#ill be so vulnerable to exploits and viruses>< | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

and-then-there-were-n0ne · 5 years ago

Text

After famine, humanity’s second great enemy was plagues and infectious diseases. Bustling cities linked by a ceaseless stream of merchants, officials and pilgrims were both the bedrock of human civilisation and an ideal breeding ground for pathogens. People consequently lived their lives in ancient Athens or medieval Florence knowing that they might fall ill and die next week, or that an epidemic might suddenly erupt and destroy their entire family in one swoop.

The most famous such outbreak, the so-called Black Death, began in the 1330s, somewhere in east or central Asia, when the flea-dwelling bacterium Yersinia pestis started infecting humans bitten by the fleas. From there, riding on an army of rats and fleas, the plague quickly spread all over Asia, Europe and North Africa, taking less than twenty years to reach the shores of the Atlantic Ocean. Between 75 million and 200 million people died – more than a quarter of the population of Eurasia. In England, four out of ten people died, and the population dropped from a pre-plague high of 3.7 million people to a post-plague low of 2.2 million. The city of Florence lost 50,000 of its 100,000 inhabitants.

The authorities were completely helpless in the face of the calamity. Except for organising mass prayers and processions, they had no idea how to stop the spread of the epidemic – let alone cure it. Until the modern era, humans blamed diseases on bad air, malicious demons and angry gods, and did not suspect the existence of bacteria and viruses. People readily believed in angels and fairies, but they could not imagine that a tiny flea or a single drop of water might contain an entire armada of deadly predators.

The Black Death was not a singular event, nor even the worst plague in history. More disastrous epidemics struck America, Australia and the Pacific Islands following the arrival of the first Europeans. Unbeknown to the explorers and settlers, they brought with them new infectious diseases against which the natives had no immunity. Up to 90 percent of the local populations died as a result.

On 5 March 1520 a small Spanish flotilla left the island of Cuba on its way to Mexico. The ships carried 900 Spanish soldiers along with horses, firearms and a few African slaves. One of the slaves, Francisco de Eguía, carried on his person a far deadlier cargo. Francisco didn’t know it, but somewhere among his trillions of cells a biological time bomb was ticking: the smallpox virus. After Francisco landed in Mexico the virus began to multiply exponentially within his body, eventually bursting out all over his skin in a terrible rash. The feverish Francisco was taken to bed in the house of a Native American family in the town of Cempoallan. He infected the family members, who infected the neighbours. Within ten days Cempoallan became a graveyard. Refugees spread the disease from Cempoallan to the nearby towns. As town after town succumbed to the plague, new waves of terrified refugees carried the disease throughout Mexico and beyond.

The Mayas in the Yucatán Peninsula believed that three evil gods – Ekpetz, Uzannkak and Sojakak – were flying from village to village at night, infecting people with the disease. The Aztecs blamed it on the gods Tezcatlipoca and Xipe, or perhaps on the black magic of the white people. Priests and doctors were consulted. They advised prayers, cold baths, rubbing the body with bitumen and smearing squashed black beetles on the sores. Nothing helped. Tens of thousands of corpses lay rotting in the streets, without anyone daring to approach and bury them. Entire families perished within a few days, and the authorities ordered that the houses were to be collapsed on top of the bodies. In some settlements half the population died.

In September 1520 the plague had reached the Valley of Mexico, and in October it entered the gates of the Aztec capital, Tenochtitlan – a magnificent metropolis of 250,000 people. Within two months at least a third of the population perished, including the Aztec emperor Cuitláhuac. Whereas in March 1520, when the Spanish fleet arrived, Mexico was home to 22 million people, by December only 14 million were still alive. Smallpox was only the first blow. While the new Spanish masters were busy enriching themselves and exploiting the natives, deadly waves of flu, measles and other infectious diseases struck Mexico one after the other, until in 1580 its population was down to less than 2 million.

Two centuries later, on 18 January 1778, the British explorer Captain James Cook reached Hawaii. The Hawaiian islands were densely populated by half a million people, who lived in complete isolation from both Europe and America, and consequently had never been exposed to European and American diseases. Captain Cook and his men introduced the first flu, tuberculosis and syphilis pathogens to Hawaii. Subsequent European visitors added typhoid and smallpox. By 1853, only 70,000 survivors remained in Hawaii.

Epidemics continued to kill tens of millions of people well into the twentieth century. In January 1918 soldiers in the trenches of northern France began dying in their thousands from a particularly virulent strain of flu, nicknamed ‘the Spanish Flu’. The front line was the end point of the most efficient global supply network the world had hitherto seen. Men and munitions were pouring in from Britain, the USA, India and Australia. Oil was sent from the Middle East, grain and beef from Argentina, rubber from Malaya and copper from Congo. In exchange, they all got Spanish Flu. Within a few months, about half a billion people – a third of the global population – came down with the virus. In India it killed 5 percent of the population (15 million people). On the island of Tahiti, 14 percent died. On Samoa, 20 percent. In the copper mines of the Congo one out of five labourers perished. Altogether the pandemic killed between 50 million and 100 million people in less than a year. The First World War killed 40 million from 1914 to 1918.

Alongside such epidemical tsunamis that struck humankind every few decades, people also faced smaller but more regular waves of infectious diseases, which killed millions every year. Children who lacked immunity were particularly susceptible to them, hence they are often called ‘childhood diseases’. Until the early twentieth century, about a third of children died before reaching adulthood from a combination of malnutrition and disease.

During the last century humankind became ever more vulnerable to epidemics, due to a combination of growing populations and better transport. A modern metropolis such as Tokyo or Kinshasa offers pathogens far richer hunting grounds than medieval Florence or 1520 Tenochtitlan, and the global transport network is today even more efficient than in 1918. A Spanish virus can make its way to Congo or Tahiti in less than twenty-four hours. We should therefore have expected to live in an epidemiological hell, with one deadly plague after another.

However, both the incidence and impact of epidemics have gone down dramatically in the last few decades. In particular, global child mortality is at an all-time low: less than 5 per cent of children die before reaching adulthood. In the developed world the rate is less than 1 per cent.11 This miracle is due to the unprecedented achievements of twentieth-century medicine, which has provided us with vaccinations, antibiotics, improved hygiene and a much better medical infrastructure.

For example, a global campaign of smallpox vaccination was so successful that in 1979 the World Health Organization declared that humanity had won, and that smallpox had been completely eradicated. It was the first epidemic humans had ever managed to wipe off the face of the earth. In 1967 smallpox had still infected 15 million people and killed 2 million of them, but in 2014 not a single person was either infected or killed by smallpox. The victory has been so complete that today the WHO has stopped vaccinating humans against smallpox.

Every few years we are alarmed by the outbreak of some potential new plague, such as SARS in 2002/3, bird flu in 2005, swine flu in 2009/10 and Ebola in 2014. Yet thanks to efficient counter-measures these incidents have so far resulted in a comparatively small number of victims. SARS, for example, initially raised fears of a new Black Death, but eventually ended with the death of less than 1,000 people worldwide. The Ebola outbreak in West Africa seemed at first to spiral out of control, and on 26 September 2014 the WHO described it as ‘the most severe public health emergency seen in modern times’. Nevertheless, by early 2015 the epidemic had been reined in, and in January 2016 the WHO declared it over. It infected 30,000 people (killing 11,000 of them), caused massive economic damage throughout West Africa, and sent shockwaves of anxiety across the world; but it did not spread beyond West Africa, and its death toll was nowhere near the scale of the Spanish Flu or the Mexican smallpox epidemic.

Even the tragedy of AIDS, seemingly the greatest medical failure of the last few decades, can be seen as a sign of progress. Since its first major outbreak in the early 1980s, more than 30 million people have died of AIDS, and tens of millions more have suffered debilitating physical and psychological damage. It was hard to understand and treat the new epidemic, because AIDS is a uniquely devious disease. Whereas a human infected with the smallpox virus dies within a few days, an HIV-positive patient may seem perfectly healthy for weeks and months, yet go on infecting others unknowingly. In addition, the HIV virus itself does not kill. Rather, it destroys the immune system, thereby exposing the patient to numerous other diseases. It is these secondary diseases that actually kill AIDS victims. Consequently, when AIDS began to spread, it was especially difficult to understand what was happening. When two patients were admitted to a New York hospital in 1981, one ostensibly dying from pneumonia and the other from cancer, it was not at all evident that both were in fact victims of the HIV virus, which may have infected them months or even years previously.

However, despite these difficulties, after the medical community became aware of the mysterious new plague, it took scientists just two years to identify it, understand how the virus spreads and suggest effective ways to slow down the epidemic. Within another ten years new medicines turned AIDS from a death sentence into a chronic condition (at least for those wealthy enough to afford the treatment). Just think what would have happened if AIDS had erupted in 1581 rather than 1981. In all likelihood, nobody back then would have figured out what caused the epidemic, how it moved from person to person, or how it could be halted (let alone cured). Under such conditions, AIDS might have killed a much larger proportion of the human race, equalling and perhaps even surpassing the Black Death.

Despite the horrendous toll AIDS has taken, and despite the millions killed each year by long-established infectious diseases such as malaria, epidemics are a far smaller threat to human health today than in previous millennia. The vast majority of people die from non-infectious illnesses such as cancer and heart disease, or simply from old age. (Incidentally cancer and heart disease are of course not new illnesses – they go back to antiquity. In previous eras, however, relatively few people lived long enough to die from them.)

Many fear that this is only a temporary victory, and that some unknown cousin of the Black Death is waiting just around the corner. No one can guarantee that plagues won’t make a comeback, but there are good reasons to think that in the arms race between doctors and germs, doctors run faster. New infectious diseases appear mainly as a result of chance mutations in pathogen genomes. These mutations allow the pathogens to jump from animals to humans, to overcome the human immune system, or to resist medicines such as antibiotics. Today such mutations probably occur and disseminate faster than in the past, due to human impact on the environment. Yet in the race against medicine, pathogens ultimately depend on the blind hand of fortune.

Doctors, in contrast, count on more than mere luck. Though science owes a huge debt to serendipity, doctors don’t just throw different chemicals into test tubes, hoping to chance upon some new medicine. With each passing year doctors accumulate more and better knowledge, which they use in order to design more effective medicines and treatments. Consequently, though in 2050 we will undoubtedly face much more resilient germs, medicine in 2050 will likely be able to deal with them more efficiently than today.

In 2015 doctors announced the discovery of a completely new type of antibiotic – teixobactin – to which bacteria have no resistance as yet. Some scholars believe teixobactin may prove to be a game-changer in the fight against highly resistant germs. Scientists are also developing revolutionary new treatments that work in radically different ways to any previous medicine. For example, some research labs are already home to nano-robots, that may one day navigate through our bloodstream, identify illnesses and kill pathogens and cancerous cells. Microorganisms may have 4 billion years of cumulative experience fighting organic enemies, but they have exactly zero experience fighting bionic predators, and would therefore find it doubly difficult to evolve effective defences.

So while we cannot be certain that some new Ebola outbreak or an unknown flu strain won’t sweep across the globe and kill millions, we will not regard it as an inevitable natural calamity. Rather, we will see it as an inexcusable human failure and demand the heads of those responsible. When in late summer 2014 it seemed for a few terrifying weeks that Ebola was gaining the upper hand over the global health authorities, investigative committees were hastily set up. An initial report published on 18 October 2014 criticised the World Health Organization for its unsatisfactory reaction to the outbreak, blaming the epidemic on corruption and inefficiency in the WHO’s African branch. Further criticism was levelled at the international community as a whole for not responding quickly and forcefully enough. Such criticism assumes that humankind has the knowledge and tools to prevent plagues, and if an epidemic nevertheless gets out of control, it is due to human incompetence rather than divine anger.

So in the struggle against natural calamities such as AIDS and Ebola, the scales are tipping in humanity’s favour. But what about the dangers inherent in human nature itself? Biotechnology enables us to defeat bacteria and viruses, but it simultaneously turns humans themselves into an unprecedented threat. The same tools that enable doctors to quickly identify and cure new illnesses may also enable armies and terrorists to engineer even more terrible diseases and doomsday pathogens. It is therefore likely that major epidemics will continue to endanger humankind in the future only if humankind itself creates them, in the service of some ruthless ideology. The era when humankind stood helpless before natural epidemics is probably over. But we may come to miss it.

- Yuval Noah Harari, Invisible Armadas in Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow

#yuval noah harari #homo deus: a brief history of tomorrow #homo deus

5 notes · View notes

babymilkaction · 5 years ago

Text

IBFAN's Counter-Call to WHO and UNICEF to STOP 10 year-licence to harm children.

This blog was published in July 2020 and updated in November 2020

STOP Press: Of the seventeen responses to the Call to Action- none meet the criteria. Time to move on and focus on helping governments legislate?

Statements of support for IBFAN’s Counter Call from UNICEF former Deputy Directors: Kul Gautam and Sir Richard Jolly and Peter Greaves

10,000 sign LLLi petition supporting IBFAN’s Counter Call and opposition to the Sunsetting of the Code

IBFAN’s Counter-Call to WHO and UNICEF to

STOP the BMS Call to Action

and the 10-year-licence to harm children

IBFANs Counter Call

July 2020

The International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN)[i] has denounced a new Breastmilk Substitutes Call to Action (BMS Call) that has been issued by WHO and UNICEF and 6 non-governmental-organisations – many substantially funded by food corporations and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). The BMS Call asks over 20 baby food companies and industry associations to make voluntary public commitments to gradually comply with the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes and the 18 subsequent Resolutions of the World Health Assembly (WHA) (the Code) for a decade and to provide a ‘roadmap’ for how they will achieve full Code compliance by 2030.

The Code was adopted by the WHA in 1981 with the key purpose of ending the unethical marketing of baby foods. It is a critically important safeguard for infant survival that protects parents‘ rights to make informed decisions about infant and young child feeding free from commercial influence. The obligation of States parties to implement the Code and the companies‘ obligations to comply with it has since been clarified under the international human rights law. Furthermore, the Independent Review Panel of the UN Secretary-General’s Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health (2016-2030) recommends developing a global human rights framework to address harmful marketing of foods for and to children.

The BMS Call is the end result of a BMGF-backed-proposal, started in 2016, to involve baby food companies as stakeholders in a Global Monitoring Mechanism (GMM). IBFAN opposed the GMM from its inception because it violated conflicts of interest principles. [ii] The BMS Call and the mechanism for compliance certification it proposes comes out of a process managed by yet another BMGF-funded-initiative – the Access to Nutrition Index – where ‘the fox was invited to build the chicken coop’.(See also Concern No 5.)

This 2020 BMS Call, is presented as a ‘fresh’ and ‘industry savvy’ strategy to achieve full Code compliance. IBFAN believes this to be a false assertion. The BMS Call is a sharp departure from the Code that is likely to usher in partnerships that will derail and delay full compliance, undermining 40 years of work by WHO and UNICEF’s member states, public interest NGOs, health professionals and parents, building up legally-binding effective regulation of marketing practices.

While IBFAN greatly values its collaboration with UNICEF and WHO in the protection of breastfeeding and child health over so many years we call on these two agencies to STOP the BMS Call and publicly disassociate from it.

IBFAN’s main concerns about the BMS Call to Action:

It conflicts with WHA Resolutions, gives companies a 10-year-license to harm children and undermines the human rights approach to health, adequate food and nutrition. The BMS Call asks companies to publicly commit to full compliance with the Code and WHA Resolutions in all countries. However, for the last 40 years, Nestlé and other companies have claimed to be Code compliant, while deliberately ignoring the resolutions and, unless forbidden by law, limiting their actions to a few products and activities in ‘high risk’ countries. The fact that the BMS Call allows companies 10 years to achieve full compliance means that nothing substantial can be monitored for many years and the companies can continue to expand their markets, violate children’s rights and put children at risk of commerciogenic ill-health and deaths. The notion that companies should be allowed to phase compliance as they wish conflicts with decisions taken by Member States at the WHA – the world’s highest health policy setting body. The WHA has never authorised delays on ending harmful marketing that threatens infant and young children survival.

The BMS Call gives credibility to weak voluntary commitments that, unlike legislation, can be ‘here today and gone tomorrow’. For the first year the ‘roadmaps’ need focus only on milks for infants 0-12 months. The fast-growing market of sweetened, additive-laden milks targeting babies 12-36 months that are deceptively cross-branded with infant formula must wait until 2030 – conveniently for the companies – long after the Codex global standard on these products is finalised. These formulas for older babies have been fueling the obesity epidemic, adding to the environmental burden and are condemned as unnecessary by the WHA and public health community. Bottles, teats and baby foods are not mentioned. Cleverly written industry commitments will confuse matters and hand companies a commercially valuable public relations opportunity. If challenged about violations, a company could claim that it is ‘on the road’ to full compliance – with the blessing of WHO – so must be considered a worthy partner in public health planning and possibly deserving of a reprieve from fines or other legal penalties under national law.

The BMS Call disregards safeguards to protect public health policy spaces from conflicts of interest, promoting instead commercial lobbying, inappropriate partnerships and commercial ‘education’: Companies are asked to support the adoption of Code-aligned legislation, with no definition of what this term means. ‘Code-aligned’ can mean ‘formatted vertically to improve readability‘ whereas ‘Code-compliant’ means ‘meeting or in accordance with rules or standard. Terminology matters, especially when it comes to the drafting of laws. Corporate lobbying is invariably behind the scenes – hidden and powerful – and for over 40 years, the baby food industry has subverted, undermined and interfered with policy making. [iii][iv] It is not credible that companies will now, voluntarily, urge governments to fetter a highly profitable aspect of their business – unless there is a pay-off. The potential for partnerships with governments could be enough to prompt a cleverly written 10-year promise. This BMS Call undermines the repeated calls of WHO , UNICEF and the WHA that the funding and involvement of the baby food industry in infant and young child feeding policy development and programme delivery is an unacceptable conflict of interest – whether or not they violate the Code or not. A background powerpoint and Q9 of the Q&A explain why companies need the Call and the extra 10 years. They also outline the advantages if they respond positively: ‘stronger consumer trust and loyalty’, eligibility for ‘partnerships’ and involvement in nutrition initiatives and ‘consumer education’.[v]

The COVID-19 pandemic presents added risks. Not surprisingly, baby food companies have been exploiting the pandemic, donating formulas and baby foods, setting up ‘advice’ forums, offering ‘training’ (thinly disguised product promotion) to medical students and presenting themselves as trusted partners. Governments are now under acute financial pressure and more vulnerable than ever to offers of ‘assistance’ from the baby food industry.

It promotes commercially influenced monitoring BMGF-Funded Access to Nutrition Foundation (ATNF) and its Access to Nutrition Index (ATNI). These initiatives were designed from the outset to whitewash company promotional activities and encourage investments. ATNI claims to be ‘independent from the companies it assesses’ yet it works closely with them on the methodology and presentation of its results as they described in June 2020: “Like with all ATNI’s work, extensive stakeholder consultations were carried out to help guide our methodology. This was done to ensure the perspectives and expertise of companies, CSOs, investors and ATNI’s expert group were integrated into this rigorous and comprehensive methodology.” Such collaboration is in direct conflict with WHA Resolution 49.15 that calls for monitoring to be “…carried out in a transparent, independent manner, free from commercial influence.” ATNI’s monitoring has inevitably revealed a high level of violations over the years – none of the companies are Code compliant and all score poorly – but its criteria are weak and monitoring is not continual like IBFAN’s which is able to, for example, quickly expose and curb the exploitation of Covid-19. Nestlé and Danone use ATNI’s flattering analyses repeatedly in their claims of Code compliance. [vi] [vii]

Baby food companies such as Nestlé claim that the Code is only directed at governments. This is not true. Since 1981 Article 11.3 of the Code has called on manufacturers and distributors to ensure that ‘independently of any other measures taken for implementation’ they should monitor their marketing practices according to the principles and aims of the Code and ‘ensure that their conduct at every level conforms to them.’ Similar direct calls are made in Para 2 of WHA 63.23 in 2010 and in Para 3 of WHA 69.9 in 2016.

IBFAN values its collaboration with UNICEF and WHO. Strong UN agencies focused on advancing human rights and people’s interests are needed now, more than ever, to guide country responses on the host of global threats that children face – not least climate change, new viruses, anti-microbial resistance and harmful marketing. The best tried-and-tested way to protect children from such marketing is to help governments adopt effective legislation [viii ],[ix]

Ironically it is also the conclusion of the BMGF-funded paper in 2015 on the impact of marketing on breastfeeding practices. The authors compared the positive impact India’s strong law and monitoring system has had on breastfeeding rates and the much lower breastfeeding rates in China where such controls are missing: “Adoption of stricter regulatory frameworks coupled with independent, quantitative monitoring and compliance enforcement are needed to counter the impacts of formula marketing globally.” [x]

“Harmful marketing will not stop until every country has strong laws that are independently monitored and enforced. We fear this BMS Call will give corporations the PR cover they need to gain access to policy setting. 40 years is more than enough time and it is naive to believe that they will suddenly change voluntarily now.” Dr JP Dadhich, Co-Chair, IBFAN’s Global Council

IBFAN’s appeal to UNICEF and WHO echos the words of Peter Utting, formerly of the UN Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD): “You have a choice. You can either be a party to corporate strategies of reputation management or an ally of the global corporate accountability movement …”[xi]

IBFAN calls on WHO and UNICEF to publicly distance themselves from the BMS Call because it departs sharply from decisions made at the WHA – the world’s highest health policy setting body. These decisions should be guiding WHO in its actions. Member States, public interest NGOs and the public health community have reason to be concerned and are invited to join IBFAN’s call.

This Call is endorsed by

IBFAN Global Council (G5)

IBFAN Regional Coordinators: IBFAN Africa : IBFAN Afrique : IBFAN Europe: IBFAN Latin America and the Caribbean : IBFAN North America : IBFAN South Asia : IBFAN Southeast Asia : IBFAN East Asia : IBFAN Arab World : IBFAN GIFA

IBFAN Technical Offices: World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative (WBTi) : Baby Milk Action/International Campaigns Office : International Code Documentation Centre : Codex Working Group.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Footnotes:

[i] IBFAN is a global network of over 270 groups 160 countries that has been working with the WHO, UNICEF and governments for over 40 years to help governments bring in national legislation on the Code. IBFAN has monitored and reported on violations of the International Code and Resolutions and assists governments in drafting or strengthening national legislation

[ii] The secretariat of the ‘Call to Action’ is the Meridian Institute, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), who in 2017 proposed a public-private monitoring mechanism (Global Coordinating Mechanism (GCM). The GCM was abandoned after being strongly opposed by IBFAN and over 60 civil society organisations and losing the support UNICEF and WHO.

The GCM idea followed the establishment of WHO and UNICEF’s NetCode: Network for Global Monitoring and Support for Implementation of the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and Subsequent relevant World Health Assembly Resolutions. IBFAN has actively participated in it since its beginning, in 2015. NetCode is not open to individuals working for the private sector, to public-private partnerships or to multi-stakeholder initiatives. WHO explained that this was because its members must not have Conflicts of Interests which could interfere with their work towards the vision, goal and objectives of the NetCode.

The BMS CTA uses the same criteria and end date as that used by the Nutrition 4 Growth Summit. The Government of Japan is seeking financial and policy commitments to focus the world’s attention on SDG 2: Zero Hunger – to end all forms of malnutrition by 2030 and ensure that all people have access to safe and nutritious diets all year round.

[iii] The WHO/UNICEF/IBFAN national implementation of the Code Status Report (2020). 70% of countries have implemented the Code to some extent.

[iv] Interference in public health policy: examples of how the baby food industry uses tobacco industry tactics World Nutrition, 2017.

[v] BMS Call to Action Powerpoint makes no mention of the Code’s ban on sponsorship and conflicts of Interest.

Slide 7 The Need (contd) refers to the need to allow corporations to be involved in partnerships, sponsorship and education: “The controversy over BMS marketing is holding back private sector from making a more positive contribution to global nutrition challenges. Formula companies are prohibited from joining many global initiatives and partnerships.. the issue contributes to general distrust of private sector among global nutrition stakeholders. To further progress, the Call to Action takes an approach to directly appeal to companies to take action, supplementing advocacy, social behavior change, and consumer education.”

Slide 17 Why the 10-year window. gives the rationale for the 10-year delay: “The timeline aligns with the timeframe of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and allows time for companies to make the necessary adjustments in business models and meet training and monitoring needs….Proposing a shorter time frame that does not factor in the complexity of internal business systems poses a greater risk that companies will walk away from the Call to Action and not take any steps at all toward full Code compliance.”

The BMS Call has a pull down Q&A. Question 9 asks: How will companies who reply positively to the CTA be acknowledged? “Better Code compliance will result in better corporate reputation, potentially stronger customer trust and loyalty, and generate additional dividends such as better ATNI scores. Code-compliant companies may also become eligible to participate in programs with NGOs and other agencies that they have to date been excluded from because of their poor policies and record on this issue.”

The companies and industry associations are shown on this slide:

[vi] Nestle’s Breastmilk substitute marketing: Compliance record refers to the ATNF India Index, 2016. “With respect to BMS marketing, Nestlé India demonstrated a high level of compliance with the Indian IMS Act and the Code.” India ranked Joint 1st Nestlé USA Nestle FB page Nestle using ATNF reports as ‘Transparency and Accountability’ documents Danone -highlighting its top BMS company status Danone using it as an example of external evaluation Danone UK engaging HSG to launch a consumer care line and referring to ATNI as a positive thing for Danone

[vii] Nestlé welcomes the Call to Action by WHO, UNICEF and civil society organizations “We comply with the Code and relevant resolutions of World Health Assembly (WHA) as implemented by national governments everywhere in the world, as a minimum….The Call to Action recognizes that a level playing field for all companies is essential. In the absence of legislation, achieving such a level playing field will require everyone to work together, including us. Nestlé is committed to leading the way and encourages all stakeholders to work together to achieve this important goal”

[viii]This BMGF-funded-article: The Impact of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes on WHO-Recommended Breastfeeding Practices Piwoz et al, Food and Nutrition Bulletin 1-14 2015 concludes: “Adoption of stricter regulatory frameworks coupled with independent, quantitative monitoring and compliance enforcement are needed to counter the impacts of formula marketing globally.”..”The Indian Code restricts the marketing of MF and infant foods up to age 2, while the Chinese Code applies only to infants <6 months of age. The WHO reports that India has a functioning Code implementation and monitoring mechanism and China does not, although this assessment is unverified. Breastfeeding patterns are significantly different in the 2 countries: exclusive breastfeeding was 46% and 88% of infants were still breastfed at 1 year in India, whereas the corresponding figures for China were 28% and 37%, respectively”.

[ix] India’s Infant Milk Substitutes Act, Monitoring, and Enforcement. May 30, 2018.

[x] IMS Act Monitoring and Implementation Articles relating successes in implementing to India’s legislation

[xi]Peter Utting: UN-Business Partnerships: Whose Agenda Counts? Paper presented at seminar on Partnerships for Development or Privatization of the Multilateral System?, organised by the North-South Coalition, Oslo, Norway, 8.12.2000

IBFAN’s Counter-Call to WHO and UNICEF to STOP 10 year-licence to harm children. was originally published on Baby Milk Action

#breastfeeding #infant formula #Nestle

0 notes

billion-heartbeats · 5 years ago

Text

I DON’T FEAR CORONA VIRUS . Dr. N. Prabhudev Former Director Sri Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology, Bangalore Former Vice Chancellor, Bangalore University Former Chairman, Karnataka State Health Commission, Government of Karnataka The Pandemic does not rattle me: Corona will pass too! Don’t fear death from corona virus. There is more life than Death. Corona also will die. It will die its own death. Maybe it takes a few lives with it before it dies. Fast forward to now, plane trips from one city to another are less than Rs 5000/- Travel is available to the masses. This results in a sharing of germs AND a more diversely responsive, globally intelligent immune system within us. The likelihood of a sweeping Spanish Flu of 1918-1919 is not likely simply because we are being exposed to global organisms regularly due to ubiquitous travel. Corona Virus is as contagious as SARS, yet much less deadly, with a fatality rate of about 2.3 - 3.5 percent. The fatality rate of the seasonal influenza is 1-2%. symptoms are relatively mild in some people, especially those under 30 years of age, the virus is allowed to spread before being identified. It may be similarly fatal to a rate similar to the seasonal flu. We all have innate immunity to support our body and immune system and our community. I don’t mean to sound callous or promoting a false sense of invincibility. Who is affected the worst? There are people unable to get outside to exercise or are physically compromised and unable to exercise. Those who are old who may have reduced innate immunity. Those who are malnourished may attract the virus easily. People on immunosuppressive medications for chronic inflammatory disease or post any tissue transplant, people on chemotherapy or with severe asthma are vulnerable. Those with a bad hygiene and in a filthy environment are vulnerable! 2019-nCoV had raised our awareness of personal hygiene No hand shaking! Just manage with a Namaste! virus can get directly into our nose and respiratory passages. Wash your hands with ANY kind of soap for 10-20 seconds and/or use a greater than 60% alcohol-based hand sanitizer. HAND WASHING WORKS BETTER. Cough or sneeze into a disposable tissue and discard. Then wash your hands. stay home and stay away from others if you are coughing. Take vitamin D – find your extra dose. I use 2000 iu extra daily for about 6-8 months a year. Get a flu shot. Get a BCG vaccine. It helps your innate immunity! Take vitamin C. it enhances your immunity! I realize there are advocates for even higher vitamin D levels. work to 35-45 ng/mL Vitamin D total. Take adequate vitamin A and Zinc and selenium. Take some cod liver oil. Your mucous membranes are your first line of defence against these viruses and cod liver oil helps nourish this defensive region of the lungs, sinuses and throat. Keep zinc lozenges on hand. These prevent viral replication in the mouth and throat. The metallic-tasing zinc creates an antimicrobial arena right where you want it. Each lozenge should be about 10 mg each of zinc – and you can use them 3-4 per day on day. Ensure adequate levels of iron and vitB12. As of now, don’t take the anti-malarial HCQ- Hydroxy quinolone Tabs as a prophylaxis against Corona. As yet there is no proved benefit or protection. Wait for the ICMR trial study on front line COVID19 workers and the seriously sick, to be ready sometime in June. The results will show you the way forward! Be aware that HCQ can precipitate cardiac emergencies which are often fatal. Yes, President Trump said he is taking HCQ tablets for prophylaxis. Let us leave it to his Wisdom! Fear of death Feelings are, by definition, hard to put into words. So, to accurately describe the anxiety now gripping the world is extremely challenging. “Scared” isn’t strong or nuanced enough to capture the kind of fear so many people seem to be feeling. Fear of death is universal! In the case of Coronavirus- a strange disease in a place in China none of us had ever heard of. And then, without much warning, suddenly in a few days the cloud has grown and darkened and fills the whole sky, blotting out the sun. The storm of fear is on us, ready to overwhelm us. Fear comes in many forms. It can be fear for ourselves or for our loved ones. Fear can be big or small, laughable or deadly. Fear of running out of toilet paper or fear of gasping for breath in a hospital corridor. Yes, there has never been anything in our lifetimes like the coronavirus. A global pandemic that we have no medicine is scaring the living daylights out of all of us. Being scared is normal. I’m afraid of illness and death. It’s part of being human. Fear is not wrong. It prepares you for any eventuality! But too much fear is worse and fear of death is a powerful emotion. Irrational and all-encompassing fear of the coronavirus pandemic is racking up its own body count, sometimes faster than the disease. It could fuel a toxic cycle of guilt and recrimination and tell tale suicides. Be cautious, there is a huge difference between caution and fear. Fear will weaken our resolve. It will undermine our health. Depression will sap our energy and make us partially give up. Fear can kill just as fast as any virus. Fear compromises our immunity, and depression renders us inanimate and incapable of fully responding to real threats. Live with Hope The governments of China, the United States, Iran, and Italy and India included, have all badly fumbled their responses. Some of them lying about the outbreak and punishing the whistle-blowers, delay- in initiating screenings, isolations and lockdowns. We are guilty of waiting for president Trump to get back to USA. At times like these, people naturally want and expect a reasonable, fact-based, and fully transparent government to protect them. There are, indeed, very good reasons to be afraid. Even if the odds of each of us, dying from the coronavirus is low, everyone has friends and family in more vulnerable groups. Worrying about protecting others is one of our best and most natural instincts, and using that fear to take precautions is very important. we as a species have survived far worse calamities like the Black Plague, HIV/AIDS - which, for many years, had a 100 percent fatality rate, SARS, and H1N1 etc. Or consider traffic accidents, which kill about 1.25 million people every year yet seem to have little impact on people’s behaviour. Nine million die of other disease in India every year. We have learnt to take it as a matter of fact! Corona is feared because! No doubt, Coronavirus is a real danger. The Fear is because the coronavirus is new, invisible, sometimes deadly—and still largely unknown. Not only are we far from a vaccine, but we still don’t really know what we’re up against and how lethal the disease actually is! The coronavirus has proved particularly frightening because of the way it both embodies and exploits issues that were already provoking intense anxiety around the world: namely globalization, mass migration, and interdependence. The response should be comprehensive, leveraging the full resources of every nation it has affected. We should heed our health professionals, embrace social distancing. Take the necessary precautions, the virus will pass. What Next? The problem the government and its advisers face is that they cannot make decisions with the benefit of a hindsight - they have to react to emerging evidence. Currently, the lockdown is aimed at suppressing the spread of the virus. Once the peak has passed decisions will have to be made on bringing the society back on its heels! The virus will not simply go away, with a vaccine at least a year away the challenge will be how to manage it. A balance will need to be struck between keeping it at bay and trying to control its spread to avoid a second peak, while at the same time allowing the country to return to normal. Treatment will be found, a vaccine will be produced, markets will rebound, and life will flourish. Our medical professionals will find a vaccine. Our political leaders must ensure we have all the tests we need. And all responsible citizens must practice social distancing so as not to spread the virus, especially to the most vulnerable and elderly among us. But all of this should be done because we love life and protect souls rather than because we fear illness and are panicked by death. Actually, we are fighting two epidemics at once – an epidemic of a challenging new virus that caused illness and death, and an epidemic of fear. The first one constituted a global health crisis, which continues to this day. The second epidemic did significant damage on its own by stoking discrimination against the most affected communities. The stigma is overwhelming! It is another virus which will be conquered!

0 notes

vrylium · 8 years ago

Note

in relevance to the prev anon's sick fic suggestion,i don't think asari physiology will allow them to "get sick" in that sense. not to mention the advanced medicine aspect in ME. a healthy diet as u say will play a role in that idea. also given aria's line of work,the most i can think of is the whole food poison fiasco that has already been explored in ur story or like she said she can't afford to exactly sleep/rest on a regular basis~~~

~~~ she will probably choose to retreat in tevos’ place and/or company to have the “safety” to actually recuperate. Tevos did offer the idea..I mean that’s how i’ll see you explore the idea..i dunno

i don’t see any reason why asari physiology would prevent sickness, bc it’s very likely that some sort of thessian microbes/viruses evolved alongside them. i think it’s completely feasible that their viruses and bacteria proliferate through very different biochemical mechanisms than earth ones, but personally it’s hard for me to imagine a biosphere that is lacking in diverse microscopic/parasitic species capable of exploiting larger organisms. as for medicine, it is entirely possible that universal vaccines have been invented, perhaps via adaptive nano machines that can analyze foreign bodies and synthesize compounds that can eradicate them. however, viruses and illness are still a pervasive theme in the mass effect games. in ME2 specifically, asari were susceptible to the Omega plague (only humans and vorcha were immune i believe... also it was synthetic i think but the biochemical principles are still there). and there’s so much interspecies contact going on, where you’ve got bacterial/viral conjugation, transformation, transduction, and probably a ton of other alien mechanisms we’ve never seen before all happening between each other… a multi species culture is probably a breeding ground for new disease that constantly needs to be catalogued and adapted to and stuff… did i get too tangential? hahah but yeah it’s a viable idea, writing aria in states of vulnerability and how she handles them has always been one of my favorites

#Anonymous

3 notes · View notes

anthonybialy · 5 years ago

Text

Crisis Enhanced

The only thing worse than thinking every problem can be cured is believing your governor mixes the elixir in his bathtub. A political response mucks up life under the best of circumstances. Surely, we need pushy restrictions as zombies spread the plague.

Those who claim repairing life's ills is not a partisan matter are naturally the biggest partisans of all. You can hear their smirks as they tell anyone who'll listen that everyone would be socially distant in coffins if we were allowed to dine next to strangers.

Exerting more control over you is for your own good. You don't get a say, as confiscating your autonomy is part of the curative process. Infringing on amendments is for health security.

The unseen benefits brought to you by kindly executives are like a mental trip to the Magic Kingdom since we can't patronize the closed physical one. Please disregard how the reality involves making patrons stand in line for four hours without even getting to tour the Millennium Falcon at the end.

Idling orders totally don't set a frightening precedent at all, and the urge to make others freeze will never ever be abused by wannabe despots lusting for the slightest excuse to control those poor beings too useless to win an office.

We don't have to accuse governors of sadistically keeping residents unemployed for them to be cavalier about exceeding authority for our alleged good. The one thing worse than the infection rate is the 100 percent depression figure. Shrugging off consequences doesn't help maintain private sector employment.

Rumors spread far more quickly than viruses. Everyone has heard several dozen versions of what magic balance of chemical compounds cure, which frighteningly innocuous actions spread the pandemic, and just how far apart you’re supposed to situate yourselves from other humans.

Enlightened types who can't figure out that taxes demotivate workers are surely wise about stopping viruses. Having access to all the information ever didn’t make people smarter: it just allowed them to spread nonsense more quickly.

Politicians are flailing as citizens are dying. The uncanny correlation should inspire a desire to not be hassled by such catastrophically inept dunces. Meanwhile, those presiding over medieval-style corpse piles claim they're keeping us alive. They hope audacity distracts from overflowing morgues.

The chance for freedom out of agony seems as opportunistic as it does unlikely. But a sample turned into a craving for an entree. So, that's why Trader Joe's gives out a tasty bite for free.

Crisis leads away from being bossed around. Take the sudden way children became telecommuters, which might lead to some parents discovering they enjoy teaching their own charges. The freedom to use a home as a school should remain as an option once it's no longer forced. The faculty lounge doubles as the family kitchen, which is a blessing seeing as how many of them contain booze.

Losing a monopoly only frightens some when we can't decline. The one entity statists think should be allowed to corner the market needs to borrow more money. It won't be paid back and you can't decline the application. Those with supreme faith in the power of new restrictions brand Walmart diabolical because they offer desired products at agreeable prices. By contrast, your dispassionately loving government has our best interests at heart, which you can tell by how they're unaccountable to customers.

Those incarcerated for the crime of existing have ample free time to ponder what danger was halted by previous prohibitions. Restaurants being able to bring alcohol to your door was apparently worthy of using state power to ban. Beer might fizz after being carried, and we can't allow consumers to face the risk of minor explosions. Government valiantly protects us from foam. You can drink Gatorade with delivery tacos.

Exploiting pain and suffering confirms what decent humans your supervisors are. Lusty endorsers of executive action promise to alleviate future agony if only you'd sign a rights waiver. They forged your signature for efficiency. It's not that schemers are cheering for misery: it's just that these decent humans with amazing ideas need widespread suffering to enact their plans for salvation out of fear.

Bossiness didn't help during the calm time. Everything swallowed by the state fails under comparatively less frightening conditions. That must only be due to the lack of urgency. Taking over student loans, retirement, and insurance made each of those aspects more costly. But at least the quality sucks.

There's no better time to dominate than while others are ill. The bedridden are less likely to fight back with anything more than a feeble jab whose range is limited by tubes and power cords. Losing decisions is for your own benefit while you're vulnerable. Politicians are going to commandeer your life to make sure you don't do anything foolish with it. Your guardians thoughtfully took the power of attorney while you endured a coma.

You only can't think of what about the response by any leaders anywhere encourages confidence because you're fatigued from illness. Those regaining their powers of discernment note the prototypical benevolent big government in China didn't quite protect Earth from using its sick days. They just needed a bit more consolidation to ensure global health.

Milder nearby examples don't cause good health. New York City is ruled by a socialist mayor and autocratic governor who bicker about where to stick overflowing corpses. And Michigan used a pandemic as a reason to become a developing nation. Detroit is relieved flailing wannabe tyrant Gretchen Whitmer replaced it as shorthand for the state's most dangerous aspect. A panicky executive shrieking “You figure it out” before slamming the shelter door shut surely knows how to help.

0 notes

cyberdegreesedu · 5 years ago

Text

Impact of Coronavirus on Cyber Security and Education

The coronavirus has impacted everyone. Whether you’re in downtown Manhattan or a rural outpost, seemingly far from the problem, it is a global issue. During these times of biological viruses, we are also faced with problems stemming from computer viruses, malware, and other high-tech vectors. Since everyone is more active online than they’d normally be, you should probably be thinking more often about your relationship to cyber security. After all, if you’re working or otherwise interacting with the outside world, the chances are good that you’re doing so via the Internet.

COVID-19 (Coronavirus), Cyber Threats Increase and Moving to Online Learning

What is It?

COVID-19, the disease that stems from SARS-CoV-2, a newly discovered and very contagious coronavirus, is an illness that manifests as a severe respiratory tract infection in the worst of cases. The disease his highly communicable and is now a pandemic, or global epidemic.

Where Did it Come From?

The exact origins of the disease are still unknown. However, scientists do suspect that the disease originated elsewhere in the animal kingdom and then mutated, finding its way into the human population. The first major outbreak of COVID-19 was in Wuhan, China, but it is suspected that the virus could have been circulating well before that event.

How it is Spread?

COVID-19 is spread through interpersonal contact. In particular, it is known to transmit when an infected person is in close quarters with another. The disease spreads on the breath via respiratory droplets and when someone coughs or sneezes. When the drops land in the mouth or nose, infection is likely. It is also possible for droplets to land on surfaces, such as doorknobs or tabletops where they can transmit to another’s hand. When they touch their face, the virus might find a purchase that leads to infection.

Total Cases in the United States

As of April 6 2020, there are over 336,000 total known cases of COVID-19 in the United States; 9,624 deaths have been attributed to the disease. However, since testing is still relatively sparse, there are likely many more cases yet to be discovered and many more milder cases that will never be reported. Sources report that, so far, 4% of the known infected Americans have recovered. Globally, there have been over 1,200,000 known cases with around 21% recovered.

Coronavirus Impact on Business and Cyber Security

Businesses are feeling a tremendous impact due to coronavirus. People are staying home and not driving, which has an immediate impact on the oil markets and local businesses, even if they aren’t closed due to their “non-essential” status. Social/physical distancing means that people are no longer attending concerts, eating in their favorite restaurants, or purchasing party supplies. The economic waves from this pandemic are countless.

Some businesses are able to remain in operation by relying on telecommuting technologies. However, when their methods are ad hoc or reliant on insecure connections, the threat to their cyber security is greatly increased. The teleconferencing application Zoom has already been infiltrated and compromised by bad cyber actors. Though the attacks amount to so much digital vandalism, they do interrupt productivity and may even traumatize some workers.

Some elementary teachers who are attempting to teach youngsters via Zoom have reported their students ditching class for Zoom conferences they create themselves. On the other hand, some yoga studios are able to continue to employ their teachers by using the software. This is a boon to home-bound yoga aficionados.

The opportunities for mischief are multiplying as more people are moving their work to the online medium. However, Zoom is acting fast to address these problems. Where their conferences were previously not protected by passwords, the company has added that layer of security in addition to cryptography and disabling the ability to scan for open meetings, which hackers used to find victims.

Since many workers are now working from home, it’s vital that their home Wi-Fi connections or networks be secured with strong passwords. The best passwords are created using a random string of letters and numbers that includes a symbol, such as a punctuation mark. It is also advised to refrain from using insecure technologies, such as Bluetooth, on one’s work laptop.

Increase in Cyber Threats

The pandemic, and the ensuing push to work from home, are creating more and more opportunities for cyber attackers. Malicious hackers have also chosen to exploit our increased reliance on healthcare systems. Ransomware attacks on hospitals are on the rise and both the Department of Health and Human Services and the World Health Organization have likewise been victims of attempted attacks.

Since more workers are taking laptops home and are using their home connections to access servers at work, there are increased risks to corporate security. Home networks typically have weaker password protections that are easier for hackers to deduce. Some households even leave their networks unprotected for random hackers to find. Further, when workers are using their personal home computers for work, their children might inadvertently download viruses or malware during unsupervised screen time.

Thus, companies need to provide safeguards against such vulnerabilities. Something as simple as installing a secondary hard drive for a worker to use at home can save money and bolster security. It’s also vital to educate workers as to how they can create robust passwords for their home networks and to provide simple steps they can follow, such as using a non-work device to connect to Bluetooth at home as hackers can exploit that technology without any passcodes whatsoever.

To address these issues, federal law enforcement agencies have rallied to protect the public and the world of business. The FBI has been very vocal in its response to attacks on the teleconferencing software Zoom, and the Department of Homeland Security has issued a document to help executives address cyber security issues that may arise due to coronavirus.

The Coronavirus pandemic has seen a spike in cyber security attacks such as:

Ransomware

Phishing

DDoS attacks

Malware Attacks

The Future of Telework

The coronavirus pandemic has resulted in a mass movement of workers to the world of telecommuting. This poses a new set of problems for businesses in terms of workplace efficiency, added costs for equipment, and new cyber security threats. Since the problem arose seemingly overnight, IT departments and cyber security professionals have had to scramble to find workable solutions to the problem.

Inevitably, as the period of social distancing goes on, businesses will discover how to better address telecommuting. While there may be problems in terms of new cyber-attacks, each organization will strive to address these issues, while hackers will shift their strategies.

Once the pandemic is under control and it becomes more feasible for people to return to work, it’s still likely that telework will remain a larger part of the corporate picture. While it has been creeping into the corporate landscape more and more over the years, the coronavirus pandemic has blown the doors wide open. Many workers prefer working from home, but others may decide that they’d rather spend their time in the office, or that a healthy balance is ideal.

Businesses will need to determine how to address certain issues such as hardware. When workers use their personal devices for work, there is an increased risk that those devices may be compromised. Companies have the option of providing proprietary, company-owned laptops or offering a compromise in terms of a secondary hard drive. These drives would be used exclusively for work purposes yet allow the worker to still use the same laptop to access their personal drive that houses their photos, music, and personal documents.

Employees will need to work with employers to create more secure Wi-Fi connections at home. This might be as simple as creating difficult passwords Those connections also need to be fast enough to support technologies such as teleconferencing software.

Originally seen published from Cyber Degrees EDU and to check out the full article, visit Cyber Degrees EDU Coronavirus impact on business.

0 notes

reomanet · 7 years ago

Text

Is America Ready for a Global Pandemic?

The epidemics of the early 21st century revealed a world unprepared, even as the risks continue to multiply. Much worse is coming. Workers at the University of Nebraska Medical Center’s biocontainment unit practicing safe procedure on a mannequin Jonno Rattman Most Popular Why American Spies Worry When Trump Meets Putin John Sipher Jul 14, 2018 ‘Find Your Passion’ Is Awful Advice Olga Khazan Jul 12, 2018 Unidentified Plane-Bae Woman’s Statement Confirms the Worst Taylor Lorenz Jul 13, 2018 What We Eat Affects Everything James Hamblin Oct 3, 2013 The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy Matthew Stewart May 16, 2018 Ed Yong July/August 2018 Issue Health Share Tweet &#x2026 LinkedIn Email Print Text Size Image above: Workers at the University of Nebraska Medical Center’s biocontainment unit practicing safe procedure on a mannequin A t 6 o’clock in the morning, shortly after the sun spills over the horizon, the city of Kikwit doesn’t so much wake up as ignite. Loud music blares from car radios. Shops fly open along the main street. Dust-sprayed jeeps and motorcycles zoom eastward toward the town’s bustling markets or westward toward Kinshasa, the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s capital city. The air starts to heat up, its molecules vibrating with absorbed energy. So, too, the city. By late morning, I am away from the bustle, on a quiet, exposed hilltop some five miles down a pothole-ridden road. As I walk, desiccated shrubs crunch underfoot and butterflies flit past. The only shade is cast by two lines of trees, which mark the edges of a site where more than 200 people are buried, their bodies piled into three mass graves, each about 15 feet wide and 70 feet long. Nearby, a large blue sign says in memory of the victims of the ebola epidemic in may 1995 . The sign is partly obscured by overgrown grass, just as the memory itself has been occluded by time. The ordeal that Kikwit suffered has been crowded out by the continual eruption of deadly diseases elsewhere in the Congo, and around the globe. To hear more feature stories, see our full list or get the Audm iPhone app. Emery Mikolo, a 55-year-old Congolese man with a wide, angular face, walks with me. Mikolo survived his own encounter with Ebola in 1995. As he looks at the resting place of those who didn’t, his solemn demeanor cracks a bit. In the Congo, when people die, their bodies are meant to be cleaned by their families. They should be dressed, caressed, kissed, and embraced. These intense rituals of love and community were corrupted by Ebola, which harnessed them to spread through entire families. Eventually, of necessity, they were eliminated entirely. Until Ebola, “no one had ever taken bodies and thrown them together like sacks of manioc,” Mikolo tells me. The Congo—and the world— first learned about Ebola in 1976, when a mystery illness emerged in the northern village of Yambuku. Jean-Jacques Muyembe , then the country’s only virologist, collected blood samples from some of the first patients and carried them back to Kinshasa in delicate test tubes, which bounced on his lap as he trundled down undulating roads. From those samples, which were shipped to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, scientists identified the virus. It took the name Ebola from a river near Yambuku. And, having been discovered, it largely vanished for almost 20 years. In 1995, it reemerged in Kikwit , about 500 miles to the southwest. The first victim was 35-year-old Gaspard Menga , who worked in the surrounding forest raising crops and making charcoal. In Kikongo, the predominant local dialect, his surname means “blood.” He checked into Kikwit General Hospital in January and died from what doctors took to be shigellosis—a diarrheal disease caused by bacteria. It was only in May, after the simmering outbreak had flared into something disastrous, after wards had filled with screams and vomit, after graves had filled with bodies, after Muyembe had arrived on the scene and again sent samples abroad for testing, that everyone realized Ebola was back. By the time the epidemic abated, 317 people had been infected and 245 had died. The horrors of Kikwit, documented by foreign journalists, catapulted Ebola into international infamy. Since then, Ebola has returned to the Congo on six more occasions; the most recent outbreak , which began in Bikoro and then spread to Mbandaka , a provincial capital, is still ongoing at the time of this writing. The ordeal Kikwit suffered has been crowded out by the continual eruption of deadly diseases elsewhere in the Congo. Unlike airborne viruses such as influenza, Ebola spreads only through contact with infected bodily fluids. Even so, it is capable of incredible devastation, as West Africa learned in 2014, when, in the largest outbreak to date, more than 28,000 people were infected and upwards of 11,000 died. Despite the relative difficulty of transmission, Ebola still shut down health systems, crushed economies, and fomented fear. With each outbreak, it reveals the vulnerabilities in our infrastructure and our psyches that a more contagious pathogen might one day exploit.

The post Is America Ready for a Global Pandemic? appeared first on TBNT Have The Solution.

from TBNT Have The Solution https://ift.tt/2uK8CQH via Article Source

#TBNT Have The Solution

0 notes

professionalsafetysurface · 8 years ago

Text

Supporting Vulnerable Groups Online

Jess McBeath, Online Safety Consultant for UKSIC and SWGfL, looks at how online life can expose vulnerable groups to a range of risks, highlighting the importance for professionals to quickly identify and manage them effectively.

I was asked recently to talk to voluntary sector professionals about online risks for vulnerable groups. Immediately I thought of older people at risk of fraud, scams and viruses. Sorted. Then I found out that 41% of over-75s have a social media profile. Hmm. Social media risks for young people are well versed (bullying, mental health, fake news etc). Could these risks also apply to older people? Of course they could. I realised I needed to delve a little deeper.

People at greater risk online

We are all vulnerable at certain times of our lives, depending on our circumstances and life events. When thinking of those more at risk than others, this could include a wide range of people e.g. those with physical disabilities or illnesses, care leavers, people with mental health difficulties, those with addictions, homeless people, abuse survivors, those in poverty, ex-offenders, ex-service personnel, minority groups, etc.

There may be a greater exposure to particular online risks for certain groups, e.g. a third of LGBT people experience online hate crime; and for a number of reasons (including lack of staff awareness and lack of education), young people with learning disabilities are more susceptible than others to online grooming and sexual exploitation.

Evolving technology = evolving risks

Despite the risks, we want to be online. We want all the benefits – the connections, the cost savings, the opportunities, the knowledge, the learning, the entertainment. For anyone with vulnerabilities or additional needs, the internet brings possibilities to combat isolation, join communities of interest, manage medical conditions, access self-help and overcome myriad barriers they may face in the physical world. For homeless people, internet access via a smartphone can be a lifeline to the world – the key to socialising as well as accessing services. Our relationship with technology is evolving exponentially. Six years ago, 27% of UK adults had a smartphone. Now it’s 71%. Half of the online population now use social media as a news source. 1 in 5 relationships begin online. 31 million people play games online. A third of all gambling takes place online. The digital revolution promises to transform lives. And as our digital lives evolve, so the risks evolve.

Take families experiencing domestic violence (for example), where abuse has claimed the online sphere, such as digital stalking and image-based abuse. Responding to these risks is no longer just about ensuring the Council doesn’t blurt out your new address. These days we share data with websites, apps, games and on social media in a way which is difficult to control.

Even with social media privacy settings, images can be found shared to a wider audience. A photograph taken on a smartphone is location-stamped unless this function is disabled (but note that some apps only work if location is enabled for that app e.g. Snapchat filters). And it’s not just personal data. We share a bit (or a lot) of ourselves online too - our thoughts, feelings and perspectives; our politics; our preferences; our histories; our relationships; our desires. Some feel they can reveal their ‘true’ selves online. As our physical and online worlds converge, what is the impact on people such as those fleeing abuse, who may try to minimise their digital footprint?

Identifying risk

For those working with people who are more vulnerable to online risks, it can be difficult to know where to begin. A good starting point is identifying the nature and scale of the risk.

Consider the person’s wants and needs, abilities, experiences and influences. They may have particular vulnerabilities that are amplified online. Talk to them about what they enjoy most about the internet, ask them how, where and when they go online, as well as what they do and who they are talking to. If you’re not sure how to raise the subject, you may find our conversation starters helpful.

It’s useful to consider who their peers are online. Do other people in their physical or online environment provide support or pose a risk to them (e.g. over-sharing, abuse or neglect)? Would they know how to recognise and respond to an issue? The same applies to you as a professional, it’s important that you and your organisation know how to respond to an online safety incident.

Responding to risk

There are various steps you can take to help prevent and respond to these risks:

Support the person to keep themselves safe online e.g. can you use existing educational materials? Technical settings (blocking, filtering, passwords etc.) may be appropriate. Discuss the kinds of online activities which would be illegal, inappropriate, or break an app’s terms & conditions. Are they informed about their online rights? Where would they go for help if they needed it?

Look to your own and others’ roles: how can you best support the person to exploit the benefits of the internet whilst managing the risks? How much do you (or someone else in their environment) need to be a positive part of their online experience (within professional boundaries)? You may find our resources for parents and carers useful.

Check your organisation has sufficient risk management policies and processes in place - look for resources specific to your organisation e.g. self-assessment, professional guides, toolkits and templates.

Keeping up to date

An important action is to ensure that you are aware of current and future risks. Look at your own and your organisation’s learning needs as well as sources of support.

If you think your organisation needs to undergo training, consider registering for one of our free Online Safety Live briefings which take place across the UK. It may also be worth identifying specialist organisations to follow on social media to keep up to date with the ever-changing online safety landscape. If you work with vulnerable young people and need help to understand or respond to a specific online safety concern, the Professionals Online Safety Helpline is available to provide support to all members of the children’s workforce.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8239594 https://www.saferinternet.org.uk/blog/supporting-vulnerable-groups-online via IFTTT

#impact safety flooring #safety surfacing #play area safety #safe playground flooring

1 note · View note

mugasportsurfaces · 8 years ago

Text

Supporting Vulnerable Groups Online

People at greater risk online

Evolving technology = evolving risks

Identifying risk

For those working with people who are more vulnerable to online risks, it can be difficult to know where to begin. A good starting point is identifying the nature and scale of the risk.

Responding to risk

There are various steps you can take to help prevent and respond to these risks:

Keeping up to date

An important action is to ensure that you are aware of current and future risks. Look at your own and your organisation’s learning needs as well as sources of support.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8239588 https://www.saferinternet.org.uk/blog/supporting-vulnerable-groups-online via IFTTT

#multi use games area #muga company #muga providers #multi use games area specialists

0 notes

myupdatesystems-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Security, Malware, And Your Computer

New Post has been published on https://myupdatesystems.com/2017/04/09/security-malware-and-your-computer/

Security, Malware, And Your Computer

Computers are practically in every aspect of our lives these days and our reliance on them is heavy. They are used as tools for work, data storage, schoolwork, shopping, and entertainment. Because so much information is typically stored on our computers we must always make sure they are protected from that loss of information. Businesses have to secure information on their computers to protect it from exploitation by hackers. And the home computer user is no exception to the requirement to protect computer information because there can be credit card numbers, social security numbers, and other sensitive personal information stored on their computer or transmitted when doing online shopping. There is a term used for this and it is “computer security risk.” This term refers to the likelihood that some action could cause the loss of information, computer hardware, or denial of service.

When computer security is put at risk intentionally, it becomes criminal in nature or we call this a computer crime. Another relative of the computer crime is the cybercrime. The FBI pays especially close attention to cyber crimes and there are other types of crimes related to them such as corporate spying, unethical computer activity, cyber terrorism, hacking, cracking, and cyber extortion.

Hacking at one time had a positive meaning to it but since computer crimes were introduced, it falls in the bucket with the rest of them. The hacker is the person who gains access to a computer network illegally. They sometimes use the excuse that they were only trying to break a network’s security so as to make the administrator aware of any security deficiencies.

Closely related to the hacker is the cracker. But the cracker never has been viewed in a positive light. The cracker always has had the intent to gain access to the computer and its network to do harm to it or commit a crime like stealing information stored on it. The cracker, like the hacker, has to know what he or she is doing so advanced computer skills are needed in order to pull these crimes off.

Then there are the cyber terrorists and cyber extortionists. The cyberterrorist has a political motive behind his or her activities and it is to do harm to computers to adversely affect a political system. Cyberterrorism requires extensive planning, skilled people to carry it out, and money to fund it. It is much like the classic terrorist attack.

The cyber extortionist is the one who commits the crime of extortion via email. They will hold a company hostage by threatening to release sensitive company information or harm a company’s computers and network if not given some confidential information and/or money. Sometimes these criminals are aware of security leaks that will allow them to exploit the computer. It is much like classic extortion except carried out through computers.

Then there is the employee who wants to get revenge on his or her company because of some perceived wrong was done to them or they want to pad their pockets. These people are known as the unethical employees and what makes them so dangerous is that they many times know how to get into the system.

Not everyone has the computer skills required to be a cracker or hacker so there is another classification known as the “script kiddie.” This person is usually is a teenager attempts to harm a computer system but cannot do much because he or she does not know much. This person will use canned programs and scripts to attempt to do the hacks and cracks.

Some unethical businesses try to gain an unfair advantage on their competition through an illegal activity known as corporate espionage. The same unethical businesses will hire a corporate spy who is highly proficient in computers and technology to break into the target corporation’s computers. The corporate spy will then steal information or even sabotage the target computer.

It is imperative that home and business computer users take action to shield their computer from these threats to their security. Computer security methods are not 100% foolproof but they do decrease the risk to computers significantly. As soon as a solution is found to protect against one threat, someone figures out a new way to gain unauthorized access to them. Computer users on home networks are more at risk to have information stolen than are computers on business networks mostly because of the more advanced security on the latter. And the internet is a network even more susceptible and at risk when it comes to security. Another problem with security on the internet is that there is not one centralized point to manage security and safety on the information highway.

You are probably wondering now if your computer is secure from threats such as these. There are ways you can get your system evaluated. You can find sites on the internet that offer services that will access your computer and report to you any security vulnerabilities found either through internet browsing or the e-mail. These same companies many times offer tips and suggestions on ways to protect against the vulnerabilities. Another resource in the fight against computer security threat is the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) Coordination Center which also offers suggestions.

Security attacks against computers usually involve things like worms, viruses, denial of service, Trojan horses, and spoofing. All of these, the computer virus is the most famous. A computer virus is basically software that is designed to do damage to the files on your computer once it gets installed on it. All if it is done without the user giving permission and without the user’s knowledge at first. A computer virus, once it gets on your computer, will spread and cause more damage. It will do things like delete files and corrupt your computer’s operating system and render it inoperable. Thus it was tagged with the term “virus” because it acts much the same way as a human virus does: it gets in and spreads throughout the body and causes illness or damage in some cases. Protection against viruses is available through anti-virus software.

An offshoot of the computer virus is the computer worm. A computer worm is much like a virus with the exception that it will find some perfectly valid executable program on your computer and attach itself to that program. When the user runs the program, the computer worm will attack. Computer worms can consume a lot of network bandwidth while they replicate across a corporate network.

And now for the famous Trojan horse computer threat that derives its name from the famous story in Greek mythology. What a Trojan horse does is hide in a program that looks like a valid program but in reality, it is not. Trojan horse programs do not replicate like the viruses and worms do.

All these different types of threat software are known as malware which is the term used to refer to malicious-logic programs. Malware, as the name implies, does damage to your computer. There are other variations of worms, viruses, and Trojan horses but we are just discussing these three for this article. And you should know how to suspect you have been attacked by one or more these malicious programs. You should be suspicious that you have been attacked if your computer shows one or more of these signs:

Programs you use suddenly don’t work like they used to:

Files are missing or corrupted

Strange music or sounds are heard on your computer

You start running out of memory for no apparent reason

Strange files show up on your system

System properties begin to change

Popup windows with odd messages and/or images display

The ways in which these malicious programs do their damage or drop their “bombs” can be one any one of the following:

A user runs a program infected with the virus. This is why virus scanning software that checks a program before running it is so important.

A user boots a computer and the virus is installed on the boot sector. It is recommended that you remove all media files when you shut down your computer.

A user connects to a computer that is not protected against viruses on the network (such as accessing a shared drive). So the user opens a virus-infected file on a shared drive and now the user’s client computer has the virus.

A user opens up an email attachment that contains an executable file with a virus. This is why it is so important to not open up executable email attachments unless you know the sender and the attachment has been scanned by anti-virus software.

And another big problem with malicious logic programs is that new ways to implement them are discovered every day. Security websites try to stay on top of each new malware implementation so that users can be alert for them. Take basic safety measures to protect your computer such as installing a good anti-virus package that gets updated with new malware detection logic automatically. Never open up suspicious email attachments. Be careful of the internet sites you visit (i.e., don’t visit Warez sites), and run anti-spyware programs. Take the media out of any alternate boot devices you have so that a virus cannot get stored on it and be introduced at boot time. Finally, stay informed from security websites as to the latest threats and what to look out for.

0 notes

baburaja97-blog · 8 years ago

Text

New Post has been published on Vin Zite

New Post has been published on https://vinzite.com/security-malware-and-your-computer/

Security, Malware, And Your Computer

Security For Your Computer to remove Malware

Programs you use suddenly don’t work like they used to:

Files are missing or corrupted

Strange music or sounds are heard on your computer

You start running out of memory for no apparent reason

Strange files show up on your system

System properties begin to change

Popup windows with odd messages and/or images display

The ways in which these malicious programs do their damage or drop their “bombs” can be one any one of the following:

A user runs a program infected with the virus. This is why virus scanning software that checks a program before running it is so important.

A user boots a computer and the virus is installed on the boot sector. It is recommended that you remove all media files when you shut down your computer.

0 notes