platoose

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

they're Nazis, and they cater to a Nazi audience

this track was even uploaded to a channel called "Goy World Order"

shame on @[email protected] for sharing this Nazi shit

 

Patients with suspected cancer may have to wait longer to get a diagnosis under government proposals due this week.

The target that all patients should see a specialist within two weeks of an urgent referral for cancer tests by a GP is expected to be scrapped under NHS England plans to streamline cancer targets.

Ministers have been consulting on the proposals to replace the nine existing cancer targets with just three.

Under a new “faster diagnosis standard”, three-quarters of patients should have a diagnosis or be told they do not have cancer within 28 days. Once diagnosed, patients should receive their first treatment within 62 days from referral or 31 days after the decision to treat.

That standard would replace the nine existing cancer targets, including the two-week wait between a GP referral and first consultant appointment; a one-month wait for care once a decision has been made to offer treatment for cancer such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery; and a two-month wait from the urgent GP referral to a first treatment of cancer.

The latest figures show that only 59% of patients in England started their first cancer treatment within two months of an urgent GP referral, well short of the 85% target. Only 62% of patients were seen within two months of a positive result from a national cancer screening test, compared with the 90% target.

When a consultation on the proposals began last year, the NHS highlighted that the current two-week target set no expectation of when patients should receive test results or have a confirmed diagnosis.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Pat Price, a visiting oncology professor at Imperial College London and co-founder of the Catch Up with Cancer campaign, accused ministers and NHS leaders of “fiddling around” in the middle of an NHS crisis and of watering down the targets.

“Changing the targets won’t help patients, unless we can treat patients better and quicker. And that means now increasing treatment capacity,” she said.

On breast cancer, the target is that 93% of women should be seen in a one-stop clinic in two weeks, but the figure is now 74%. Price said: “The target we think is only going to be 75% in 28 days – that’s actually worse. Is it really the best that government and senior NHS leaders can do is fiddle around with targets in the middle of this crisis?”

The BBC reported that the outcome of the consultation was expected to be announced within days, and implementing the changes would be subject to final approval by the health secretary, Steve Barclay.

Barclay said on the Today programme that the proposals were designed to improve outcomes and were what the sector wanted.

He said: “Any changes will be those where it’s been requested by clinical specialists within the cancer field and would be done in consultation with the leading cancer charities. The consultation has been about working with consultants, clinical leaders, as to what drives the best outcomes, what is the way of getting the best survival rates.”

Barclay said there had been a 28% increase in urgent GP referrals for suspected cancer and £2.3bn investment in 160 community diagnostic centres, with 114 of those open.

Prof Sir Stephen Powis, the NHS national medical director, said: “These proposals were put forward by leading cancer experts and have the support of cancer charities and clinicians. By making sure more patients are diagnosed and treated as early as possible following a referral and replacing the outdated two-week wait target with the faster diagnosis standard already being used across the country, hundreds of patients waiting to have cancer ruled out or diagnosed could receive this news faster.

“The proposals will also remove the need for unnecessary outpatient appointments in order to comply with waiting times rules, allowing more patients to be referred ‘straight to test’ and the wider deployment of diagnostic technologies including artificial intelligence.”

Dr Tom Roques, a vice-president of the Royal College of Radiologists, said simplifying the targets would make it easier for cancer teams to deliver care, but warned targets were no panacea.

“It’s important to remember that the targets are just a tool to try and improve care – the targets achieve nothing on their own. And the real need is investment in workforce, in newer ways of working, so we can improve the situation on the ground, which I think if you ask any cancer team is just not good enough at the moment for the patients,” he said.

“I think one of the problems that we have with targets as a whole is that they often focus on the process rather than the outcomes that are important to patients. So if you look at the old two-week target to see a doctor, you may not need to see a doctor to be diagnosed or not diagnosed with cancer, you may need teledermatology to assess your skin lesion and tell you whether it’s cancer or not. You may need to have an endoscopy test to quickly look and see whether you’ve got bowel cancer, and an artificial focus on ‘you must see a doctor by 14 days’ may not be the best way to get patients quickly through the system.”

Keir Starmer accused the government of “moving the goalpost” on cancer targets. “I want swifter diagnosis, of course I do – both for the individuals concerned and obviously for the health service,” the Labour leader said on a visit to Scotland.

“Under the last Labour government, we had targets, we hit those targets; we didn’t walk away when the going got tough,” he said. “With this government, it’s targets that they’ve repeatedly failed to hit. And now what they’re doing is moving the goalposts and even where they’re keeping targets [in place] after this streamlining, there’s targets they’re still not hitting.”

 

DEF CON Infosec super-band the Cult of the Dead Cow has released Veilid (pronounced vay-lid), an open source project applications can use to connect up clients and transfer information in a peer-to-peer decentralized manner.

The idea being here that apps – mobile, desktop, web, and headless – can find and talk to each other across the internet privately and securely without having to go through centralized and often corporate-owned systems. Veilid provides code for app developers to drop into their software so that their clients can join and communicate in a peer-to-peer community.

In a DEF CON presentation today, Katelyn "medus4" Bowden and Christien "DilDog" Rioux ran through the technical details of the project, which has apparently taken three years to develop.

The system, written primarily in Rust with some Dart and Python, takes aspects of the Tor anonymizing service and the peer-to-peer InterPlanetary File System (IPFS). If an app on one device connects to an app on another via Veilid, it shouldn't be possible for either client to know the other's IP address or location from that connectivity, which is good for privacy, for instance. The app makers can't get that info, either.

Veilid's design is documented here, and its source code is here, available under the Mozilla Public License Version 2.0.

"IPFS was not designed with privacy in mind," Rioux told the DEF CON crowd. "Tor was, but it wasn't built with performance in mind. And when the NSA runs 100 [Tor] exit nodes, it can fail."

Unlike Tor, Veilid doesn't run exit nodes. Each node in the Veilid network is equal, and if the NSA wanted to snoop on Veilid users like it does on Tor users, the Feds would have to monitor the entire network, which hopefully won't be feasible, even for the No Such Agency. Rioux described it as "like Tor and IPFS had sex and produced this thing."

"The possibilities here are endless," added Bowden. "All apps are equal, we're only as strong as the weakest node and every node is equal. We hope everyone will build on it."

Each copy of an app using the core Veilid library acts as a network node, it can communicate with other nodes, and uses a 256-bit public key as an ID number. There are no special nodes, and there's no single point of failure. The project supports Linux, macOS, Windows, Android, iOS, and web apps.

Veilid can talk over UDP and TCP, and connections are authenticated, timestamped, strongly end-to-end encrypted, and digitally signed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, and impersonation. The cryptography involved has been dubbed VLD0, and uses established algorithms since the project didn't want to risk introducing weaknesses from "rolling its own," Rioux said.

This means XChaCha20-Poly1305 for encryption, Elliptic curve25519 for public-private-key authentication and signing, x25519 for DH key exchange, BLAKE3 for cryptographic hashing, and Argon2 for password hash generation. These could be switched out for stronger mechanisms if necessary in future.

Files written to local storage by Veilid are fully encrypted, and encrypted table store APIs are available for developers. Keys for encrypting device data can be password protected.

"The system means there's no IP address, no tracking, no data collection, and no tracking – that's the biggest way that people are monetizing your internet use," Bowden said.

"Billionaires are trying to monetize those connections, and a lot of people are falling for that. We have to make sure this is available," Bowden continued. The hope is that applications will include Veilid and use it to communicate, so that users can benefit from the network without knowing all the above technical stuff: it should just work for them.

To demonstrate the capabilities of the system, the team built a Veilid-based secure instant-messaging app along the lines of Signal called VeilidChat, using the Flutter framework. Many more apps are needed.

If it takes off in a big way, Veilid could put a big hole in the surveillance capitalism economy. It's been tried before with mixed or poor results, though the Cult has a reputation for getting stuff done right. ®

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's a reference to the "We Should Improve Society Somewhat" meme, zinging the defeatist replies in this thread.