Suchergebnisse

International audience ; For endemic infections in cattle that are not regulated at the European Union level, such as bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV), European Member States have implemented control or eradication programs (CEP) tailored to their specific situations. Different methods are used to assign infection-free status in CEP; therefore, the confidence of freedom associated with the "free" status generated by different CEP are difficult to compare, creating problems for the safe trade of cattle between territories. Safe trade would be facilitated with an output-based framework that enables a transparent and standardized comparison of confidence of freedom for CEP across herds, regions, or countries. The current paper represents the first step toward development of such a framework by seeking to describe and qualitatively compare elements of CEP that contribute to confidence of freedom. For this work, BVDV was used as a case study. We qualitatively compared heterogeneous BVDV CEP in 6 European countries: Germany, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Scotland. Information about BVDV CEP that were in place in 2017 and factors influencing the risk of introduction and transmission of BVDV (the context) were collected using an existing tool, with modifications to collect information about aspects of control and context. For the 6 participating countries, we ranked all individual elements of the CEP and their contexts that could influence the probability that cattle from a herd categorized as BVDV-free are truly free from infection. Many differences in the context and design of BVDV CEP were found. As examples, CEP were either mandatory or voluntary, resulting in variation in risks from neighboring herds, and risk factors such as cattle density and the number of imported cattle varied greatly between territories. Differences were also found in both testing protocols and definitions of freedom from disease. The observed heterogeneity in both the context and CEP design will create difficulties when ...

Shows why the global appeal of the American dream is the root of its power, and why maintaining that power is predicated on maintaining the world's belief not only in the American dream itself, but also in the idea that the United States is the best exemplar of that ideal

Shows why the global appeal of the American dream is the root of its power, and why maintaining that power is predicated on maintaining the world's belief not only in the American dream itself, but also in the idea that the United States is the best exemplar of that ideal.

AbstractThis article is a reaction to the rapid changes many urban areas are undertaking in attempts to counter the contemporary terrorist threat since the devastating events of September 11th. The response of central London authorities both pre‐ and post‐ September 11th is used as the lens through which to view attempts to reduce the real and perceived threat of terrorist attack through the adoption of territorial approaches to security, both physical and technological, which are increasingly being utilized at ever‐expanding spatial scales. It argues that this situation all too often produces a scenario of 'splintered urbanism' as security rings are thrown up around carefully selected sections of cities deemed most at risk. It further argues for a balance to be struck between competing concerns for freedom of access, mobility and other democratic freedoms, and the need for cities to adopt increasingly militarized security perspectives in their counter‐terrorism efforts.Cet article présente une réaction aux rapides changements que de nombreuses zones urbaines entreprennent afin de contrer la menace terroriste actuelle depuis les ravages du 11 septembre. La réponse des autorités du centre de Londres, à la fois avant et après cette date, sert ainsi de loupe permettant d'observer les efforts de minimisation de cette menace d'agression, tant subjective que réelle. Il s'agit de démarches territoriales à l'égard de la sécurité (matérielle et technologique) appliquées de plus en plus souvent à des échelles spatiales sans cesse élargies. De cette situation, naît trop souvent un scénario 'd'urbanisme fragmenté', les anneaux de sécuritéétant jetés autour de portions soigneusement sélectionnées de villes jugées le plus en danger. L'article défend la nécessité de trouver un équilibre entre les préoccupations opposées que sont les liberté d'accès, mobilité ou autres libertés démocratiques et le besoin des villes d'adopter des perspectives sécuritaires de plus en plus militarisées dans leurs tentatives contre le terrorisme.