both looked over to where Doc had appeared beside them. Lena didn’t much care for anyone to have quiet feet but her. 

“You think this house is haunted?”

“Not necessarily, I’m just givin’ a book report. I guess. Anyway,” Doc broke from Fareeha’s gaze, “Everyone’s mood would prolly greatly improve with some food.”

Food? 

When did she eat last? She ran back in her mind, trying to figure out what it had been. They’d been at the Spoons, for some ungodly reason ordering chicken katsu, and what had she had? A little pizza. A pint. Alright, two pints. She should be fine. She spent a lot of time talking, didn’t she? At least, Fareeha had said so, but you know--

She saw the pizza box in the back of the van, more than half full. 

“Right! I’m ‘ungry, is all.” 

Plenty of people who were supposedly experts in a thing that had never happened had said plenty of things about her, after the slipstream, and most of them had been only too happy to suggest Lena be tossed in the bin like a broken toy. She’d never be right, you know. MIght never talk again, then did, might never take care of herself, did that too, might never be able to work again, check, and she would have had her pilot’s license back immediately if everyone at the CAA wasn’t so bloody straightlaced. She had done it all, everything they said she wouldn’t. 

Might even be a danger to herself or others, for all she’s talking about seeing the pasts overlapping, about screaming into a London that was covered in soot that was under siege by the Vikings that was bombed to the ground that was her living room.He’d never let that go. She’d been a bit forgetful and chatty, with a tireless body, since she was small, but now everything she said and did was some proof of his theory. Everything was proof of an ‘unquiet mind’, never mind that they’d been happy enough to recruit her busy, loud mind before. She’d hated that insufferable prick the most, and that was quite the accomplishment. 

No one thought she was crazy, why was she thinking about this? Why was she thinking about the house? She was hungry. When she was hungry, it was easy for her to jump tracks. Happened all the time. 

Fareeha was looking at her carefully. 

“I have meal replacement bars in my bag. You can have any of them.” 

If there was anything worse than Fareeha’s constant criticism, it was her occasional concern. 

“Oh, right! The blueberry kale one.” Lena gave a bright smile, “Not to betray me English right of resignation to misery, but ‘ave we tried going the kitchen?” 

“I can cook. I’ll help.” 

___

I don’t know why I volunteered. Other than I knew exactly what kind of meal replacement bars Fareeha has stashed in her backpack, and even if there were only a few scant things in the pantry, it would be beter than a bunch of bars with the name “Superfood slam” or “Supergreen.” 

Also, I genuinely did think everyone would be better off with some food. I don’t know what Mina’s up to in the corner with Haruka, but she keeps giving me this stare, like she’s trying to peer into my soul. She knows something’s up with me. 

I just have to keep going until it’s finished. Six am comes real early.

“Alright.” Lena shrugs with a smile, “I can probably manage not to kill anyone, so between the two of us it’ll be a regular feast.” 

You’re actually a pretty decent cook, I want to say, you took an A level in food studies in a desperate attempt to get what you needed to qualify as a pilot. You grew up helping cook. You may be the best cook in this room who isn’t me. But I need to remember I don’t know these people, at least to them. 

Remember the dream about the opera? Remember telling your seatmate the end of the story? Remember how the stage caved in, remember how it dragged you down, remember how you forgot to believe in the dream? Remember how dark it got? Lena is a stranger to you and you don’t know anything about her you couldn’t have read in a magazine somewhere. 

Relax and enjoy the dream. Hell, maybe it’ll give you some ideas for that crushing writer’s block you’ve had. It’s easy, everyone agreed to send you two off, there was a flashlight given over, and you more or less understand the layout of older houses--why does this place look so familiar anyway? It’s not the Moss Mansion. It’s not the Biltmore.--so you thought you could find the kitchen. Easy. 

But why are there so many things I would never imagine? Why are the cell phones different? Why--

“What about you, then?” Chipper and bright. 

“What about me?” 

We were wandering the first floor, looking for a dining room, which would suggest a kitchen. The walls were dark, carved in relief squares with pictures and saints’ portraits hung, all of them watching, some directing, some whispering, but all watching. 

“You know,” she swung the flashlight in front of her, “Married. Kids. Sunday league team. Just making conversation in the dark.” She laughed at herself. “Nothing important.” 

“Yeah, married. Daughter.” I’m never sure how much to say, how to keep from betraying myself. I suddenly remember I’m not supposed to know anything. “Oh, you?” 

“Nearly there!” A sliver of moonlight hit her face, and the beauty of the joy in her face was illuminated in silver like a holy manuscript. 

“Going to ask ‘er next month, when we go on ‘oliday. Oh, but she’s beautiful. And so kind. Patient, which to ‘ear me family say is the only reason she can tolerate me. I don’t know ‘ow I ended up so lucky--you imagine, girl like ‘er, in me family’s pub with the sticky carpet and--but that doesn’t matter, i did manage to charm her, and now I’ve got the ring.” 

There was a strange twist in my stomach, then. Something deep and sick inside me, like I ws aboard a tossing ship. 

“Never really saw meself settling down, not that I didn’t want to, but it’s a dangerous life, mine, and--”

Ah. Guilt. That’s what it is. 

“Here it is.” I half-ran through the dining room. I couldn’t listen to her be in love anymore. “Kitchen.” 

___

Doc was flipping through the pantry, muttering to herself as she took the tops off a few spice jars, sticking her nose over the top. 

“Boy, no one here’s been particularly burdened by seasoning.” She set the jar of smoked paprika back down with a clink. 

“Yeah?” 

“Everything’s old.” She reached into the pantry again. “Least in here.” 

Doc moved away from where the unhappy jars sat, and went to another cabinet. People teased Lena, said that she never paid attention to anything, but the problem, Lena had often observed, was that she paid too much attention to everything, and it was hard to keep it all catalouged. Looking at Doc, watching her mutter to herself, the way her fingers drifted over surfaces, the way she bounced when she walked and how her eyes wandered. Lena couldn’t be sure, you could never really be sure of anything like that, but there was something kindred between them. 

“You’re a bit like me, I think.” Lena jumped up onto the countertop and opened a tall cabinet, revealing nothing but some old glassware. 

“No,” Doc shut the cabinet with an annoyed thump, “You’re a little like me.” 

Didn’t ask how she meant. Didn’t even think about what Lena might have been saying about it. Didn’t disagree. Doc stopped in the middle of the room and nodded. 

“I’m older than you, I mean. I came first.”  Doc shrugged. “So it’s you who’s like me. A little bit.”

She stood in front of the few cans they’d managed to gather and threw a pot on the stove, turning on the gas and striking a match all in a swift and praticed motion. The burner lit without dramatics. 

“Anyway, who the fuck wants to talk about it? Congratulations, we’re both twitchy and weird. Want to place bets on who can sit still the longest? Short game. Hand me that knife, will you?“ 

Lena sat down on the butcher block counter, her arms around her knees and watched Doc as she popped open cans and began to toss them in the pot. Not everyone wanted to talk about what made them tick, and it wasn’t even as if Lena had necessarily wanted a deep conversation about it. It was only an observation, an extension of friendship. Maybe she’d embarrassed her by noticing. Lena’d felt that way herself a time or two. It doesn’t always feel complimentary to have someone tell you they know you’re odd. Not every family was like Lena’s about it. She grabbed the knife and extended it toward Doc. 

Kill her.

Lena jumped back with the ferocity of it, the knife clattering to the counter. Doc turned to her, eyes narrowed. 

“What is it?” 

Kill her before she kills you. 

For next month

[darkmaga-returns]

The battle to limit carbon emissions has reached a new level with Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos backing startups developing new vaccines to curb cow farts and burps. See new findings in a recent study out of California on greenhouse emissions from bovine flatulence and why the UK is boycotting certain brands of dairy in the UK where the cows are fed a controversial drug.

AIRDATE: December 5, 2024

[reasonsforhope]

Double dose of articles about how crime is actually plummeting

From the UK:

"Seventy-eight per cent of people in England and Wales think that crime has gone up in the last few years, according to the latest survey. But the data on actual crime shows the exact opposite.

As of 2024, violence, burglary and car crime have been declining for 30 years and by close to 90%, according to the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) – our best indicator of true crime levels. Unlike police data, the CSEW is not subject to variations in reporting and recording.

The drop in violence includes domestic violence and other violence against women. Anti-social behaviour has similarly declined. While increased fraud and computer misuse now make up half of crime, this mainly reflects how far the rates of other crimes have fallen.

All high-income countries have experienced similar trends, and there is scientific consensus that the decline in crime is a real phenomenon.

The perception gap

So why is there such a gulf between public perception and the reality of crime trends? A regular YouGov poll asks respondents for their top three concerns from a broad set of issues. Concern about crime went from a low in 2016 (when people were more concerned with Brexit), quadrupled by 2019 and plummeted during the pandemic when people had other worries. But in the last year, the public’s concern about crime has risen again.

There are many possible explanations for this, of which the first is poor information. A study published in 1998 found that “people who watch a lot of television or who read a lot of newspapers will be exposed to a steady diet of crime stories” that does not reflect official statistics.

The old news media adage “if it bleeds, it leads” reflects how violent news stories, including crime increases and serious crimes, capture public attention. Knife crime grabs headlines in the UK, but our shock at individual incidents is testament to their rarity and our relative success in controlling violence – many gun crimes do not make the news in the US.

Most recent terrorist attacks in the UK have featured knives (plus a thwarted Liverpool bomber), but there is little discussion of how this indicates that measures to restrict guns and bomb-making resources are effective."

-via The Conversation, May 13, 2024

And the United States:

"[The United States experienced a spike in crime rates in 2020, during the pandemic.] But in 2023, crime in America looked very different.

"At some point in 2022 — at the end of 2022 or through 2023 — there was just a tipping point where violence started to fall and it just continued to fall," said Jeff Asher, a crime analyst and co-founder of AH Datalytics.

In cities big and small, from both coasts, violence has dropped.

"The national picture shows that murder is falling. We have data from over 200 cities showing a 12.2% decline ... in 2023 relative to 2022," Asher said, citing his own analysis of public data. He found instances of rape, robbery and aggravated assault were all down too.

Yet when you ask people about crime in the country, the perception is it's getting a lot worse.

A Gallup poll released in November found 77% of Americans believed there was more crime in the country than the year before. And 63% felt there was either a "very" or "extremely" serious crime problem — the highest in the poll's history going back to 2000.

So what's going on?

What the cities are seeing

What you see depends a lot on what you're looking at, according to Asher.

"There's never been a news story that said, 'There were no robberies yesterday, nobody really shoplifted at Walgreens,'" he said.

"Especially with murder, there's no doubt that it is falling at [a] really fast pace right now. And the only way that I find to discuss it with people is to talk about what the data says." ...

For cities like San Francisco, Baltimore and Minneapolis, there may be different factors at play [in crime declining]. And in some instances, it comes as the number of police officers declines too.

Baltimore police are chronically short of their recruitment goal, and as of last September had more than 750 vacant positions, according to a state audit report...

In Minneapolis, police staffing has plummeted. According to the Star Tribune, there are about 560 active officers — down from nearly 900 in 2019. Mannix said the 2020 police killing of George Floyd resulted in an unprecedented exodus from the department...

In Minneapolis, the city is putting more financial resources into nontraditional policing initiatives. The Department of Neighborhood Safety, which addresses violence through a public health lens, received $22 million in the 2024 budget."

-via NPR, February 12, 2024

[covid-safer-hotties]

Patients With Long-COVID Show Abnormal Lung Perfusion Despite Normal CT Scans - Published Sept 12, 2024

VIENNA — Some patients who had mild COVID-19 infection during the first wave of the pandemic and continued to experience postinfection symptoms for at least 12 months after infection present abnormal perfusion despite showing normal CT scans. Researchers at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 International Congress called for more research to be done in this space to understand the underlying mechanism of the abnormalities observed and to find possible treatment options for this cohort of patients.

Laura Price, MD, PhD, a consultant respiratory physician at Royal Brompton Hospital and an honorary clinical senior lecturer at Imperial College London, London, told Medscape Medical News that this cohort of patients shows symptoms that seem to correlate with a pulmonary microangiopathy phenotype.

"Our clinics in the UK and around the world are full of people with long-COVID, persisting breathlessness, and fatigue. But it has been hard for people to put the finger on why patients experience these symptoms still," Timothy Hinks, associate professor and Wellcome Trust Career Development fellow at the Nuffield Department of Medicine, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre senior research fellow, and honorary consultant at Oxford Special Airway Service at Oxford University Hospitals, England, who was not involved in the study, told Medscape Medical News.

The Study Researchers at Imperial College London recruited 41 patients who experienced persistent post-COVID-19 infection symptoms, such as breathlessness and fatigue, but normal CT scans after a mild COVID-19 infection that did not require hospitalization. Those with pulmonary emboli or interstitial lung disease were excluded. The cohort was predominantly female (87.8%) and nonsmokers (85%), with a mean age of 44.7 years. They were assessed over 1 year after the initial infection.

Exercise intolerance was the predominant symptom, affecting 95.1% of the group. A significant proportion (46.3%) presented with myopericarditis, while a smaller subset (n = 5) exhibited dysautonomia. Echocardiography did not reveal pulmonary hypertension. Laboratory findings showed elevated angiotensin-converting enzyme and antiphospholipid antibodies. "These patients are young, female, nonsmokers, and previously healthy. This is not what you would expect to see," Price said. Baseline pulmonary function tests showed preserved spirometry with forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced vital capacity above 100% predicted. However, diffusion capacity was impaired, with a mean diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO) of 74.7%. The carbon monoxide transfer coefficient (KCO) and alveolar volume were also mildly reduced. Oxygen saturation was within normal limits.

These abnormalities were through advanced imaging techniques like dual-energy CT scans and ventilation-perfusion scans. These tests revealed a non-segmental and "patchy" perfusion abnormality in the upper lungs, suggesting that the problem was vascular, Price explained.

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing revealed further abnormalities in 41% of patients. Peak oxygen uptake was slightly reduced, and a significant proportion of patients showed elevated alveolar-arterial gradient and dead space ventilation during peak exercise, suggesting a ventilation-perfusion mismatch.

Over time, there was a statistically significant improvement in DLCO, from 70.4% to 74.4%, suggesting some degree of recovery in lung function. However, DLCO values did not return to normal. The KCO also improved from 71.9% to 74.4%, though this change did not reach statistical significance. Most patients (n = 26) were treated with apixaban, potentially contributing to the observed improvement in gas transfer parameters, Price said.

The researchers identified a distinct phenotype of patients with persistent post-COVID-19 infection symptoms characterized by abnormal lung perfusion and reduced gas diffusion capacity, even when CT scans appear normal. Price explains that this pulmonary microangiopathy may explain the persistent symptoms. However, questions remain about the underlying mechanisms, potential treatments, and long-term outcomes for this patient population.

Causes and Treatments Remain a Mystery Previous studies have suggested that COVID-19 causes endothelial dysfunction, which could affect the small blood vessels in the lungs. Other viral infections, such as HIV, have also been shown to cause endothelial dysfunction. However, researchers don't fully understand how this process plays out in patients with COVID-19.

"It is possible these patients have had inflammation insults that have damaged the pulmonary vascular endothelium, which predisposes them to either clotting at a microscopic level or ongoing inflammation," said Hinks.

Some patients (10 out of 41) in the cohort studied by the Imperial College London's researchers presented with Raynaud syndrome, which might suggest a physiological link, Hinks explains. "Raynaud's is a condition of vascular control or dysregulation, and potentially, there could be a common factor contributing to both breathlessness and Raynaud's."

He said there is an encouraging signal that these patients improve over time, but their recovery might be more complex and lengthy than for other patients. "This cohort will gradually get better. But it raises questions and gives a point that there is a true physiological deficit in some people with long-COVID."

Price encouraged physicians to look beyond conventional diagnostic tools when visiting a patient whose CT scan looks normal yet experiences fatigue and breathlessness. Not knowing what causes the abnormalities observed in this group of patients makes treatment extremely challenging. "We need more research to understand the treatment implications and long-term impact of these pulmonary vascular abnormalities in patients with long-COVID," Price concluded.

[tomorrowusa]

We've been seeing a flood of news stories that young males have been flocking to rightwing parties around the world in recent elections. But the opposite seems to be true in the recent election in Australia. Men under 30 have apparently swung towards the left of center Australian Labor Party (ALP) which won a landslide victory this month.

(Researcher Intifar) Chowdhury says the 2025 election results stop “any kind of insinuation” that young men in Australia are becoming more rightwing. “If you look at electorates with a higher share of both first-time voters and voters under the age of 30, the higher the percentage, the more likely they are to swing towards Labor,” she says. “I will be very surprised if we see a swing among young men towards the Coalition, because no matter what demographic you’re talking about, there is some swing against the Coalition.” If her hypothesis is correct, it’s bucking global trends. At the 2024 US election, men aged between 18 and 29 turned out in force for Trump, while women of the same age voted for Kamala Harris by an even wider margin. Similarly, men at the 2024 UK election were twice as likely to vote for Nigel Farage’s rightwing Reform UK, while young women were more likely to vote Green. In Germany, there are signs young men under 30 are moving towards the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD). China, Tunisia and South Korea have also experienced a surge in support for rightwing candidates among young men. But data suggests young Australians have been repelled by Trump’s leadership style. A March study of voters aged 18-44 found just 23% surveyed said Australia would benefit from a leader like Trump; 58% said “absolutely not”. A sense of dread about social cohesion and the rise of the far right were consistently cited as major issues among a cohort of almost 1,000 young voters who reached out to Guardian Australia over the election campaign. Chowdury describes what occurred this election as the “Trump slump”. “I think Australia just became more moderate, to be honest,” she says.

It's not so much a swing to the left as it is to the moderate left.

All but one of the nation’s five youngest electorates were won by Labor in 2025 after previously being held by the Greens. (Ryan was too close to call at the time of writing.) “Australians in general tend to vote heavily based on their issues of importance,” Chowdhury says. “If you think about the generational grievance of the younger generations, it’s being locked out of the [housing] market, the erosion of the safety net, job precarity.”

This Australian phenomenon seems driven to a large degree by the media scene in the country.

Hannah Ferguson, 26, is head of independent news commentary page Cheek Media Co and co-host of the Big Small Talk podcast, both aimed at younger audiences. She says Australia’s election felt like a “battle of influence”. “Murdoch media were projecting the Coalition to win and endorsing them, and it felt like I was in this bubble where I had to prove myself and push my audience to believe they were the change-makers,” she says. Ferguson says she has often been asked why “all the influencers in Australia are progressive”. She says that, excluding Fox News, America’s mainstream media is perceived as leftwing, allowing influencers to position themselves against the “establishment”. While Australian influencers are also responding to “the establishment”, she notes it’s in a media “heavily dominated by Murdoch”. “The commentators who have risen up in this election are the ones challenging the far-right establishment of media in this country,” she says.

What we in the US can learn from this is that we need to talk more consistently and frequently about the rightwing establishment being responsible for the mess in the US. We should also promote influencers and podcasters who are effective at presenting common sense progressive viewpoints.

[opiatemasses]

Will there ever be an end to sexism in sport?

In the 2020s, can you imagine a man in a position of authority committing sexual assault against a woman in public, denying any wrongdoing and the victim being pressurised into giving a false testimony… or a woman being forced to wear impractical, sexually revealing clothing to work…or a woman turning up to work to find that there are no facilities for women, only men?

And yet we see these type of incidences in sport. In 2023, the head of the Spanish Football Federation planted a non-consensual kiss on the lips of a female footballer and then denied any wrong doing. In the same year, professional female rugby players publicly stated that access to women’s toilets is ‘potluck’, adding obstacles to women participating in sport. And two years before that, in the 2021 Euros, the Norwegian International Handball Team were fined for refusing to play their sport in impractical, skimpy bikinis.

These examples have stood out because women have bravely chosen to speak up and take a stand; these women have had enough. Last year, a study demonstrated sexism is commonplace in sport settings’, and a report by the Women and Equalities Select Committee highlighted ‘issues of bullying, harassment, abuse, and discrimination’ across several sports in recent years. Furthermore, the Olympic Broadcasting Services Chief Executive released a statement warning about “an unconscious bias for men and TV” in sport coverage.

How is this tolerated and accepted in sport? What respect are we showing to female athletes at the top of their game? None.

In the UK, we have laws, policies and practices to protect women from abuse and exploitation; we are moving closer to gender equality. And yet, for women in sport, societal norms lag significantly behind.

So why is sport so far behind?

This is complex and multifactorial but there are some clear themes that can be addressed:

Women are fundamentally underrepresented. In 2024, Sport England highlighted that women only made up 40.8% of National Governing Body Boards, dropping from 43.2% in 2020. If women aren’t represented in the decision-making of women’s sport, how can we expect women’s needs to be discussed, let alone actioned. The voice of women needs to be just as loud as the voice of men.

Women do not have equal access to funding and facilities, despite their success and achievement. The gender pay gap in sport is no secret; the average gap is 59.1%. However, the funding inequalities are much more far-reaching with a lack of equality in the provision of sports facilities and equipment. How, in 2025 and even at the highest levels of sport, are women’s games being cancelled or postponed due to insufficient facilities or, worse still, to allow men to use the facilities instead?

Sports women are less visible in the media and as the CEO of the Olympic Broadcasting Services stated “(women) are still being filmed in a way that you can identify that stereotypes and sexism remains...”. Media coverage of women’s sport was at 15%, despite women making up 50% of 2024 Olympic athletes. Appropriate portrayal of sportswomen is further hindered by encouragement and, at times obligation, to wear tiny, revealing clothing that shows off a sexualised female body, whilst men wear baggy, comfortable clothing to allow for optimal movement.

The result? This stops the athletes from receiving the deserved attention and praise for their sporting ability and minimises them to simply what their body looks like whilst doing the sport. How can we expect girls to aspire to achieve and succeed in sport, when they are lucky to see their role models in the media at all? And how can we expect girls to aspire to be strong and dominant in sport when women – in stark contrast to men – are socially constructed to be submissive, gentle and weak?

Women do not tend to report sexism. There are many anecdotal accounts that sexism in sport is underreported. Research, published in 2024, demonstrated that ‘Participants often felt unable to raise the issue of sexist behaviour with someone in their organisation due to believing that there would be a negative impact on their reputation, negative consequences for their career, that it would not make a difference, or that it was not safe enough to do so, assumptions which are correct based on the organisational responses to sexism reported within this study’. If women, even those whom we look up to and expect to be the best, are not safe to speak out, how will things ever change?

So what needs to change and whom do we need to call on:

Following their report, the Women and Equality Select Committee has already called on the Government to act on their findings, including how concerns and grievances are dealt with. The Government has accepted the recommendations, but there must be a clear time frame for putting this in place and all people, whatever their level of sporting ability, must be able to access the processes.

We need meaningful action plans from National Governing Bodies to ensure equal representation of women in policy determination and other decision-making, at all levels. We need policies, plans and practices that support true equality of women in sport.

Government, sponsors and sport organisations must work to ensure fairer funding across all levels of sport participation. There needs to be equal access to facilities and equipment. Women should never be in a position where the lack of facilities makes them feel unsafe, nor should their games be cancelled to prioritise men’s sport.

We need changes in media coverage and the portrayal of sportswomen. We need to see an end to the sexualization of female athletes, with an appreciation for their sporting ability. It is helpful that the Olympic Broadcasting Services Chief Executive has called out sexism in the coverage of sporting events. However, misogyny in media reporting must continue to be challenged and addressed, and athletes must be protected from abuse and harassment through social media. All women and girls participating in sport must have the right and be encouraged to wear practical comfortable clothing with no inappropriate restrictions, such as the size of their outfits.

So, what can we do as individuals to create this change?

We each need to become aware of our unconscious biases. This can be done through awareness of language used, receiving feedback, and embracing diverse perspectives.

Women need to be prepared to volunteer for leadership roles and sit on regulatory boards to ensure the female perspective is heard. Men need to facilitate this. We need to start challenging all incidences of sexism in sport and, if not witnessed ourselves, we need to support and stand with those who do stand up.

In conclusion, in order for an end to sexism in sport, much work needs to be done and we all have a part to play. This is vital and urgent if we are to reverse the worryingly increasing gender participation gap identified by Sport England, and make sport more inclusive with benefits to girls, women and our society. The view that sport was created by men, for men, needs to shift.

Further reading links:

Azumara, L. (2020). Sexism in Sports. CLA Journal, 8, 76-93.

Bowes, A., & Culvin, A. (Eds.). (2021). The professionalisation of women's sport : Issues and debates. Emerald Publishing Limited.

Cooky, C. (2017). ‘We cannot stand idly by’: A necessary call for a public sociology of sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 34(1), 1–11.

How to Start a Movement: Building a Social and Political Campaign

Hyde-Clarke, N., & Fonn, B. K. (2024). Challenging Norms and Practices in Women’s Beach Handball: The Bikini Debate. Media and Communication, 12.

Murray, P., Lord, R., & Lorimer, R. (2022). ‘It’s just a case of chipping away': A postfeminist analysis of female coaches’ gendered experiences in grassroots sport. Sport, Education and Society, 27(4), 475-488.

Schultz, J. 2024. Regulating Bodies. Elite Sport Policies and Their Unintended Consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Steidinger, J. (2020). Stand up and shout out: Women’s fight for equal pay, equal rights, and equal opportunities in sports. Rowman & Littlefield.

Velija, P. (2022). A sociological analysis of the gender pay gap data in UK sport organisations. In Gender equity in UK sport leadership and governance (pp. 197-216). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Yordanova, N., Kozhuharova, P., Simeonova, T., Stoychev, C., Petkov, P., & Ivanova, V. (2017). Prevention of Discrimination and Violence in Grassroot Sport in School and Sports Clubs. Eur. J. Train. Dev. Stud, 4, 30-41.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Toby Davies

Published: May 14, 2024

Seventy-eight per cent of people in England and Wales think that crime has gone up in the last few years, according to the latest survey. But the data on actual crime shows the exact opposite.

As of 2024, violence, burglary and car crime have been declining for 30 years and by close to 90%, according to the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) – our best indicator of true crime levels. Unlike police data, the CSEW is not subject to variations in reporting and recording.

The drop in violence includes domestic violence and other violence against women. Anti-social behaviour has similarly declined. While increased fraud and computer misuse now make up half of crime, this mainly reflects how far the rates of other crimes have fallen.

All high-income countries have experienced similar trends, and there is scientific consensus that the decline in crime is a real phenomenon.

[ Data via Office for National Statistics ]

There is strong research evidence that security improvements were responsible for the drop. This is most obvious with vehicle electronic immobilisers and door deadlocks, and better household security – stronger door frames, double glazed windows and security fittings – along with an avalanche of security in shopping centres, sports stadiums, schools, businesses and elsewhere. Quite simply, it became more difficult to commit crimes.

Decreases in crimes often committed by teenagers, such as joyriding or burglary, had a multiplying effect: when teenagers could no longer commit these easy “debut crimes” they did not progress to longer criminal careers.

There are, of course, exceptions. Some places, times and crime types had a less pronounced decline or even an increase. For many years, phone theft was an exception to the general decline in theft. Cybercrime, measured by the CSEW as fraud and computer misuse, has increased and is the most prominent exception.

But this increase was not due to thwarted burglars and car thieves switching targets: the skillset, resources and rewards for cybercrime are very different. Rather, it reflects new crime opportunities facilitated by the internet. Preventive policy and practice is slowly getting better at closing off opportunities for computer misuse, but work is needed to accelerate those prevention efforts.

The perception gap

So why is there such a gulf between public perception and the reality of crime trends? A regular YouGov poll asks respondents for their top three concerns from a broad set of issues. Concern about crime went from a low in 2016 (when people were more concerned with Brexit), quadrupled by 2019 and plummeted during the pandemic when people had other worries. But in the last year, the public’s concern about crime has risen again.

Proportion of people naming crime as a top three issue facing the country:

[ Data via YouGov ]

There are many possible explanations for this, of which the first is poor information. A study published in 1998 found that “people who watch a lot of television or who read a lot of newspapers will be exposed to a steady diet of crime stories” that does not reflect official statistics.

The old news media adage “if it bleeds, it leads” reflects how violent news stories, including crime increases and serious crimes, capture public attention. Knife crime grabs headlines in the UK, but our shock at individual incidents is testament to their rarity and our relative success in controlling violence – many gun crimes do not make the news in the US.

Most recent terrorist attacks in the UK have featured knives (plus a thwarted Liverpool bomber), but there is little discussion of how this indicates that measures to restrict guns and bomb-making resources are effective.

Political rhetoric can also skew perceptions, particularly in the run-up to elections. During the recent local elections, the Conservatives were widely criticised for an advert portraying London as “a crime capital of the world” (using a video of New York), while Labour has also made reference to high levels of crime under the current government.

There are also some “crime drop deniers”, who have vested interests in crime not declining due to, for example, fear of budget cuts. One of us (Graham) worked with a former police chief who routinely denied the existence of declining crime.

Despite the evidence of crime rates dropping, some concerns are justified. Victims, along with their families and friends, have legitimate concerns, particularly as crime is more likely to recur against the same people and at the same places.

And, while the trend is clear, there are nevertheless localised increases in some types of offending. When these relate to harmful and emotive issues like knife crime in London, for example, it is natural that this might have a substantial influence.

We are unlikely to be able to change political agendas or journalists’ approach to reporting. But governments should be taking a more rational approach to crime that is based on evidence, not public perception.

Local governments need to keep on top of their local crime hotspots: problem bars and clubs where crime occurs, shops where shoplifting is concentrated, local road traffic offence hotspots and so on. The common theme here is how crime concentrates.

National government, meanwhile, should lead on reducing crime opportunities via national-level levers. Only national government can influence social media platforms and websites that host online crime and encourage larger businesses to improve manufacturing, retailing and service industry practices.

The positive story around crime rarely makes headlines, but this should not put us off from learning the lessons borne out in the data. We know this can work from past success, but it took decades to get car makers to improve vehicle security and to get secure-by-design ideas in building regulations. Society needs to move more quickly.