Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Glenn Fosbraey, Associate Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Winchester

When news broke of a new Morrissey single and album last week (both titled Make-Up is a Lie), one thing was assured: it was going to get people talking.

Perhaps the most “Marmite” artist of all time, it’s hard to find an artist who divides opinion as much as Morrissey. To some, he is so beloved that going to one of his concerts is a religious experience. To others, he is so detestable there are social media groups with names like “the Morrissey Hate Club”, with detractors dismayed by how his recent political positions on immigration and nationalism are so at odds with the socialist values his early work appeared to advocate.

Morrissey has consistently argued that his views are focused on British identity and freedom of speech, not racism, and has denied that his contemporary nationalist stance conflicts with the anti-establishment and socialist values of his early work with The Smiths. In a 2018 blog post, he wrote: “I despise racism. I despise fascism.”

Morrissey’s relationship with the media has been similarly complex. In 2007, for example, he wrote a piece on the Guardian’s music blog about how the NME had “deliberately tried to characterise” him as a racist. Then, in 2019, he was quoted in the NME for saying the Guardian was running a “hate campaign” against him for running an article that accused him of supporting far-right ideologies.

Love or hate him, people remain fascinated with Morrissey. And this means that most of the music media covered the news of his new album, even if, like Spin magazine, they did so through gritted teeth.

A 2019 Guardian article observed that it “can be difficult – painful, even – to untangle the things you love about Morrissey from those you despise”. But when it comes to the actual new music, does the good outweigh the bad?

Title shots

At present, with the exception of the single Make-Up is a Lie, fans have only the song titles for the rest of the album to go on. The track list was shared via social media on Christmas Day.

What we can take from this limited information is that Morrissey continues to come up with intriguing, unique and often bizarre song titles. Joining the likes of Don’t Make Fun of Daddy’s Voice (2004), Kick the Bride Down the Aisle (2014) and Jim Jim Falls (2020) from his back catalogue are new titles The Monsters of Pig Alley, Zoom Zoom the Little Boy and Many Icebergs Ago. Interesting, yes. But, as songs like Julie in the Weeds (2014) and Never Again Will I Be a Twin (2017) testify, compelling titles don’t necessarily lead to compelling songs.

Addressing what he saw as a media attempt to delete him “from being the central essence of The Smiths”, in 2024 Morrissey asserted that he “invented the group name, the song titles, the album titles, the artwork, the vocal melodies and all of the lyrical sentiments”.

From this list, it’s Morrissey’s authorship of vocal melodies that is most often overlooked, and it’s rare to find any reference to his songwriting contributions that goes beyond the lyrics.

Yet, for all the skill of his talented co-writers over the years, be that Jonny Marr, Alain Whyte, Boz Boorer, Jesse Tobias, or, in the case of Make-Up is a Lie, Camila Grey, those lead lines are Morrissey’s. And, when thousands of fans are singing them, like the performance (below) of There is a Light That Never Goes Out at Move Festival in Manchester, even his staunchest critics cannot deny his talent for writing catchy melodies.

Make-Up is a Lie may never be an anthemic sing-along in the same way as There is a Light, but the chorus, with its melodic leaps and repetition, does at least contain two of the components that scientists believe make up the “earworm effect”, which will make it hard to forget (whether we like it or not).

Rhyme time

At his best, Morrissey employed a range of different rhyme types to allow himself a wider range of words to draw from, resulting in lyrics which simultaneously felt startlingly fresh and comfortingly familiar.

In both The Smiths and in his solo career, Morrissey has used assonance, family, additive, and consonance rhymes in songs like That Joke Isn’t Funny Anymore (1985), Rubber Ring (1987), Our Frank (1991), and Lifeguard Sleeping, Girl Drowning (1994).

When he used “perfect” rhymes (rhymes where both the vowel sounds and any consonant sounds after them are the same), he was often innovative, for example rhyming “northern” with “worse and” (1992’s We Hate it When Our Friends Become Successful).

In recent years, though, Morrissey seems keen to write lyrics containing more obvious perfect end rhymes. There’s been “place/face” (Earth is the Loneliest Planet, 2014) ; “babies/rabies/scabies” (Neal Cassady Drops Dead, 2014); “bus/fuss” and “train/strain” (Spent the Day in Bed, 2017); “Room/ gloom” (The Secret Of Music, 2020); and “sleuth/ truth” (The Truth About Ruth, 2020). And, of course, the “kegs/legs” rhyme in 2006’s Dear God, Please Help Me, where the line “there are explosive kegs between my legs” is a prime candidate for his worst ever.

Pleasingly, Morrissey is more expansive and imaginative with his rhyme types in Make-Up is a Lie (“reclusion/explosion” and “Paris/granite”) with only “outburst and cloudburst” seeming like a slight regression.

Whether or not 2026 will prove another difficult year for Morrissey fans won’t just rest on the music he releases, of course. There will be interviews to nervously watch and press to nervously read, and it’s inevitable that the words “cancellation” and “controversy” will never be far away. But a strong album would certainly be a boost for those who fall on the love side of the Marmite divide.

Glenn Fosbraey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. As Marmite Morrissey returns, let’s talk about the actual music – https://theconversation.com/as-marmite-morrissey-returns-lets-talk-about-the-actual-music-273310

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Cathal O’Hara, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Population Health, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences

The US has unveiled a controversial new food pyramid that’s causing a stir among nutrition experts. It represents the latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans – advice on what types and quantities of food and drink make up a healthy diet.

But the Trump administration’s new guidelines differ in many ways from previous versions. Most striking is the moralising language about “real” food and a stark shift of responsibility onto individuals, with all consideration of health equity stripped away.

The change from the previous plate graphic to an inverted pyramid looks revolutionary at first glance. But dig deeper and the actual dietary advice hasn’t changed as much as the presentation suggests.

The new website is eye-catching, with dramatic language about “restoring common sense”. Yet many recommendations mirror the 2020–25 guidelines that came before.

Eating a variety of fruit and vegetables, aiming for five a day, limiting saturated fat to less than 10% of energy – these are all still there. So are being mindful of portion sizes, reducing processed foods, limiting refined sugars and prioritising whole foods.

Where things get contentious is the emphasis on animal fats and protein. Meats, full-fat dairy, butter and beef tallow – all sources of saturated fat – are now recommended as healthy fats.

This contradicts established science. Saturated fats are known to increase heart disease and stroke risk, which is a leading cause of death in the US.

Doesn’t add up

Crucially, the guidelines don’t explain how people can eat these foods while keeping saturated fat below 10% of energy intake. The maths simply doesn’t add up.

Protein recommendations have doubled from 0.8g of protein per kilogram of body weight per day to 1.2–1.6g per kilogram of body weight per day. This follows social trends in protein popularity rather than nutritional need.

Adequate protein is important for muscle mass, blood sugar management and keeping hunger at bay. But this shift seems odd given that Americans are not under-consuming protein in the first place.

Many other contradictions are present too. The guidelines suggest flavouring meat and vegetables with salt while simultaneously restricting sodium – a component of salt.

Fibre and fibre-containing foods like pulses and legumes get barely a mention. There’s heavy emphasis on reducing highly processed foods, but no clear definition of what these include.

The alcohol advice is equally confusing. People are told to reduce intake without any guidance on how much is too much.

Perhaps most problematic is that the inverted pyramid image doesn’t match what’s written in the guidelines. Wholegrains sit at the narrow bottom, suggesting low consumption is recommended, but the text says two to four servings per day.

Meats and saturated fat sit at the top, implying high consumption is advised. As the pyramid is the primary visual tool for communicating these guidelines to the public, this confusion is deeply concerning.

It’s not just the content that’s changed – the entire process has been overhauled. The US government rejected the scientific report from independent experts that usually informs the guidelines. Instead, it hired a new group of scientists who chose not to consider any fields other than nutrition science.

International and US trends in dietary guidelines increasingly take a broader view, considering environmental impact, and whether people from all backgrounds can access, afford and prepare recommended foods.

This broader perspective acknowledges a harsh reality. In their current form, dietary guidelines have limited effect on what people actually eat.

A recent review of studies from 18 countries found that only 14% to 45% of people follow some or all of their country’s dietary recommendations.

The World Health Organization and many scientists have called for “food systems-based” dietary guidelines to address this. A food systems approach doesn’t just tell people what to eat. It recommends changes across all aspects of the food system – from production through to processing, distribution, preparation and consumption.

The new US guidelines, with their narrow focus and lack of clarity, will be difficult to implement. In any region where there’s an oversupply of high-calorie, low-nutrient foods and an undersupply of high-nutrient foods – such as fruit and vegetables – these guidelines are unlikely to influence what people actually eat.

What’s truly concerning is that these guidelines inform US government-funded food and nutrition programmes. That includes school meals, military and veteran meals, and other child and adult nutrition programmes. Through confusing and contradictory advice, the new guidelines have the potential to impede rather than promote the health of millions.

Other countries often take into account international practices when preparing their own dietary guidelines. However, it seems unlikely that they will follow this new direction from the US due to the confusing messaging, the inclusion of some questionable recommendations, and a lack of consideration of the broad range of factors that influence what people eat and drink.

Cathal O’Hara receives funding from Research Ireland and T-Pro Ltd.

Gráinne Kent does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. America’s new food pyramid – what’s changed and why? – https://theconversation.com/americas-new-food-pyramid-whats-changed-and-why-273315

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Bethany Clark, PhD researcher in human geography, Aberystwyth University

In January some people start the year by trying to eat fewer animal products. Veganuary, as the campaign is called, began in 2014 and now attracts 25.8 million people worldwide.

One reason for trying Veganuary is a growing interest in acting in ways that reduce one’s environmental impact. And one of the key ways to do this at an individual level is to reduce the amount of meat consumed in one’s diet.

Various bodies, such as the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change and the UK’s National Food Strategy, have cited large-scale meat reduction as a way to help address the climate emergency.

As its name suggests Veganuary is framed as a short-term challenge, by the campaign itself and other supporting organisations, such as The Vegetarian Society, with messaging focused not on what is being lost, but on new and exciting foods to cook at a time of year when people often try something new.

But for many participants changing long-established behaviour is hard. Changing eating habits is particularly difficult. Barriers to dietary change include ingrained habits and routines, social norms and conventions that allow people to justify existing behaviour. Research also suggests that the perception that reducing meat will be difficult can itself discourage people from attempting to do so.

There are, however, ways to make behaviour change easier. Drawing on research from the former government-based Behavioural Insights Team’s model of behaviour change, it’s possible to find ways to make it easier when changing dietary habits. They suggest four clear principles: easy, attractive, social and timely.

Tips to make it easier

This year, Veganuary’s focus is encouraging a gradual approach that can reduce psychological barriers. Our personal attitudes and values tend to have a stronger influence on behaviour than external motivations such as financial incentives. To support lasting change, meat reduction can be aligned with values people already hold, making it easier to act in line with them. For example, exploring the climate footprint of a bag of mince and comparing with an alternative, enabling the chance to choose a less carbon-heavy alternative. Here are some tips on what can help to make Veganuary work for you.

1. Make it attractive

January often marks a return to routines after the festive period, and this can make the long, dark winter days feel monotonous. Novelty plays an important role here: it can boost creativity and increase happiness. Trying a new dietary pattern introduces new recipes and ingredients, offering an opportunity to experiment in the kitchen. Exploring new ways of eating may also encourage greater variety in meals, such as eating a wider range of vegetables and exploring new protein sources.

2. Make it social

Social eating is an important part of many people’s lives. Sharing a meat-free meal with family or friends can strengthen social bonds through a shared experience and increase feelings of camaraderie. Veganuary does not have to create divisions between meat eaters and vegans. Talking about the challenge as a group can encourage deeper discussion about the role of meat in our diets, while support from others can also help.

3. Make it timely

Breaking large goals into smaller ones can make them more achievable and more sustainable. Taking part in this dietary change over a clearly defined period allows participants to know there is an end in sight. Research on temporary challenges such as Veganuary and Dry January (giving up alcohol) suggests that habits formed during these periods can continue even after the challenge has ended.

Behaviour does not exist in a vacuum. It is shaped by what is considered normal in society, the physical environment as well as what is available in supermarkets, and broader political and economic systems.

When attempting to change behaviour – whether through a New Year’s resolution or a short-term dietary challenge – it is important to recognise this. Systems are often in place to maintain the status quo. Doing what works for you, without aiming for perfection, can make change feel more achievable. Slipping up does not mean failure: even one meat-free meal contributes to making a difference.

---

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 47,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

---

Bethany Clark does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Trying Veganuary might be challenging. Here’s some tips on keeping going – https://theconversation.com/trying-veganuary-might-be-challenging-heres-some-tips-on-keeping-going-273166

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Max L Wilson, Associate Professor of Human-Computer Interaction, University of Nottingham

It has been over a decade since Google Glass smart glasses were announced in 2013, followed by their swift withdrawal – in part because of low adoption. Their subsequent (and lesser known) second iteration was released in 2017 and aimed at the workplace. They were withdrawn in 2023.

In December 2025, Google made a new promise for smart glasses – with two new products to be released in 2026. But why have Google smart glasses struggled where others are succeeding? And will Google see success the third time around?

What is clear from developments in wearable tech over the last decade, is that
successful products are being built into things that people already like to wear:
watches, rings, bracelets and glasses.

These are the types of accessories that have emerged over centuries and currently adopted as normal in society.

Some of the most recent academic research is taking this approach, building
sensors into jewellery that people would actually want to wear. Research has developed a scale to measure the social acceptability of wearable technology (the WEAR scale, or Wearable Acceptability Range), which includes questions like: “I think my peers would find this device acceptable to wear.”

Noreen Kelly, from Iowa State University, and colleagues showed that at its core, this scale measured two things: that the device helped people reach a goal (that made it worth wearing), and that it did not create social anxiety about privacy and being seen as rude.

This latter issue was highlighted most prominently by the term that emerged for
Google Glass users: Glassholes. Although many studies have considered the potential benefits of smart glasses, from mental health to use in surgery, privacy concerns and other issues are ongoing for newer smart glasses.

All that said, “look-and-feel” keeps coming up the most common concern for potential buyers. The most successful products have been designed to be desirable as accessories first, and with smart technologies second. Typically, in fact, by designer brands.

A fine spectacle

After Google Glass, Snapchat released smart glasses called “spectacles”, which had cameras built in, focused on fashion and were more easily accepted into society. The now most prominent smart glasses were released by Meta (Facebook’s parent company), in collaboration with designer brands like Ray-Ban and Oakley. Most of these products include front facing cameras and conversational voice agent
support from Meta AI.

So what do we expect to see from Google Smart Glasses in 2026? Google has promised two products: one that is audio only, and one that has “screens” shown on the lenses (like Google Glass).

The biggest assumption (based on the promo videos) is that these will see a significant change in form factor, from the futuristic if not scary and unfamiliar design of Google Glass, to something that is more normally seen as glasses.

Google’s announcement also focused on the addition of AI (in fact, they announced
them as “AI Glasses” rather than smart glasses). The two types of product (audio
only AI Glasses, and AI Glasses with projections in the field of view), however, are not especially novel, even when combined with AI.

Meta’s Ray-Ban products are available in both modes, and include voice interaction with their own AI. These have been more successful than the recent Humane AI Pin, for example, which included front-facing cameras, other sensors, and voice support from an AI agent. This was the closest thing we’ve had so far to the Star Trek lapel communicators.

Direction of travel

Chances are, the main directions of innovation in this are, first, reducing the
chonkyness of smart glasses, which have necessarily been bulky to include
electronics and still look like that are normally proportioned.

“Building glasses you’ll want to wear” is how Google phrases it, and so we may see innovation from the company that just improves the aesthetic of smart glasses. They are also working with popular brand partners. Google also advertised the release of wired XR (Mixed Reality) glasses, which are significantly reduced in form factor compared to Virtual Reality headsets on the market.

Second, we could expect more integration with other Google products and services, where Google has many more commonly used products than Meta including Google Search, Google Maps, and GMail. Their promotional material shows examples of seeing Google Maps information in view in the AI Glasses, while walking through the streets.

Finally, and perhaps the biggest area of opportunity, is to innovate on the inclusion of additional sensors, perhaps integrating with other Google wearable health products, where we are seeing many of their current ventures, including introducing their own smart rings.

Much research has focused on things that can be sensed from common touchpoints on the head, which has included heart rate, body temperature and galvanic skin response (skin moistness, which changes with, for example, stress), and even brain activation through EEG for example. With the current advances in consumer neurotechnology, we could easily see Smart Glasses that use EEG to track brain data in the nextfew years.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Will Google be third time lucky with new, AI-powered smart glasses? – https://theconversation.com/will-google-be-third-time-lucky-with-new-ai-powered-smart-glasses-273036

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kirsty Lindsay, Scientific Officer, Northumbria University, Newcastle

For the first time in 25 years of continuous crewed operations, an astronaut has been medically evacuated from the International Space Station (ISS). The Crew-11 mission ended when a SpaceX Dragon capsule brought the four astronauts of Crew 11 home following a medical incident in early January 2026.

To protect the crewmember’s privacy, Nasa hasn’t yet disclosed details about what happened – and this article won’t speculate. But the evacuation raises a question worth exploring: how do astronauts stay healthy in space, and why is this early evacuation so unusual?

Astronauts undergo rigorous medical screening before selection. They are assessed for conditions that might worsen in microgravity, evaluated for psychological resilience, and monitored throughout their careers.

Although modelling suggests a medical emergency could be expected roughly every three years on the ISS, serious issues are remarkably rare in practice.

Every ISS mission includes medical support both in space and on the ground. Each crew has a designated Crew Medical Officer – sometimes a qualified doctor, sometimes someone with extensive training in space medicine procedures. They can perform basic examinations, administer medications, and conduct telemedicine consultations with specialists on Earth.

What health issues do occur in space?

A 2015 study found that medication use on the ISS was relatively low, with roughly ten doses of over-the-counter medication taken per astronaut per week, most of which are for common, manageable conditions, such as:

• Skin irritation is the most frequently reported medical issue in spaceflight. A recent systematic review found that space-related dermatoses including dry skin, rashes, hypersensitivity reactions, and impaired wound healing – occur at rates approximately 25 times higher than on Earth. The cold, dry, low-humidity spacecraft environment exacerbates these problems, and hygiene is limited to wet wipes and rinse-less products for months at a time.

• Congestion and headaches affect most astronauts, particularly early in a mission. Without gravity pulling fluids downward, blood shifts toward the head, causing a puffy face and stuffy nose – what astronauts call “space sniffles.” This can trigger headaches, reduced appetite, and poor sleep.

• Sleep disruption is widespread. The ISS orbits Earth every 90 minutes, creating 16 sunrises and sunsets over 24 hours, which disrupts circadian rhythms. Combined with equipment noise, reduced personal space, and the stress of spaceflight, astronauts typically get one to two hours less sleep per night compared to on Earth.

• Musculoskeletal injuries are surprisingly common. A Nasa study catalogued 219 in-flight injuries across the US space programme, with an incidence of roughly 0.02 per flight day.

• Hand injuries were most frequent, mostly small cuts from moving between modules or handling equipment. But exercise, ironically the leading countermeasure designed to protect astronauts’ bones and muscles, is now the leading source of injuries on the ISS.

Astronauts exercise for around two hours each day to combat bone and muscle loss and cardiovascular deconditioning in microgravity. Without gravity’s constant load, bones can lose about 1% of their density per month, particularly in the legs, hips, and spine.

Yet this essential countermeasure carries its own risks. Spacewalks present additional hazards – the study found 0.26 injuries per extravehicular activity, often caused by spacesuit components.

Research continues to make these countermeasures safer and more effective. At Northumbria University, the Aerospace Medicine and Rehabilitation Laboratory works with European Space Agency, Nasa, Canadian Space Agency and private spaceflight companies including SpaceX to develop exercise-based interventions to protect astronaut health. The research team are pioneering approaches to maintain physical function during longer missions and accelerate recovery on return to Earth.

Space-specific conditions

Some health issues are unique to spaceflight. Spaceflight Associated Neuro-ocular Syndrome (SANS) affects up to 70% of astronauts on long-duration missions. The headward fluid shift changes pressure in the eye, leading to optic nerve flattening and vision changes that can persist for years after returning to Earth.

Perhaps most striking was an incident reported in 2020, when a blood clot was discovered in an astronaut’s jugular vein during a routine research ultrasound. The astronaut had no symptoms; the clot was found by chance. In what became the ultimate telemedicine case, doctors on Earth guided treatment over more than 90 days.

Blood thinners were administered, additional medication was sent on a resupply vessel, and the astronaut performed their own ultrasound scans with radiologists directing from hundreds of kilometres below. They completed their mission and returned safely at the end of their mission without any health consequences.

The Crew-11 evacuation demonstrates that space agencies prioritise crew safety above all else. As missions move beyond low Earth orbit into deep space, new approaches to medical care will be needed – referred to as Earth Independent Medical Operations, potentially using AI to assist crew medical officers alongside lessons from current missions.

That this is the first expedited medical evacuation in 25 years highlights how effectively space medicine has developed. But it’s also a reminder that space remains inherently challenging for human biology, and sometimes there really is no place like home.

Kirsty Lindsay receives funding from The European Space Agency and the UK Space Agency

Luke Hughes receives funding from the UK Space Agency, European Space Agency, and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

Nick Caplan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What the first medical evacuation from the International Space Station tells us about healthcare in space – https://theconversation.com/what-the-first-medical-evacuation-from-the-international-space-station-tells-us-about-healthcare-in-space-273728

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Manal Mohammed, Senior Lecturer, Medical Microbiology, University of Westminster

Many people across cultures grow up hearing that cold weather makes you sick. Going outside without a coat, breathing in cold air, sleeping in a chilly room, getting caught in cold rain or snow, or simply feeling chilled are often blamed for causing colds or flu.

This belief feels true to many people because illness often follows cold exposure. However, modern research shows that the connection between cold weather and illness is more nuanced than the idea that cold directly causes disease.

Cold temperatures themselves do not cause infections. Instead, they influence a combination of biological, environmental and social factors that make people more vulnerable to respiratory illnesses, especially during the winter months.

Colds and flu are caused by viruses, not by cold air. Viruses such as rhinoviruses, which cause the common cold, and influenza viruses spread from person to person through respiratory droplets or physical contact, regardless of the temperature outside. That said, rates of respiratory infections consistently increase during colder seasons in many parts of the world – a pattern that has been observed globally.

---

Read more:
Do I have to wear a jacket when it’s cold outside?

---

This seasonal pattern is partly due to the way that cold temperatures and low humidity affect viruses in the environment. Research shows that many respiratory viruses, including influenza viruses and coronaviruses, survive longer and remain infectious for extended periods in cold, dry conditions.

Dry air also causes tiny droplets released when people breathe, talk, cough or sneeze to evaporate quickly. This creates smaller particles that stay suspended in the air longer, increasing the chance that others will inhale them. As a result, cold, dry air helps viruses persist in the environment and improves their chances of reaching another person’s respiratory system.

Cold air also affects how the body defends itself against infection. Breathing in cold air lowers the temperature inside the nose and airways, which can trigger vasoconstriction. Vasoconstriction means the narrowing of blood vessels, which reduces blood flow to tissues.

In the lining of the nose and airways, this reduced blood flow can weaken local immune responses that normally help detect and eliminate viruses before they cause infection.

Cold exposure and cold-related stress can also interfere with the normal function of the airways, particularly in people with sensitive respiratory systems. Together, these effects can suppress the body’s first lines of defence in the nose and throat. Cold air does not create viruses, but it can make it easier for viruses to gain a foothold once exposure occurs.

Crowds and close contact

Seasonal changes in human behaviour and indoor environments also play a major role. Cold weather encourages people to spend more time indoors, often in close contact with others. Crowded spaces with poor ventilation allow virus-containing droplets to build up in the air, making transmission between people more likely.

During winter, reduced sunlight exposure leads to lower production of vitamin D in the skin. Vitamin D is involved in regulating immune function, and low levels are associated with weaker immune responses. Indoor heating, while essential for comfort, dries out the air.

Dry air can dry the lining of the nose and throat, reducing the effectiveness of mucus. Mucus normally traps viruses and helps move them out of the airways, a process known as mucociliary clearance. When this system is impaired, viruses have an easier time infecting cells.

Cold weather can be especially challenging for people with existing respiratory conditions such as asthma or allergic rhinitis, which is commonly known as hay fever. Epidemiological studies (research that examines patterns of disease in populations) show that cold conditions can worsen symptoms and increase functional impairment in these people. This can intensify the effects of respiratory infections when they occur.

Taken together, the evidence paints a clear picture of what cold weather does and does not do. Cold temperatures are linked with higher rates of respiratory infections, including influenza and coronaviruses, particularly in temperate regions during winter. Laboratory and environmental studies show that viruses survive longer and spread more easily in cold, dry air.

Cold exposure can also weaken immune defences in the nose and airways, including reduced mucus movement and decreased antiviral activity in nasal tissues. Behavioural and environmental factors typical of winter, such as indoor crowding, poor ventilation, and reduced sunlight leading to lower vitamin D levels, further increase the risk of viral spread.

---

Read more:
Vitamin D deficiency is widespread – but overusing supplements can also be dangerous

---

What the evidence does not support is the idea that simply being cold, such as stepping outside without a coat, directly causes a cold or flu. Instead, cold weather acts as a risk amplifier. It creates conditions that help viruses survive, spread, and overcome the body’s defences.

Understanding this distinction has practical value. Improving indoor ventilation and maintaining adequate humidity during winter can reduce transmission risk. Supporting immune health, including maintaining adequate vitamin D levels, may also help.

Public health messages are most effective when they focus on how viruses spread through contact and respiratory droplets, rather than reinforcing the myth that cold exposure alone causes illness.

In short, cold weather and illness are linked, but not in the way many people assume. Cold temperatures do not cause infections by themselves. Instead, they shape the biological, environmental and social conditions that allow respiratory viruses to thrive.

Recognising this complexity helps explain why colds and flu peak in winter and supports more effective strategies for prevention, while dispelling a simple but misleading belief about cold weather and sickness.

Manal Mohammed does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Being cold doesn’t make you sick, so why are illnesses more common in winter? – https://theconversation.com/being-cold-doesnt-make-you-sick-so-why-are-illnesses-more-common-in-winter-272935

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jiao Wang, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Sussex Business School, University of Sussex

The numbers are in, and they paint a picture that defies the conventional wisdom of Washington’s trade hawks. In 2025, China’s trade surplus surged to a record high of US$1.2 trillion (£900 billion). In December alone, the surplus reached US$114 billion, driven by a higher-than-expected 6.6% growth in exports and 5.7% growth in imports.

The trade surplus refers to the amount by which Chinese exports outnumber its imports. And far from being strangled by external pressure – in particular from the US under Donald Trump – China’s export engine is running hotter than ever.

This creates a paradox for the ordinary observer. For several years, the narrative has been that the US is locked in a divisive trade war with China. This has brought sweeping tariffs intended to decouple the two economies and reduce American reliance on Chinese manufacturing.

Wrangling following Trump’s liberation day tariff announcement on April 2 2025 was apparently settled in November. This left the average tariff imposed on Chinese goods being imported to the US at 47%, down from 145%.

So if the world’s largest economy is shutting the door on Chinese goods, how can Beijing be posting its best export numbers in history? The answer suggests that the US has not won the trade war, and that China’s economy has proven far more adaptable than anticipated.

What happened in 2025 reveals a massive pivot in global trade flows. The tariffs did bite where they were intended: China’s direct exports to the US plummeted by 20% last year, and imports into China from the US fell by 14.6%. But while the front door to the American market was closing, China found other routes.

In 2025, exports to Africa continued to grow strongly by 26%, shipments to countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) grew by 13%, and trade with Latin America climbed by 7%. Even exports to the EU managed an 8% rise, despite growing friction over European concerns about unfair competition from Chinese state-supported industries.

So, the 20% loss in the US market was mathematically overwhelmed by double-digit gains in the developing regions and emerging markets.

The ‘great reallocation’

Is this something completely new? No – China has been balancing its trade network continuously over the past decade, utilising its belt and road initiative. This is its strategy to boost trade through investment in new land and sea routes, which covers the historic Silk Road trade route.

In this way, China is seeking to reduce its dependence on western consumers. But there is a deeper layer to this success that explains why the trade war hasn’t reduced China’s global footprint.

Research has documented something called a “great reallocation” in supply chains, observed both in the first trade war – which began in 2018 when the US and China hit each other with tariffs in a struggle for trade dominance – and the current one. While direct US-China trade has decreased since 2018, the US has significantly increased imports from countries such as Vietnam and Mexico. And these “third-party countries” have simultaneously increased their imports of intermediate parts from China.

In 2025, this trend accelerated. Chinese firms are not just exporting final goods – they are shipping components to factories in south-east Asia and Mexico, which are then being assembled and shipped to the US at very low or zero tariffs, under respective bilateral trade agreements with the US.

This means the US is still effectively buying Chinese goods. It’s just paying a middleman to dodge the tariffs.

The implications of this ballooning surplus are different from previous eras. When China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, the world worried about it “dumping” cheap textiles and toys.

Today, the friction is over high-value industries. China’s 2025 export boom was driven by cars plus mechanical and electrical products – specifically, the “new three”: electric vehicles, lithium batteries and solar panels.

China is no longer just the world’s factory floor. It is becoming a hi-tech supplier and often a competitor to advanced economies’ own suppliers – which is where the ongoing tension arises from.

However, this export reliance also signals a domestic weakness. With China’s housing market still subdued and domestic investment declining, Chinese firms are eager to find demands elsewhere to keep their factories humming.

In 2026, this momentum shows little sign of slowing. The Global PMI (purchasing managers’ index, an indicator that assesses global market conditions) showed five consecutive months of expansion in 2025. This suggests the global economy is picking up some speed, which is good news for Chinese exporters.

However, in the long run, China running a trade surplus with more than 170 countries creates a structural imbalance that may become politically unsustainable. The challenge in Beijing, Washington and beyond is to find an equilibrium before this “winner-takes-all” dynamic forces even more drastic protectionist responses.

Jiao Wang does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Have US tariffs failed to bite? China’s trade surplus hits a record US$1.2 trillion – https://theconversation.com/have-us-tariffs-failed-to-bite-chinas-trade-surplus-hits-a-record-us-1-2-trillion-273658

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Parveen Akhtar, Senior Lecturer: Politics, History and International Relations, Aston University

A core function of political parties is to nurture talent and, in some cases, provide a credible path to power for ambitious politicians. In this fraught climate, Reform UK increasingly appears to be an alternative route for those who see no such path via the Conservative party.

Before Robert Jenrick’s sacking (over his own supposed plan to defect), Nadhim Zahawi was the latest, and arguably the most high-profile, Conservative to throw his lot in with Reform. It seems a growing number of former Conservative MPs and councillors see Reform as a second chance at political relevance.

A former chancellor of the exchequer, albeit for just two months at the tail end of Boris Johnson’s premiership, Zahawi brings with him the symbolic capital of high office.

In announcing his switch, Zahawi claimed that only a “glorious revolution” could fix a “broken” Britain: “Nothing works, there is no growth, there is crime on our streets, and there is an avalanche of illegal migration that anywhere else in the world would be a national emergency.” The rhetoric is familiar, but the messenger matters.

Zahawi’s defection comes at a delicate moment for Nigel Farage. As Farage faces renewed scrutiny over allegations of racism and antisemitism during his school days, the recruitment of high-profile, non-white former Conservatives is both politically convenient and strategically risky.

Although Reform has undergone a rapid programme of “professionalisation” under its chairman, Zia Yusuf, these defections remain significant. Reform can now more plausibly claim to house people who have sat around the Cabinet table and understand how government works. Zahawi brings name recognition and governing experience to a party still widely caricatured as a vehicle for political amateurs. This matters for a party attempting to shift from a protest movement to an electoral contender.

Reform’s anti-Muslim reputation

But Zahawi represents more than experience. Alongside Reform’s London mayoral candidate, Laila Cunningham, his presence helps Farage rebut accusations that Reform is an anti-Muslim or racist party. Cunningham, formerly a Conservative councillor in London, defected to Reform in June 2025. She cited frustration with both main political parties and their failure on crime and immigration.

At a time when diversity within Reform has become a flashpoint for internal dissent, this is no accident.

For Farage, this is a familiar manoeuvre. His relationship with Islam has always been more complicated than that of Europe’s explicitly ethnonationalist right. He left Ukip in 2018 after then party leader Gerard Batten appointed far-right activist Tommy Robinson as an adviser to the party. Farage criticised Batten’s fixation with Islam, and said Ukip was drifting into a singularly anti-Muslim posture.

He has repeatedly distanced himself from Robinson, and his clashes with figures such as former Reform MP Rupert Lowe reflect an ongoing effort to differentiate Reform from the far right. The aim is clear: to position Reform as uncompromising on immigration without being reducible to crude racial politics.

The presence of non-white, Muslim politicians may therefore make Reform appear a viable option for voters who want “change”, but are reluctant to back a party they perceive as overtly racist or anti-Muslim.

Yet this same strategy risks alienating other Reform supporters. Farage knows that his digital base is often significantly further to the right.

Farage currently faces claims from a number of former classmates who describe a pattern of racist bullying during his schooldays. Farage has denied the claims – while acknowledging he engaged in “aggressive banter”, he said that he “never directly racially abused anybody”.*

For someone who has built a career on denying personal racism while mobilising grievance politics, this is uncomfortable territory. Zahawi’s defection, like others before it, functions as reputational insulation: evidence that Reform is inclusive, pragmatic and electorally serious.

Meanwhile, Farage is receiving increasing financial backing from wealthy donors, which provides a sense of security and room to manoeuvre, even if parts of his grassroots support online revolts. In some ways, Farage is skating on thin ice. But he knows his backers have significant resources. He is willing to compromise on his most vociferous base in the immediate term if the bigger vision still holds true.

In this sense, Zahawi’s move exposes a central contradiction about Reform. Is it a refuge for failed politicians rejected by the Conservatives? Or is it a party making a serious attempt to broaden its electoral coalition? The answer may be both.

What is clear is that Farage is attempting to play two games at once: reassuring sceptical voters that Reform is not racist, while continuing to benefit from a base that thrives on racialised outrage.

Parveen Akhtar has previously received funding from the ESRC and the British Academy

Tahir Abbas has received research funding from the European Commission via the H2020 Framework Programme for the DRIVE project, and via the Internal Security Fund Police stream for the PROTONE project.

– ref. Reform UK: will high-profile defections change the party’s image? – https://theconversation.com/reform-uk-will-high-profile-defections-change-the-partys-image-273533

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jack McNamara, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Exercise Physiology, University of East London

Your fitness tracker might be telling you that you need 10,000 steps, 30 minutes of cardio or even an hour at the gym every day. But what if you could improve your health in just a few minutes a day? A growing body of research suggests you can.

“Exercise snacks” are brief bursts of vigorous exercise, typically lasting one minute or less, scattered throughout your day. Think climbing a few flights of stairs, doing some squats during a work break or a quick burst of jumping jacks before lunch.

Unlike traditional workouts, these “snacks” aren’t done back-to-back – they’re spread across your waking hours, separated by one to four hours of your regular activities such as working, commuting or watching TV.

The concept differs from high-intensity interval training (Hiit), where you might do multiple intense bursts intense activity within a single 20-minute workout. Exercise snacks are more like grazing throughout the day rather than sitting down for a full meal.

A recent meta-analysis published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine found that in previously sedentary adults, exercise snacks significantly improved cardiorespiratory fitness, a measure of how well your heart and lungs work during physical activity.

The review concluded that these bite-sized workouts delivered meaningful health benefits, with an impressive 83% of participants sticking to their routines for up to three months.

Why exercise snacking works

Around a third of adults worldwide don’t get enough physical activity. When asked why, the answers are almost always the same: no time and no motivation. Exercise snacks tackle both barriers head on.

In a 2019 study, sedentary young adults were asked to vigorously climb a three-flight stairwell three times per day – with one to four hours of recovery between bouts. Each session also included a brief warm-up of jumping jacks, squats and lunges.

After six weeks, the stair climbers showed significant improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness compared to a control group – a key marker linked to longevity and reduced cardiovascular disease risk.

What’s particularly striking about exercise snacks is their efficiency. While current guidelines recommend 150 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity or 75 minutes of vigorous activity per week, exercise snacks can deliver measurable benefits in far less time – sometimes just a few minutes daily.

A 2024 randomised controlled trial compared stair-climbing exercise snacks to 40 minutes of moderate-intensity cycling three times weekly. Remarkably, the exercise snacks group – doing three, 30-second, all-out stair climbs per session – improved their fitness by 7%, while the cycling group showed no significant change.

The potential benefits extend beyond fitness. A large-scale study of over 25,000 adults who didn’t exercise found that those who accumulated just three to four minutes of vigorous activity daily through activities such as fast walking or climbing stairs, had a 40% lower risk of dying from any cause. They also had a nearly 50% lower risk of dying from cardiovascular disease compared to those who did none.

There’s evidence exercise snacks have blood sugar benefits, too. Research has shown that brief, intense exercise snacks performed before meals can reduce post-meal blood sugar spikes in people with insulin resistance (a precursor to type 2 diabetes) – potentially good news for anyone concerned about their metabolic health.

The best exercise snacks

The beauty of exercise snacks is their flexibility. You don’t need special equipment, a gym membership or to even change your clothes. Here are some practical ways to incorporate them into your day:

Stair climbing is perhaps the most researched exercise snack. If you work in an office building or live in a block of flats, you’ve got free exercise equipment at your disposal.

Try climbing vigorously – fast enough that you’re breathing hard by the top – for 20-60 seconds, two to three times throughout your day. Earlier research found that women who progressively increased their stair climbing to five ascents daily saw a 17% improvement in fitness after just eight weeks.

Walking bursts count too, provided they’re vigorous. Try doing a brisk one-minute walk around the office or a quick lap of your garden a few times a day. But in order to see benefits, you’ve got to make sure the pace is quick enough that holding a conversation becomes difficult.

Bodyweight exercises such as squats, lunges or wall push-ups can be done almost anywhere. Try a set of ten squats every time you make a cup of tea or some wall push-ups before lunch. The key is intensity – you should feel your heart rate rise and be slightly out of breath.

Consistency matters more than perfection when it comes to exercise snacks. The research shows that even very brief sessions – as short as 20 seconds – can contribute to fitness improvements so long as they’re repeated regularly.

The trick is building these snacks into existing habits. Climb stairs before your morning coffee. Do squats during TV adverts. Take a brisk walk after finishing a work call.

Exercise snacks won’t replace the full range of benefits you’d get from a comprehensive fitness programme. But for the millions of us who struggle to find time for traditional workouts, they offer a practical entry point – one backed by increasingly robust science.

The biggest gains in health happen when someone goes from doing nothing to doing something. So next time you’re waiting for the kettle to boil or have a few minutes between meetings, consider having an exercise snack. Your heart will thank you.

Jack McNamara does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Exercise snacks: the best bursts of activity to incorporate into your day – https://theconversation.com/exercise-snacks-the-best-bursts-of-activity-to-incorporate-into-your-day-272836

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Thomas Lockwood, PhD Researcher in Politics, York St John University

Within just a few hours of being publicly sacked from the shadow cabinet by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, , Robert Jenrick held a press conference to announce he was joining Reform. Badenoch cited “clear, irrefutable evidence” the Jenrick had been plotting to defect to Reform in a maximally damaging way.

In his press conference, Jenrick attacked his former party, painted a bleak view of the state of Britain and declared that Nigel Farage was the only person who could save it.

Jenrick has said that he doesn’t intend to trigger a by-election, which means the people of Newark, his constituency in the English East Midlands, have lost a Conservative MP and gained a Reform one. Newark will then, come a general election, become a test of Reform’s penetration into traditional Tory shire heartlands. Here, the 2024 election results already looked like a warning light: the Conservatives held on against Labour but Reform emerged as a meaningful third force. Newark is an affluent market-town and rural seat, where traditional Tory loyalty has long dominated.

Jenrick held Newark (contested under new boundaries) quite comfortably in 2024. He won 20,968 votes, taking 38.2% of the vote share, and ending up with a majority of 3,572 over Labour, which came second with 17,396 or 32.5% of the vote. Reform had 15.5% of the vote – 8,280 votes.

Newark’s vote in 2024

In the 2025 Nottinghamshire County Council elections, Reform gained control regionally (taking 40 of 66 seats), but the Conservatives held or narrowly beat Reform in Newark-area divisions, indicating shire Tory loyalty persists against the insurgent wave.

Those 2024 general election numbers in the constituency really do matter though. They show Newark is no longer a seat where the Conservatives can rely on a big cushion. The party held on, but it did so in a fragmented contest with nine candidates and amid a clear anti-Conservative mood nationally.

It’s also clear that Reform’s 15% is not an incidental protest vote. It is large enough to be decisive if the right splits further – or to become the base for a serious challenge if it consolidates, such as via an electoral pact, as unlikely as that currently looks.

Yet the most useful indicator of whether Reform can consolidate is what happens between general elections – in contests where party organisation and motivated voters matter.

In Newark & Sherwood District Council by-elections in November 2025, Reform won two seats and the details are striking. In the Castle ward, Reform’s Michelle Home won with 204 votes, narrowly ahead of the Local Conservatives on 193.

In Balderton North & Coddington, Reform’s Kay Smith won with 545 votes, beating Local Conservatives on 480.

By-elections can be weird: turnout is low, issues can be hyper-local, and parties sometimes don’t throw full resources at them. But taken together, these results suggest Reform has crossed an important threshold: it can win actual contests in areas such as these, not just rack up national vote share.

Wider local election data points the same way. In Newark & Sherwood’s 2025 results (reported at district level), Reform’s vote share sits virtually level with the Conservatives (33.7% vs 33.6%), while Reform wins multiple seats.

The constituency profile: fertile territory

Newark has characteristics often associated with Reform’s strongest performances, including a mixed economy of market town, suburban edges and rural hinterland.

A government local data profile for Newark-on-Trent reports roughly 95.3% identifying as white. That are pockets of deprivation and education and skills gaps in the constituency, which can prove receptive to narratives about being overlooked by distant decision-makers.

It’s important to stress that none of this mechanically produces a Reform MP. It does, however, help to explain why messages about immigration, institutions and “broken politics” might resonate; and why a candidate pitching themselves as an insurgent against the status quo might find an audience.

But the crucial variable is Jenrick himself. He is not a blank slate. He has high name recognition, ministerial experience and a public profile built around “tough” issues (especially immigration and crime) that overlap with Reform’s core terrain. He has, lately, been shifting further to the right, posting provocative social media videos about immigration, ticket fare dodgers and crime.

This matters because of what might be called a permission slip effect: when a familiar, high-status politician validates a challenger party, it can give cautious voters “permission” to treat that party as credible rather than purely protest. This is why Reform has been pleased to welcome other defectors from the Conservative party who had previously served in ministerial roles, such as former chancellor Nadhim Zahawi.

For a “Jenrick-as-Reform” candidacy to top Labour in Newark, Reform needs to add at least 17 points from elsewhere. These would almost certainly come from former Conservative voters and non-voters. Jenrick would need to pull about half of his 2024 Conservative coalition across with him. That is possible but far from guaranteed. Some may, of course, wish to punish him.

The right vote could split in a way that hands Labour the seat even if Reform rises with Jenrick as its candidate. Newark’s 2024 margin was already tight enough for that scenario to be plausible.

Wanting “a Reform MP” is also different from wanting “Reform-ish politics”. That is the final complication: Reform has built its appeal partly on being an anti-Tory option. It remains to be seen whether voters like the convenience of a known figure as Reform candidate or reject it as recycled politics.

Either way, Newark is no longer just Jenrick’s seat. It is now a live laboratory test for the future of the British right – and for the fragmentation and reinvention of British politics.

Thomas Lockwood does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Robert Jenrick sacked by Tories and embraced by Reform – what his Newark constituency tells us about the future – https://theconversation.com/robert-jenrick-sacked-by-tories-and-embraced-by-reform-what-his-newark-constituency-tells-us-about-the-future-273646