Category: The Conversation

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rachel Grant, Senior Lecturer in Bioscience, London South Bank University

For centuries, unusual animal behaviour before earthquakes has been reported worldwide. Livestock becoming restless, wildlife disappearing and snakes emerging from hibernation in the middle of winter. For a long time, scientists dismissed such observations as folklore.

In recent years, however, systematic research has begun to explore whether animals genuinely respond to environmental changes preceding major earthquakes. Although earthquakes are hard to predict even for humans, several studies suggest intriguing patterns in animal behaviour before seismic events.

As the world population increases, more people will be affected when earthquakes happen, making this research more important than ever.

My own research journey began with a serendipitous observation in Italy. I was studying the effects of moon phases on toad reproduction at San Ruffino Lake in 2009, when the toads disappeared for five days. They returned only after a magnitude 6.3 earthquake struck the city of L’Aquila, about 50 miles away.

This observation formed the basis of my 2010 study showing that 96% of common toads abandoned their breeding site five days before the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. It was one of the first studies to quantify a shift in wild amphibian behaviour before seismic activity. Amphibians’ permeable skin makes them especially sensitive to changes in water chemistry which could make their behaviour a potential early warning of seismic activity.

I also conducted a multi-species study of Yanachaga National Park, Peru, before a major earthquake in 2011. A charity called Wildlife Insights (formerly Team Network) places cameras in many locations in national parks for conservation monitoring. I looked for parks where a large earthquake had occurred and analysed the charity’s photographs for Yanachaga National Park.

The motion-activated cameras recorded a sharp decline in animal activity in the weeks leading up to the quake. Daily counts fell from typical values of around five to 15 separate animal records per day to fewer than five, across all seven orders of vertebrates in the forest. In the final 24 hours before the quake, animal movements completely ceased.

I compared records from around the time of the earthquake to seismically quiet periods in the same season. I found that during less seismically active times, animal numbers stayed constant.

In Peru, the steep decline in activity was pronounced not only in small and medium sized rodents such as pacas and capybaras but also in bigger animals like long nosed armadillos. This “silencing” of the forest suggests that earthquake-related cues affect entire animal communities rather than just one species.

It’s not just wildlife

Research has shown that livestock around the world, particularly cows, also show signs of pre-seismic behavioural and physiological change.

There are numerous reports of cows panicking and wandering around in areas where they would not normally be seen. For example, stories that cows converged on San Francisco’s Chinatown in 1906 prior to a large earthquake which killed 3,000 people. In 2012, a blog post circulated on the internet showing photographs of cows entering a suburb of Malaysia’s capital city, Kuala Lumpur, and feeding in gardens, two days prior to a magnitude 8.6 earthquake off the coast of Sumatra.

Several Japanese studies have monitored dairy cows using automated milking and activity systems. These studies have reported modest but statistically significant reductions in milk yield and changes in rumination or restlessness in the days preceding some local earthquakes.

Pets seem to be affected too. In 2011, a massive magnitude 9.1 earthquake struck off the northeast coast of Honshu in Japan, generating a tsunami that disabled three nuclear reactors. Post earthquake questionnaires surveyed 1,259 dog owners and 703 cat owners about their pet’s behaviour before the earthquake. About 19% of dog owners and 16% of cat owners reported unusual behaviour. Restiveness was a dominant behaviour in both species, usually within one day prior to the quake. It’s important to note though, that post-event recollections are not considered as scientifically robust as data collected in real time.

What might animals be sensing?

The key question is not whether animals behave differently, but why.

One leading hypothesis, proposed by Friedemann Freund (a scientist for NASA), focuses on environmental changes caused by stress building up in rocks as tectonic plates shift, prior to large earthquakes, releasing electrically charged particles.

These particles can alter the properties of air and soil in the area by increasing the number of positive airborne ions (electrically charged molecules) and appear to affect stress levels and behaviour in animals (including humans). More research is needed but the phenomenon may help explain the changes in animal behaviour before the Italian and Peruvian earthquakes.

However there are many other cues which could contribute to unusual animal behaviour before earthquakes. For example vibrations, disturbances to the local electromagnetic field or sounds outside of human hearing range. We still don’t know exactly which signals, or combination of cues, explains the behaviour.

Despite growing evidence that animals can sense environmental changes preceding earthquakes, the scientific community remains cautious. Several studies have found unusual animal behaviour before earthquakes could later be explained by normal seasonal activity.

Then there’s the fact that earthquakes are rare, which makes the phenomenon difficult to study. I believe animals simply move away from unpleasant or unusual environmental changes, rather than “predicting” earthquakes.

Of ants and earthquakes

There are ongoing studies that may help us learn more about animal behaviour and earthquakes. A systematic trial called Animal Alerts is underway in Lima, Peru, an area with a high level of seismic activity. Researchers have fitted dogs with smart collars which record their heart rate, movement and other parameters in real time.

A 2013 study carried out long-term observations of red wood ant mounds on active faults (cracks in the Earth’s crust that have recently moved and may cause earthquakes). The researchers reported alterations in daily activity rhythms of the ants living on these fault lines. Building on this work, my postgraduate research student, Shanza, is studying earthquake precursors for her master’s degree. She aims to identify which animal species are most likely to respond to early earthquake signals such as positive ions or magnetic field fluctuations. She then plans to simulate some of these conditions in the lab, using ants as a model species.

Animal data alone are unlikely to give reliable earthquake warnings. But the more we can combine animal data with environmental measurements, the closer we will come to reliable forecasts of earthquake hazard risk.

Rachel Grant 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. Can animals sense earthquakes? – https://theconversation.com/can-animals-sense-earthquakes-275464

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Paolo Aversa, Professor of Strategy, King’s College London

The first races under Formula 1’s new regulations delivered exactly what the sport’s rule-makers had hoped for: more overtaking. At the recent Australian Grand Prix in Melbourne, passes on track nearly tripled compared with the previous year. At the Chinese Grand Prix over the weekend the increase was less extreme, but still noticeable.

This revealed something unexpected about Formula 1’s new generation of cars. Many of the passes did not come from the classic ingredients of racing – a driver braking later into a corner, carrying more speed through the apex, or finding a daring line. Instead, they often happened when one car temporarily ran out of electrical power.

Under one of the most significant rule changes in the sport’s history, roughly half of a Formula 1 car’s output now comes from its electric motor. Drivers must carefully manage when their batteries deploy or regenerate energy. When the battery runs low, the car temporarily becomes vulnerable. Once the battery is recharged by recovering energy from braking, the driver can attack again. These cycles can create sudden swings in performance within a race.

This is raising questions about whether Formula 1’s push for sustainability is changing how races are won.

A greener engine era

Under the new regulations, the cars still look like Formula 1 machines. But the way they generate and deploy power is very different. The familiar turbocharged combustion engine remains, but it now shares power almost equally with the electric system.

The combustion engine also now runs on 100% sustainable fuel, designed to be carbon-neutral over its lifecycle. The cars themselves are smaller and lighter, with new active aerodynamic systems aimed at reducing air resistance on straights.

Major rule changes often trigger waves of experimentation as teams search for new advantages, and managing energy has suddenly become central to racing strategy. In a study published in Organization Science, my colleagues and I showed that Formula 1 teams face a classic strategic trade-off: incremental improvements are safe but rarely transformative, while radical innovations can produce breakthrough performance – or spectacular failure.

A new kind of racing

The Australian Grand Prix offered an early glimpse of how racing is being affected. Early in the race, Mercedes driver George Russell and Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc repeatedly overtook each other within a few laps. But the pattern was unusual: neither driver was consistently faster. Instead, their cars were alternating between phases of energy depletion and recharge. The result looked less like traditional racing and more like a strategic ebb and flow of electrical power.

In the new hybrid era, drivers may need to adjust braking points or racing lines to regenerate electricity efficiently. They may even need to lift their foot from the throttle when in past seasons the same situation would have called for flat-out acceleration.

Some drivers have already expressed concerns that the new cars could feel less instinctive if energy constraints become too restrictive. If success increasingly depends on managing software systems and electrical energy flows, some drivers may feel that the essence of their craft is shifting. After the Chinese Grand Prix, veteran racer Fernando Alonso called this the “battery world championships”, and recent champion Max Verstappen likened it to Mario Kart.

The F1 sustainability paradox

Formula 1 has long argued that it operates like a moonshot laboratory, where extreme competition accelerates development. Technologies refined in racing have later appeared elsewhere, from advanced braking and handling systems in road cars to sensor technologies now used in hospitals. Even the choreography of Formula 1 pit stops has inspired procedures used by emergency medical teams.

The new generation of engines aims to extend that tradition by demonstrating sustainable innovation through advanced hybrid systems and sustainable fuels. But there is a paradox here. Early estimates suggest Formula 1’s new synthetic, net-zero fuel could cost hundreds of dollars per litre, more than ten times the cost of conventional racing fuel – and a hundred or more times the cost of regular petrol.

While this shows what is technically possible, unless production costs fall dramatically these fuels may remain confined to racing or high-performance supercars. In other words, the sport may develop impressive sustainable technologies – but ones that remain too expensive for everyday mobility.

Racing for the future

None of this means the regulations have failed. Formula 1 has a long history of dramatic rule changes producing awkward early seasons before engineers unlock their potential. Previous technological revolutions such as ground-effect aerodynamics in the late 1970s or the hybrid power units introduced in 2009 and then in 2014 required years of refinement before teams fully mastered them. Something similar may happen this year.

The first two races of the new season offered a first hint of tension facing the sport, but whether it ultimately produces better racing remains uncertain. At times, the difference between new and old F1 resembles the contrast between choreographed WWE matches and Olympic wrestling: more visually dramatic, yet less about raw athletic contest.

What is clear is that the 2026 regulations have already begun to reshape Formula 1 in ways few expected.

Paolo Aversa 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. Formula 1’s 2026 rules: new sustainability rules are changing the way races are won – https://theconversation.com/formula-1s-2026-rules-new-sustainability-rules-are-changing-the-way-races-are-won-278342

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jiayao Lei, Assistant Professor in Epidemiology, Karolinska Institutet

When 12-year-olds receive a letter from the school nurse about the HPV vaccine, their reactions are often mixed. Some students worry about the needle. Others wonder why they need a vaccine for something they have never heard of.

What many of them may not realise is that this routine school vaccination protects against a virus that can cause cancer later in life. For many students, the letter is the first time they encounter a remarkable idea: that a vaccine can help prevent cancer before it even starts.

The evidence for that protection is now becoming clear. In our recent study, we analysed long-term health data from girls and young women followed for nearly two decades and found that the HPV vaccine greatly reduces the risk of cervical cancer.

This matters because cervical cancer remains one of the most common cancers affecting women worldwide, despite being largely preventable. Importantly, the protection does not appear to weaken over time.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most common viruses in the world. Most people will get it at some point in their lives, often without knowing it. In many cases, the body clears the virus naturally. But some types of HPV can remain in the body for years and gradually damage cells. Over time, this can lead to cancer.

How the HPV vaccine prevents cancer

HPV causes almost all cervical cancers and can also lead to other cancers in both men and women, including cancers of the throat, anus, penis, vagina and vulva. Because these cancers usually develop slowly, often many years after infection, preventing the virus early is the most effective way to stop them.

That is exactly what the HPV vaccine is designed to do.

To understand how well the vaccine works in real life, we followed 926,362 girls and young women in Sweden over 18 years in a nationwide population study. Some had received the HPV vaccine, while others had not.

Over time, far fewer people who were vaccinated developed cervical cancer compared with those who were not vaccinated. This shows that the vaccine helped protect many people from getting cervical cancer.

We also found that the age at vaccination matters. Girls who received the vaccine before the age of 17 were much less likely to develop cervical cancer later in life. In fact, their risk was about four times lower than girls who had not been vaccinated. People vaccinated later still gained some protection, but the benefit was smaller.

The reason is straightforward. The vaccine prevents HPV infection, but it cannot remove an infection that has already occurred. Vaccinating earlier, ideally before exposure to the virus, allows the immune system to build protection in advance. This is why HPV vaccination is often offered to young teenagers through school vaccination programmes.

Lasting protection

A common question about vaccines is whether their protection fades over time. The results of our study are reassuring.

We followed participants for up to 18 years after vaccination and found no evidence that protection declined over time. Once the vaccine created protection, it continued working year after year. Long-lasting protection means the vaccine can guard against the virus during the years when it matters most.

Many countries now recommend HPV vaccination for both girls and boys, usually in early adolescence. Vaccinating boys protects them from HPV-related cancers and also helps reduce the spread of the virus.

For many adults today, the HPV vaccine did not exist when they were teenagers. Younger generations now have a powerful opportunity: they can prevent certain cancers before they begin.

A future where cancers caused by HPV can largely be prevented may begin with a simple vaccine given in adolescence.

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. The shot that could stop cancer before it begins – and why getting it early matters – https://theconversation.com/the-shot-that-could-stop-cancer-before-it-begins-and-why-getting-it-early-matters-277006

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gokcay Balci, Lecturer in Sustainable Freight Transport and Logistics, University of Leeds

The conflict in Iran has disrupted energy and commodity markets. Iran has effectively closed the narrow strait of Hormuz, a vital oil transit point, attacking more than a dozen ships over the past two weeks that have tried to sail through the waterway.

Donald Trump has been pressing US allies in Europe to help secure the strait, warning on March 15 that it will be “very bad for the future of Nato” if they do not support American efforts to reopen Hormuz. But Iran has vowed to keep the waterway closed.

The disruption to Gulf shipping has caused Brent crude oil prices to jump sharply from around US$70 (£53) a barrel before the crisis began to more than US$100. Global trade in a wide range of other goods – from consumer products to agricultural raw materials – is being affected too.

But the crisis has also highlighted a broader issue: that global trade depends on a surprisingly small number of narrow waterways, which are often called maritime “chokepoints”. Here is a guide to the chokepoints that matter most for global trade, and how vulnerable each one is to disruption.

1. Strait of Hormuz

Hormuz is the world’s most critical energy chokepoint. Connecting the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea, it carries around 39% of the seaborne crude oil trade and 19% of natural gas. Unlike most trade chokepoints, there is no viable alternative to Hormuz for Gulf states to export their energy.

Iran has periodically threatened to close the strait of Hormuz since the 1980s. But the disruption caused to shipping since late February, when the US and Israel first launched airstrikes across Iran, is the most serious escalation in decades. It has caused the largest oil supply disruption in history and soaring global oil prices.

The consequences of the current disruption to Gulf shipping extend beyond energy. The Gulf region handles over 26 million containers annually, with major fertiliser exports passing through here too. Prolonged shipping disruption will therefore have a direct effect on global food production costs.

2. Suez canal

The Suez canal links the Red Sea with the Mediterranean, cutting at least ten days off journey times between Asia and Europe. The waterway handles 10% of global seaborne trade, including 22% of container traffic, 20% of car shipments and 10% of crude oil.

Controlled by Egypt, it is not easily threatened directly. But the waterway is not immune to accidents, as demonstrated by the grounding of the Ever Given container ship in 2021. The vessel blocked the canal for six days, disrupting nearly US$10 billion in trade.

The bigger vulnerability of this chokepoint is the Bab el-Mandeb, the strait at the southern tip of the Red Sea. Attacks on commercial shipping by the Iran-backed Houthi group in Yemen between 2023 and 2025, which it carried out in response to Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza, forced many operators to reroute around Africa.

This cut traffic through the Suez canal from over 26,000 vessels in 2023 to around 13,000 in 2024. Houthi leaders have recently threatened to resume attacks on commercial shipping in retaliation for the Israeli and US attacks on Iran, warning in official communications that their “fingers are on the trigger”.

3. Panama canal

Connecting the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, the Panama canal handles around 2.5% of global seaborne trade – a modest share, but concentrated in high-value and strategic cargo such as containerised goods, cars and grain. The canal carries around 40% of all US containerised shipments, valued at US$270 billion annually.

Its vulnerability stems both from the climate and geopolitics. In 2023 and 2024, severe droughts caused water levels in the canal’s freshwater reservoirs to fall sharply, forcing restrictions on vessel numbers and size. Then, in early 2025, Trump threatened to take control of the canal. He cited concerns over the operation of some of its ports by Hutchison, a Hong Kong-based company.

4. Strait of Malacca

The Malacca strait is the busiest shipping lane on Earth. It carries 24% of all global seaborne trade, including 45% of seaborne crude oil and 26% of cars. The waterway is also home to Singapore, which hosts the second-busiest container port in the world.

Malacca is the primary gateway through which China, Japan and South Korea receive their energy imports. Nearly 80% of China’s oil imports pass through here, a dependence Beijing calls the “Malacca dilemma”.

Piracy remains a persistent concern, with over 130 incidents reported in the Malacca strait in 2025. But the greater risk is geopolitical. Any escalation in tensions between China and the US or India over maritime dominance in the region could severely disrupt passage through the strait.

Malacca is also exposed to natural disasters, including tsunamis and volcanic activity. The Boxing Day tsunami in 2004, for example, caused significant damage to coastal infrastructure at the strait’s southern entrance.

5. Turkish straits

The Turkish straits – the Bosphorus and Dardanelles – are the only sea route between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. They carry 3% of global seaborne trade. While this share may appear small, it includes around 20% of global wheat exports from Ukraine, Russia and Romania.

At just 700 metres wide at its narrowest point, running through the centre of Istanbul in Turkey, navigation is complex and minor collisions are common. Under the Montreux convention, Turkey controls military access to the straits, a power Ankara has used since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine to restrict the movement of warships while keeping commercial traffic open.

Further escalation in the Black Sea area could disrupt this balance and shake global grain markets. The region’s high seismic activity adds another layer of risk.

The current crisis in the strait of Hormuz has thrown into sharp relief just how vulnerable global trade is to disruption due to its reliance on a handful of narrow waterways. But the five waterways mentioned above are not the only trade chokepoints.

There are as many as 24 maritime chokepoints in the world, including other major waterways like the Taiwan, Dover and Bering straits. Each of these waterways are exposed to their own combination of geopolitical tension, climate change, piracy, accidents or natural disasters.

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. From the strait of Hormuz to Malacca, global trade relies almost entirely on these five narrow waterways – https://theconversation.com/from-the-strait-of-hormuz-to-malacca-global-trade-relies-almost-entirely-on-these-five-narrow-waterways-278329

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Karen Middleton, Senior Lecturer in Marketing and Advertising, University of Portsmouth

Children today can encounter harmful material online with alarming ease, including violent, sexual and self-harm content. While this is often treated as a moderation failure, the deeper cause is economic.

Much of the internet is built on a business model that rewards attention above all else. In simple terms, algorithms that recommend content do not meaningfully distinguish between helpful, neutral and harmful material. Described as “topic agnostic”, their primary task is to keep users watching, scrolling and clicking.

Why? Because attention drives advertising revenue.

Most online platforms appear free to use, but they are largely funded through advertising. The longer users stay online, the more adverts they see and the more valuable they become to advertisers. As a result, platform design is shaped by what scholars call the “attention economy” – a system in which human attention is the resource being bought and sold.

Harvard scholar Shoshana Zuboff describes this model as “surveillance capitalism”: platforms collect behavioural data, predict what users will do next, and optimise systems to influence behaviour in ways that generate profit.

This matters because research consistently shows that emotionally charged content – material that provokes fear, outrage, anxiety or shock – generates higher engagement. Studies of recommender systems have found that algorithmic ranking tends to amplify content that keeps users emotionally activated, regardless of its social value (or otherwise).

For adults this can distort public debate and political discourse. For children, the consequences can be more serious because their online habits and emotional responses are still developing. Young people are more sensitive to social comparison, distressing narratives and emotionally intense material. When recommendation systems detect that a young user pauses on, searches for or engages with such content, they often respond by delivering more of it.

The result is what media researchers describe as a feedback loop. Engagement signals drive recommendations; recommendations increase exposure; exposure deepens engagement. Users are rarely targeted by a person. They are targeted by optimisation.

Public debate often assumes the solution is faster removal of harmful posts. Moderation is important, but there is a deeper issue. Harmful content continues to spread because the underlying incentives remain unchanged.

If platform revenue depends on attention, systems will always prioritise content that captures it most effectively. Removing individual posts does little if the algorithmic logic promoting engagement remains intact.

This helps explain why controversies around online harms keep resurfacing despite new safety tools and policies – and why proposed social media bans are unlikely to address the root cause. Researchers in platform governance increasingly argue that safety requires addressing system design and incentives, not just individual pieces of content.

The role of advertising – and why it matters now

Advertising rarely features in public conversations about online safety, yet it sits at the centre of the ecosystem. Advertising revenue funds recommendation systems, data collection practices and engagement optimisation strategies.

This does not mean advertisers intend harm. In fact, many brands are unaware of where their adverts appear within complex programmatic advertising supply chains. But the economic reality remains: engagement – including engagement with harmful material – generates value.

Scrutiny is growing. In the UK, regulators are implementing the Online Safety Act, lawsuits concerning social media harms are emerging internationally, and researchers are gaining access to internal platform documents through litigation. Together, these developments are lifting what has long been described as a “black box” surrounding platform decision-making.

The digital environment did not evolve naturally. It was built through choices – technical, economic and political – made over decades. And because it was designed, it can be redesigned.

The conversation now moving into public view is not simply about banning phones or blaming young users. It is about incentives. What kinds of online environments do current business models reward? And what alternatives might prioritise wellbeing alongside innovation?

For people working inside advertising and technology industries, this moment may feel particularly significant. Greater public awareness means fewer opportunities to claim that online systems are too complex to understand or influence.

If safer digital spaces are the goal, the debate must move beyond individual content towards the structures that determine why that content spreads in the first place. Understanding how advertising, data and algorithms interact is not a technical detail. It is the key to building an internet that protects children rather than profiting from their attention.

Karen Middleton is affiliated with Conscious Advertising Network

– ref. Why harmful content keeps reaching children online – and what advertising has to do with it – https://theconversation.com/why-harmful-content-keeps-reaching-children-online-and-what-advertising-has-to-do-with-it-277527

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

If you are a student in the UK, news of an outbreak of meningitis affecting university students in Kent may be causing you alarm.

The UK Health Security Agency has confirmed 13 cases of invasive meningococcal disease, a severe infection that can cause meningitis and septicaemia (blood poisoning), and is providing antibiotics and guidance to students and their close contacts. Two young people, a year 13 school pupil and a university student, have died. Others are seriously ill.

Why meningitis outbreaks happen at universities

Meningococcal disease is caused by Neisseria meningitidis bacteria. Although many people can carry the bacteria harmlessly in their nose or throat, very occasionally it invades the bloodstream or central nervous system and causes life-threatening illness. Meningitis is an inflammation of the membranes around the brain and spinal cord.

Meningococcal disease spreads through close contact with respiratory droplets. This could be through kissing, sharing drinks or utensils, and coughing and sneezing. This is what makes the risk higher in settings where people live, study and socialise closely together, such as university campuses.

Outbreaks such as the recent one in Kent, especially in communal settings like universities or schools, are less common than individual sporadic cases. While the overall risk remains low, the proportion of cases among young adults and students is higher than in older age groups simply because of the social mixing and living arrangements typical of school and university life.

How to reduce your risk

There is no guaranteed way to eliminate risk entirely, but several practical steps can help.

The first is vaccination. In the UK, there are routine immunisation programmes against key meningococcal strains. The MenACWY vaccine is usually offered in school to protect against four common meningococcal groups and can be given up to age 25 if missed. The MenB vaccine is given to infants. Whether older teenagers have had it varies because the risk profile and vaccine history differ. The MenB vaccine is available privately for teenagers and adults.

So check your vaccination history. You can do this by looking over your vaccination records, asking your GP practice, checking the NHS app or looking at your university or travel clinic records. If you can’t find a record of having a vaccination against meningitis, doctors may recommend vaccinating again – receiving an extra dose is generally safe.

Talk to your friends about their vaccination history, too. People can carry meningococcal bacteria without symptoms. Awareness of your own vaccination status and encouraging friends to be up to date increases community protection.

Even if someone has been vaccinated, they may still be advised to take preventive antibiotics if they were a close contact of a case of meningococcal disease.

Good hygiene is important. Simple measures like covering your mouth when coughing, not sharing drinks or utensils, washing hands regularly and avoiding close face to face contact when someone is ill can help reduce transmission.

What to look out for

One of the biggest challenges with meningococcal disease is that its early symptoms can look like flu or a bad cold, making it easy to overlook until it becomes severe. According to UK public health guidance, early symptoms can include fever or high temperature, a very bad headache, vomiting or nausea, muscle and joint pain, cold hands and feet, and rapid breathing. Symptoms can develop in different sequences and progress quickly.

As the disease progresses, more specific and serious “red flag” symptoms may appear. These include a stiff neck, confusion or delirium, dislike of bright lights, severe sleepiness or difficulty waking, seizures, and a rash that does not fade under pressure. This last is a key sign of septicaemia, and you can use the “glass test” to help identify it. Press a clear glass firmly against the glass. If it doesn’t fade under this pressure, contact a doctor straight away.

It’s crucial to stress that not all cases will show a rash, and no single symptom alone proves meningitis. But the combination of severe headache with fever, stiff neck, rash or rapid deterioration should prompt urgent suspicion.

If a friend shows symptoms

If you notice a friend exhibiting any concerning signs – especially rapid worsening over hours – take them seriously. Public health advice is clear: if symptoms are worrying or escalating, seek medical help immediately. In the UK, that means contacting NHS 111 for advice, or calling 999 if they are seriously unwell.

Check on your friend regularly, don’t dismiss symptoms as “just a hangover” and err on the side of urgency when in doubt. Early treatment with antibiotics can be lifesaving.

Acting quickly is vital

The Kent outbreak is a stark reminder that although meningococcal disease is uncommon, when it does occur it can progress rapidly and have devastating consequences. Students and young people, in particular, should be aware that illness can be serious even in previously healthy individuals. Early recognition and rapid medical response are vital and vaccination and awareness are primary tools for prevention.

While public health authorities work to contain outbreaks, the first line of defence is individuals and communities. Knowing the symptoms, acting quickly if someone becomes ill, and encouraging vaccination can make the difference between a contained case and a fatal outcome. In meningitis, the disease can escalate within hours. Early recognition and immediate action can save lives.

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. Kent meningitis outbreak: what students need to know – https://theconversation.com/kent-meningitis-outbreak-what-students-need-to-know-278449