Johansen.se

Turkey’s 500,000 or so informal waste pickers carry out around 80% of the recycling in the country. These workers, who are also known as çekçekçi, are essential for separating out waste in a country where this is rarely done at source.

But their lives are precarious. Most of them are unregistered, lack social security, and have no access to basic services such as healthcare. And now they find themselves affected by efforts that formalise Turkey’s waste management system.

Many of the workers are migrants. But large-scale immigration over recent years, particularly from conflict zones such as Afghanistan and Syria, has contributed to a rise in nationalistic sentiment throughout the country.

This has seen immigrants – and particularly waste pickers – portrayed in a negative fashion. Waste pickers have, for instance, been labelled “şehir eşkıyası” (urban bandits) by the media. And many people have argued that Turkiye’s informal waste-picking practices should come to an end.

Yavuz Eroğlu, the president of a non-profit organisation called PAGÇEV that promotes plastic recycling in Turkey, pointed out recently that the country’s “real problem” is its informal waste collection system. In Eroğlu’s view, informal waste picking impedes the effective scaling of recycling initiatives and prevents Turkey from improving its position in the global recycling market.

Recycling facilities in Turkey require a steady and substantial supply of raw waste materials to function efficiently. But, according to the Turkish Statistics Institution, a mere 12% of the country’s municipal waste was recovered in 2018 – and it is not clear how much of this was actually recycled. This is not nearly enough to keep recycling companies afloat.

A waste picker collecting cardboard in Istanbul, Turkiye.
Sedat Suna / EPA

So, in an effort to improve Turkey’s domestic waste management, the Turkish government launched an initiative in 2022 to regulate and formalise waste collection. The legislation requires that local authorities work exclusively with licensed recyclers and registered pickers to sort through and sell waste.

Resistance movements have subsequently emerged within the çekçekçi community that advocate for the rights and recognition of informal waste pickers in Turkey. These movements have either reinforced the importance of existing waste picker collectives, or led to the creation of new non-profit organisations and cooperatives.

In Istanbul, for example, the Şişli municipality launched an environmental waste collectors cooperative in 2023 in an attempt to formally integrate informal waste pickers into the municipal waste management system.

This has involved registering waste pickers, issuing official identification cards, and providing them with access to designated waste collection zones. Similar models have also emerged in different parts of the country. But many of Turkey’s waste pickers remain locked out of the new formal system.

Many of Turkiye’s waste pickers have found themselves locked out of the new formal system.
Bennett Dean / Alamy Stock Photo

The framing of informality as the problem is not new, nor is it limited to representatives of Turkey’s plastic recycling industry. In August 2021, the governor of Istanbul’s office ordered a crackdown on informal waste collection activities.

Police carried out raids on nearly 100 waste collection depots and seized 650 collection carts. More than 200 people were detained in the raids, including 145 Afghan migrants who were sent to a deportation centre.

The governor’s office justified the action by citing environmental and public health concerns, as well as the unregulated nature of employment in informal waste picking. In a statement, the office argued that unauthorised waste collection leads to unfair profits and announced that inspections would continue.

Waste workers responded by criticising the governor’s claims and expressed frustration over being labelled as benefiting from unfair profits while living in precarious conditions without social security or a stable income.

Importing more waste

In fieldwork carried out between March and April 2024, I spoke with representatives of waste collectors, junk shop owners and waste traders in Istanbul.

Some reported that there had been a decline in waste-picking rates since the crackdown of 2021. Waste collectors and their representatives expressed concerns that this decline could lead to a further reduction in domestic recycling rates and increase the reliance of recycling facilities on imported waste.

Turkey is already one of the largest importers of waste from Europe. In 2022, for example, Turkey accounted for 39% of Europe’s waste exports, which included around 400,000 tonnes of plastic.

Turkiye is a major importer of waste from Europe.
Sahan Nuhoglu / Shutterstock

This waste has serious consequences for the environment and human health. A Greenpeace report published in 2022 found that toxins released from Turkey’s plastic waste end up in the fruit and vegetables produced in the Çukurova valley, one of the most fertile valleys in the world.

A continued decline in domestic waste collection in Turkey would create a vicious cycle. The value of Turkey’s own waste will decrease, further impoverishing informal waste pickers, all while the country’s reliance on imported waste grows to sustain its recycling infrastructure.

The future of informal waste picking in Turkey remains uncertain. But as the country continues to formalise its waste management system, the challenges facing the sector’s informal workers must not be ignored. Läs mer…

Haiti is being choked to death by its 200 or so violent criminal gangs. The latest figures to be released by the UN suggest that more than 3,600 people have been killed in the country since January, including over 100 children, while more than 500,000 Haitians have been displaced.

The situation prompted the country’s unelected prime minister, Ariel Henry, to resign in April. And, two months later, a Kenyan-led policing mission tasked with establishing order was deployed to the Caribbean nation. But the operation has so far struggled to rein in the gangs.

So, the UN security council unanimously adopted a resolution on September 30 to extend the mandate of the mission for another year. There was consensus that the law-and-order situation in Haiti is still deteriorating by the day.

The move to extend the mission is, in my opinion, hollow and fails to address the real challenges on the ground. It doesn’t tackle the rampant arms trafficking that is fuelling the violence in Haiti, nor does it secure the funding that will allow the mission to operate effectively.

Read more:
How Haiti became a failed state

A Kenyan police officer stands guard around the US embassy in Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
Mentor David Lorens / EPA

Haiti has no firearms or ammunition manufacturing capabilities. Yet the country’s gangs are brutalising the masses with all sorts of sophisticated small arms, including sniper rifles, pump-action shotguns and automatic weapons of every kind.

All of these weapons originate outside of the island, primarily from the US, but also from neighbouring Dominican Republic and Jamaica. Experts say lax firearm laws in the US states of Arizona, Florida and Georgia have created a sophisticated arms peddling racket into Haiti.

There is no exact number for how many trafficked firearms are currently in Haiti. But Haiti’s disarmament commission estimated in 2020 that there could be as many as 500,000 small arms in Haiti illegally – a number that is now likely to be even higher. This figure dwarfs the 38,000 registered firearms in the country.

The effectiveness of the Kenyan operation is also being undermined by gross resource limitations. While the mission was approved by the UN security council, it is not a UN operation and relies on voluntary financial contributions. It was originally promised US$600 million (£458 million) by UN member nations, but it has received only a fraction of that fund.

According to Human Rights Watch, the mission has so far received a mere US$85 million in contributions through a trust fund set up by the UN. Haiti’s former colonial master, France, and several other G7 countries have not been so forthcoming.

Inadequate funding has hindered the procurement of advanced weaponry, delayed the payment of police officers’ salaries and has prevented the deployment of more forces on the ground.

Just 400 Kenyan officers and two dozen policemen from Jamaica have arrived in Haiti so far. This is significantly less than the 2,500 officers pledged initially by various countries including Chad, Benin, Bangladesh and Barbados.

This financial woe has had a negative impact not only on the morale of Kenyan police officers, but it has also made Haitians despondent. Haitians are increasingly expressing impatience and disappointment with the Kenyan force in the media and online.

Some critics have accused the officers of being “tourists”, and have pointed out that the gangs have tightened their grip on large swathes of Haiti’s capital, Port-au-Prince, since the mission began.

The pessimism within Haiti was eloquently highlighted by the country’s interim prime minister, Garry Conille, on September 25. Speaking on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meet in New York, he confessed: “We are nowhere near winning this, and the simple reality is that we won’t without your help.”

Advantage gangs

Finding the Kenyan-led operation a mere irritant, and not a worthy adversary, the gangs have only stepped up the ante. According to a spokesperson for Volker Türk, the UN’s human rights chief, the country’s armed gangs are now doing “everything they can” to maintain control. This has included using sexual assault to instil fear on local populations and expand their influence.

Some UN member nations, such as the US and Ecuador, have requested that a formal UN peacekeeping mission takes place. And, despite previous peacekeeping operations in the country being marred in controversy, Haiti has asked the UN to consider turning the current operation into a peacekeeping mission.

Read more:
Haiti: first Kenyan police arrive to help tackle gang violence – but the prospects for success are slim

This mission, which would probably include a larger contingent of troops, should not face the same financial constraints as the current operation. It would have greater visibility on the ground, and more fire power and authority to tackle the gangs.

Past evidence also demonstrates that UN peackeeping missions significantly reduce civilian casualties, shorten conflicts and help make peace agreements stick.

Gang members walk down a street in downtown Port-au-Prince in July 2024.
Johnson Sabin / EPA

However, the recent push for a peacekeeping mission was thwarted because of opposition by China and Russia, two of the five permanent veto-wielding members of the UN security council.

Beijing and Moscow have consistently argued that political conditions in Haiti are “not conducive” to a new UN peacekeeping operation. They have maintained that the current operation “should reach its full operational capacity before discussing such a transformation”.

Meanwhile, the gangs continue tightening their vice-like grip on the country, with accounts emerging of rampant sexual violence against civilians, the closure of humanitarian corridors, the extension of their territorial control and – of course – even more killings. Läs mer…

The weight loss jab Mounjaro will soon be made available to nearly a quarter of a million NHS patients, according to proposals made by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice). Previously, it was only available on the NHS for patients with diabetes.

Under Nice’s proposals, the drug will gradually be rolled out over the next three years. Access to it will first be prioritised to patients who are severely obese and have at least three weight-related health problems – for example, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, high cholesterol and sleep apnoea.

There are plans to increase NHS access to more patients after the initial three-year period. It will also remain available for patients with diabetes.

This recent approval provides new treatment options for people with obesity – but how effective it is will depend on whether supplies can keep up with anticipated demand.

What is Mounjaro?

Mounjaro is the UK brand name of the drug tirzepatide, which, until now, has only been prescribed on the NHS for patients with diabetes to help control blood sugar and encourage weight loss.

In the US, Mounjaro is used for diabetes treatment. Another version of tirzepatide, sold under the brand name Zepbound, is used for weight loss treatment. Zepbound is not licensed as a weight loss product in the UK.

Tirzepatide works for weight loss by mimicking hormones in the body that tell our brain we feel full. A weekly injection is needed, which may be increased in strength each month, depending on the patient.

Clinical studies have found tirzepatide is even more effective than semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) for weight loss. In some studies, patients have lost up to 20% of their body weight.

Supporting weight loss

Until now, Wegovy was the only weight loss injection authorised for NHS use under the care of specialised weight loss services. These services offer patients clinical treatment, mental health support, access to a dietitian and physiotherapy.

But the availability of such services is patchy and recently access to many local services has even been paused or stopped. This means many patients who need effective weight loss treatments may not have access to them. Among the reasons for these services being suspended is there was greater demand than availability of services in some areas, as well as attempts to control prescriptions of crucial drugs due to ongoing shortages.

Mounjaro needs to be injected weekly.
Mohammed_Al_Ali/ Shutterstock

Initially, it was thought that Mounjaro, would not need to be prescribed by specialists, but Nice have confirmed it will only be prescribed with specialist weight loss services to maximise its benefits and prevent complications.

Now that Mounjaro has been authorised for use on the NHS, it will be key that access to specialist weight loss services is improved throughout the country so that people who need weight loss support are able to get it. NHS England are in the process of developing a range of community and digital services to address this.

Is there enough Mounjaro for everyone?

The change in guidance may lead to a rush in demand for referrals to weight loss services when the drug becomes available. This could add more pressure to an already challenged system.

This uptick in demand may also affect access to Mounjaro for patients who use the drug for diabetes. This was the case with Ozempic (semaglutide) in 2023 – despite it only being licensed for the treatment of diabetes. Demand for the drug by those who wanted to use it to lose weight led to a surge in private prescribing of the drug off-label – leading to global stock shortages of semaglutide.

Read more:
Ozempic shortages in the UK may last until 2024 – here’s why

Many patients using the semaglutide for diabetes were unable to source the product. Semaglutide’s manufacturers did not foresee this hike in demand and were not prepared to maintain supplies for people with diabetes.

Since it was introduced on the market, Mounjaro has proved to be a popular product, with sales making its manufacturer, Eli Lilly, greater profits than expected. Stock shortages have already been experienced in Australia and the US. Due to ongoing demand and previous shortages of similar products (such as semaglutide) one would hope that Eli Lilly has anticipated increased demand for Mounjaro in the UK and will have adequate supplies from the outset.

But with British pharmacies reportedly planning to reduce the private price of weight loss products (including Wegovy and Mounjaro), this could increase demand further – which may subsequently affect the availability of supplies for NHS patients.

Given the successes of semaglutide and tirzepatide, it’s expected that further similar drugs will be developed. Many of these alternative products are already showing promise in clinical trials – such as an oral weight loss pill. Having alternative products available will ease strain on the supplies of current weight loss products.

Will Mounjaro help with the obesity crisis?

It’s thought that up to 25% of adults in the UK are obese. Obesity is linked to many health problems – including heart disease, diabetes and arthritis. Obesity-related healthcare is estimated to cost the NHS billions of pounds every year. Improvements in diet and lifestyle are recommended to tackle obesity, but, understandably, many patients find sustained change difficult.

Greater access to weight loss drugs could help patients lose weight and prevent the associated health problems. This could also save the NHS money and improve long-term health. Weight loss drugs, such as Mounjaro, could be an important solution to a growing problem – but only if access to these treatments is available to those who need them most. Läs mer…

For the first time in American history, quantum computing was mentioned by a candidate during a presidential debate, on Sept. 10, 2024. After Vice President Kamala Harris brought up quantum technology, she and former President Donald Trump went on to have a heated back-and-forth about American chipmaking and China’s rise in semiconductor manufacturing. Science and technology policy usually takes a back seat to issues such as immigration, the economy and health care during election season.

What’s changed for 2024?

From COVID-19 to climate change, ChatGPT to, yes, quantum computers, science-related issues are on the minds of American policymakers and voters alike. The federal government spends nearly US$200 billion each year on scientific research and development to address these challenges and many others. Presidents and Congress, however, rarely agree on how – and how much – money should be spent on science.

With the increasing public focus on global competitiveness, the climate crisis and artificial intelligence, a closer look at Trump’s and Harris’ records on science and technology policy could provide a hint about how they’d approach these topics if elected this fall.

Two distinct visions for science funding

If politics can be described as “who gets what and when,” U.S. science and technology policy can be assessed through the annual budget process for R&D. By this measure, the differences between the Trump and Biden-Harris administrations couldn’t be starker.

In his first budget request to Congress, in 2017, Trump spurned decades of precedent, proposing historic cuts across nearly every federal science agency. In particular, Trump targeted climate-related programs at the Department of Energy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Trump’s fiscal policy took a page from Reagan-era conservative orthodoxy, prioritizing military spending over social programs, including R&D. Unlike Reagan, however, Trump also took aim at basic research funding, an area with long-standing bipartisan support in Congress. His three subsequent budget proposals were no different: across-the-board reductions to federal research programs, while pushing for increases to defense technology development and demonstration projects.

Congress rebuked nearly all of Trump’s requests. Instead, it passed some of the largest increases to federal R&D programs in U.S. history, even before accounting for emergency spending packages funded as part of the government’s pandemic response.

In contrast, the Biden-Harris administration made science and innovation a centerpiece of its early policy agenda – with budgets to match. Leveraging the slim Democratic majority during the 117th Congress, Biden and Harris shepherded three landmark bills into law: the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act. These laws contain significant R&D provisions focused on environmental projects (IIJA), clean energy (IRA) and American semiconductor manufacturing (CHIPS).

CHIPS set up programs within the National Science Foundation and the Department of Commerce to create regional technology hubs in support of American manufacturing. The act also set ambitious funding targets for federal science agencies, especially at NSF, calling for its budget to be doubled from $9 billion to over $18 billion over the course of five years.

Despite its initial push for R&D, the Biden-Harris administration’s final two budget proposals offered far less to science. Years of deficit spending and a new Republican majority in the House cast a cloud of budget austerity over Congress. Instead of moving toward doubling NSF’s budget, the agency suffered an 8% decrease in fiscal year 2024 – its biggest cut in over three decades. For FY2025, which runs from Oct. 1, 2024, through Sept. 30, 2025, Biden and Harris requested a meager 3% increase for NSF, billions of dollars short of CHIPS-enacted spending levels.

An emerging consensus on China

On technology policy, Biden and Harris share more with Trump than they let on.

Their approach to competing with China on tech follows Trump’s lead: They’ve expanded tariffs on Chinese goods and severely limited China’s access to American-made computer chips and semiconductor manufacturing equipment.

Biden and Harris have also ramped up research security efforts intended to protect U.S. ideas and innovation from China. Trump launched the China Initiative as an attempt to stop the Chinese government from stealing American research. The Biden-Harris administration ended the program in 2022, but pieces of it remain in place. Scientific collaborations between the United States and China continue to decline, to the detriment of American scientific leadership.

Semiconductor manufacturing is a key to many technologies; by extension, where it happens can be a security issue.
Costfoto/NurPhoto via Getty Images

The Biden-Harris administration has also drawn from Trump-era policy to strengthen America’s leadership in “industries of the future.” The term, coined by Trump’s then-chief science adviser Kelvin Droegemeier, refers to five emerging technology areas: AI, quantum science, advanced manufacturing, advanced communications and biotechnology. This language has been parroted by the Biden-Harris administration as part of its focus on American manufacturing and throughout Harris’ campaign, including during the debate.

In short, both candidates align with the emerging Washington bipartisan consensus on China: innovation policy at home, strategic decoupling abroad.

Science advice not always a welcome resource

Trump’s dismissal of and at times outright contempt for scientific consensus is well documented. From “Sharpiegate,” when he mapped his own projected path for Hurricane Dorian, to pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, World Health Organization and the Iran nuclear deal, Trump has demonstrated an unwillingness to accept any advice, let alone from scientists.

Indeed, Trump took over two years to hire Droegemeier as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, or OSTP, doubling the previous record for the length of time a president has gone without a scientific adviser. This absence was no doubt reflected in Trump’s short-on-science budget requests to Congress, especially during the beginning of his administration.

On the other hand, the Biden-Harris administration has promoted science and innovation as a core part of its broader economic policy agenda. It elevated the role of OSTP: Biden is the first president to name his science adviser – a position currently held by Arati Prabhakar – as a member of his Cabinet.

By law, the president is required to appoint an OSTP director. But it is up to the president to decide how and when to use their advice. If the new White House wants the U.S. to remain a global leader in R&D, the science adviser will need to continue to fight for it. Läs mer…

Foreign influence campaigns, or information operations, have been widespread in the run-up to the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Influence campaigns are large-scale efforts to shift public opinion, push false narratives or change behaviors among a target population. Russia, China, Iran, Israel and other nations have run these campaigns by exploiting social bots, influencers, media companies and generative AI.

At the Indiana University Observatory on Social Media, my colleagues and I study influence campaigns and design technical solutions – algorithms – to detect and counter them. State-of-the-art methods developed in our center use several indicators of this type of online activity, which researchers call inauthentic coordinated behavior. We identify clusters of social media accounts that post in a synchronized fashion, amplify the same groups of users, share identical sets of links, images or hashtags, or perform suspiciously similar sequences of actions.

We have uncovered many examples of coordinated inauthentic behavior. For example, we found accounts that flood the network with tens or hundreds of thousands of posts in a single day. The same campaign can post a message with one account and then have other accounts that its organizers also control “like” and “unlike” it hundreds of times in a short time span. Once the campaign achieves its objective, all these messages can be deleted to evade detection. Using these tricks, foreign governments and their agents can manipulate social media algorithms that determine what is trending and what is engaging to decide what users see in their feeds.

Adversaries such as Russia, China and Iran aren’t the only foreign governments manipulating social media to influence U.S. politics.

Generative AI

One technique increasingly being used is creating and managing armies of fake accounts with generative artificial intelligence. We analyzed 1,420 fake Twitter – now X – accounts that used AI-generated faces for their profile pictures. These accounts were used to spread scams, disseminate spam and amplify coordinated messages, among other activities.

We estimate that at least 10,000 accounts like these were active daily on the platform, and that was before X CEO Elon Musk dramatically cut the platform’s trust and safety teams. We also identified a network of 1,140 bots that used ChatGPT to generate humanlike content to promote fake news websites and cryptocurrency scams.

In addition to posting machine-generated content, harmful comments and stolen images, these bots engaged with each other and with humans through replies and retweets. Current state-of-the-art large language model content detectors are unable to distinguish between AI-enabled social bots and human accounts in the wild.

Model misbehavior

The consequences of such operations are difficult to evaluate due to the challenges posed by collecting data and carrying out ethical experiments that would influence online communities. Therefore it is unclear, for example, whether online influence campaigns can sway election outcomes. Yet, it is vital to understand society’s vulnerability to different manipulation tactics.

In a recent paper, we introduced a social media model called SimSoM that simulates how information spreads through the social network. The model has the key ingredients of platforms such as Instagram, X, Threads, Bluesky and Mastodon: an empirical follower network, a feed algorithm, sharing and resharing mechanisms, and metrics for content quality, appeal and engagement.

SimSoM allows researchers to explore scenarios in which the network is manipulated by malicious agents who control inauthentic accounts. These bad actors aim to spread low-quality information, such as disinformation, conspiracy theories, malware or other harmful messages. We can estimate the effects of adversarial manipulation tactics by measuring the quality of information that targeted users are exposed to in the network.

We simulated scenarios to evaluate the effect of three manipulation tactics. First, infiltration: having fake accounts create believable interactions with human users in a target community, getting those users to follow them. Second, deception: having the fake accounts post engaging content, likely to be reshared by the target users. Bots can do this by, for example, leveraging emotional responses and political alignment. Third, flooding: posting high volumes of content.

Our model shows that infiltration is the most effective tactic, reducing the average quality of content in the system by more than 50%. Such harm can be further compounded by flooding the network with low-quality yet appealing content, thus reducing quality by 70%.

In this modeled social media experiment, red dots are fake social media accounts, light blue dots are human users exposed to higher-quality content, and black dots are human users exposed to lower-quality content. Users are exposed to more low-quality content when fake accounts infiltrate users’ networks and when the fake accounts generate more deceptive content. The right column shows greater infiltration, and the bottom row shows greater amounts of deceptive content.

Curbing coordinated manipulation

We have observed all these tactics in the wild. Of particular concern is that generative AI models can make it much easier and cheaper for malicious agents to create and manage believable accounts. Further, they can use generative AI to interact nonstop with humans and create and post harmful but engaging content on a wide scale. All these capabilities are being used to infiltrate social media users’ networks and flood their feeds with deceptive posts.

These insights suggest that social media platforms should engage in more – not less – content moderation to identify and hinder manipulation campaigns and thereby increase their users’ resilience to the campaigns.

The platforms can do this by making it more difficult for malicious agents to create fake accounts and to post automatically. They can also challenge accounts that post at very high rates to prove that they are human. They can add friction in combination with educational efforts, such as nudging users to reshare accurate information. And they can educate users about their vulnerability to deceptive AI-generated content.

Open-source AI models and data make it possible for malicious agents to build their own generative AI tools. Regulation should therefore target AI content dissemination via social media platforms rather then AI content generation. For instance, before a large number of people can be exposed to some content, a platform could require its creator to prove its accuracy or provenance.

These types of content moderation would protect, rather than censor, free speech in the modern public squares. The right of free speech is not a right of exposure, and since people’s attention is limited, influence operations can be, in effect, a form of censorship by making authentic voices and opinions less visible. Läs mer…

A scratchy, sore throat, a relentless fever, a pounding head and a nasty cough – these symptoms all scream upper respiratory illness. But which one?

Many of the viruses that cause upper respiratory infections such as influenza A or B and the virus that causes COVID-19 all employ similar tactics. They target the same areas in your body – primarily the upper and lower airways – and this shared battleground triggers a similar response from your immune system. Overlapping symptoms – fever, cough, fatigue, aches and pains – make it difficult to determine what may be the underlying cause.

Now, at-home rapid tests can simultaneously determine whether someone has COVID-19 or the flu. Thanks in part to the National Institutes of Health’s Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics, or RADx, program, the Food and Drug Administration has provided emergency use authorization for seven at-home rapid tests that can distinguish between COVID-19, influenza A and influenza B.

Our team in Atlanta – composed of biomedical engineers, clinicians and researchers at Emory University, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and Georgia Institute of Technology – is part of the RADx Test Verification Core. We closely collaborate with other institutions and agencies to determine whether and how well COVID-19 and influenza diagnostics work, effectively testing the tests. Our center has worked with almost every COVID and flu diagnostic on the market, and our data helped inform the instructions you might see in many of the home test kits on the market.

While no test is perfect, to now be able to test for certain viruses at home when symptoms begin can help patients and their doctors come up with appropriate care plans sooner.

A new era of at-home tests

Traditionally, identifying the virus causing upper respiratory illness symptoms required going to a clinic or hospital for a trained medical professional to collect a nasopharyngeal sample. This involves inserting a long, fiber-tipped swab that looks like a skinny Q-tip into one of your nostrils and all the way to the back of your nose and throat to collect virus-containing secretions. The sample is then typically sent to a lab for analysis, which could take hours to days for results.

The COVID-19 pandemic made over-the-counter tests for respiratory illnesses commonplace.
DuKai/Moment via Getty Images

Thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic, the possibility of using over-the-counter tests to diagnose respiratory illnesses at home became a reality. These tests used a much gentler and less invasive nasal swab and could also be done by anyone, anytime and in their own home. However, these tests were designed to diagnose only COVID-19 and could not distinguish between other types of illnesses.

Since then, researchers have developed over-the-counter multiplex tests that can screen for more than one respiratory infection at once. In 2023, Pfizer’s Lucira test became the first at-home diagnostic test for both COVID-19 and influenza to gain emergency use authorization.

What are multiplex rapid tests?

There are two primary forms of at-home COVID-19 and COVID-19/flu combination tests: molecular tests such as PCR that detect genetic material from the virus, and antigen tests – commonly referred to as rapid tests – that detect proteins called antigens from the virus.

The majority of over-the-counter COVID-19 and COVID-19/flu tests on the market are antigen tests. They detect the presence of antigens in your nasal secretions that act as a biological signature for a specific virus. If viral antigens are present, that means you’re likely infected.

Respiratory illnesses such as flu, COVID-19 and RSV can be hard to tell apart.

To detect these antigens, rapid tests have paper-like strips coated with specially engineered antibodies that function like a molecular Velcro, sticking only to a specific antigen. Scientists design and manufacture specialized strips to recognize specific viral antigens, like those belonging to influenza A, influenza B or the virus that causes COVID-19.

The antibodies for these viral targets are placed on the strip, and when someone’s nasal sample has viral proteins that are applied to the test strip, a line will appear for that virus in particular.

Advancing rapid antigen tests

Like all technologies, rapid antigen tests have limitations.

Compared with lab-based PCR tests that can detect the presence of small amounts of pathogen by amplifying them, antigen tests are typically less sensitive than PCR and could miss an infection in some cases.

All at-home COVID-19 and COVID-19/flu antigen tests are authorized for repeat use. This means if someone is experiencing symptoms – or has been exposed to someone with COVID-19 but is not experiencing symptoms – and has a negative result for their first test, they should retest 48 hours later.

Another limitation to rapid antigen tests is that currently they are designed to test only for COVID-19, influenza A and influenza B. Currently available over-the-counter tests aren’t able to detect illnesses from pathogens that look like these viruses and cause similar symptoms, such as adenovirus or strep.

Because multiplex texts can detect several different viruses, they can also produce findings that are more complex to interpret than tests for single viruses. This may increase the risk of a patient incorrectly interpreting their results, misreading one infection for another.

Researchers are actively developing even more sophisticated tests that are more sensitive and can simultaneously screen for a wider range of viruses or even bacterial infections. Scientists are also examining the potential of using saliva samples in tests for bacterial or viral infections.

Additionally, scientists are exploring integrating multiplex tests with smartphones for rapid at-home diagnosis and reporting to health care providers. This may increase the accessibility of these tests for people with vision impairment, low dexterity or other challenges with conducting and interpreting at-home tests.

Faster and more accurate diagnoses lead to more targeted and effective treatment plans, potentially reducing unnecessary antibiotic use and improving patient outcomes. The ability to rapidly identify and track outbreaks can also empower public health officials to better mitigate the spread of infectious diseases. Läs mer…

Jon Tester has never had it easy.

The three-term Democratic senator from Montana has scored more than 50% of the vote only once in his three runs for the U.S. Senate, attracting 50.3% of the vote in 2018 against state auditor and future U.S. Rep. Matt Rosendale.

This year, Tester’s always-perilous path to reelection seems narrower and more harrowing than ever before. And the outcome could determine whether the Senate remains in Democratic control or flips to the Republicans.

Current polls and political prognosticators are even starting to turn on the moderate from the farming community of Big Sandy with the flattop haircut. FiveThirtyEight has Tester’s opponent, former Navy SEAL and businessman Tim Sheehy, up four percentage points, and the venerable Cook Political Report has gone so far as to say the race “leans Republican.”

For Montana State University political scientist Jessi Bennion, this election may be the end of an era in rural America.

“I used to always call Tester the unicorn candidate because there was no one like him,” she told my students a couple of weeks back. “He was a farmer, he was a rural Democrat, the last rural Democrat.”

Jon Tester, right, first won election to the U.S. Senate in 2006, when he beat Republican incumbent Conrad Burns, left, by a margin of 3,562 votes out of 406,505 cast.
Win McNamee/Getty Images

The end of the unicorn?

I teach political reporting at the University of Montana School of Journalism, and every two years I send students out to interview candidates, profile races and talk with voters. It is true that the state has changed even since Tester won in 2018.

Despite an influx of outsiders over the past decade, Montana is still a sparsely populated state boasting 1.1 million people in the latest census. Though the state has historically relied on mining and timber for much of its economy, new economic activity in tourism and technology have helped fuel a 10% jump in population in the most recent census.

But with that influx, housing costs have soared and so have property taxes. It also leaves one of Montana’s political traditions in danger.

See, Montana has a history of doing something very few people do these days – ticket splitting, when a person votes in an election for candidates from opposing parties. In a time of deep polarization, it is hard to imagine, but out here in the Rocky Mountains and the northern plains, voters would consistently vote for a Republican for president and often for the Legislature, but also for Democrat Jon Tester.

Tester was able to put together a coalition of voters in the few pockets of liberals – college towns such as Missoula, union strongholds such as Butte and Indigenous voters on the reservation – and carve away enough moderate voters in more rural areas to eke out wins. When I moved here in 2009, it was not just Tester who did this. Back then, Montana had a Democratic governor, attorney general and head of schools. But over time those statewide offices have all gone, often by double digits, to Republicans.

No Democrat has won statewide since Tester did it back in 2018.

Migration and the march from purple to red

Then COVID-19 hit Montana.

The state saw a surge in population, jumping nearly 5% between 2020 and 2023, and experts such as political scientist Jeremy Johnson told my students earlier this fall that it is important to know who these new residents are.

“I still think the race, you know, can be competitive,” Johnson said. “I do think that some of my broader themes here – the polarization, the calcification, the reluctance to ticket split – makes it harder for Tester. Plus, I think there is some evidence that more Republican-leaning voters have moved to the state than Democrat-leaning voters in the last few years.”

One analysis reported on by the Montana Free Press found that for every two Democrats who moved to Montana since 2008, three Republicans did.

Montana does not have party registration, so when you vote in a primary, they give you a ballot for both parties, and you choose the one you want to participate in. In the highly publicized U.S. Senate primary this year, only 36% of primary voters voted in the Democratic primary, while 64% chose to vote in the Republican primary.

The one question mark of 2024

Supporters of an abortion rights initiative at a rally on Sept. 5, 2024, in Bozeman, Mont., with Sen. Jon Tester, whose path to reelection may be helped by a large turnout of abortion rights voters.
William Campbell/Getty Images

Ask Sen. Tester, and he will say his campaign is anything but over. He is stressing his independence from his political party, how Republican President Donald Trump signed bills he sponsored and his long-running support of veterans as cornerstones of his campaign.

But his path to reelection may run right through Roe v. Wade.

Montana’s constitution was written in 1972, and it has some pretty progressive elements, including a right to a clean environment and an explicit right to privacy, as opposed to the more implied one in the U.S. Constitution. And in 1999, the state Supreme Court said that right to privacy included abortion access.

Still, in part to ensure that a later court decision could not strip away that right, voters have put CI-128 on the ballot this fall, which would explicitly include protection for abortion access in the state constitution.

Tester hit the issue hard in his last debate with Sheehy on Sept. 30, 2024.

“The bottom line is this: Whose decision is it to be made?” Tester said during the debate. “Is it the federal government’s decision, the state government’s decision, Tim Sheehy’s decision, Jon Tester’s decision? No, it’s the woman’s decision. Tim Sheehy’s called abortion ‘terrible’ and ‘murder.’ That doesn’t sound to me like he’s supporting the woman to make that decision.”

Tester’s supporters hope the initiative could inspire younger voters and moderate women to flock to the polls this fall, and that might make Tester’s path to reelection a bit more doable.

But it is going to take a bit of unicorn magic, perhaps, for Tester to win a fourth term.

Back at Montana State University, Bennion said the situation looks pretty dire for the Democrats in rural states.

“I don’t see, unless our state changes in a lot of different ways, I don’t see a Democrat winning in a long time,” he said. “Just the way our state is growing, the kind of person that is moving here and voting.” Läs mer…

In response to national pollsters’ failure in forecasting election outcomes in 1948 and 1952, The New York Times pursued in 1956 a weekslong, multistate exercise in on-the-ground reporting to assess public opinion about the presidential race.

The Times’ experiment, which these days would be recognized as “shoe-leather reporting,” included two dozen journalists assigned to four teams that, in all, traveled to 27 battleground states over several weeks before the election – a rematch between President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican, and his Democratic rival, Adlai E. Stevenson.

The reporting teams interviewed scores of Americans from all walks of life in an attempt to gauge voter preferences qualitatively – without relying on the data of preelection polls. One of the participating Times reporters declared afterward that the teams-based campaign coverage represented “a new departure in journalism.”

In unintended testimony to the challenges of measuring public opinion across a sprawling country, the Times’ coverage was no significant improvement over the polls. The Times’ reporting notably failed to anticipate the magnitude of Eisenhower’s reelection — a lopsided victory in which he carried 41 states.

In its final report before the election, the Times concluded that Eisenhower would win reelection but would fail to match the sweep of his landslide four years earlier. As it turned out, Eisenhower easily exceeded the dimensions of his victory in 1952, when his winning margin was 10.5 percentage points.

The Times’ coverage also failed to foresee Eisenhower’s state victories in 1956 in Virginia, Oklahoma and West Virginia, and markedly underestimated the president’s support in Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Texas, among other states.

The Times’ reporting experiment proved an imperfect substitute to election polling, as I discussed in a research paper presented recently to the American Journalism Historians Association. In the paper, I defined “shoe-leather reporting” as the gathering of newsworthy content through in-person interviews, document searches and on-the-scene observations. The idiom presumes that journalists will pursue fieldwork so energetically as to wear out their shoes.

“Shoe-leather reporting” has been long celebrated in American media; a widely published journalism educator has described the practice as “mythical” and “one of a very few gods an American journalist can officially pray to.”

New York Times staffer Max Frankel was taken off the rewrite desk in 1956 and sent knocking on doors ‘to gather voter sentiment’ in Wisconsin, Texas, Virginia and Missouri.
Ban Martin/Archive Photos/Getty Images

Crises skew projections

The Times’ experiment in 1956 represents an exceptional case study about both the appeal and limitations of detailed, interview-based reporting as a method for measuring public opinion in a presidential race, especially when dramatic international events occur shortly before the election.

Such was the case in 1956, when the Egyptian government seized the Suez Canal, prompting military intervention by Israeli, British and French armed forces — a response that Eisenhower deplored. About the same time, Soviet tanks were ordered into Hungary to crush an uprising against communist rule and install a regime compliant to Moscow.

The international crises may have boosted the margin of victory for Eisenhower, an Army general during World War II, in a rally-round-the-president effect.

It was, in any event, polling failure that inspired the Times’ campaign coverage experiment.

Eight years earlier, in 1948, the polls, the press and pundits anticipated that Republican Thomas E. Dewey would oust Democrat Harry S. Truman, who had become president on the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1945.

But on the strength of a vigorous, cross-country campaign, Truman prevailed over Dewey and two minor-party candidates to win.

The leading national pollsters of the time — George Gallup, Archibald Crossley and Elmo Roper — all predicted Dewey’s easy victory. Roper announced in early September 1948 that Dewey was so far ahead that he would stop releasing survey results. Dewey, said Roper, would win “by a heavy margin.”

Truman, who predicted that pollsters would be “red-faced” on the day after the election, carried 28 states and 303 electoral votes. His margin of victory over Dewey, who won 16 states and 189 electoral votes, was 4.5 percentage points. J. Strom Thurmond of the segregationist Dixiecrat Party carried four Deep South states and 39 electoral votes.

Not tied to ‘arithmetic of polls’

Not surprisingly, Gallup, Crossley and Roper turned exceedingly cautious in evaluating the 1952 presidential race, maintaining as the campaign closed that either candidate could win.

Eisenhower, they said, seemed to hold a narrow lead but that Stevenson was closing fast. Or as the Times said in reporting about a public gathering of the pollsters shortly before the election: “The poll takers gave a slight edge in the popular vote to … Eisenhower, the Republican candidate, but this was their dilemma: How fast is … Stevenson, the Democratic nominee, catching up?”

Equivocation did not serve the pollsters well. None of them anticipated Eisenhower’s sweeping victory — a 39-state landslide.

The Times did not editorially rebuke pollsters for their misfire in 1952, but the newspaper’s editors, wrote Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Max Frankel in his memoir, had “lost confidence in polls.”

To cover the 1956 presidential election, the Times de-emphasized opinion polls in favor of its own intensive, on-the-ground reporting that focused on states where the presidential race was believed to be closely contested.

The New York Times sent reporters across the country to interview people like these men listening to Democratic Party presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson on his October 1956 whistle-stop tour of the Midwest.
Bert Hardy/Picture Post/Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Frankel, who rose through the ranks to become the Times’ executive editor, recalled being taken off the rewrite desk in 1956 and sent knocking on doors “to gather voter sentiment. I drove through odd precincts of Milwaukee and Austin (Texas), Arlington (Virginia) and St. Joseph (Missouri), feeding notes” to a colleague on one of the reporting teams.

The teams typically spent three days in a state, conducting interviews “with political scientists and policemen, leading politicians and bartenders, laborers, housewives and farmers,” the newspaper said.

The Times described its grassroots reporting as “surveys,” although they were not quantitative samples.

“Team members found value in not being tied to the arithmetic of polls,” one of the participants, Donald D. Janson, wrote in a post-election assessment for the Nieman Reports, a journalism industry publication.

“The scope and depth of the venture was a new departure in journalism,” Janson declared.

The process was impressionistic, even idiosyncratic. “Each reporter,” Janson wrote, “was free to judge each response, from politician and voter alike, for reliability.”

The Times published 36 state-specific preelection reports, including nine based on reporters’ follow-up visits to states where outcomes were expected to be especially close.

In its wrap-up report two days before the election, the Times said it “seemed doubtful” that Eisenhower’s margin “would be as great as it was in 1952.” In fact, Eisenhower’s victory in 1956 far surpassed that of 1952; in the rematch, he crushed Stevenson by more than 9.5 million votes.

The Times conceded in an after-election article that its teams-based coverage “did not anticipate the magnitude of the President’s victory,” which it attributed to the Suez crisis and turmoil in Hungary. The crises, the Times said, “apparently gave the final impetus to the Eisenhower landslide.”

No antidote for bad polls

The 1956 experiment in shoe-leather reporting was no rousing success. “There was some feeling,” Janson wrote afterward, “that the Times should stick to reporting trends and let the pollsters make the forecasts.”

Preelection polls by Gallup and Roper in 1956 accurately pointed to Eisenhower’s victory but overstated the president’s popular vote. Eisenhower won by 15 points; Gallup and Roper estimated his margin of victory would be 19 points. By 1956, Crossley had sold his business and retired from preelection polling.

Roper declared himself “personally pleased” by the outcome but reluctant to take “any bows for perfect accuracy.”

Given the unreliability of preelection polls in the late 1940s and early 1950s, the Times had ample reason to experiment in seeking a more precise understanding of popular opinion. But as results of the 1956 election demonstrated, shoe-leather reporting was no antidote for the wayward polls. Läs mer…

In one of the most memorable moments of the current presidential campaign, Donald Trump in July 2024 contended that Democratic nominee Kamala Harris recently stopped identifying as Indian and “happened to turn Black.”

With these false remarks, Trump implied that Harris emphasized one part of her background to appeal to voters and then changed that to appeal to a different group of voters.

Lost within this controversy has been the underlying assumption in Trump’s comments, that people tend to vote for someone with a shared identity. But is that true? Are Asian Americans, for example, especially likely to vote for Harris because of their shared identity?

Asian Americans are a quickly growing political constituency that made a difference in 2020 in swing states such as Georgia, Nevada and Arizona, helping elect President Joe Biden. They are positioned to be influential again this November.

Taken as a whole, Asian Americans lean Democratic in 2024, with 62% favoring Harris, compared with 38% who support Trump. But for Harris, Asian Americans are not as strong a voting bloc as Black Americans, who poll at 77% supporting Harris, according to the Pew Research Center. Harris cannot take Asian Americans’ votes for granted.

Kamala Harris takes a photo with guests during a White House reception in May 2022 celebrating Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Heritage Month.
Associated Press

What guides identity politics and voting

Despite the assumption in Trump’s comments that voters gravitate toward a political candidate who shares parts of their identity, such as race or gender, that is not always the case.

Voters are more likely to vote for someone with a shared identity when they see a “linked fate.” with the candidate. So, people who have the same ethnicity or race may vote in a similar fashion because they expect to experience the effects of policy changes in the same way. Latinos could be more likely to vote for a Latino candidate because the candidate would prioritize issues that matter to them, such as immigration reform.

Politicians, for their part, can try to encourage people with whom they share an identity to believe in a linked fate to win their vote. In order to do this, candidates can play up issues that affect their identity group and then make the case that they are best equipped and more motivated to address those problems.

For instance, women rank abortion rights as a key issue and trust Harris to understand it.

In order to earn voters’ support, candidates must also come across as likely to act in their supporters’ shared interests. This helps explain why people who care about so-called women’s issues, such as education or health care, are more likely to vote for a Democratic woman than a Republican woman. People generally think that Democrats represent women better than Republicans do – and they would not assume that a Republican female politician would champion women’s issues just because of her gender.

With this in mind, a candidate wanting to secure the vote of a group must first know what issues matter to them and then demonstrate that they understand the group well enough to earn their vote.

Asian Americans, like most Americans, list the economy, inflation, health care, crime, Social Security, the price of housing and immigration as their top issues in this election.

In order to effectively appeal to Asian American voters, Harris could demonstrate first that she identifies as Asian in order to invoke their shared identity. She could also show that she both understands the issues that Asian Americans care about and that she can be trusted to act in ways they favor on those issues.

To an extent, Harris has already worked to publicly identify with her South Asian heritage. She has referred to her mother’s immigrant background and has talked about her grandfather who lived in Chennai, in southern India. She has made references to her ethnic culture, such as when she mentioned coconut trees and cooked the traditional South Indian dish dosa in a video with fellow Indian American Mindy Kaling.

New Hampshire delegate Sumathi Madhure attends the Democratic National Convention on Aug. 19, 2024.
Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Connecting to Asian Americans

Once solidifying that they share an identity with a group of voters, political candidates must demonstrate that they understand how the group experiences the issues that matter to them. The concerns of Asian Americans arise out of specific experiences they have – such as immigration.

Asian Americans, for example, often complain about the long wait to sponsor family members abroad for visas to the U.S. At the same time, Asian Americans represent 15% of immigrants living in the U.S. without a visa.

Asian Americans are also concerned about the growing government backlog of visas and smugglers whom immigrants pay to help them illegally cross the border.

Harris often speaks about immigration and the U.S.-Mexico border, but not in personal terms – or about how this issue specifically relates to Asians.

While all U.S. residents are affected by inflation, small-business owners, in particular, feel the pinch. They must pay higher prices for goods but have limited capital with which to do so. They also must navigate higher interest rates.

While Asian Americans make up about 7% of the total U.S. population, they represent 10% of business owners and are the largest nonwhite group of small-business owners.

Harris talks about the economy and inflation, as well as the need to support small-business owners, but not about how these issues specifically affect Asian Americans. Her only ad targeting Asian Americans has focused on hate crimes against them.

And Asian Americans, like most voters, strongly support Social Security and other federal programs that aim to ensure stability for the elderly. Harris could speak of how Social Security is the sole income source for over a quarter of Asian Americans – and for a third of African Americans – compared with 18% of white Americans.

Harris seems poised to capture the majority of the Asian American vote, which leans Democratic. But to what extent they vote for her – and with how much enthusiasm – will depend on Harris’ ability to connect with them as Asian Americans and the issues they care about. Läs mer…