Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Politics

Andrew Gilligan: Selling doom is counter productive. What every party lacks is an optimistic offer

Published

on

Andrew Gilligan: Selling doom is counter productive. What every party lacks is an optimistic offer

Andrew Gilligan is a writer and former No10 adviser.

One of the reasons my old boss, Boris Johnson, won a higher vote share than any Tory since Margaret Thatcher is the same as one of the reasons Labour has crashed – and the same as one of the reasons Reform has failed to break through the 30 per cent ceiling.

That reason is optimism, or the lack of it.

In the last full quarter of the Sunak government, the economy was growing by a respectable 0.7 per cent. But Starmer’s “everything is terrible” speech in the No10 garden, weeks after the election, set a tone of confidence-sapping gloom from which business sentiment, and his government, haven’t recovered (it was only one of many mistakes, but an early and important one.)

Advertisement

In his defection speech, Reform’s Robert Jenrick made the question of whether “Britain is completely broken” the dividing-line between his new party and the Conservatives. As he put it: “I challenge anyone to argue Britain is not completely broken…. At a recent [Tory] shadow cabinet, a debate broke out. The question was put to the group: is Britain broken? I said it’s broken. Almost all said it’s not broken.

In my time as a journalist, I reported from almost 50 countries, some of which were indeed “completely broken.” I know what a broken country looks like, and Britain is nowhere near. As Jenrick fairly said, some things in Britain have certainly got worse – but lots haven’t. Food, clothes and consumer goods are better and cheaper. We’re healthier. We live longer. We travel more. We survive illnesses that, even recently, killed thousands of us. We have multiple forms of entertainment on tap, any time we want, instead of having to wait for BBC2 to repeat Fawlty Towers (a caricature, by the way, of the kind of abysmal service business that has almost totally disappeared from modern Britain.)

My fundamental reason for optimism about Britain is that for all the echoes of the 1970s, the country is still in a better, more recoverable place than it was then. Above all, British business is far stronger and more efficient than it was then. It has survived everything the politicians have thrown at it – though its resilience is not, of course, infinite. It could power our recovery, if burdens on it were lifted.

I think we can say that British government and politics have stopped working properly. But even they have scored some recent successes, and even they are not as dysfunctional as those of many other democracies. And the “everything is broken” view carries a risk of nihilism: if crapness is inevitable, why even try?

Advertisement

To run a place, you need to look as if you like it. To get people to accept the difficult choices that are needed to rescue Britain, you must give them hope for something better at the end of it. Reform hasn’t yet managed either of these things. (I wonder if Nigel Farage brought his bonhomous side to the fore, his party would get those extra five to 10 points it needed.) The Tories are better: Kemi Badenoch talks about optimism, rejects the everything-is-broken narrative, but still doesn’t sound very optimistic, still doesn’t have much of a (published) plan to fix anything, and hasn’t yet really dealt to the public’s satisfaction with what the party did wrong in government.

There isn’t an obvious Thatcher figure waiting to rescue the country now, but there wasn’t then, either. Thatcher wasn’t seen as an obvious rescuer for quite a while. What there are, though, are lots of people who know things need to change and lots of little Project 2025s, a reference to the work done in the US to prepare both a conservative manifesto and a manual for how to get it done in government.

Boris was too optimistic, I agree. Just saying that the covid test-and-trace system was going to be “world-beating” didn’t make it so. He didn’t have a plan for that or much else. You need that too. The hope he created ended up being squandered.

But he did manage to make many people feel better about him, and about themselves, creating the juice to get at least some things done, and helping deliver the Tories their best vote share since 1979.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Politics

Nicholas Brendon’s death is the sixth of The WB stars since 2024

Published

on

Buffy

Nicholas Brendon has died.

Nicholas Brendon, dead

Brendon, who played Xander Harris in Buffy the Vampire Slayer from 1997 to 2003, passed away at age 54. His family’s statement said he “passed in his sleep of natural causes.”

His death is the second of a major Buffy cast member in 13 months.

Michelle Trachtenberg, who joined Buffy as Dawn Summers, was 39 when she died in February 2025 from complications of diabetes mellitus.

Advertisement

Nicholas Brendon’s is the sixth death of a major WB cast member since 2024.

James Van Der Beek, who played the titular character in Dawson’s Creek, died in February 2026 age 48, after a battle with colorectal cancer.

Shannen Doherty, who played lead character Prue Halliwell on Charmed, died from breast cancer in July 2024, at 53.

Julian McMahon, who played major character Cole Turner on Charmed, died at age 56 in July 2025, from head and neck metastatic cancer.

Advertisement

Eric Dane, who played recurring character Jason Dean on Charmed, died in February 2026 at age 53 from respiratory failure resulting from ALS.

Counting family of major cast members, Buffy lead Anthony Stewart Head announced the sudden death of his longtime partner Sarah Fisher December 2025 at the age of 61.

The responses on social media mourned these unexpected deaths.

“I’m very concerned why are so many people passing away?!!”

Advertisement

“We lost 2 90’s stars and Mc Steamy in one month! wtf”

“Damn, this has been a brutal year so far for actors from late 90s/early 2000s shows on The WB. James Van Der Beek, Eric Dane, and now Nicholas Brendon” @Adaminhtowntx

“Jesus Christ… how my of my friends are going to die this year?!! Fffuuuccckkk” @sirjeremylondon

The hollowing of the WB generation

These deaths come when there is also a measurable increase in mortality in the age cohort that made up much of Buffy’s original audience, and the WB era generally.

Advertisement

The WB was the predecessor network to The CW, and in the late 90s and early 2000s aired popular teen and young adult dramas during the primetime block of 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. Three genre-defining shows from that era were Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Charmed, and Dawson’s Creek. The audiences for these shows were primarily younger Generation X and Elder Millennials, born between 1972-1988.

People who were teenagers and young adults in the late 1990s and early 2000, the era when these WB series were on the air, are now in their late 30s through early 50s. Since 2020 their mortality rates have been increasing. A 2025 JAMA Network Open study examining U.S. mortality among adults aged 25 to 44 from 1999 through 2023 found that mortality in 2023 was dramatically higher than expected based on pre-2011 trends. It quantified that gap as 71,124 unexpected deaths in 2023 alone.

Research led by the American Cancer Society and published in The Lancet Public Health reported that cancer incidence and mortality has increased in younger generations in 17 of 34 cancer types. For some groups, the gap was stark, with the 1990 birth cohort showing roughly two-to-three times higher incidence than the 1955 cohort for pancreatic, kidney and gastrointestinal cancers. Moreover, mortality increased for colorectal cancers, as well as uterine, gallbladder, testicular, and liver cancer.

Moreover, a March 2026 PNAS analysis reports that people born between 1970 and 1985 are experiencing worse mortality patterns than their predecessors. The trend covers major causes, including cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Particular concern was noted for cancers that have historically been less common for this age group, including colon cancer.

Advertisement

More than 20 million excess deaths since 2020

The increase in mortality for younger Gen X and Millennials is corroborated by an exponential rise in unexpected deaths across all age cohorts.

In demography, the term for unexpected deaths on a population scale is “excess mortality” or “excess deaths.” This measures how many more people have died than would be expected based on prior trends.

Since 2020, the COVID pandemic has officially contributed approximately 7.1 million deaths, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). However, it is becoming increasingly clear that this figure is a significant undercount. Scientific American has just published a piece about how, in the United States alone, COVID killed at least 150,000 more people in its first two years than are reflected in official figures.

And yet, zooming out to global unexpected deaths since 2020, The Economist counts between 20-35 million excess deaths from COVID.

Advertisement

For scale, the First World War killed 17 million people.

If more than 20 million people have died unexpectedly, and only 7 million are accounted for in the official COVID death toll, how have those 13+ million people died?

Part of the answer may be a limited understanding of COVID’s mechanisms and secondary effects, not only by individuals, but by healthcare professionals and institutions.

What SARS-CoV-2 does to the body

When people hear “COVID deaths,” many think of a respiratory virus that kills people in the acute phase of infection.

Advertisement

But SARS-CoV-2 is not a respiratory virus. COVID is a vascular disease.

COVID can have respiratory symptoms because the airway is a common transmission site, but the underlying disease is systemic. The virus infects the body’s blood vessels, specifically the lining which are called endothelium. The vascular system is not just the heart and major blood vessels, but spans the whole body. SARS-CoV-2 uses the endothelium as a superhighway to the body’s systems. Endothelial infection makes vessels form micro-clots, which reduce oxygen delivery, as well as create micro-injuries, inflammation and dysregulated immune responses across multiple organs. The downstream effects can create complications “from head to toe.”

People are perhaps most familiar with the long-term respiratory problems which can result from COVID infections. In 2022, Buffy‘s lead actor Sarah Michelle Gellar reported her first known COVID infection.

“I realize I’ve been really quiet on here. After two and a half years COVID finally got me. Thankfully I’m vaccinated and boosted,” she wrote on an Instagram Story. “But to those out there that say ‘it’s just a cold’ …maybe for some lucky people it is. But for this (relatively) young fit person, who has struggled with asthma and lung issues her entire life, that is not my experience.”

Advertisement

“Even with therapeutics and all my protocols it’s been tough. I know I’m on the road to recovery, but it’s certainly not been an easy road. I’ll be back soon (hopefully with super antibodies…even if just for a bit),” Gellar continued. “To quote a friend of mine – ‘I will wear a mask in my shower if that means I don’t get this again.’”

Another WB star, Alyssa Milano, who played Phoebe Halliwell in Charmed, went public with her Long COVID diagnosis in 2021. Her acute infection in April 2020 began with stomach issues and fatigue. The infection produced sequelae associated with Long COVID, a condition with 200+ possible symptoms.

“I have always had every single symptom imaginable, so every symptom that they list whether it be from acute COVID or long COVID, I have had. Shortness of breath, heart palpitations, brain fog, exhaustion at 4 o’clock in the evening, tingling in my hands and feet and just forgetfulness,”

The number of people experiencing Long COVID which meets diagnostic criteria is estimated to be between 5%-20% of all people. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 1 in 20 people worldwide had Long COVID as of 2023. The CDC estimates that 1 in 5 people develop post-acute COVID sequelae.

Advertisement

The downstream effects of COVID infections can also lead to death.

How COVID causes premature deaths

Population studies have disaggregated excess deaths since 2020 by causes and age groups. A Lancet Regional Health—Europe paper examining post-2020 excess mortality reported that, in middle-aged adults (50–64), deaths involving cardiovascular diseases were 33% higher than expected.

Nicholas Brendon falls into this cohort.

The same study reported that, across all ages, excess deaths from all causes were higher than baseline, including cardiovascular diseases (12%), heart failure (20%), ischaemic heart disease (15%), acute respiratory infections (14%) and diabetes (13%).

Advertisement

The mechanisms underlying acute and post-acute COVID symptoms shed light on how infections can later lead to premature death.

For cardiovascular diseases, SARS-CoV-2 infection injures and inflames the endothelium, leaving arteries less able to deliver oxygen efficiently to heart muscle. In parallel, systemic inflammation can destabilize atherosclerotic plaques making the fibrous “cap” more likely to rupture. When a plaque ruptures, the body’s clotting system can rapidly form a thrombus that blocks a coronary artery and triggers a myocardial infarction (i.e. heart attack).

Nicholas Brendon also had clinical vulnerabilities, including a congenital heart defect and an addiction history. Repeated SARS-CoV-2 infection worsens the trajectory of those vulnerabilities. A Nature Medicine study found that people who survived the acute phase of COVID had a higher one-year risk of a wide range of cardiovascular diseases. With addiction history, a 2023 study reported that patients with alcohol use disorder who had a previous COVID infection had a significantly higher risk of incident cardiovascular diseases within 12 months than AUD patients without a COVID history. COVID presents an additive risk on existing vulnerabilities.

People are perhaps less aware of how COVID can lead to new-onset and aggressive cancers. James Van Der Beek, Shannen Doherty and Julian McMahon all died from cancers between the ages of 48-56.

Advertisement

Under normal conditions, “immune surveillance” means T cells and NK cells constantly identify and remove cells that look abnormal before they can grow into tumors. SARS-CoV-2 can create sustained immune dysregulation which reduces the efficiency of tumor surveillance while simultaneously creating inflammation. This is why cancers might present at a more advanced stage or behave more aggressively.

Michelle Trachtenberg died at the age of 39 from complications from diabetes.

SARS-CoV-2 can push people managing diabetes towards premature death by triggering inflammatory cytokines. These raise blood glucose and make the body’s tissues more insulin-resistant, so the same amount of insulin moves less glucose out of the bloodstream. In parallel, SARS-CoV-2 can also have direct and indirect effects on the pancreas itself, including β-cell dysfunction, which can reduce insulin secretion right when the body needs more. This creates a vicious cycle of higher glucose driving more inflammation and vascular stress.

Finally, Eric Dane died on February 19, 2026, at 53, with his official cause of death reported as respiratory failure and ALS listed as the underlying cause.

Advertisement

COVID has common and well-documented neurological sequelae. The underlying mechanism is that inflammatory signals can activate microglia (i.e. the brain’s immune cells) and disrupt the blood–brain barrier and the gliovascular unit. This increases neuroinflammation and makes neural tissue more vulnerable to secondary injury.

In ALS, progression is shaped by neuroinflammation, oxidative-stress and failures of protein homeostasis. A 2025 study focused on SARS-CoV-2 and TDP-43 found that inflammatory and oxidative signaling following a COVID infection, could push systems already near a threshold, such as vulnerable motor neurons and their supporting glia, toward accelerated degeneration.

Clinicians have documented rapid functional decline after SARS-CoV-2 infection in ALS patients who had previously been slowly progressive. Moreover, National ALS Registry mortality data have reported that motor neuron disease deaths were higher since the beginning of the pandemic than in the preceding years.

The end of COVID-19 reporting

The question is, if the weight of evidence points to an exponential increase in excess deaths since 2020, and the recent deaths of multiple WB stars are consistent with this shifted baseline, how are people not noticing? Or, if they are noticing, why are they shifting to the next topic?

Advertisement

One possible reason is a worldwide failure of government agencies to resource an effective long-term public health response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The United States’ federal COVID-19 public health emergency ended on May 11, 2023. Globally, the World Health Organization ended COVID-19’s status as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on May 5, 2023. And yet the WHO also emphasized that even though COVID no longer met the formal criteria for that emergency category, this did not mean it was no longer a public health threat.

That end of COVID as a public health emergency led to the scaling back of comprehensive testing and reporting. After May 2023, the U.S. moved from comprehensive case and lab reporting to fragmented surveillance systems like wastewater monitoring. In January 2026, a proposed funding cut would reduce CDC support for the national wastewater surveillance system from approximately $125 million to $25 million.

PCR testing has also been reduced, so many infections are not detected in the first place. At-home antigen tests aren’t reported into public systems, and those tests have high false negatives. Caltech found that at-home COVID tests had between 30% to 60% accuracy.

Advertisement

In this environment where monitoring for COVID has been substantially scaled back, one could be forgiven for assuming that COVID no longer presents a significant health risk.

How cognitive biases co-sign institutional silence

The systemic failure to address rising unexpected deaths from the secondary effects of COVID infections can be ratified on the individual level.

When public health agencies fail to address the ongoing COVID pandemic, authority bias can lead people to implicitly treat this silence as evidence that the danger has passed.

Even when increasing deaths are perceived, normalization bias can then turn this elevated harm level into the new normal. In conditions of sustained danger, humans adapt quickly, yet find it difficult to maintain chronic vigilance. For this reason, elevated harm can be perceived as normal because this frame is psychologically stabilizing but physically dangerous.

Advertisement

Once the harm is perceived as normal, motivated reasoning maintains this belief by selectively incorporating information that supports this worldview. People then downgrade, or wholly discount, contrary information to preserve the status quo.

Finally, system justification creates the belief that institutions are basically competent. Accepting that COVID has killed tens of millions more people than reported implies a magnitude of institutional failure that is psychologically costly to internalize. Even when people admit to a legitimacy crisis in other areas of governance, the belief that the system will alert people to health risks often remains.

The effect is circular reasoning. Because public health authorities do not communicate that there is an ongoing crisis of COVID deaths, this means that no crisis can possibly exist.

Let’s talk about how these cognitive biases may be working right now.

Advertisement

COVID’s bereavement crisis

Despite the official excess death figures and high-quality research on COVID’s mechanisms cited in this article, many readers may already have formulated reasons to discount the information.

One likely reason is causation. Because the epidemiological data does not prove that COVID directly caused Nicholas Brendon’s death in particular, the statistics don’t matter. Therefore, the 20+ million unexpected deaths and the settled knowledge about SARS-CoV-2’a multi-system damage can be wholly discounted as relevant to one’s own life.

Proving direct causation in a specific individual is an impossible standard.

The way deaths are recorded in the U.S. is not designed to trace a chain from infection months ago to vascular/inflammatory damage to a cardiovascular event today.” Most deaths are certified through clinical judgment on a death certificate, and what gets recorded is typically the immediate cause (for example, myocardial infarction, stroke, respiratory failure, etc.).

Advertisement

What‘s recorded and counted as a COVID death is a narrow range of cases where a clinician has a documented recent infection and a clinical picture that makes COVID feel obviously relevant to the immediate cause of death. This skews toward respiratory deaths during the acute stage of illness, rather than the deaths that occur later as heart attacks, organ failure, strokes, even pneumonias secondary to COVID infections.

Public health surveillance reinforces this, because they often operationalize COVID deaths within a time window after a confirmed positive test. The Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists’ guidance, for example, includes COVID deaths among cases where death occurs within 30 days of the specimen collection used to define the case. This means a COVID death is only counted when there is a confirmed positive test and only within 30 days.

Mis-coding according to apparent cause of death led to undercounting in previous pandemics. A CDC study of early AIDS deaths found that in 1983-1986, before HIV/AIDS coding procedures were implemented, it was listed as the underlying cause in only 46% of deaths among people with AIDS. Many others were recorded as pneumonia or other infections.

Finally, even obtaining postmortem forensic proof is rare. A National Vital Statistics Report found the U.S. autopsy rate was only 7.4% in 2020. Even when a death triggers an autopsy, the standard aim is to identify the proximate event, like an arrhythmia, pulmonary embolus, or overdose, not reconstructing the underlying mechanisms. This would entail examining where a past SARS-CoV-2 infection contributed through microscopic endothelial injury, microthrombi, or inflammation.

Advertisement

Another possible reason for discounting the hard data and clinical evidence is clinical vulnerability. According to this logic, Nicholas Brendon had a heart defect and addiction history, so dying at 54 is expected. Even though, as discussed, research points to COVID as an additive risk and probable accelerant for existing vulnerabilities. Clinical vulnerabilities are also more common than many assume. The CDC’s estimates the prevalence at six in ten U.S. adults living with at least one chronic disease. Four in ten live with two or more. So Nicholas Brendon’s clinical vulnerabilities are not rare exceptions, but place him within 40-50% of all people.

Moreover, excess mortality, by definition, counts deaths from all causes minus the deaths expected based on prior trends. So it includes people with and without clinical vulnerabilities and it is not epidemiologically valid to discount deaths because the people who died were not perfectly healthy. Those vulnerabilities are part of the expected death baseline that the model already assumes.

Some may find no easy opening to discount the logic of the data, so instead will dismiss the credibility of whoever presents it. This may take the form of thinking that it’s inappropriate to speculate on a high-profile person’s tragic death, even if reported as epidemiological contextualization and not personal health information. Therefore, because the messenger is perceived as flawed, the hard data can be safely discounted.

First, this should go without saying, but treating discomfort as a proxy for illegitimacy of argument is a moral contamination fallacy. Epidemiological data do not become less true or less relevant because someone finds the conversation unpleasant.

Advertisement

It also helps to separate two things which are often conflated: private medical information and epidemiological context. Publishing a private person’s test results or medical records would be personal health information and therefore both ethically fraught and usually unverifiable. Contextualizing a publicly reported premature death of a public figure within documented population data queries whether that kind of death is becoming more probable in the population and in that age cohort, given what excess mortality and research are showing.

Moreover, the public narrative around a high-profile death is often shaped by what representatives choose to release. If the only acceptable public language is whatever passes through a PR filter, premature deaths that plausibly align with settled knowledge about excess death probabilities will continue to be described as normal.

Finally, and perhaps most insidiously, many people may simply no longer have the capacity or desire to internalize the implications of mass deaths from COVID. Even if it ultimately means their own premature deaths, those of everyone they love, and for that matter the whole cast of the WB’s peak era.

The direct and indirect effects of premature deaths has likely compromised the collective capacity to assimilate new information. There is simply a psychological limit to what people can internalize when loss becomes repeated. Acute grief can cause a sense of unreality, or dissociation, even when people appear to be functioning outwardly. When the loss is sudden, or when multiple losses accumulate, there is risk of prolonged grief disorder.

Advertisement

The conservative estimate of 20 million excess deaths since 2020 means that many more people are experiencing bereavement. A demography study published in PNAS estimated that each COVID-19 death leaves approximately nine close family members, including parents, children, siblings, grandparents. That means 180 million close kin bereavements. If you widen the lens from kin to close relationships, including close friends, Dunbar’s social network model estimates an inner circle of 15 people. This means 300 million people losing someone in their closest circle, or approximately the populations of the U.S.

The next category is the people supporting the bereaved. If those 300 million bereaved people each have an inner support circle of 15, that is 4.5 billion people. Which is about half of the world’s population experiencing some form of caregiving stress.

This may explain why, at population scale, repeated premature deaths can produce a blunting form of disengagement that makes the implications of ongoing mass mortality difficult to integrate.

You may be able to think of someone right now who tragically and unexpectedly died since 2020–and yet feel unsure of how to incorporate this new information.

Advertisement

Seizing the means of vividness bias

Vividness bias is the tendency for a single concrete, emotionally legible example to outweigh data that are more relevant, but difficult to picture.

Vividness bias is often misused by reactionaries to bypass logic, as the Buffy episode “Gingerbread” dramatizes. Buffy’s mom Joyce Summers takes news of the alleged death of two children to attempt to burn her own daughter at the stake.

Vividness bias can also be used intentionally to break through numbness and spur oneself to action.

So let’s imagine structural denial about excess mortality as the unspoken agreement of the adults in the town of Sunnydale, California circa the late-1990s to ignore all the vampires.

Advertisement

Though it was never a monster-of-the-week in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, motivated reasoning arguably enabled far more deaths than any season’s “big bad.”

In “Angel,” after the vampire Darla bites Buffy’s mom Joyce Summers, Joyce returns from the hospital with no memory of the incident saying, “The doctor said it looked like a barbecue fork. We don’t have a barbecue fork.” In “School Hard,” after a literal vampire attack at Sunnydale High, the police chief asks Principal Snyder “So, do you want the usual story? Gang-related? PCP?”

The adults of Sunnydale have practical reasons for their motivated reasoning. They have jobs, mortgages, and social networks tied to the assumption that the town is a normal California suburb—and not a hellmouth where their children are daily being preyed upon by vampires.

There is also a deeper epistemic stake in motivated reasoning, where people are invested not just in their practical interests, but in their worldview. The psychological costs of admitting that their town is overrun by vampires are so intolerable that, rather than shifting their assumptions, many people downgrade the evidence. Or attack the messenger.

Advertisement

Perhaps the most extreme example is in the episode “Normal Again”, when Buffy is first called to be a slayer and her parents involuntarily institutionalize her in inpatient psychiatric. She explains how she got out by recanting: “I was only there a couple of weeks. I stopped talking about it, and they let me go. Eventually… my parents just… forgot.”

As teenagers, we may have been puzzled as to why the adults of Sunnydale were in denial, so why do we find ourselves in a similar position?

Resisting motivated reasoning

If you notice yourself agreeing with the evidence about excess deaths and COVID’s multi-system effects in the abstract, but finding it hard to internalize, Season 3 of Buffy gives two images which can make the data emotionally vivid.

In “The Wish” (Episode 9), we experience an alternate Sunnydale in which Buffy never arrived. The city is overrun with vampires and the people who are left are trying to keep daily life going inside a town that‘s been hollowed out by mass death. The season ends with a counter-model. In “Graduation Day, Part Two” (Episode 22), the Mayor is planning his ascension, where he will become a demon and massacre student body.

Advertisement

At the climax, the students stop finally admit that there is something wrong in the town and unite to defeat the Mayor. As the entire graduating class reveals the weapons hidden under their graduation attire, Xander himself takes command:

“First wave!”

“Bowmen!”

“Everyone! Hand to hand!”

Advertisement

Buffy the COVID Slayer

Buffy

In September 2025, Sarah Michelle Gellar posted behind-the-scenes images from the Buffy reboot. One photo showed her wearing a high-filtration mask.

This took courage.

Mask wearing has become so politicized that even a wealthy celebrity risks serious backlash. In the media industry, mask wearing can be professionally damaging. Formal COVID workplace rules have been rolled back and ongoing infection risk has become a liability issue. The joint Hollywood “Return to Work” COVID safety agreement, negotiated by SAG-AFTRA and other unions, expired on May 11, 2023, aligning with the end of the U.S. federal public health emergency.

As a result, the damage from COVID exposure on sets is currently being litigated. The family of Paul Woodward, a driver who was exposed to COVID while working on American Horror Story, sued for wrongful death. Additionally, actor Blake Lively’s lawsuit against director Justin Baldoni included allegations about on-set COVID exposure affecting her and her infant son. In that context, a high-profile actor wearing a mask on set is a public acknowledgement that COVID risk persists in media, even when the corporations that produce it are failing to protect its employees and resisting liability when harm inevitably occurs.

Advertisement

Nicholas Brendon died amid millions of premature deaths

Perhaps we can find it heartening that someone like Sarah Michelle Gellar is living the values of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, even in this small action of taking care of herself and others and having the courage to visibly refuse to collaborate with mass harm. Maybe the rest of us can take this as an impetus, not to conclude that Nicholas Brendon’s death was sad but unavoidable—as was Michelle Trachtenberg, Shannen Doherty, James Van Der Beek, Julian McMahon and Eric Dane—but instead recognizing that it happened in the context of tens of millions of premature deaths.

If you don’t know where to start with this knowledge, consider following Sarah Michelle Gellar’s lead.

Have the courage and care to wear an N95 mask.

Featured image and additional images via the Canary

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

The Drama Reviews: Critics Are Divided Over ‘Uncomfortable’ Film

Published

on

Robert Pattinson's character makes an unpleasant discovery about his bride-to-be in The Drama

While the secret at the centre of Zendaya and Robert Pattinson’s new film The Drama was kept under wraps in the lead-up to the movie’s release, it’s already sparked controversy and backlash from some critics.

The Drama centres around a seemingly happy young couple gearing up for their wedding day, only to wind up questioning everything when an innocent drinking game leads to a revelation that causes them to unravel.

Days before its release, critics began having their say on the film, and true to form, response has been decidedly split right down the middle.

Some more impressed critics have lauded it with five- and four-star reviews, while others have suggested it falls short of expectations laid out by its trailer.

Advertisement

One thing both its fans and detractors and can agree on, though, is that The Drama makes for some seriously “uncomfortable”, “unnerving”, “cringe-out-loud” and, often, “feel-bad” viewing.

Here’s what critics are saying about the film so far…

“The wedding from hell is an enduring rom-com staple and dutifully deployed in everything from The Philadelphia Story to Four Weddings And A Funeral to Bride Wars. Yet a nuptial apocalypse has rarely been explored with such dark intelligence and mordant wit as in this often piercing and cringe-out-loud dramedy starring Robert Pattinson and Zendaya.”

“No other film this year will make you feel as uncomfortable as The Drama. Don’t miss out on it.

Advertisement

“It’s provocative and compulsively watchable – a rom-com that obliterates the very meaning of the word, by thrusting love under the psychoanalyst’s microscope and tearing laughter by force from its viewers’ throats.”

Robert Pattinson's character makes an unpleasant discovery about his bride-to-be in The Drama
Robert Pattinson’s character makes an unpleasant discovery about his bride-to-be in The Drama

“[The Drama presents] a fascinating conundrum that sets off the fireworks in this darkly funny, yet explosively honest movie that may not be what you expect at all going in, but one that is bound to spark spirited conversation when you are walking out.”

“The drama of The Drama is visible in every uncomfortable stutter, every moment of avoided eye contact, every back turned instead of consolation offered. […] Zendaya and Pattinson both thrive in this environment, relishing the kind of dialogue exchanges you want to watch through your fingers […] As dark as it gets, it is often hilarious in that cruel, keen way that Borgli has proved to be a specialist.”

“The Drama has the spiky, ingenious, tasteless style of [director Kristoffer Borgli’s] previous film Dream Scenario, and both are superior to his unsubtle narcissism comedy Sick Of Myself.

“It offers us a provocation, a jeu d’ésprit of outrage, a psychological meltdown that is more astutely articulated than in many another more solemnly intended film. And it gives us what it promises in the title.”

Advertisement

“[The Drama promises] an edgy, provocative look at how a relationship might weather the intrusion of a distinctly American pathology. In disappointing reality, though, the film is merely a differently dressed rehash of very familiar material.

“It’s a deceptively simple dramedy of cold feet, of pre-wedding jitters, only given the stain of higher-minded, more piercing social inquiry.”

The Drama is poised to become one of 2026's most talked-about films
The Drama is poised to become one of 2026’s most talked-about films

“Robert Pattinson and Zendaya redefine the modern American love story in a rom-com that’s almost as fucked up as America itself […] The Drama is, by design, too unsettled for clarity, let alone social instruction.”

“Borgli is a gifted filmmaker, but in The Drama he never stops jumping around – back in time, and also within scenes, all to hook us into a note of toxic anxiety.

“He succeeds, but the mix of tones is unnerving and, at times, a bit baffling. Are we supposed to be cracking up, or sucking in our breath as the hero’s sanity cracks?”

Advertisement

“The Drama promises bombshell revelations and the wedding from hell, but serves up a cramped, feel-bad, unromantic comedy with characters we don’t care about.”

“[The Drama] actually wants viewers to connect with its two stars. It hopes to humanise them as complex people meant for one another and to demonise those critical of them as self-righteous hypocrites. But what gives this glib, circuitous film the right to persecute the apathetic when it barely understands its own characters?”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

‘Good Riddance’: Lawmakers Celebrate Pam Bondi’s Firing In Rare Bipartisan Moment

Published

on

'Good Riddance': Lawmakers Celebrate Pam Bondi’s Firing In Rare Bipartisan Moment

Donald Trump’s decision to sack Pam Bondi as attorney general is one of the few he’s made as president that actually got some sort of bipartisan support.

In a statement on his Truth Social platform, the president praised Bondi as “a Great American Patriot and a loyal friend, who faithfully served as my Attorney General over the past year,” adding that she is being transitioned to “a much needed and important new job in the private sector, to be announced at a date in the near future.”

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche will be taking over Bondi’s job as acting attorney general, and he praised his former boss on social media, saying that she “led this Department with strength and conviction and I’m grateful for her leadership and friendship.”

Bondi also received support from former Congressman Matt Gaetz, who was briefly considered for the attorney general post before withdrawing after several Republican senators objected to his nomination on ethical grounds.

Advertisement

“Pam Bondi will be known as one of the great crime fighters of our time,” he posted on X. “She is a patriot who has all of our appreciation.”

Bondi made her own social media post after her firing was announced, saying, in part, that she remains “eternally grateful for the trust that President Trump placed in me to Make America Safe Again.”

Over the next month I will be working tirelessly to transition the office of Attorney General to the amazing Todd Blanche before moving to an important private sector role I am thrilled about, and where I will continue fighting for President Trump and this Administration.…

— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) April 2, 2026

However, most of the social media responses from politicians on both sides of the aisle expressed overwhelming support for Bondi’s canning, often in very harsh terms.

Advertisement

Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer began his post with the words, “Good riddance.”

Good riddance. Pam Bondi was the wrong choice from the start.

But the rot at the Department of Justice begins and ends with Donald Trump. As long as his focus is on using DOJ as a tool for revenge and not law enforcement, the cover up of the Epstein files, along with the… https://t.co/kywfB2CAlW

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) April 2, 2026

House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries also went scorched earth against Bondi, calling her “a partisan, petulant, political hack.”

Advertisement

Pam Bondi is a partisan, petulant, political hack.

And now she’s GONE.

Keep the pressure on every single one of these extremists. pic.twitter.com/PamKKov0ek

— Hakeem Jeffries (@hakeemjeffries) April 2, 2026

House Republicans also applauded Bondi getting booted, with South Carolina’s Nancy Mace griping about how the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files “seriously undermined President Trump.”

Advertisement

BREAKING: Attorney General Pam Bondi FIRED.

Bondi handled the Epstein Files in a terrible manner and seriously undermined President Trump.

She has stonewalled every effort to hold the guilty accountable. The American people deserve an Attorney General who is transparent and… pic.twitter.com/zPOO7jOQpz

— Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) April 2, 2026

I support Trump firing Pam Bondi.
Do you?

I hope the next AG will release all the Epstein files according to the law and follow up with investigations, prosecutions, and arrests.

Advertisement

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) April 2, 2026

Other politicians chimed in to cheer Bondi’s removal as AG:

That’s nice. Still doesn’t get her out of testifying to Congress about Epstein.

We must also investigate the continued breaking of the law around the DOJ STILL hiding Epstein files from the public.

This isn’t over. https://t.co/UHXAN7vR1d

Advertisement

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) April 2, 2026

Pam Bondi turned our Department of Justice into the Department of Corruption, protecting pedophiles and going after Trump’s enemies list at the expense of the American people.

Good riddance. Now, fire Hegseth. https://t.co/iUJyrbUW28

— Tammy Duckworth (@SenDuckworth) April 2, 2026

Well… first it was Kristi Noem, now it’s Pam Bondi… it would be too much like right that Pete be next. I see a theme. He will throw the incompetent women under the bus a lot faster than the incompetent men 🤷🏾♀️.

Let’s just agree that America needs a “do over.” The President…

Advertisement

— Jasmine Crockett (@JasmineForUS) April 2, 2026

Dear @WhiteHouse: Pam Bondi would be wonderful at the super prestigious position you can create called the “Very Special Attorney General for the Shield of the Americas.” https://t.co/eCJq2x4bey

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) April 2, 2026

Pam Bondi oversaw an unprecedented weaponization of the Justice Department that brought our nation’s rule of law to its knees.

Countless and baseless political investigations, hundreds of career law enforcement professionals purged, a massive cover-up of the Epstein files, and a…

— Adam Schiff (@SenAdamSchiff) April 2, 2026

Advertisement

Instead of upholding the law, Pam Bondi weaponized the DOJ to avoid accountability, break the law, and go after Trump’s political enemies.

She should be fired. But then again, she never should have been hired.

Oh, and one more thing: RELEASE. THE. EPSTEIN. FILES.

— Rep. Shontel Brown (@RepShontelBrown) April 2, 2026

Attorney General Pam Bondi was just fired for the Epstein files coverup. The new AG must release all the files & prosecute the abusers. pic.twitter.com/gVMPwBJ9fc

— Rep. Ro Khanna (@RepRoKhanna) April 2, 2026

Advertisement

Pam Bondi helped carry out the most egregious cover up in American history. That’s why I introduced Articles of Impeachment against her.

She may be fired, but she is not above the law. Bondi must still comply with our subpoena and testify before the Oversight Committee about… pic.twitter.com/mLOnUPDFTR

— Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari (@RepYassAnsari) April 2, 2026

Pam Bondi and Donald Trump may think her firing gets her out of testifying to the Oversight Committee.

They are wrong – and we look forward to hearing from her under oath. https://t.co/PVtvjlny5Q

— Congressman Robert Garcia (@RepRobertGarcia) April 2, 2026

Advertisement

MAGA Attorney General Pam Bondi cashed in her integrity to keep her job and now leaves with neither.

It’s a lesson for people who fall for Trump.

— Sheldon Whitehouse (@SenWhitehouse) April 2, 2026

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

London Defence conference to face protests

Published

on

London Defence conference to face protests

On Friday 10 April at 12:00 pm, students and activists will mobilise outside Bush House at King’s College London (KCL) to protest against the London Defence Conference and to condemn the genocidal companies and speakers invited to the on-campus event.

London Defence Conference

First launched in 2023, the London Defence Conference is held annually and often hosts political leaders, military officials, and the defence industry to advance military strategy, spending, and lobbying. Not only were genocide-enablers such as Keir Starmer, David Lammy and many more invited to speak at the London Defence Conference in previous years, but murderous companies such as Palantir, BAE Systems, and more also sponsor or support the conference. These conferences create an atmosphere in which people in power can discuss, justify, and promote an increase in military spending.

Despite criticisms of being discriminatory by the UN, European countries and rights groups, ‘Israel’ has recently legalised the death penalty for Palestinian resistance fighters whilst continuously bombing Gaza, Iran, Lebanon, and brutally murdering thousands of innocent people in pursuit of their colonial expansionist plan.

Meanwhile, Keir Starmer’s United Kingdom continues to license over £500 million worth of military exports to ‘Israel’ and provide approximately 15% of the components in the F-35 fighter jets, which are used in airstrikes across the occupied Palestinian territory.

Advertisement

Our government is complicit in genocide.

As students, we refuse to let warmongers conduct their blood business on our campus, making deals where every handshake results in the dropping of bombs on houses, hospitals and schools.

Corporate complicity in genocide

However, it is not just our government that is guilty.

London Defence Conference’s sponsors and partnership companies are the epitome of brutality, violence and war. For example, Palantir has been a supporter and sponsor of the conference, with its executive vice chair and head, Louis Mosley, invited on stage each year. Palantir is one of ICE’s top corporate collaborators. ICE paid Palantir $30 million to build tools which allow them to identify and find people they want to deport.

Advertisement

In 2024, Palantir renewed its contract with the IDF and continued to provide them with AI systems designed to support precise military targeting, which their CEO, Alex Karp, would call “digital kill chains”, boasting of their effectiveness.

Another key supporter of the London Defence Conference is The Pinsker Centre. It was founded using AIPAC money, and originally named The Pinsker Centre for Zionist Education. It was explicitly created to counter pro-Palestinian activism on UK campuses. AIPAC channels money through the Centre to reshape campus debate. After 7 October, they co-authored a letter explicitly acknowledging that “innocent Palestinians will die” yet called on the UK government to support ‘Israel’ regardless.

‘We will not be bystanders’

A spokesperson for students at KCL said:

We are not naive about what this conference represents. The cycle is not complicated: arms companies fund conferences, conferences legitimise arms companies, governments sign contracts, and bombs fall on Gaza, on Lebanon, on Iran. What happens in occupied Palestine does not begin at the border. It begins here, at the centre of the empire, in the lecture halls and conference rooms of our own universities. King’s College London is not neutral ground. Every sponsorship deal struck within Bush House, every handshake between a defence executive and a politician, is a link in a chain that ends in rubble and mass graves.

Students at KCL refuse to be bystanders to this. We refuse to let the London Defence Conference proceed as business as usual while the institutions and companies it platforms continue to arm and enable genocide. The struggle for Palestinian liberation and all peoples suffering under the violence that conferences like this one bankroll, that struggle is our struggle too. It does not stay overseas. It starts right here.

Advertisement

KCL Stands For Justice (S4J) have organised a peaceful student-led protest outside Bush House at 12:00pm on Friday 10t April 2026, the first day of the London Defence Conference. This is in collaboration with over 80 other groups including Palestinian Youth Movement, Campaign Against Arms Trade, Defend Our Juries, and many more.

Featured image via the Canary

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

‘Totally Unhinged’: Trump’s Communications Chief Loses It After TV Host Tears Into President

Published

on

White House Communications Director Steven Cheung reacts to Abby Phillip's comments on "CNN NewsNight" in a post on Wednesday.

White House Communications Director Steven Cheung whined on social media after CNN host Abby Phillip called out President Donald Trump over the Iran war and his head-spinning foreign policy since he returned to office.

“Totally unhinged @abbydphillip of CNN has no sense at all,” Cheung wrote Wednesday on X.

His comments came minutes after the “CNN Newsnight” host responded to Republican ex-Representative Peter Meijer’s suggestion that the jump in oil prices in recent weeks is “so much less dramatic” than the administration’s expectations, and that Trump’s low polling numbers would still be similar even if Iran capitulated on Day 1.

“But don’t you think Americans are rational about paying a dollar more per gallon at the gas [pump]?” Phillip asked.

Advertisement

She went on: “I think they’re saying very clearly they do not think that this step needed to be taken.”

Phillip’s show aired not long after Trump wrapped up his prime-time address on the war, and she noted that the president’s speech lacked “new insights” on his administration’s objectives.

“The president basically repeated a lot of the things that he’s been saying in Truth Social posts, except he said it out loud,” the host said.

Advertisement

She later teed up a discussion on Trump’s insistence that America’s allies in Europe clean up his mess in the Strait of Hormuz, despite the president not consulting Nato before diving headfirst into the conflict in late February.

She proceeded to argue that Trump threw Nato’s future into question by not asking Denmark to expand US access to military bases in Greenland before threatening to annex the semi-autonomous Arctic territory, escalating an international crisis late last year.

That’s around the time when Cheung made his post on X.

“Complete lightweight who has no idea what she is talking about on foreign policy,” he continued. “It’s now clear why her ratings are in the shitter.” (“CNN NewsNight” was the network’s top show in the adult 25-54 demographic in February, per Nielsen data reported by Adweek.)

Advertisement
White House Communications Director Steven Cheung reacts to Abby Phillip's comments on "CNN NewsNight" in a post on Wednesday.
White House Communications Director Steven Cheung reacts to Abby Phillip’s comments on “CNN NewsNight” in a post on Wednesday.

Cheung’s latest meltdown on X joins several more of his gripes and grievances over the past year.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

What Is ‘Deadzoning’? The 2026 Travel Trend All About Logging Off For Real

Published

on

Opting to travel and not be highly accessible to work is growing in popularity.

We’ve all seen it: the person at the airport gate loudly telling their boss their Wi-Fi isn’t strong enough for video calls, clearly pretending to be stuck at home. Or that friend who, between bottomless mimosas at brunch, is furiously tapping out Slack messages.

Thanks to flexible schedules and “work-from-anywhere” policies, we technically can work from anywhere — even while on vacation. And yet that freedom has become a trap. Why bother using PTO when you can save it and fire off emails from a New York hotel room or an Airbnb on a bachelorette weekend?

The result: We’re traveling more than ever, but actually vacationing less than before.

Advertisement
Opting to travel and not be highly accessible to work is growing in popularity.

AleksandarNakic via Getty Images

Opting to travel and not be highly accessible to work is growing in popularity.

Between lagging Wi-Fi, comped breakfast buffets with unanswered Slack threads, and the ever-present fear of looking unproductive, we’re realizing that something has to change. Welcome to 2026, the year we all start “deadzoning.”

What is ‘deadzoning’?

Despite catching flights, not feelings, we’re all exhausted, because we’re blending business and pleasure a little too seamlessly. We’re permanently switched on: curating the perfect Instagram carousel, tracking breaking news alerts, fielding a relentless stream of group chat messages. “Deadzoning” is the antidote, the art of switching off and traveling in intentional silence.

“Deadzoning reflects a broader cultural shift away from constant connectivity and burnout,” Christina Bennett, a consumer travel trends expert at Priceline, told HuffPost. “After years of being ‘always on,’ travellers are actively seeking vacations that allow them to fully disconnect — mentally and digitally.”

Advertisement

“It’s especially resonating with Gen Z and millennials, who are increasingly prioritising mental health and presence over productivity,” she continues. “In fact, more than a third say they wish devices could be banned entirely while on vacation. At its core, deadzoning is about reclaiming time, focus, and real rest by choosing trips to destinations that force you to unplug and reset.”

How can we start ‘deadzoning’?

As always, it’s easier said than done. We all want to put our phones away… and yet somehow end up clocking 14 hours of screen time a day. Are we even awake for that long in a day?

My first real experience of “deadzoning” came post-breakup, as most breakthroughs do. I got dumped over text by someone who had recently told me he loved me (bold), and I felt the familiar urge to download every dating app going just to reaffirm my value. Instead, I booked a tiny cabin, borrowed my sister’s dog and disappeared off-grid.

Advertisement

I didn’t switch my phone off entirely — I was a single woman traveling alone, and my family was already convinced I was spiralling — but I did turn off the internet. The only thing I allowed myself was one daily text to my sister, confirming that her dog and I were very much alive. It was glorious. Within hours, the phantom urge to check my phone evaporated. No refreshing inboxes. No stalking his Instagram followers. Just trees, silence and a dog who couldn’t care less about my attachment issues.

“Travelers can set better work-life boundaries by being intentional before the trip starts,” Bennett said. “That includes setting a clear out-of-office message, delegating responsibilities in advance, and being upfront about limited availability. Destination choice matters, too — places like mountain towns, national park gateways, and quiet coastal escapes make it easier to step away from screens.”

Which trips are best for ‘deadzoning’?

Now, you don’t have to disappear to a tiny cabin with only a dog for company — though I highly recommend it. Entire businesses have been built around the art of switching off. One such brand is Unplugged, which specialises in off-grid cabin stays designed specifically for digital detoxing.

Advertisement

“Unplugged cabins are entirely off-grid and have no phones, Wi-Fi, or technology, and they provide all the offline essentials such as a phone lockbox, books, a physical map and an instant camera,” Unplugged co-founder Hector Hughes told HuffPost. “It’s much easier to be without your phone and laptop when the space is intentionally built for that purpose.”

In other words: If temptation isn’t there, you can’t give in to it.

“Booking a remote location in nature where the signal is naturally low is also a great choice,” Hughes continues. “There is no Wi-Fi or 5G in the mountains, so you are physically unable to check your phone.”

And it’s not just about going off-grid, it’s about choosing the right kind of environment. Alex Oldfield, co-founder of Curated Spaces — the world’s first booking platform powered by tastemakers — also shared a few guiding principles for planning the ultimate “deadzoning” escape:

Advertisement
  • Places with permission to slow down.
    Rural farm stays, remote cottages, coastal hideaways, cabins in the woods. Anywhere the pace of life is naturally gentle.
  • Design-led spaces that encourage presence.
    Homes with big windows, long communal tables, outdoor baths, and crackling fireplaces. When a space feels good to inhabit, you stop reaching for distraction.
  • Experiential rather than itinerary-heavy trips.
    The best “deadzoning” trips revolve around simple, tactile pleasures: swimming in the sea before breakfast, foraging walks, garden grazing, star-filled evenings, meals that stretch lazily into the afternoon.
  • Somewhere slightly out of reach.
    A winding country road, a ferry crossing, a slow train journey — just enough distance to create a psychological gap between everyday life and vacation time.

Because ultimately, deadzoning isn’t about punishment or proving you can survive without your phone. It’s about engineering a break that feels genuinely different from your normal life, one where the silence isn’t awkward, it’s restorative.

What are some tips for ‘deadzoning’ on your next trip?

My personal recommendation? Get dumped over text by a man who once said he loved you and borrow — or gently steal — someone’s dog for a few nights. Highly effective. Questionable scalability.

For those seeking something slightly less niche, here are expert-backed ways to engineer the perfect “deadzoning” vacation:

Lock away your phone

Advertisement

“If you can, lock your phone away so distraction is not an option,” recommends Hector Hughes.

You can even take a more inexpensive, less-addictive “replacement dumb-phone out with you” for emergencies, he suggested.

Airplane mode is your friend

Many of us can’t go fully off-grid. Safety, family, work — life still exists.

Advertisement

Hughes acknowledged this: “If you can’t lock your phone away, turn off all email and social media notifications or put your phone on Do Not Disturb or airplane mode. Put it in your bag (not your pocket) so you don’t feel the urge to pick it up out of habit.”

Go in with a plan

“Leave a rock-solid handover so nothing’s hanging over you, and tell people you’ll be offline (bonus points if your destination truly has no signal),” Oldfield said. “Don’t do the ‘feel free to ping me if anything comes up’ line — we’ve all said it, and we all regret it. Boundaries are completely fine, as long as you’re clear upfront and leave no room for confusion.”

Think of it like telling your partner you’re going to that 6 a.m. spin class. The second someone knows about it, you’re suddenly far more committed to following through.

Advertisement

Pick the right setting

“Switching off is way easier when the place itself helps you shake off your usual rhythm,” Oldfield said. “Maybe it’s a cabin surrounded by fields with no signal, a coastal cottage where you can live the fisherman aesthetic IRL, or a hotel where you can disappear into the spa and order room service after. It starts with choosing somewhere that makes slowing down feel natural.”

Environment is everything: You are far less likely to check Slack while staring at sheep.

Go analog

Advertisement

“Bring that book you’ve been meaning to read,” Oldfield suggested. “Cook something from an old recipe book, go for a long hike, play cards by the fire. Go for a mooch in the local town, get a little lost and ask for directions, shriek your way into a cold wild swim, write a letter. If you feel like you’re in a Jane Austen novel, you’re doing it right.”

Because at its core, deadzoning isn’t about rejecting modern life. It’s about remembering that we’re allowed to step away from it, even briefly, without the world collapsing in our absence.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Polling Expert Warns Labour Faces Major May Election Losses

Published

on

Polling Expert Warns Labour Faces Major May Election Losses

Labour is heading for “a total bloodbath” in the elections on May 7, according to a polling expert.

Voters will go to the polls in England, Scotland and Wales for the biggest test of public opinion since Keir Starmer won a landslide general election victory less than two years ago.

Since then, however, Labour and the prime minister’s popularity has plummeted following a series of gaffes, ministerial resignations, controversies and scandals.

Ben Walker, co-founder of polling analysts Britain Elects and a Labour councillor, said May 7 is shaping up to be disastrous for his party as well as the Conservatives.

Advertisement

In a post on X, he said: “Putting together the English local election forecast. Scotland and Wales done.

“I have to say, and not to give a sneak peak, but to affirm what’s been written elsewhere: this May is going to be absolutely terrible for the Tories. But a total bloodbath for Labour.”

Putting together the English local election forecast. Scotland and Wales done.

I have to say, and not to give a sneak peak, but to affirm what’s been written elsewhere: this May is going to be absolutely terrible for the Tories. But a total bloodbath for Labour.

— Ben Walker (@BNHWalker) April 3, 2026

Advertisement

Labour is facing defeat once again to the SNP in the Scottish Parliament elections, and could even come third behind Reform UK.

The party is also set to lose power in the Welsh Senedd for the first time since it was set up in 1999, with Plaid Cymru on course to form the next government.

Around 5,000 council seats are up for election on the same day, with analysis by the Financial Times last month suggesting Labour could lose nearly 2,000 as Reform and the Greens make major gains.

A by-election held on Thursday for a seat on Rossendale Borough Council provided a foretaste of what Labour can expect on May 7.

Advertisement

The party’s vote share plunged by nearly 28% as they lost the seat to the Greens.

Meanwhile, Reform polled 34.5% from a standing start, 15 points more than Labour.

Hareholme & Waterfoot (Rossendale) Council By-Election Result:

🌍 GRN: 37.7% (+9.2)
➡️ RFM: 34.5% (New)
🌹 LAB: 19.2% (-27.9)
🌳 CON: 6.8% (-17.6)
🔶 LDM: 1.8% (New)

Green GAIN from Labour.
Changes w/ 2024.

Advertisement

— Election Maps UK (@ElectionMapsUK) April 2, 2026

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

5 Ways To Make Walking Even Healthier

Published

on

5 Ways To Make Walking Even Healthier

The more I learn about the health benefits of walking, the more I understand why the NHS calls the exercise “overlooked”.

Walking as few as 2,337 steps a day can reduce your risk of heart attack and stroke, while a 1.6km stroll is linked to denser bones.

It can help your sleep, joints, and immune system, and may even lower your cravings for sweet foods. Walking for half an hour daily may add 1.4 years to women’s lives, and 2.5 to men’s.

But if you want to make a great thing even better for you, it turns out there are some simple changes – like bringing a friend on your walk, or taking a hilly route – that could be worth your while.

Advertisement

How can I make my walk healthier?

1) Walk briskly

All walking is good for us. But in one study, brisk walking was linked to a 20% reduction in premature death compared to just 4% for slower walkers.

The NHS said that we should aim for a 4.8km/hour pace. Speaking to HuffPost UK previously, Dr Hussain Ahmad said brisk walking “means you’re walking fast enough to feel warmer and breathe a bit harder, but [are] still able to hold a conversation”.

Advertisement

2) Take a hilly route if you can

“Incline walking,” or walking on a slope, seems to engage more muscles and raise heart rates higher than walking on a flat surface.

Speaking to HuffPost UK previously, GP Dr Suzanne Wylie said: “For many people, especially those who are new to exercise, carrying excess weight, managing joint pain or recovering from injury, incline walking can provide meaningful cardiovascular benefit and muscle engagement.”

Even downhill walking may benefit us, especially as we age.

Advertisement

3) Bring a friend

Speaking to the University of Oxford, Dr Arran Davis said that fatigue is much more determined by how we feel than by the actual condition of our muscles.

Social support helps to reduce and delay that perceived fatigue, helping us to push ourselves for longer. The effect is so strong that even seeing a photo of a supportive friend makes us feel less tired.

4) Try ‘Japanese walking’

Advertisement

10,000 steps a day is a marketing tool – scientists have since found that around 7,000 paces daily is enough to lower your risk of all-cause mortality by 47%.

But “Japanese walking,” a type of interval walking that involves walking for three minutes at a fast pace and then slowly for another three minutes until you reach a half-hour walking, may be one of the most beneficial ways to reach that goal.

A 2007 paper found that among middle-aged participants, people who followed that pattern enjoyed lower blood pressure, stronger thigh muscles, and better aerobic ability than those who walked 8,000 steps a day at a steady pace.

5) Walk for at least half an hour a day if you can (but remember that something is better than nothing if you can’t)

Advertisement

The NHS recommends getting 20-30 minutes of moderate-intensity activity, like walking, a day.

A 2023 review found that “Meeting current physical activity guidelines by walking briskly for 30 min per day for 5 days can reduce the risk of several age-associated diseases”; in post-menopausal women, for instance, half an hour’s walk a day was linked to a 40% lower risk of hip fracture.

Of course, until about 9,800 steps a day – when health benefits max out – more walking is generally better. But the NHS points out that “a brisk 10-minute daily walk has lots of health benefits,” and a recent study found that 4.5 minutes extra movement a day can reduce your heart attack risk.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Wes Moore criticizes Trump for talking about Medicare cuts

Published

on

Wes Moore criticizes Trump for talking about Medicare cuts

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore said it was “nonsense” for President Donald Trump to say that the United States should not have to pay for Medicare or day care because the nation was busy fighting wars.

“That’s nonsense,” Moore said in an interview that aired Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “And that’s not what any of us want. We don’t want to be fighting foreign wars while you’re taking away our health care.”

Moore was responding to a question by Ed O’Keefe about a statement the president made Wednesday at an Easter luncheon at the White House. “It’s not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things,” Trump told that gathering. “They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal. We have to take care of one thing: military protection. We have to guard the country.”

Video of the president’s remarks was posted on the White House online, but subsequently deleted.

Advertisement

In addressing those remarks, Moore said no state had the capability of replacing the federal government as a provider for everything.

“So many of the decisions that this White House is making, they are making with a clear understanding that no state has a budget to say, ‘OK, well, we’ll just take on health care,’ or ‘We’ll just take on food insecurity,’” he said.

Moore, who served in the 82nd Airborne Division in Afghanistan, also challenged how Trump has handled the Iran war — and all the side effects the war has caused.

“I think the president still does not have a full articulation as to why gas prices are going up in the first place, or what’s going to be necessary or required to be able to bring them down,” he said.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Farage Wrongly Says Simon Dudley Was Only Reform Housing Contact For Two Weeks

Published

on

Farage Wrongly Says Simon Dudley Was Only Reform Housing Contact For Two Weeks

Nigel Farage has wrongly claimed that a senior Reform UK official sacked for offensive comments about the Grenfell tragedy was only in his post for two weeks.

Simon Dudley was dumped by Farage as the party’s housing spokesman following a furious backlash to his remarks.

A major overhaul of building regulations took place after 72 people were killed in Grenfell Tower in west London in 2017.

But in an interview with trade publication Inside Housing, Dudley said the pendulum had “swung too far the wrong way”.

Advertisement

He said the Grenfell fire was a “tragedy” but added: “Sadly, you know, everyone dies in the end. It’s just how you go, right?”

Farage announced his sacking during a press conference on Thursday.

He said: “He’s no longer a spokesman for the party. That has been dealt with.”

In a bad-tempered interview afterwards with Sky News, Farage said: “He was appointed two weeks ago, he’s made these comments, he’s no longer there.”

Advertisement

But Reform actually announced Dudley had been handed the role on March 10.

In a press release, deputy leader Richard Tice said: “He understands planning, finance and regeneration. He knows how to get projects moving. That is exactly what we need. ”

Elsewhere in his Sky News interview, Farage tried to shift the blame for the row onto Tice.

He said: “I met [Dudley] once for two minutes, I don’t know the guy. Richard’s in charge of development, housing, economics. He thought he was the right person to put in place because of his considerable expertise in the area. That’s undoubted.

Advertisement

“But whether you’ve got expertise and media skills, where you’re not going to say something that trips yourself up, they’re different.”

Nearly 24 hours on from Farage announcing Dudley’s sacking, Tice has yet to publicly comment.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025