Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dilan Thampapillai, Senior Lecturer, ANU College of Law, Australian National University

The coronavirus and its attendant emergency measures are set to deliver a profound shock to the residential tenancy market.

How it will work out is anybody’s guess, but it is looking like a crisis.

Banks and governments have acted quickly.

The major banks are deferring mortgage payments for up to six months for customers whose income is hit by the coronavirus.

NSW and Tasmania have introduced bills that will make it difficult for landlords to evict tenants or terminate leases during the crisis.

The rushed laws are designed to prevent a raft of evictions and a spike in homelessness, but they raise almost as many questions as they answer.

Rent postponed rather than forgiven

Both laws put power in the hands of the minister, giving that person the power to make regulations during the coronavirus pandemic. Tasmania’s more closely prescribes what the minister can do.

And both are temporary. The NSW act has effect for six months and the Tasmanian bill for 120 days, although it can be extended by 90 days.

Neither law excuses tenants from their liability to pay rent. They merely prevent evictions during the emergency period.

Read more: Why housing evictions must be suspended to defend us against coronavirus

In effect they say that although tenants can stay, their landlords can later sue them for arrears.

While on paper, this suggests landlords will get their money, in practice they might not, and some will be tempted to issue notices of termination ahead of the minister taking action.

The minister’s regulations would most likely be prospective, meaning landlords would seem to be able to get away with it. But whether a tribunal would enforce the notices is another question.

The Tasmanian bill only permits landlords to apply for terminations where the landlord is in hardship. The NSW law has less detail, but would probably do the same.

Read more: Lessons from the Great Depression: how to prevent evictions in an economic crisis

In any event, most landlords who evicted would want to re-let, and that will prove difficult with inspections prohibited.

Sick tenants are unlikely to be evicted whatever the law. That is in nobody’s interests.

Cooperation in a crisis is desirable, but it is fraught in practice.

The law discourages communication

Representations made by landlords with the best of intentions can become binding under the equitable law of estoppel.

In essence, once landlords make representations they can be estopped (stopped) from going back on those representations.

In an environment where fortunes change quickly, this might become problematic.

Contract law is replete with cases of agreements varied or entered into with the best of intentions that ultimately turn sour.

Read more: The case for a rent holiday for businesses on the coronavirus economic frontline

Given there are tough and uncertain times ahead, a better approach than rushed laws might be a pragmatic one of exhorting both landlords and tenants to take the legitimate interests of each other into account.

If laws are to be made, there ought to be extensive consultation.

Even in the coronavirus pandemic this is doable and a good idea.

– ref. Rushed coronavirus tenancy laws raise as many questions as they answer – https://theconversation.com/rushed-coronavirus-tenancy-laws-raise-as-many-questions-as-they-answer-134781

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katherine Gibney, NHMRC early career fellow, The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity

In three short months, more than half a million cases of the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, have been reported worldwide.

The US now has the highest number of COVID-19 cases worldwide and Italy has reported more than twice as many COVID-19 related deaths as China. Deaths from COVID-19 in Spain have surpassed China in recent days, and it won’t be long before France and the US follow suit. COVID-19 has well and truly taken hold in the West.

While most people are being encouraged (or ordered) to stay at home to reduce the spread of COVID-19, this is not an option for frontline healthcare workers.

Read more: ‘The doctor will Skype you now’: telehealth may limit coronavirus spread, but there’s more we can do to protect health workers

Healthcare workers have been infected at an alarming rate

In countries whose health infrastructure has been overwhelmed by the sheer volume of severe COVID-19 cases, healthcare workers have been infected at an alarming rate.

In Italy, more than 6,000 healthcare workers have been infected, making up 9% of the total COVID infections. In Spain, 17% of female COVID-19 cases are healthcare workers (12% of all COVID-19 cases are healthcare workers). More than 2,000 healthcare workers in China had laboratory confirmed COVID-19, with 88% occurring in the worst affected Hubei province.

In Australia, COVID-19 patients are cared for in single rooms where available. However, soon it will be necessary to care for COVID-19 patients in wards and ICUs alongside other COVID-19 patients – known as “cohorting” – as a patient with COVID-19 cannot catch the same disease from another patient sharing their ward.

COVID-19 is transmitted primarily by virus-containing droplets that are expelled when an infectious person sneezes, coughs or talks, contaminating others in close face-to-face proximity and nearby surfaces. This underlies the general advice to stay more than 1.5 metres away from others, practice good cough etiquette and hand hygiene, and avoid touching your face with your hands.

The number of masks, goggles, gloves and gowns we’ll need is staggering

Healthcare workers use personal protective equipment (PPE) – masks, goggles, gloves and gowns – and clean surfaces to prevent transmission in hospital.

Some procedures that are required when caring for critically ill patients can generate smaller virus-containing particles called aerosols, which can be inhaled.

In circumstances where aerosols could be generated, PPE requirements include use of a respirator mask (also known as a P2 or N95 mask) and a negative room pressure, where a slight vacuum is created to prevent contaminated air escaping the room.

The volume of PPE required to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic is staggering.

The WHO has estimated frontline healthcare workers will require at least 89 million masks, 30 million gowns, 1.6 million goggles, 76 million gloves, and 2.9 million litres of hand sanitiser every month during the global COVID-19 response.

Hoarding and misuse of masks puts healthcare workers at risk

The WHO has also noted panic buying, hoarding and misuse of PPE are putting lives at risk from COVID-19 and other infectious diseases.

Healthcare workers are most at risk if they don’t use appropriate PPE when caring for a COVID-19 patient, such as before the COVID-19 infection has been recognised. This is how a number of unlucky Australian healthcare workers have already been infected with COVID-19 at work, including four from the Werribee Mercy Hospital in Melbourne’s outer west.

Early recognition of potential COVID-19 cases, and instituting precautions including isolation and use of PPE, will protect healthcare workers. Routine use of surgical masks in high-risk clinical settings such as emergency departments, ICUs and COVID-19 screening clinics is now recommended in many places.

PPE supplies in many countries have reportedly been exhausted, forcing healthcare workers to care for COVID-19 patients without adequate protection. Inappropriate and irrational use of PPE, including use of masks in situations where there is no risk of droplet or airborne transmission, accelerate consumption of a finite PPE supply.

The urgent work of securing more PPE

The federal, state and territory governments are working hard to secure enough PPE to prevent this scenario in Australia, including boosting domestic production and manufacturing capacity. Local industry has stepped up with companies previously making other products now making hand hygiene products and masks.

This is urgent work because it’s likely a rapid surge in COVID-19 cases would consume current PPE supplies quickly.

Crisis strategies being employed internationally to deal with mask shortages include prolonged use, re-use by a single healthcare worker, and use beyond the manufacturer designated shelf life, although these are not standard practice. Work is also taking place around sterilisation of masks for re-use by health care workers, which again is not standard practice.

Healthcare workers are also at risk if PPE is used incorrectly, due to inadequate training, inattention, or fatigue. Training healthcare workers in correct use of PPE is a critical part of our emergency response.

Like everyone else, healthcare workers are at risk outside work. In China, outside Hubei, the majority of healthcare workers’ infections could be traced to a confirmed COVID-19 case in the household. As community transmission of COVID-19 becomes more widespread in Australia, more healthcare workers will be infected at home and in the community.

When healthcare workers can’t work

It’s vital the healthcare workforce is maintained for the duration of the pandemic. Perversely, some of the actions taken to prevent COVID-19 transmission might result in healthcare workers’ workplace absenteeism. Often healthcare workers would work through a mild upper respiratory tract infection, but with the current heightened awareness they might not be doing this. All healthcare workers are being encouraged to present for testing if they have fever or acute respiratory symptoms such as sore throat, cough and difficulty breathing. They are usually unable to return to work until a negative COVID-19 test result is received and symptoms have resolved. This can take several days.

If a healthcare worker is exposed to a COVID-19 case when not wearing PPE (meaning they spend more than 15 minutes face-to-face or more than two hours in the same room as a case), they will be classed as a close contact and will be home-quarantined and unable to work for 14 days after they were exposed.

And carer responsibilities – either for someone unwell with COVID-19 or for children unable to attend childcare or school due to closures – will keep many healthcare workers away from work.

In the current climate, healthcare workers have been described as “every country’s most valuable resource.” Governments, employers and the public need to do everything they can to protect and support healthcare workers throughout this pandemic.

Read more: Why coronavirus may forever change the way we care within families

– ref. Supplies needed for coronavirus healthcare workers: 89 million masks, 30 million gowns, 2.9 million litres of hand sanitiser. A month. – https://theconversation.com/supplies-needed-for-coronavirus-healthcare-workers-89-million-masks-30-million-gowns-2-9-million-litres-of-hand-sanitiser-a-month-134786

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Terry Goldsworthy, Associate Professor in Criminology, Bond University

As coronavirus continues to affect all aspects of life, law enforcement agencies are playing a more pivotal role in enforcing new health and social regulations while ensuring society continues to function in a civil manner.

So why is law enforcement important in our battle against COVID-19, and what role will it play?

Police help contain the virus

Several Australian police services have set up dedicated resources to assist in containing the virus. These include major incident rooms and operations and specific new taskforces.

Victoria has established a 500-strong contingent to compel the closure of all but essential services. As well as the shutdown measures, police and authorised officers will be enforcing mandatory self-isolation periods for anyone entering Victoria from overseas. Under Victoria’s state of emergency, breaking quarantine conditions carries fines of up to A$20,000 for individuals and nearly A$100,000 for businesses.

In New South Wales, police have been required to limit large gatherings in public and restrict access to beaches, removing swimmers and surfers where necessary.

The state government this week granted police enhanced powers to enforce public health orders relating to COVID-19. This includes the power to arrest people breaching their quarantine. Police will be able to compel suspected COVID-19 cases to remain in isolation. The bill will:

allow a police officer to arrest a person who the officer reasonably suspects of contravening a public health order in relation to COVID-19 and returning the person to their usual place of residence or their place of detention.

In conducting similar checks, Victoria Police discovered seven people were not self-isolating as required during spot checks this week.

Such enforcement activity brings with it a unique set of problems. Reports this week indicated up to 200 Victorian police staff are already in quarantine. Concerns were raised about a lack of protective equipment for officers. The powerful Police Association wants a state of disaster declared to free up police to act with greater efficiency and additional powers.

Read more: We need to consider granting bail to unsentenced prisoners to stop the spread of coronavirus

In Queensland, police recruits have been fast-tracked through the academy to provide extra personnel. In addition, Operation Sierra Linnet was launched, a multi-agency taskforce that will ensure compliance with restrictions for all pubs, registered and licensed clubs, gyms, indoor sporting venues, casinos and night clubs.

From midnight Wednesday this week Queensland police have been harnessing their random roadside breath-testing skills to curtail non-approved border crossings.

What impact might coronavirus have on crime?

While police are being asked to extend their range of duties into our everyday activities, in other areas they are pulling back from traditional roles. For example, Queensland police have stopped static random breath test sites because of coronavirus fears.

It is probable police will respond to essential call-outs only, as has happened in some other countries. Even then response times might be longer than before.

We should not be concerned that fewer uniformed police will have an impact on public safety – it is common for police to exercise largely peacekeeping functions. This was highlighted in the Kansas City Patrol Experiment in the 1970s, which found formal police patrols did not impact on crime rates or community fear of crime.

As a consequence of the virus, we have seen criminal elements attempt to take advantage of emerging markets. In the UK, police arrested men who had allegedly stolen toilet paper and hand wash. In Sydney, two men threatened staff with a knife while trying to steal toilet paper.

The strain on our social cohesion is showing, with fights erupting between shoppers as they try to obtain items now in short supply.

In response, the prime minister this week announced his government was creating a new offence to target people hoarding essential goods in an effort to prevent price gouging and exports of products needed to reduce the spread of coronavirus. He said:

These measures will help prevent individuals purchasing goods including face masks, hand sanitiser and vital medicines and either reselling them at significant mark-ups or exporting them overseas in bulk, which prevents these goods from reaching people who need them in Australia.

It isn’t only New York that has two-hour wait queues for firearms and ammunition – consumers are stocking up on ammunition here as well.

What does the future hold?

Trying to predict crime transformations due to coronavirus is difficult. It is likely there will be surges in some crime categories and reductions in others due to conditions created by the crisis.

“Break and enter” offences in private dwellings will probably decline under a widespread lockdown that keeps people in their homes. Alcohol-fuelled violence in public spaces is certain to drop significantly with the closures of pubs, clubs, casinos and restaurants. However, domestic violence incidents are predicted to rise over time, with interpersonal tensions in restricted living arrangements.

Read more: Stay positive, Scott Morrison: when you berate people for bad behaviour, they do it more

Given the uncertainty and the ever-changing situation facing us all, policing needs to be agile and flexible in its response to the needs of society and the demands of governments.

Our law enforcement agencies will perform a critical role in combating the virus and ensuring public safety.

– ref. Explainer: why police will be crucial players in the battle against coronavirus – https://theconversation.com/explainer-why-police-will-be-crucial-players-in-the-battle-against-coronavirus-134392

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Patrick Fair, Adjunct Professor, School of Information Technology, Deakin University

Borders, beaches, pubs and churches are closed, large events are cancelled, and travellers are subject to 14 days’ isolation – all at significant cost to taxpayers and the economy. But could telecommunications technology offer a more targeted approach to controlling the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus?

One possibility is to use location history data from the mobile phones of confirmed cases, to help track and trace the spread of infection.

Some people can be contagious without knowing, either because they have not yet developed symptoms, or because their symptoms are mild. These individuals cannot be identified until they become sufficiently unwell to seek medical assistance. Finding them more quickly could help curb the spread of the disease.

This suggestion clearly raises complex privacy issues.

Read more: Explainer: what is contact tracing and how does it help limit the coronavirus spread?

All mobile service providers in Australia are required to hold two years of data relating to the use of each mobile phone on their network, including location information.

For anyone who tests positive with COVID-19, this data could be used to list every location where they (or, more accurately, their phone) had been over the preceding few weeks. Using that list, it would then be possible to identify every phone that had been in close proximity to the person’s phone during that time. The owners of those phones could then be tested, even though they may not necessarily have developed symptoms or suspected that they had come into contact with the coronavirus.

The government could do this in a systematic way. It could assemble everyone’s location history into a single, searchable database that could then be cross-referenced against the locations of known clusters of infection. This would allow contact tracing throughout the entire population, creating a more proactive way to track down suspected cases.

The privacy problem

You may well ask: do we want the government to assemble a searchable database showing the locations of almost every person over 16 in Australia over the past month?

Some people will undoubtedly find it a confronting prospect to be contacted by the government and told that surveillance analysis suggests they need to be isolated or tested. Others will be concerned that such a database, or the broad surveillance capability that underpins it, could be used to intrude on our privacy in other ways.

Several countries are already using mobile phone data in the fight against the coronavirus. The UK government is reportedly in talks with major mobile phone operators to use location data to analyse the outbreak’s spread.

India, Hong Kong, Israel, Austria, Belgium, Germany are also among the list of countries taking advantage of mobile data to tackle the pandemic.

The Singapore government has launched an app called Trace Together, which allows mobile users to voluntarily share their location data. Iran’s leaders have been accused of being rather less transparent, amid reports that its coronavirus “diagnosis” app also logs people’s whereabouts.

Is it legal anyway?

We may well take the view that the privacy risks are justified in the circumstances. But does the Australian government actually have the power to use our data for this purpose?

The Telecommunications Act requires carriers to keep telecommunications data secure, but also allows federal, state and territory governments to request access to it for purposes including law enforcement, national security, and protecting public revenue.

Being infected with COVID-19 is not a crime, and while a pandemic is arguably a threat to national security, it is not specifically listed under the Act. Limiting the outbreak would undoubtedly benefit public revenue, but clearly the primary intent of contact tracing is as a public health measure.

There is another law that could also compel mobile carriers to hand over users’ data. During a “human biosecurity emergency period”, the Biosecurity Act 2015 allows the federal health minister to take any action necessary to prevent or control the “emergence, establishment or spread” of the declared emergency disease. A human biosecurity emergency period was declared on Sunday 23 March.

Read more: Explainer: what are the laws mandating self-isolation and how will they be enforced?

In recent years there has been a great deal of debate over the use of telecommunications data for surveillance purposes. The introduction of the mandatory data retention regime was contentious, as was the broad power granted to multiple agencies to access the data for law enforcement.

One reason for the controversy was the relatively low threshold for use of these laws: authorities could access data relating to any suspected offence punishable by three years or more in prison.

Australia is now facing a crisis that is orders of magnitude more serious. Many Australians would be willing to see their information used in this way if it saves lives, limits the economic impact, and impedes the spread of COVID-19.

The Commonwealth has the legal power to do it, the security and privacy issues can be managed, and the benefits may be significant.

– ref. Privacy vs pandemic: government tracking of mobile phones could be a potent weapon against COVID-19 – https://theconversation.com/privacy-vs-pandemic-government-tracking-of-mobile-phones-could-be-a-potent-weapon-against-covid-19-134895

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tauel Harper, Lecturer, Media and Communication, UWA, University of Western Australia

Tonight, for the first time in its 12-year history, my weekly boardgame group will meet online, instead of our regular weekly in-person sessions. Tomorrow night, a planned dinner with friends has been downgraded to sharing wine and cheese over Skype, something we are referring to as “facewine”.

COVID-19 isolation is bringing out the bad puns and forcing everyone to find new ways to socialise, organise and actualise.

In some ways, we have never been more ready for physical isolation. Tools such as Zoom, Skype, Discord, Google hangouts and the myriad messenger apps mean that we already have the tools to stay “in touch”, even when actual touching is out of the question. But what happens when we meet in real life (IRL) is far more complex than information transmission. Given we are all bound to do our communicating online for a while, it’s worth revisiting some of the challenges this poses.

Access

One of the first principles of good communication is that everyone ought to be able to participate.

In some ways technology makes being a participant easier – there are no traffic or parking hassles to deal with. However there is still a digital divide, not only between those who have NBN fibre to the home and those that do not, but also between those who understand how to use software and hardware and those that do not. Many people may need a lot of support to deal with passwords and unstable connections on older model “smartphones”.

Solution: Most people these days can get online but it is a mistake to assume this is simple for all, and it is important to offer support and help when setting up meetings. Distribute guides and tips to your group well before you are due to meet and prompt them to make sure they can use the tech beforehand.

Nonverbal cues

Once online there’s likely to be more interruptions and awkward silences than you’d find in a real life conversation. It’s also more difficult to pick up conversational nuances and humour.

These problems arise because we are not as aware of each others nonverbal cues over video or audio link as we are in person. Nonverbal cues or paralanguage to make up more than half our communication. While a committed participant can pick up more body language, secondary sound and facial expression than a disinterested one, there is still a lot that is missed (light, position, relationality, smell and tone). In person, a sharp intake of breath might signal the speaker wants to say something. A shift in posture might indicate interest.

Similarly, cues are unlikely to be noticed by the whole group simultaneously and this disrupts the flow of conversation, particularly for novices who may find the experience profoundly unsettling.

Solution: In the first instance, laugh at the problems, it’s part of the process and you’ll figure out new conversational patterns as you go. Emoticons, memes and emojis are digital tools devised precisely to overcome the lack of nuance in verbal communication. It can be useful to master a few symbols to overcome the lack of expressive engagement, and emoticons are also a great way of engaging in what is being said verbally without really interrupting.

Group dynamics

Digital platforms are not great at facilitating conversational “breakouts” where large groups spontaneously separate into smaller groups holding different conversations at the same time. Unlike physical space, speakers are stuck in a fixed position relative to each other. While many platforms allow you to facilitate break out conversations, there is no polite or spur of the moment way to coordinate them unless you commit to them as a group.

Solution: Try to remain focussed on group issues and commit to catching up one-on-one at other times. Think about the many affordances of the technology, which can allow you to do more as a group. If you are talking about a wine, screen share some images of the vineyard or region it comes from; if you’re meeting for a book club maybe try to pre-arrange a Skype call with the author you are discussing, or a critic. Our games group will make the most of this by arranging an online session with old members who moved across the country years ago, something our traditional “in-person” games night did not allow.

Overall there is a lot we can’t share online (and some stuff we shouldn’t) so we have to make more of an effort to share what we need to. It is particularly important to take extra care to be a great listener.

Encourage engagement, ask questions and seek to really understand each other; be extra forgiving of frustrations and disagreements. Remember that communication is not just about transmitting information, it is about sharing experiences.

– ref. Say what? How to improve virtual catch-ups, book groups and wine nights – https://theconversation.com/say-what-how-to-improve-virtual-catch-ups-book-groups-and-wine-nights-134655

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ayesha Tulloch, DECRA Research Fellow, University of Sydney

As Australians try to maintain social engagement during self-isolation, citizen science offers a unique opportunity.

Defined as “public participation and collaboration in scientific research”, citizen science allows everyday people to use technology to unite towards a common goal – from the comfort of their homes. And it is now offering a chance to contribute to research on the coronavirus pandemic.

With so many of us staying home, this could help build a sense of community where we may otherwise feel helpless, or struggle with isolation.

Read more: Can’t sleep and feeling anxious about coronavirus? You’re not alone

Anyone is welcome to contribute. You don’t need expertise, just time and interest. Projects exist in many forms, catering to people of diverse ages, backgrounds and circumstances. Many projects offer resources and guides to help you get started, and opportunities to collaborate via online discussion forums.

Ditch the news cycle – engage, gain skills and make a difference

Scientists worldwide are racing to find effective treatments and vaccines to halt the coronavirus pandemic. As a citizen scientist, you can join the effort to help tackle COVID-19, and other infectious diseases.

Foldit is an online game that challenges players to fold proteins to better understand their structure and function. The Foldit team is now challenging citizen scientists to design antiviral proteins that can bind with the coronavirus.

The highest scoring designs will be manufactured and tested in real life. In this way, Foldit offers a creative outlet that could eventually contribute to a future vaccine for the virus.

Another similar project is Folding@home. This is a distributed computing project that, rather than using you to find proteins, uses your computer’s processing power to run calculations in the background. Your computer becomes one of thousands running calculations, all working together.

One way to combat infectious diseases is by monitoring their spread, to predict outbreaks.

Online surveillance project FluTracking helps track influenza. By completing a 10-second survey each week, participants aid researchers in monitoring the prevalence of flu-like symptoms across Australia and New Zealand. It could also help track the spread of the coronavirus.

Such initiatives are increasingly important in the global fight against emerging infectious diseases, including COVID-19.

Another program, PatientsLikeMe, empowers patients who have tested positive to a disease to share their experiences and treatment regimes with others who have similar health concerns. This lets researchers test potential treatments more quickly.

The program recently set up a community for people who have contracted COVID-19 and recovered. These individuals are contributing to a data set that could prove useful in the fight against the virus.

Environmental projects need your support too

If you’d like to get your mind off COVID-19, there’s a plethora of other options for citizen scientists. You can contribute to conservation and nature recovery efforts – a task many took to after the recent bushfires.

Read more: Coronavirus: seven ways collective intelligence is tackling the pandemic

Some sites ask volunteers to digitise data from ongoing environmental monitoring programs. Contributors need no prior experience, and interpret photos taken with remote digital cameras using online guides. One example is Western Australia’s Western Shield Camera Watch, available through Zooniverse.

Other sites crowdsource volunteers to transcribe data from natural history collections (DigiVol), historical logbooks from explorers, and weather observation stations (Southern Weather Discovery).

Citizen science programs such as eBird, BirdLife Australia’s Birdata, the Australian Museum’s FrogID, ClimateWatch, QuestaGame, NatureMapr, and the Urban Wildlife App, all have freely available mobile applications that let you contribute to “big” databases on urban and rural wildlife.

Nature watching is a great self-isolation activity because you can do it anywhere, including at home. Questagame runs a series of “bioquests” where people of all ages and experience levels can photograph animals and plants they encounter.

In April, we’ll also have the national Wild Pollinator Count. This project invites participants to watch any flowering plant for just ten minutes, and record insects that visit the flowers. The aim is to boost knowledge on wild pollinator activity.

The data collected through citizen science apps are used by researchers to explore animal migration, understand ranges of species, and determine how changes in climate, air quality and habitat affect animal behaviour.

Read more: As heat strikes, here’s one way to help fight disease-carrying and nuisance mosquitoes

This year for the first time, several Australian cities are participating in iNaturalist’s City Nature Challenge. The organisers have adapted planned events with COVID-19 in mind, and suggest ways to document nature while maintaining social distancing. You can simply capture what you can see in your backyard, or when taking a walk, or put a moth light out at night to see what it attracts.

Connecting across generations

For those at home with children, there are a variety of projects aimed at younger audiences.

From surveying galaxies to the Bird Academy Play Lab’s Games Powered By Birds – starting young can encourage a lifetime of learning.

If you’re talented at writing or drawing, why not keep a nature diary, and share your observations through a blog.

By contributing to research through digital platforms, citizen scientists offer a repository of data experts might not otherwise have access to. The Australian Citizen Science Association (ACSA) website has details on current projects you can join, or how to start your own.

Apart from being a valuable way to pass time while self-isolating, citizen science reminds us of the importance of community and collaboration at a time it’s desperately needed.

– ref. Citizen science: how you can contribute to coronavirus research without leaving the house – https://theconversation.com/citizen-science-how-you-can-contribute-to-coronavirus-research-without-leaving-the-house-134238

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Bret Hart, Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor Curtin Medical School Public Health Physician, Curtin University

You might have heard about contact tracing which, when combined with social distancing, has proven a powerful asset in controlling the spread of COVID-19.

In short, it means assigning a “contact tracer” to interview each person with a confirmed case of COVID-19. The contact tracer, through painstaking and quick detective work, finds out who else might have already acquired the virus from the infectious person, or been exposed.

“Close contacts” of a person who might have COVID-19 can then be isolated (if sick) or quarantined (if well) to lessen further spread of the virus. The contact tracer will be especially interested in any contact who may be in a higher-risk group, such as older or immuno-compromised people.

This technique has also been used to better understand and limit the spread of HIV, meningitis and other diseases. It is a powerful tool discovered almost a century ago to limit the spread of sexually transmitted infections from and to American troops.

Read more: How do we detect if coronavirus is spreading in the community?

Close contacts

The COVID-19 virus is located in the respiratory tract and is spread when someone coughs or sneezes, dispersing infected droplets like a scatter gun.

Several people can be infected from one COVID-19 positive person, even by later entering a room and touching contaminated objects.

So contact tracing under these circumstances is challenging. The droplet spreader will have to recall his or her movements carefully.

The contact tracer will be especially interested to know:

• who has this confirmed case met or talked with recently? Was it inside or outside?
• who have they sat near, for example in a lecture hall or other enclosed space?
• have they been to a big event like a footy match?

Queensland Health succinctly summarises the procedure, in accordance with the Communicable Disease Network Australia guidelines, saying:

Close contacts are those who have had face-to-face contact with a confirmed case for a period more than 15 minutes, or those who have shared an enclosed space with a confirmed case for more than two hours.

We are not looking for people the person may have passed on the street or in a shop, as the risk in these situations is extremely low.

If you have been in close contact with someone who has a confirmed case of novel coronavirus you need to self-quarantine for 14 days from your last contact with them. If you become unwell during that period, see a doctor immediately.

And here’s how Singapore explains their contact tracing process, well-honed by previous experience managing Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and H1N1 influenza (sometimes called bird flu):

To facilitate the process, Victoria is using a new text messaging system to monitor close contacts.

Read more: Can coronavirus spread through food? Can anti-inflammatories like ibuprofen make it worse? Coronavirus claims checked by experts

It needs to be done right

If the contact tracing process was applied to every COVID-19 case, it would help reduce (but not completely stop) the spread of the coronavirus. It’s important to remember that possibly less than half of all infected people are symptomatic. Contact tracing could help find those people and ask them to self-isolate.

It’s also important to ensure we have enough testing kits to keep up. Our testing rate is currently one of the highest in the world and ensuring a steady supply of testing kits is crucial as the virus spreads.

In the real world, however, the effectiveness of contact tracing depends on the skills, extent and capacity of the contact tracing workforce as well as compliance with the contact tracers’ advice.

Wuhan, with a population about half that of Australia, had more than 1800 teams of epidemiologists, with a minimum of five people per team, who traced tens of thousands of contacts a day. Previous reviews of health workforce capacity suggest that Australia is not so well resourced, which is why the Australian Defence Force is helping here.

Contact tracing and isolation are our two most important assets in the effort to limit the spread of coronavirus, so we need to ensure contact tracing teams are well resourced.

Read more: ‘Fever clinics’ are opening in Australia for people who think they’re infected with the coronavirus. Why?

– ref. Explainer: what is contact tracing and how does it help limit the coronavirus spread? – https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-contact-tracing-and-how-does-it-help-limit-the-coronavirus-spread-134228

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jodie L. Rummer, Associate Professor & Principal Research Fellow, James Cook University

The Great Barrier Reef is suffering its third mass bleaching event in five years. It follows the record-breaking mass bleaching event in 2016 that killed a third of Great Barrier Reef corals, immediately followed by another in 2017.

While we don’t know if fish populations declined from the 2016 bleaching disaster, one 2018 study did show the types of fish species on some coral reefs changed. Our study dug deeper into fish DNA.

I was part of an international team of scientists that, for the first time, tracked wild populations of five species of coral reef fish before, during, and after the 2016 marine heatwave.

From a scientific perspective, the results are fascinating and world-first.

We used gene expression as a tool to survey how well fish can handle hotter waters. Gene expression is the process where a gene is read by cell machinery and creates a product such as a protein, resulting in a physical trait.

We know many tropical coral reef fish are already living at temperatures close to their upper limits. Our findings can help predict which of these species will be most at risk from repeated heatwaves.

Read more: ‘This situation brings me to despair’: two reef scientists share their climate grief

But from a personal perspective, I still feel nauseous thinking about what the reef looked like during this project. I’ll probably feel this way for a long time.

Rewind to November 2015

We were prepared. Back then we didn’t know the reef was about to bleach and lead to widespread ecological devastation. But we did anticipate that 2016 would be an El Niño year. This is a natural climate cycle that would mean warm summer waters in early 2016 would stick around longer than usual.

But we can’t blame El Niño – the ocean has already warmed by 1°C above pre-industrial levels from continued greenhouse gas emissions. What’s more, marine heatwaves are becoming more frequent and severe with climate change.

Given this foresight, we took some quick liver biopsies from several coral reef fish species at our field site in December 2015, just in case.

A couple months later, we were literally in hot water

In February 2016, my colleague and I were based on Lizard Island in the northern part of the Great Barrier Reef working on another project.

The low tides had shifted to the afternoon hours. We were collecting fish in the shallow lagoon off the research station, and our dive computers read that the water temperature was 33°C.

Read more: The Great Barrier Reef is in trouble. There are a whopping 45 reasons why

We looked at each other. These are the temperatures we use to simulate climate change in our laboratory studies for the year 2050 or 2100, but they’re happening now.

Over the following week, we watched corals turn fluorescent and then bone-white.

The water was murky with slime from the corals’ immune responses and because they were slowly exuding their symbiotic zooxanthellae – the algae that provides corals with food and the vibrant colours we know and love when we think about a coral reef. The reef was literally dying before our eyes.

Traits for dealing with heatwaves

We sampled fish during four time periods around this devastating event: before, at the start, during, and after.

Some genes are always “switched on”, regardless of environmental conditions. Other genes switch on or off as needed, depending on the environment.

If we found these fish couldn’t regulate their gene expression in response to temperature stress, then the functions – such as metabolism, respiration, and immune function – also cannot change as needed. Over time, this could compromise survival.

Read more: ‘Bright white skeletons’: some Western Australian reefs have the lowest coral cover on record

The plasticity (a bit like flexibility) of these functions, or phenotypes, is what buffers an organism from environmental change. And right now, this may be the only hope for maintaining the health of coral reef ecosystems in the face of repeated heatwave events.

So, what were the fish doing?

We looked at expression patterns of thousands of genes. We found the same genes responded differently between species. In other words, some fish struggled more than others to cope with marine heatwaves.

The species that coped the least was a nocturnal cardinalfish species (Cheilodipterus quinquelineatus). We found it had the lowest number of differentially expressed genes (genes that can switch on or off to handle different stressors), even when facing the substantial change in conditions from the hottest to the coolest months.

In contrast, the spiny damselfish (Acanthochromis polyacanthus) responded to the warmer conditions with changes in the expression of thousands of genes, suggesting it was making the most changes to cope with the heatwave conditions.

What can these data tell us?

Our findings not only have implications for specific fish species, but for the whole ecosystem. So policymakers and the fishing industry should screen more species to predict which will be sensitive and which will tolerate warming waters and heatwaves. This is not a “one size fits all” situation.

Fish have been on the planet for more than 400 million years. Over time , they may adapt to rising temperatures or migrate to cooler waters.

But, the three recent mass bleaching events is unprecedented in human history, and fish won’t have time to adapt.

Read more: Attention United Nations: don’t be fooled by Australia’s latest report on the Great Barrier Reef

My drive to protect the oceans began when I was a child. Now it’s my career. Despite the progress my colleagues and I have made, my nauseous feelings remain, knowing our science alone may not be enough to save the reef.

The future of the planet, the oceans, and the Great Barrier Reef lies in our collective actions to reduce global warming. What we do today will determine what the Great Barrier Reef looks like tomorrow.

– ref. I studied what happens to reef fish after coral bleaching. What I saw still makes me nauseous – https://theconversation.com/i-studied-what-happens-to-reef-fish-after-coral-bleaching-what-i-saw-still-makes-me-nauseous-134247

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeremy Baskin, Fellow, Melbourne School of Government and Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne

G20 leaders have pledged to do “whatever it takes” to minimise the impacts of COVID-19.

Most of these nations are lumbered with welfare safety nets unfit for purpose. They are designed for last century, with a binary way of thinking about employment that’s no longer the experience of casual, contract and gig workers.

The limitations are being thoroughly exposed by a crisis further blurring the line between having or not having work.

A simple solution is a universal basic income – a regular payment to every adult, no questions asked.

Read more: Coronavirus: Why the UK needs a basic income for all workers

Binary thinking

The deficiencies of current welfare nets have been demonstrated in Australia over the past week. The nation’s social security system has been in meltdown as hundreds of thousands make new claims for government assistance.

There have been massive queues at Centrelink offices. The government’s MyGov website has crashed and phone calls have gone unanswered.

These problems are more than logistical. They are also ideological, reflecting how the system has been conceived. It requires people to jump through bureaucratic hoops, filling in forms and providing documents and financial statements. It judges need according to a binary (employed-unemployed) way of thinking, with processes that are punitive and complex.

No conditions attached

The universal basic income (UBI) is a well-developed idea to address these problems with existing social security regimes.

The basic idea is to make a regular cash payment to all adult individuals, no conditions attached. The intention is to ensure the welfare safety net reflects the fact many more people in informal, casual, part-time, portfolio, irregular and self-employed work face financial stress despite technically being employed. Everyone gets the means for a basic existence regardless of their employment situation.

Read more: Job guarantees, basic income can save us from COVID-19 depression

Limited trials have occurred in Finland, Kenya and Canada. These have generally found recipients are happier and not disincentivised to look for work, a common criticism of the concept.

Unemployment spiking

The most common criticism of the universal basic income is its cost. But now, with the need for income support spiking and governments adopting a “whatever it takes” approach to spending to keep economies afloat, this argument is not compelling.

The scale of the economic challenge is demonstrated by Australia’s unemployment predictions for the next six months jumping from 7% a week ago to 11%. Government Services Minister Stuart Robert this week acknowledged the decision to close businesses had left “maybe a million people unemployed overnight”. That million, on top of 700,000 already unemployed, would take the jobless rate above 12%.

In truth, much like the trajectory of the coronavirus, no estimates can be relied upon at this stage, other than to say unemployment levels will be very high. Along with pensioners and other welfare recipients, this means government financial support will be crucial for a significant proportion of households.

How it might work

The advantage of a universal basic income scheme, especially now, is that it is simple and easily understandable.

This is how it might work in Australia.

It would be run through the Australian Taxation Office, not Centrelink. A direct payment would be made fortnightly into the bank account of all adult Australian citizens and permanent residents over 18 years and no longer at school.

That’s it.

The money would be taxable income, so the tax office would recoup a significant portion from higher earners. For now, it could exclude those over 65 years for whom long-standing pension and retirement systems exist and which we may not want to meddle with at this time.

Ballpark estimates

Australia’s United Workers Union (representing workers in hospitality, health, aged care, supermarket supply, cleaning and other exposed sectors) has advocated a universal basic income equivalent to the minium wage – A$740 a week.

But I’m going to make some ballpark calculations based on an emergency universal basic income payment of A$550 a fortnight.

This is equal to the bonus the Australian government is giving job seekers during the crisis (double their usual payment).

To extend this to 7.65 million eligible Australians would cost about A$55 billion over six months. The government would recoup a portion of this, though, through income tax and being able to suspend some (but not all) existing welfare payments.

That compares with almost A$84 billion – about 3.5% of GDP – in spending already announced by the Australian government. About A$24 billion of this is for payments to welfare recipients, with the lion’s share directed to business and industry.

Read more: Scalable without limit: how the government plans to get coronavirus support into our hands quickly

At a time of economic crisis unprecedented in our lifetimes, an innovative approach like a universal basic income could be an essential, simple, confidence-boosting and popular response.

– ref. ‘Whatever it takes’ should now include a universal basic income – https://theconversation.com/whatever-it-takes-should-now-include-a-universal-basic-income-134405

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian M. Mackay, Adjunct assistant professor, The University of Queensland

Like the other 200 or so respiratory viruses we know of, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the new coronavirus, infects the cells of our airways.

It causes a range of signs and symptoms, or none at all. It can spread easily from person-to-person, and can be coughed into the air and onto surfaces.

Viruses only replicate inside a living cell – outside the cell, they’re on a path to either infect us, or their own destruction. How long a virus survives outside a cell varies.

Researchers found SARS-CoV-2 remains infectious in airborne droplets for at least three hours. This doesn’t mean infected humans produce enough virus in a cough to infect another person, but they might.

We think the virus also spreads by touch. Hard, shiny surfaces such as plastic, stainless steel, benchtops, and likely glass can support infectious virus, expelled in droplets, for up to 72 hours. But the virus rapidly degrades during this time. On fibrous and absorbent surfaces such as cardboard, paper, fabric and hessian, it becomes inactive more quickly.

How can we reduce risk from surfaces and objects?

Frequently touched surfaces are all around us. Benches, handrails, door handles – they are in our homes, on our way to work, school, play, shop, and every other destination. There’s a risk of contaminating these surfaces if we touch them with virus-laden fingers, and a risk we’ll contract the virus from such surfaces.

Think of your hands as the enemy. Wash them well, and much more often than usual. Between hand-washing, avoid constantly touching the mucous membranes that lead to your airways. Basically, try not to rub your eyes, pick your nose, or touch your lips and mouth.

Read more: Can I get coronavirus from mail or package deliveries? Should I disinfect my phone?

Taking precautions through small actions

We’re already seeing engineering initiatives to help combat the virus’s spread. In Sydney, pedestrian crossings have been automated so people can avoid touching the buttons.

To slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2, assume everything outside your home is potentially contaminated, and act accordingly. So don’t touch your face, sanitise frequently while you are out, and wash your hands and clean your phone once home.

While it’s best to stay home, keep these tips in mind if you must leave the house.

• Going shopping

Grocery shopping requires touching surfaces and items, including trolleys and baskets. Sometimes sanitiser or antibacterial wipes are available for hands and handles at the store entrance – but they’re often not, so bring your own. It probably doesn’t matter what type of bag you use, but have a plan for how to avoid bringing the virus into your home.

• Making payments

Cards and cash could transfer the virus to your hands. That said, card payment is probably lower risk because you retain the card and don’t have to touch other people. But wherever possible, contact-free bank transfers would pose the least risk.

• Handling and eating fresh and canned food

SARS-CoV-2 is inactivated at temperatures well below those required in the process of canning food, so canned food is free of it. For freshly packaged food, risk depends on whether the person doing the packing was sick or not. If you are concerned, stick with food that can be cooked, peeled or washed in mild soapy water, and thoroughly rinsed.

Read more: Can coronavirus spread through food? Can anti-inflammatories like ibuprofen make it worse? Coronavirus claims checked by experts

While evidence is weak, we know soap and water should inactivate SARS-CoV-2 on food – but this will work better on foods with a shinier, harder outer surface, compared to foods that have been cut or have softer surfaces, such as strawberries and raspberries. If you decide to wash any food with soap, make sure all the soap is removed.

• At the park

Avoid equipment that is likely used a lot, including play equipment and water fountains. It would be safer to kick a ball around or play on the grass, rather than use swings. Sandpits hold horrors other than SARS-CoV-2.

• Takeaway and deliveries

When getting takeaway food, or for businesses offering it, avoid plastic containers and use more fibrous materials such as cardboard, paper and fabric for packaging. Researchers found no infectious SARS-CoV-2 on cardboard after 24 hours.

Also, avoid proximity to servers and delivery people, and opt for contactless delivery whenever you can.

• Public transport, escalators, elevators and bathrooms

Frequently touched hard, shiny surfaces such as lift buttons and handle bars in trams are a big risk, more so than fabric seats, or taking the stairs. Even the most high-tech overseas surface cleaning efforts are intermittent, so you’ll need to take responsibility for yourself. Also, after using public bathrooms, wash your hands well.

Calm and calculated

It’s important to be calm, realistic and not focus on single events or actions once you step outside. You can’t account for everything.

Think more about the risk of the entire task rather than the many small risks encountered during the process. A silver lining in taking such precautions is that you’ll also reduce your risk of catching the flu this season.

It’s also important to keep your home clean. You can use diluted bleach, detergents or alcohol solutions on surfaces. Queensland Health has more information.

Read more: How to clean your house to prevent the spread of coronavirus and other infections

For items that are hard to clean, sunshine may be valuable. Leave your shoes outside, soles up, in the sun. Coronaviruses begin degrading quickly in temperatures higher than 56 degrees Celsius, and in direct UV light.

Ultimately, the best ways to avoid SARS-CoV-2 infection are primitive ones – sanitise your hands and stay away from others. Physical distancing remains the most effective measure to slow the progression of this pandemic.

– ref. We know how long coronavirus survives on surfaces. Here’s what it means for handling money, food and more – https://theconversation.com/we-know-how-long-coronavirus-survives-on-surfaces-heres-what-it-means-for-handling-money-food-and-more-134671

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julian Meyrick, Professor of Creative Arts, Griffith University

Some years ago, I travelled to Israel for a conference on dramaturgy. Losing my way at the train station, I was rescued by a soldier who chatted with me all the way to Tel Aviv. I dreaded what was coming. What was I doing there, he asked? In a region of endless conflict and, for this young man, daily risk, my reply seemed feeble to my ears.

Yet his face lit up as if I had opened a window. Dramaturgy! A subject as far away from war and ancient hatreds as it was possible to get. He would love to talk about it. And so we did.

We are not defined by the calamities that befall us. We are more than the sum of our hazards, hardships and heartbreaks. We are defined, as individuals and as a nation, by the positive content of our lives and, in this, even the humble craft of dramaturgy has a role to play.

The world can be a place of terrifying challenge. As I write, my mother is in lock-down in a Sydney care home and my brother, who barely escaped dying from pneumonia a year ago, has returned to a crowded and chaotic Britain. A common story across Australia.

The arts and culture we will turn to in coming months to fill our time in isolation will provide us not just with distraction, but with meaning. Today, representatives of Australia’s diverse arts institutions sent an open letter to Prime Minister Scott Morrison, encouraging him to …

issue a public statement recognising the value of our industry to all Australians, and the debilitating impacts of COVID-19 on the arts, cultural and entertainment industries and the creative sector as a whole. This message would affirm your commitment to the livelihoods and the infrastructure that inspires the nation.

Imagined communities

Benedict Anderson coined the term “imagined communities” to describe how a nation takes its character from the ideas and feelings people have about it. If his concept has a critical edge, it also has an inspirational one.

Australian culture is not just another industry waiting to get a truckload of public subsidy to pull it through straightened times ahead. It is the living heart of our nation, the muscle that, in the face of adversity, allows us to pull together and be a nation, not just a mob of panicky hamster shoppers.

Online streaming performances and digital exhibition spaces may not be an immediate salve to the impulse to stockpile food. But they are a reminder that if, satisfying our physical needs comes first in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the real question is what are we satisfying them for?

Arts leaders have called for targeted stimulus to a value of 2% of the A$111.7 billion industry. This figure echoes the sensible and doable proposals put forward by arts writer and academic Ben Eltham to ensure the cultural sector does not fall so deep into a financial black hole it can’t climb out when the current crisis is over. There have been welcome alterations to the Australia Council’s grant strategy and support packages from individual states, with Queensland leading the way.

But let’s be real. Eight years of pointed government neglect of the sector has left it confused, desperate and thinly resourced.

Read more: Coronavirus: Australian arts need a stimulus package. Here is what it should look like

ABC political commentator Laura Tingle has seen in the prime minister the signs of a new maturity. It would be timely to discover in this a more expansive understanding of Australian arts and culture. This means, above all, more respect for the institutions, large and small, that underpin it.

The steady acid rain of negative government attitudes to the cultural sector – the stand-out example has been its rancorous stance towards the ABC – must be reversed. In the words of Morrison himself, “just stop it”. Stop partisan undermining of the institutions that define our cultural way of life.

The ABC is an authoritative source of information and advice about the COVID-19 pandemic. The government should recognise and properly reward its crucial role, not just presume it. Overseas, Germany has set a new international benchmark, announcing €50 billion (A$92 billion) in assistance for its artists and creative businesses.

Culture’s intrinsic value

Arts and culture make important and varied contributions to the national economy and social cohesion. But the reason they do so is because of their intrinsic value. This arises in two forms.

Firstly, our culture is a steady source of thoughts, feelings, stories, images and moments which coalesce and collectively define us – what the philosopher John Searle called “the background”. Culture brings us pleasure, connection, meaning and joy, and in the current situation that’s a significant contribution to our narrowing lives.

Secondly, and even more crucially, it is where we may find our best selves. To act in a creative way is to act generously. This is not to say that artists are better than anyone else, or that creativity is the sole preserve of the arts. It is to observe that to be creative is to give to others through a selfless impulse to share, and not just a desire to monetise that relationship as an economic transaction.

Read more: Coronavirus: what the latest stimulus measures mean for Australian artists and arts organisations

Australian governments have a long history of bad ideas about arts and culture. But there are moments when things have turned around.

Douglas Stewart’s play, Ned Kelly premiered in October 1944, when World War II was raging, and Australia faced unprecedented hardships and trials. With costumes and set design by painter Norman Lindsay, the fact that the show happened at all was a miracle of persistence and make-do (the cast borrowed their boots from local policemen).

A 16-year-old schoolboy saw the play, and it shaped his choice of career. He was the historian Manning Clark, who later wrote:

It was an event in my life which made me pose the question: why are we as we are? … In moments of despair, and they happen all too often, my mind takes comfort from recalling that night in Melbourne when [Ned Kelly] got me thinking about what Australia stands for.

This is what our arts and culture should mean to us, what they do mean to us, now more than ever.

– ref. As we turn to creativity in isolation, the coronavirus is a calamity on top of an arts crisis – https://theconversation.com/as-we-turn-to-creativity-in-isolation-the-coronavirus-is-a-calamity-on-top-of-an-arts-crisis-134230

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Desirée Kozlowski, Lecturer, Psychology, Southern Cross University

If I told you that last night I built a blanket fort in the living room, crawled inside with my cat, a glass of wine and my just-arrived copy of the New Yorker, would you think less of me?

After all, we’re in the midst of a global coronavirus pandemic. Borders are closing, people are sick, dying, losing their jobs, and locked in isolation. And there was I, playing – as though I didn’t have a care in the world.

Meanwhile, you might be reading this holed up at home, screaming with fury at those bloody hoarders. Or perhaps you’re on a train valiantly trying to keep 1.5 metres away from the next person, shrinking back as they cough and splutter.

Wherever you are, whatever you’re doing, whatever you think about the pandemic, the economy, or your compatriots, a tiny part of you knows you could do with a bit of pleasure right now.

Read more: What is hedonism and how does it affect your health?

The effects of sustained stress

When we’re first exposed to something stressful, like a deadly new disease, our body reacts with a cascade of small changes such as releasing adrenaline and other chemicals, and activating brain regions related to fear and anger.

In many cases those changes make it more likely we’ll meet the challenges we face.

But if the stressful conditions continue, and especially if we feel powerless to fix the situation, the consequences of the stress response increase.

Read more: Coronavirus is stressful. Here are some ways to cope with the anxiety

Our risk of chronic diseases increases, immune function can be compromised, and we become more vulnerable to mental health problems.

We can feel depleted, disconnected, anxious and depressed. We can become fixated on negative thoughts and on looking for signs of threat. Sound familiar?

The good news is the effects of stress on the brain are reversible.

Pleasure in times of stress

It may seem too simple to be true but shifting our attention toward the small, everyday pleasures in our lives can offset the consequences of stress or negative events.

US researchers reported last year that experiencing pleasurable emotions, for example having interesting things to do, serves as a buffer between chronic stress and depression. So, among people with sustained, high levels of stress, those who reported more pleasurable moments were likely to experience less severe depressive symptoms.

Pleasurable experiences might even be of most benefit in times of stress.

We experience pleasure in a myriad ways. Perhaps one of the most potent of pleasures, and one that springs most easily to mind, is a lover’s caress.

Read more: Coronavirus and sex: Dos and don’ts during social distancing

But to maximise the pleasure in every day, we should look more widely, to a multitude of sources.

If we’re too busy reading those alarming headlines to notice the beauty of the sun setting outside our window though, it’s a missed opportunity for a moment of delight.

When I recently asked people on Twitter to share the things bringing them delight in these challenging times, I received hundreds of replies within a couple of hours.

Each one was a small vignette conveying a personal moment of simple pleasure. Gardens and dogs and children and nature featured strongly, and many people reflected on the added pleasure of recalling such moments.

Indeed, recollection and anticipation – along with relishing pleasure in the moment – are effective ways to maximise the value of positive experiences or emotions. We call it “savouring”.

Luckily, we can get better at savouring with practice. And the more we savour, the less stressed we feel. And that’s why I’m here.

If we increase the pleasure we experience, it can lift our psychological well-being. In turn, higher well-being is linked to better immune function.

Read more: Running out of things to do in isolation? Get back in the garden with these ideas from 4 experts

It’s about boosting our personal capacity

My message is not to avoid the facts or pretend nothing has changed. It’s to intentionally build in moments of reprieve and restoration. It’s to turn your attention to what is still good and rich and fun – to really focus on those things.

This is how we can harness the protective power of small pleasures, for the sake of delight itself and to build grit and resilience.

So, there may never have been a better time to build a blanket fort, or to bring out a game of Twister, or to lie on your back in the garden making fantasy creatures out of passing clouds. Find excuses to giggle.

Read more: Social distancing can make you lonely. Here’s how to stay connected when you’re in lockdown

Making pleasure happen

In difficult, frightening times, no one is immune to worry; it’s a natural response. But what we can do is take steps to protect ourselves, as much as possible, from its physical and psychological ill-effects.

The challenge is to make this happen, to tear yourself away from analysing the COVID-19 curve and intentionally, systematically engineer more small delights into your day.

Do you like the sunshine? Then know when the sun falls on your balcony, in your garden or in the street near your place. Take a cup of tea or coffee with you and soak up the warmth.

Read more: Cat lovers rejoice: watching online videos lowers stress and makes you happy

Pets? Run, play, be silly with them. Eating a tomato? Plant the seeds and watch something grow, from nothing, because of you. Sing. Dance. Delight someone with an act of kindness.

Plan your opportunities for pleasure. Put them in your diary. Set your alarm for them. Commit to share them with others. Photograph them. Post them on social media or share them directly with friends and family. Anticipate them gleefully and reflect on them with delight. This is our time to be here. Savour.

– ref. Coronavirus: tiny moments of pleasure really can help us through this stressful time – https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-tiny-moments-of-pleasure-really-can-help-us-through-this-stressful-time-134043

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Wood, Program Director, Budget Policy and Institutional Reform, Grattan Institute

As the public health response to supress the COVID-19 virus ramps up, so to does the economic fallout. Shutdowns and enforced spatial distancing are necessary to try to prevent hospital intensive care units becoming overwhelmed.

But businesses on the economic frontline – those shut or soon to be shut down by the public health restrictions – need immediate help to get through.

The necessary temporary hit to business incomes need not become a permanent hit to productive capacity. We should not risk a large swathe of shops, cafes, pubs, hotels, gyms, and hairdressers going to the wall.

Most of these frontline businesses have seen their income dry up overnight. Some have temporarily closed, others are finding creative ways to make some money in online retail or takeaway services, for example, but most will replace only a fraction of their pre-crisis income.

Rent is the biggest barrier to survival

Staff layoffs, or more hopefully stand downs, are the only option for most of these business. Even substantial wage subsidies won’t entice business owners to keep staff on when the business has shut its doors.

For businesses on the economic frontline, most of their variable costs such as wages and stock can be suspended during the shutdown. But their fixed costs – particularly rent – are substantial.

The average retailer pays almost A$12,000 in rent a month; the average gym, $10,000. Cafes and hairdressers are losing $3,000 to $4,000 each month in rent.

Read more: Lessons from the Great Depression: how to prevent evictions in an economic crisis

For most exposed businesses, rent sits at less than 20% of operating costs under normal conditions, but while they hibernate through coronavirus, that figure will reach somewhere between 80% and 95%.

Some schemes have already been announced to help these businesses. The Commonwealth’s is the largest, and will pay small and medium businesses 100% of salary and wages withheld for tax purposes up to $100,000. For businesses to qualify for the full amount, they will need to withhold the same amount, so will need to be paying staff.

Read more: Morrison’s coronavirus package is a good start, but he’ll probably have to spend more

State governments have announced partial relief of tax, rates and fees, and access to loans. This will help, but rent is the big unavoidable cost for most of the frontline businesses.

Exposed businesses will be losing thousands of dollars, or more, each month. Many will have some cash reserves, but for most a shutdown of three months or more will be very difficult to absorb.

A rent holiday, or at least a significant rent discount, would give these businesses a fighting chance at preventing a temporary shutdown becoming a permanent closure.

Market rates are close to zero

Most shopfronts can’t be put to other uses. That means the market price for retail, food, and accommodation services, and personal services shopfronts will be very close to zero during the shutdown.

Some landlords have done the right thing and given their tenants a rent holiday while these restrictions are in place.

This is smart: keeping their tenants in business will give these landlords the best chance of having a rented property when restrictions are lifted.

In normal circumstances, the market would work this through. But the danger here is it will happen too slowly. Some landlords refuse to accept renting out their premises for nothing.

Read more: Why housing evictions must be suspended to defend us against coronavirus

In Melbourne, Chadstone retailers just wrote to Chadstone management asking for a rent holiday to “save our businesses”.

The response from management was no.

That mindset could send many thousands of shops, cafes, pubs, restaurants, hairdressers, gyms, cinemas, and tourism operators to the wall.

As of last week, more than 70% of businesses in these industries had already been hit by the COVID-19 crisis. That figure is expected to rise beyond 90% in the coming weeks.

“Closures” was the most common word used by business owners surveyed by the Bureau of Statistics about the future effect of COVID-19.

Preventing landlords from evicting commercial tenants, or requiring landlords to defer the rents, won’t help – businesses will still liquidate if they know they will be lumbered with many months of rent to pay back down the track.

While a short-term income hit for landlords isn’t insignificant, the damage to the economy will be much greater if a swathe of small and medium-sized businesses are lost.

Acting now will reduce the damage

The owners of some properties that need rental holidays still have to make monthly mortgage payments to banks. But the banks are offering loan holidays they might be able to take advantage of.

If there are gaps in the loan holiday arrangements, governments should work with the banks to ensure landlords are covered. Alternatively, governments themselves could offer partial compensation for lost rent.

Prosper Australia has suggested a uniform subsidy that replaces 50% of lost commercial tenancy mortgage payments.

Read more: We’re running out of time to use Endgame C to drive coronavirus infections down to zero

Right now, hundreds of thousands of businesses are crunching the numbers to see whether than can stay solvent. With rent on the expense side, those numbers won’t add up for long.

Every state and territory government ought to enact a rental holiday for the types of businesses on the frontline of this crisis. As the economic shockwave reverberates, state and territory ministers should have the power to add other vulnerable industries to that list.

The key is speed. For every day they wait, hundreds of businesses will fold.

– ref. The case for a rent holiday for businesses on the coronavirus economic frontline – https://theconversation.com/the-case-for-a-rent-holiday-for-businesses-on-the-coronavirus-economic-frontline-134890

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Bragge, Director of Health Programs, BehaviourWorks Australia; Lead, Monash-McMaster Social Systems Evidence Collaboration, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University

COVID-19 is a rare moment in time where individual behaviours can have profound impacts on society.

To address some of the negative impacts, politicians are talking to the public using a style familiar to anyone who has looked after children: forceful and direct appeals to stop engaging in unhelpful behaviours.

Take the example of hoarding. A week ago, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said:

Stop hoarding. I can’t be more blunt about it. Stop it. … It’s one of the most disappointing things I’ve seen in Australian behaviour in response to this crisis.

Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews and NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian used similar “stop doing this” communication.

Read more: Psychology can explain why coronavirus drives us to panic buy. It also provides tips on how to stop

Clearly, this is borne out of frustration. But this approach to behaviour change may do more damage than good for three reasons that are well-established in behavioural science: negative normative messaging, paternalistic messaging and untrusted messengers.

Saying ‘don’t do’ something makes the behaviour more likely

It’s widely known in the behavioural sciences that our impressions of what other people are doing influence our own behaviour.

In research conducted by leading psychology researchers, including Wes Schultz and Robert Cialdini, people were informed how much energy their neighbours were using to see what the impact would be on their own usage.

Importantly, it influenced high- and low-energy users in different ways – high users reduced their usage, but low users increased theirs.

Read more: There’s plenty of toilet paper – so why are people hoarding it?

The lesson here is that people look for signals – both consciously and unconsciously – that tell them what behaviours are normal, and this perception is a powerful influence on their own behaviour.

So when leaders say “stop doing” something, people can interpret this as “lots of people are doing this, otherwise they wouldn’t be saying not to” and “because lots of people are doing it, it’s a normal thing to do.”

So the message can have the opposite effect to what is intended – the undesirable behaviour increases because it is perceived as normal.

One positive-focused campaign that worked

As behavioural researchers, we’ve used this established principle to craft a successful mass-media public campaign in Victoria.

Several years ago, the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services faced the challenge of unnecessary calls to the 000 emergency call centre rising faster than population growth.

Our background research showed that previous campaigns focusing on “don’t do this” messaging caused a rise in unnecessary calls to 000 because it promoted “negative norms”.

So, we focused on the opposite – a positive (do this) campaign, Save Lives. Save Ambulances for Emergencies. A follow-up campaign, Meet the Team highlighted alternatives to dialling 000 for minor ailments – pharmacies, the nurse-on-call service and local general practitioners.

These campaigns were successful in shifting attitudes to appropriate ambulance use, leading to changes in the target behaviour – fewer unnecessary calls to 000. Ambulance Victoria CEO Tony Walker said:

In my mind it’s helped save lives … We saw a reduction in calls – around 50 less per day and that’s 10 ambulances that were therefore available.

Why ‘top-down’ messaging is ineffective

When politicians frame a message in a paternalistic way to constituents, it can also be ineffective for at least two reasons.

The first is the behaviour politicians are seeking to correct can seem perfectly reasonable and rational to the people doing it. Thus, berating people for such behaviour is likely to be ineffective. (For example, they might say, “my situation is different because…” or “I’m doing it for my family”.)

As a result, the message and/or the source would be dismissed. This may lead to people then dismissing future messages from politicians.

Read more: Viral spiral: the federal government is playing a risky game with mixed messages on coronavirus

Another issue is that messaging done in a “top down” way threatens our autonomy – one of the most important human needs, and one directly related to well-being.

When autonomy is threatened, people react in various ways. These include expressions of distrust (“I don’t like it”) or doubt (“is this needed?”), avoidance of the message, and – most importantly in the COVID-19 context – efforts to reassert autonomy by defying change.

The paternalistic tone is compounded by the fact that unfortunately, politicians are not the flavour of the month.

Research shows trust of federal and state governments is at an all-time low, with nearly two-thirds of people believing politicians lack honesty and integrity.

And as highlighted in a recent report published by the Australian and New Zealand School of Government, addressing this issue, like COVID-19, is not a “quick fix”.

How should the messaging be changed?

So, what should the government be doing differently in its coronavirus messaging? Here are a few simple strategies.

• First, emphasise positive behaviours. Thanking people for their good behaviour, which Berejiklian also did in her address, is a good start. This could also draw upon how well communities responded to the summer bushfire crisis. For example, a positive message might say:

Just as in the bushfires, Australians are looking after each other in the COVID-19 response. Many people are heeding advice to stay at home. This is saving lives.

Second, alter the paternalistic tone to more inclusive language that makes people feel part of the change. Governments and other messengers should amplify messages that say “together, we are fighting a virus to save lives”.

Finally, consider other messengers. For example, good proponents for non-hoarding behaviours may be older, well-respected Australians such as retired AFL player Ron Barassi or former Governor-General Quentin Bryce. The voices of respected figures like these may reach people that tune out anything politicians say.

This is an incredibly difficult time for governments and other leaders. They are getting the very best advice from medical experts, based on the best knowledge available, about what behaviours can flatten the curve of coronavirus infections.

Adding insights from behavioural science can help ensure the messages they deliver have the best possible effect.

– ref. Stay positive, Scott Morrison: when you berate people for bad behaviour, they do it more – https://theconversation.com/stay-positive-scott-morrison-when-you-berate-people-for-bad-behaviour-they-do-it-more-134793

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mike Lee, Professor in Evolutionary Biology (jointly appointed with South Australian Museum), Flinders University

While the world waits for an effective vaccine against COVID-19, we are relying heavily on social distancing – perhaps better termed “physical distancing” – to control the spread of the coronavirus.

Physical distancing works because COVID-19 spreads most efficiently when groups of people come into close contact, although there is some evidence the virus can also spread by touching contaminated surfaces.

Modelling suggests Australia can effectively suppress transmission and control the outbreak only if at least 80% of people practise good physical distancing.

Government advice for implementing physical distancing has mainly urged people to isolate themselves in space: staying at least 1.5 metres apart, working from home, avoiding gatherings, and minimising travel.

However, effectively separating people in space is extremely challenging. Different people still need access to the same essential locations, such as shops, workplaces and health care facilities.

Temporal distancing

But physical distancing can be done in two ways: spatial distancing (separating people in space) and temporal distancing (separating people in time). Temporal distancing is an easy concept to grasp. Any time we take an early lunch to beat the crowds, or catch a later bus to avoid the commuter crush, we are using temporal distancing.

People are allowed entry into the same spaces – they just need to do so at different times. Of course, temporal distancing needs to be accompanied by fastidious hygiene to eliminate all possibility of COVID-19 transmission via surfaces.

Staggering strategy

Substantial and effective scheduling changes that can be made without too much inconvenience (or where the benefits clearly outweigh the costs) might include:

Reduced supermarket opening hours, as happened in parts of Italy, might not help physical distancing because it compresses customers into the same space during a shorter time window.

The concept of regular work hours could be relaxed a bit more. Morning people might choose to start at 7 am, while night owls could opt for 10 am.

Why it works

The diagram below shows how spatial and temporal distancing can work together to flatten the curve of infections. Imagine a randomly spread population of 1,000 people, one of whom is infected. With free movement, everyone becomes infected within a relatively short time. If we reduce movement by 80% (spatial distancing; dashed curve), the rate of infection is slowed. If we halve the time people spend exposed to one another (temporal distancing; dotted curve), the rate of infection also slows, but not as much. But if we combine both of these measures (red curve), the effect is strongest of all.

Read more: How to flatten the curve of coronavirus, a mathematician explains

Temporal distancing will come with economic and social costs. Working night shifts or irregular hours can cause health problems; organising childcare or work meetings outside ‘regular’ business hours could be challenging; and travel and outdoor activity at night have safety risks. These costs will have to be carefully weighed in any particular instance.

Even after the current pandemic is controlled, there will remain economic incentives for temporal distancing: boom-and-bust cycles are inefficient. Public transport, restaurants, telcos, electricity suppliers, and other service providers already offer off-peak discounts.

Cutting the numbers

Besides using both spatial and temporal distancing, we can further slow the virus by restricting the number of different people we encounter.

For example, while small-group personal fitness training is still allowed, having the same 10 people in each class is better than mixing and matching classes. This would help restrict any infections to a small group, and make contact tracing much easier.

Workplaces and schools could also consider keeping people in consistent teams rather than mixing them up, at least while distancing is required.

Reducing contacts between groups is even more important for older people. Age-stratified visiting or service times, such as the dedicated elderly shopping hours already in place in some supermarkets, might also help reduce transmission between younger people (who generally have higher mixing and infection rates) and older people (who are at greater risk of severe disease).

Social distancing will be a fact of life for months to come. So we need to do it as smartly and efficiently as possible.

– ref. Want to make social distancing even more effective? It’s about time (as well as space) – https://theconversation.com/want-to-make-social-distancing-even-more-effective-its-about-time-as-well-as-space-134551

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Mills, Hon Senior Lecturer, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Sydney

Set into the tiles of the entrance to the boomtime-era Victorian Parliament is a message from the past that is as urgent as it is ancient:

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

The Old Testament language contains a powerful contemporary insight: multiple sources of advice provide better outcomes.

It reminds us as citizens of a long-established parliamentary democracy, of why we need to bother about parliament and why – not despite the corona-crisis, but because of it – we should recognise how it can help to get us through to the other side in one piece.

Read more: A virtual Australian parliament is possible – and may be needed – during the coronavirus pandemic

Instead, shockingly, we have allowed sittings of the Australian Parliament to be cancelled for the duration of the crisis. We are being deprived of the “safety” that comes from a multitude of counsellors.

Parliaments in representative democracies serve five complementary democratic values. Our parliament:

• provides a vehicle for the interests and preferences of individual voters to be represented in aggregate decision-making (representation)

• provides the ultimate source of authority for legislation (authorisation)

• is an assembly for advocacy, debate and consideration (deliberation)

• provides the means by which governments can be made and broken (executive legitimacy)

• scrutinises executive actions (accountability).

As a result of this week’s one-day session of parliament, each of those functions has been set back.

Consider the extraordinary organisational arrangements behind the meeting of the House of Representatives that approved the government’s stimulus and safety net legislation.

Driven by a view that a full attendance of members would be inconsistent with social-distancing rules, the two major parties agreed to “pair” 30 Coalition MPs with 30 Labor MPs. This meant 60 elected representatives could stay away from Canberra: parliament could go ahead with a quorum, and the government’s narrow majority was not at risk.

This rump assembly suited everyone – except of course the roughly 6 million voters in those 60 electorates whose members were absent. In the interests of social distancing, their interests in being effectively represented were traded away without comment or explanation.

Its unrepresentative character is underlined by its low female attendance. Only about one-fifth of those present (18 out of 87) were women MPs. Labor, which prides itself on gender parity, selected only seven women in its contingent of 37. (However, all three female independent MPs were present.)

Even so, the reality of this sitting was that the pandemic created the perceived need for urgent legislative action. Parliament did that job with care and alacrity. Legislation was debated constructively and amendments were proposed and accepted, leading to improved outcomes. “Multitudes of counsellors” at work.

So the most shocking and damaging aspect of Monday’s parliament was the revised sitting calendar, dropped on parliament by Attorney-General Christian Porter. Having decided to delay the May budget until October, the government now saw no need for the 18 sitting days that had been scheduled for May and June. Tellingly, Porter did not spell out the implications: parliament would not be recalled until August 11.

During this 20-week period, we’re in a parliament-free zone. The executive – the Morrison government – governs alone.

This is the very time when parliament should be in session. There are four (at least) vital functions that parliament should perform in this time.

First, at a time when future legislative packages are likely, parliament will need to authorise them and perhaps, through deliberation and amendment, improve them.

Second, the executive has shouldered a complex implementation task and has now been resourced with a massive war chest to fight the virus. So the need for scrutiny and accountability increases. The Centrelink fiasco shows that, if nothing else. Parliament and parliamentary committees should continue in session.

Read more: The case for Endgame C: stop almost everything, restart when coronavirus is gone

Second, at a time when the big-picture strategy is still evolving, parliament has a key deliberative role in debating the strategic options to resolve the crisis.

Should we “flatten the curve” or – as John Daley of the Grattan Institute has argued – “stop and restart”? What are the costs of each course of action? What is the trade-off between the goals of public health and economic growth? And how are those costs being allocated across members of our society?

Third, at a time when we are still learning how to cope with this pandemic, and grappling to comprehend its immense social, cultural and economic costs, it is essential parliament play its representative role. The beauty of parliament’s electorate-based design is that members from around the nation can bring to national attention, however fleetingly and imperfectly, their local issues and insights and judgment.

Not all parts of Australia will experience this crisis in the same way. So local stories are not dispensable but vital: both the success stories and the stories of hardship, the local heroes and the silent Australians who are suffering from joblessness, isolation and trauma as well as the virus. “Multitudes of counsellors” with many stories to tell: even in this era of party dominance, that is still their job.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison opened the one-day parliamentary sitting on Monday with an invocation that we must not allow the coronavirus pandemic to change “who we are as Australians”. The challenge, he said, was bigger than anything since the second world war.

But by the end of the day his government had taken a giant step towards changing Australia’s identity, by adjourning parliament for more than four months.

If we are looking for comparisons with the second world war, it is worth remembering that the House of Representatives sat in Canberra throughout the war years. The parliament debated war strategy, deliberated on legislation and even, in 1941, defeated the government in a vote of no confidence.

Against the mighty achievements of the 16th parliament (1940-1943), the current parliament is a pale disappointment.

– ref. ‘Where no counsel is, the people fall’: why parliaments should keep functioning during the coronavirus crisis – https://theconversation.com/where-no-counsel-is-the-people-fall-why-parliaments-should-keep-functioning-during-the-coronavirus-crisis-134772

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natasha Chassagne, University Associate, University of Tasmania, University of Tasmania

Every aspect of our lives has been affected by the coronavirus. The global economy has slowed, people have retreated to their homes and thousands have died or become seriously ill.

At this frightening stage of the crisis, it’s difficult to focus on anything else. But as the International Agency has said, the effects of coronavirus are likely to be temporary but the other global emergency – climate change – is not.

Stopping the spread of coronavirus is paramount, but climate action must also continue. And we can draw many lessons and opportunities from the current health crisis when tackling planetary warming.

A ‘degrowing’ economy

S&P Global Ratings this week said measures to contain COVID-19 have pushed the global economy into recession.

Economic analyst Lauri Myllyvirta estimates the pandemic may have reduced global emissions by 200 megatonnes of carbon dioxide to date, as air travel grinds to a halt, factories close down and energy demand falls.

In the first four weeks of the pandemic, coal consumption in China alone fell by 36%, and oil refining capacity reduced by 34%.

In many ways, what we’re seeing now is a rapid and unplanned version of economic “degrowth” – the transition some academics and activists have for decades said is necessary to address climate change, and leave a habitable planet for future generations.

Read more: Life in a ‘degrowth’ economy, and why you might actually enjoy it

Degrowth is a proposed slowing of growth in sectors that damage the environment, such as fossil fuel industries, until the economy operates within Earth’s limits. It is a voluntary, planned and equitable transition in developed nations which necessarily involves an increased focus on the environment, human well-being, and capabilities (good health, decent work, education, and a safe and healthy environment).

Such a transformation would be profound, and so far no nation has shown the will to implement it. It would require global economies to “decouple” from carbon to prevent climate-related crises. But the current unintended economic slowdown opens the door to such a transition, which would bring myriad benefits to the climate.

The idea of sustainable degrowth is very different to a recession. It involves scaling back environmentally damaging sectors of the economy, and strengthening others.

A tale of two emergencies

Climate change has been declared a global emergency, yet to date the world has largely failed to address it. In contrast, the global policy response to the coronavirus emergency has been fast and furious.

There are several reasons for this dramatic difference. Climate change is a relatively slow-moving crisis, whereas coronavirus visibly escalates over days, even hours, increasing our perception of the risks involved. One thing that history teaches us about politics and the human condition in times of peril, we often take a “crisis management” approach to dealing with serious threats.

Read more: How changes brought on by coronavirus could help tackle climate change

As others have observed, the slow increase in global temperatures means humans can psychologically adjust as the situation worsens, making the problem seem less urgent and meaning people are less willing to accept drastic policy measures.

Key lessons from coronavirus

The global response to the coronavirus crisis shows that governments can take immediate, radical emergency measures, which go beyond purely economic concerns, to protect the well-being of all.

Specifically, there are practical lessons and opportunities we can take away from the coronavirus emergency as we seek to tackle climate change:

Act early: The coronavirus pandemic shows the crucial importance of early action to prevent catastrophic consequences. Governments in Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore acted quickly to implement quarantine and screening measures, and have seen relatively small numbers of infections. Italy, on the other hand, whose government waited too long to act, is now the epicentre of the virus.

Read more: Running out of things to do in isolation? Get back in the garden with these ideas from 4 experts

Go slow, go local: Coronavirus has forced an immediate scale-down of how we travel and live. People are forging local connections, shopping locally, working from home and limiting consumption to what they need.

Researchers have identified that fears about personal well-being represent a major barrier to political support for the degrowth movement to date. However with social distancing expected to be in place for months, our scaled-down lives may become the “new normal”. Many people may realise that consumption and personal well-being are not inextricably linked.

New economic thinking is needed. A transition to sustainable degrowth can help. We need to shift global attention from GDP as an indicator of well-being, towards other measures that put people and the environment first, such as New Zealand’s well-being budget, Bhutan’s gross national happiness index, or Ecuador’s social philosophy of buen vivir (good living).

Spend on clean energy: The International Energy Agency (IEA) says clean energy should be “at the heart of stimulus plans to counter the coronavirus crisis”.

The IEA has called on governments to launch sustainable stimulus packages focused on clean energy technologies. It says hydrogen and carbon-capture also need major investment to bring them to scale, which could be helped by the current low interest rates.

Governments could also use coronavirus stimulus packages to reskill workers to service the new “green” economy, and address challenges in healthcare, sanitation, aged care, food security and education.

Looking ahead

As climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe said this month:

What really matters is the same for all of us. It’s the health and safety of our friends, our family, our loved ones, our communities, our cities and our country. That’s what the coronavirus threatens, and that’s exactly what climate change does, too.

The coronavirus crisis is devastating, but failing to tackle climate change because of the pandemic only compounds the tragedy. Instead, we must draw on the lessons of coronavirus to address the climate challenge.

– ref. Here’s what the coronavirus pandemic can teach us about tackling climate change – https://theconversation.com/heres-what-the-coronavirus-pandemic-can-teach-us-about-tackling-climate-change-134399

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Glover, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, RMIT University

Most major corporate, academic and other networking events have been cancelled because of the risks of spreading the coronavirus while travelling or at the events themselves. This flurry of cancellations has even spawned a literally titled website: https://www.isitcanceledyet.com/. But the changes in behaviour now being forced upon us might benefit the planet in the long term as we find and get used to other ways of holding meetings.

The COVID-19 pandemic is driving the development of these alternatives to physical travel and meetings much more strongly than climate change had to date. With many countries closing their borders, limiting domestic travel and imposing restrictions on large gatherings, few conferences are likely to proceed in the coming months of 2020.

Read more: How changes brought on by coronavirus could help tackle climate change

Old conference model is unsustainable

Traditional face-to-face conferences tend to be rather unsustainable affairs. Participants often fly from around the world to attend – usually accompanied by some carbon-intensive conference tourism along the way. For people who take just one long-haul flight per year, air travel is likely to be the single largest contributor to their carbon footprint.

The dramatic decline in conferences and other meetings is likely to contribute to a significant drop in carbon emissions from air travel in 2020.

Conferences and meetings have come to be regarded as important parts of professional life. They allow us to connect with people and ideas in our field, and can be opportunities to advance new knowledge.

But with so many of us effectively “grounded”, what are the alternatives to attending traditional conferences and meetings?

Digital conferencing on the rise

The use of digital conferencing platforms has skyrocketed in the past few weeks as more and more people work from home and travel is restricted.

Leading US Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden even held a “virtual town hall” meeting recently as part of his campaign, although many users reported technical glitches and low-quality video plagued the experience.

Conferences are even taking place in virtual reality settings. These dedicated online conferencing environments are designed to mimic the venues conferences are often held in. These online events have large auditoriums, smaller “breakout rooms” and even socialising spaces to meet other participants through the use of digital avatars.

However, online conferencing need not be held in immersive 3D environments to be successful.

Exploring alternative formats

Most traditional conferences tend to be quite similar in format. They’re usually in a fixed location and run for two to five days. Presenters speak in front of live audiences on a fixed schedule.

Some digital conferences try to mimic this format, but others are trying to use the technology to open up the possibility for new types of event formats.

The “nearly carbon-neutral” conference model was initially developed to reduce the emissions associated with flying to conferences. Presentations are broadcast online over about two weeks. Participants can interact with presentations via accompanying text channels. The lectures and text messages are preserved online, creating an accessible archive.

Some events are being broadcast on the website Twitch. It’s a popular streaming platform where online gamers broadcast to – and interact with – surprisingly large audiences. This shows how conference organisers planning online events may need to look to communities who have been connecting and interacting “at a distance” long before any travel bans came into force.

Do we even need video?

It’s common for conferences and other events to have Twitter “backchannels” where participants post short messages about their experiences of attending the event to a dedicated hashtag. People who are unable to attend can view these messages to get a sense of “being there”.

The “Twitter conference” has taken this a step further. The digital event just involves participants posting on a dedicated hashtag at a set point in time.

Events like this show conferences can be stripped down to what they are ultimately about: connecting with people and ideas that we’re interested in.

One size won’t fit all

It’s unlikely any one event format will suit every purpose. Organisers will need to be creative in how they schedule and plan events. They’ll have to consider what they want to accomplish and what types of participation they want to have.

Digital conferencing may even give less mobile groups – people with disabilities or caring responsibilities or who are averse to flying – an opportunity to attend events they might have been unable to take part in before.

Ultimately, the restrictions on air travel and social gatherings will force us to adapt to new ways of “being together apart”, both professionally and personally. We may not be able to share a conference space with our peers and collaborators, but we can still connect with them. We might even learn more about what type of travel is really necessary, with the invaluable benefit of reducing the pace of climate change.

– ref. New ways of ‘being together apart’ can work for us and the planet long after coronavirus crisis passes – https://theconversation.com/new-ways-of-being-together-apart-can-work-for-us-and-the-planet-long-after-coronavirus-crisis-passes-133348

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Camilla Nelson, Associate Professor in Media, University of Notre Dame Australia

Words can help us imagine the world more deeply. Even as we retreat into our homes in this time of crisis, words can help us reach out to each other and pile up strength.

The Stella Prize is awarded each year to celebrate Australian women’s writing. This year’s shortlist brings together some of the best Australian writing in any genre. They are books about courage, strength, compassion and love. And they give us something of what we need – teaching us that to be alarmed is not to be cautious or careful; that to try to bear everything on one’s own is not necessarily to be strong.

These books can help us draw on our inner resources; to dig deep. Not only to find a point of calm, or, indeed, relief from boredom as the lockdown wears on – but more importantly, compassion, altruism, the capacity to cross social distances, reach out, help and support each other and our society in a time of crisis.

The Weekend by Charlotte Wood

When you read The Weekend you’ll probably learn some things about yourself that you didn’t know, and a few you’d rather not. This book takes a long look at women’s lives and friendships as we get old, at a time in life when everything we thought we knew – about ourselves, about our loved ones – is being thrown into doubt.

Three grieving women gather together for Christmas to clean out the beach house that belonged to their friend Sylvie, who has died. There is Jude, a once famous restauranteur, who has spent her adult life in a love affair with a wealthy married man. Adele, a once-famous stage actress, who is newly impoverished, having just broken up with her partner Liz. She is yet to tell the others. Finally Wendy, a public intellectual in her waning years, grieving for her dead husband. Without Sylvie to balance them, tensions rise.

This book cuts like a knife through social pieties but never loses its humanity. In one particularly wicked scene, Adele conducts a “leisurely inspection” of her best friends’ washbags, casually laying bare their “private vulnerabilities”: who has constipation, who takes Valium, and who still uses age-defying face cream.

As the characters clean out the house of “depressing old things” that “nobody wanted” the tensions of grief and emotion pull them in unexpected directions. Old betrayals are unearthed, words can’t be taken back (“out it slithered in a disgusting mass”) and lives shatter.

Wood has a keen eye for the emotional havoc life wreaks, even – or especially – as we amble off into old age. Her observations are knife-sharp, often merciless, but also warm and deeply alive.

The Yield by Tara June Winch

Language can take you deep inside experience – because words teach you not only how to speak, but also how to think and feel. A large part of Tara June Winch’s new novel is written as entries in a Wiradjuri dictionary, put together by the dictionary-maker Albert Gondiwindi. The first word – the “once upon a time for you” – is yarrany, Wiradjuri for a hickory acacia or spearwood tree, and Albert tell us “from it I once made a spear in order to kill a man”. Another word is baayanha meaning yield, which Albert calls “a funny word”. In English the word “yield” is the reaping, the things than man can take from the land”. But in Albert’s language “it’s the things you give to, the movement, the space between things”.

The action of The Yield centres on Albert’s granddaughter, August, who has returned to Country for her grandfather’s funeral after years in exile. Memories resurface, as August is entangled in circles of kinship, with aunties, nieces and cousins.

There are sombre notes. To August, everything is “browner, bone-drier”, and the evocative place name Massacre Plains reminds us that this is a site of invasion and violence. And then there’s the mystery of August’s missing sister, Jeddah.

The community is besieged by a mining development. Diggers roll into town, flanked by military-green Humvees. Winch charts the relationships between white activists and Indigenous rights groups, as they organise acts of resistance.

Aunty Betty and Aunt Carol Gibson get themselves locked against a fence in an act of protest. “Don’t fight back” says Mandy to August. “They can’t arrest us for sitting in”. Hours later rocks are hurled, water cannons discharge, and police squirt teargas. The past “filtered into their voices as they screamed together ‘Re-sist!‘”

Of course, Albert’s dictionary – “the old language, kept safe. Digitised. Captured forever” – is another kind of resistance. When August listens, she can hear the way “English changed their tongues, the formation of their minds”. This is also a book of hope in this resurgent language.

Here Until August by Josephine Rowe

The opening story in Josephine Rowe’s collection is called Glisk, a Scots word meaning a split second: a flash; a single instant. It’s a wonderful opening title in a short story collection that seems to telescope, stack and compress time, propelling characters across continents, through stark or solemn landscapes, or pinning them down in small towns.

Rowe’s characters are mostly fleeing grief or trauma, trying to find solace in strange lands. In Glisk, protagonist Fynn returns after working in a whiskey distillery in the Northern Isles of Scotland. The title conjures the fatal car accident that drove Fynn from Perth. But it also describes an earlier accident in which Fynn and his siblings built a raft with foam and buckets so they could journey out to an island to see the bioluminescence in the ocean. Only that time, catastrophe had been avoided.

These are wonderful stories. In Chavez, an agoraphobic young woman grieving for a dead husband, stays at home watching terrorist videos, until a neighbour asks her to look after her dog, forcing her to engage with the world. In The Once-Drowned Man a taxi driver and her passenger head for the Canadian border, engaging in an oddly uncomfortable struggle over grief and hurt.

Rowe’s stories deftly capture the fleeting and precarious moments that can shape and place us, or move us – like Fynn – towards a faltering redemption, “with the dark folding over the top of him”, all in a glisk.

There Was Still Love by Favel Parrett

Parrett’s third novel opens with an image of extraordinary dislocation, evoked through all the “little brown suitcases … on trains, and on carts” or “strapped to the top of buses” carried by people whose lives have been uprooted by war. Inside the suitcases, not just clothes and toiletries, but “all they can hold … your heart, your mind, your soul”.

Favell’s novel tells the story of two sisters, Liska and Ludek, who are separated as teenagers, firstly by the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia and then by the Cold War. Ludek stays in Prague, while Liska travels to London and on to Melbourne.

Liska negotiates the problems of a second language, together with her husband’s straightened work opportunities. Ludek travels the world as a member of Prague’s Black Light Theatre, a child kept at home to ensure her return to life behind the Iron Curtain. Both raise children in vastly different worlds. Both build and sustain homes that are marked by love.

Parrett paints a picture of the sometimes troubling life lived in a communist state, coloured by vivid details of 1980s culture. The prose is lyrical, and the child’s perspective is diffuse with a kind of magic.

This is a book about strong women. It is a story about complicated family lives, longing for home, and the worlds women build – through love – for their families.

Diving into Glass by Caro Llewellyn

Just after her 40th birthday, Caro Llewellyn – recently arrived in New York, working her dream job as director of the PEN Festival for writers – collapsed as she ran through Central Park. In hospital a few days later, her neurologist told her that she had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, an illness associated with the central nervous system – chronic, debilitating and lifelong.

This memoir is a record of Llewellyn’s struggle not to be defined by her disability. Its title enviably encapsulates the things that glitter and shimmer and exhilarate in this book. A sense of breathless energy just leaps off the page. “I was a runner all my life,” Llewellyn writes. Not just long and short distance, but also hurdles and relay. “It didn’t matter what I ran, so long as I was spent when I crossed the finish line”.

This is a book about many things: Llewellyn’s career, the strength she draws from her charming and ingenious father who was wheelchair-bound, having been struck by polio at 20. He married twice, courting his first wife – a hospital nurse – from deep inside an iron lung. Llewellyn learned a lot from her parents, though not always strictly wise. They included, “carry on like absolutely nothing’s wrong”, “build an impenetrable wall around your weaknesses”, or best of all “no matter how impossible it seems, how long the odds, words and a good story can help you overcome every single thing stacked up against you”.

But, as Llewellyn writes, “The day my legs went numb on the running track in Central Park, every one of those lessons evaporated”. This is not a book about overcoming illness or disability. It ends – much like it starts – with Llewellyn’s gaze on the horizon, searching.

See What You Made Me Do by Jess Hill

Jess Hill’s book is a deeply felt exploration of institutional failure. It opens with Hill standing in her backyard “hanging clothes out to dry on a stunning summer night alive with the screeching of fruit bats”, in a place where she “felt content, peaceful; safe”. Then comes the stunning realisation that many women do not get to feel safe, not at night, and not in their own backyard.

It’s 2015, a year on from the morning Australians woke up to see Rosie Batty, “a solitary woman, raw with grief” on their television screens. In front of her was “a clutch of reporters who’d barely hoped for a statement”. Batty told the media about the murder of her son – 11-year-old Luke Batty – at the hands of his father. It was the scenario she’d warned about countless times, in courts and police stations, in front of lawyers and judges and to social workers. Her pleas had been dismissed and disbelieved.

See What You Made Me Do brings together stories of domestic violence and survival from all walks of life – from the affluent neighbourhoods of Sydney’s Bible Belt to struggling remote and regional communities. Hill investigates the social and psychological causes of domestic abuse and its terrifying consequences. She talks to frontline social workers, counsellors who work the hotlines, and police.

Hill’s book maps the contours of a twisted public debate, through which the rights of children and women to safety – to feel secure, to live free from violence – are repeatedly brought up short by politics.

The Stella Prize will be announced online by Julia Gillard from 8pm (AEST) on Tuesday 14 April 2020.

– ref. Stella Prize 2020: a readers’ guide to the contenders – https://theconversation.com/stella-prize-2020-a-readers-guide-to-the-contenders-132515

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

After the coronavirus nightmare has passed, harsh judgements will be made about which political leaders and health experts were on the right or wrong side in handling this crisis.

Politicians like to cast back to the global financial crisis and play the blame game. The stakes were very high then – this time they are multiplied.

And there are many with futures or reputations (or both) on the line.

This week we’ve seen a high-profile clash of opinions and expertise on display. Given the exponential rise in cases, the calls for everyone to be on the same page must be secondary to the imperative of getting the right strategy.

One school of thought says, put health first and go nuclear now, with a full lockdown. The other school favours a stepped approach, tightening the screws but trying to keep as much economic activity alive for as long as possible.

Victorian premier Daniel Andrews (Labor) and NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian (Liberal) are hardliners. Victoria’s Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton spoke out forcefully this week. The two premiers have given notice their states are set to move to lockdown (where people would be confined to their homes). Jacinda Ardern has already taken New Zealand there.

With the divide crossing partisan lines, Andrews and Berejiklian are working closely together.

Scott Morrison is the prime advocate of the gradual approach. Resisting a full lockdown, he argued strongly this week he didn’t want to throw people out of jobs where it was possible to avoid doing so, and that he feared the consequences of the stresses the economic crisis would put on families.

For Morrison, it’s a balancing act, in the face of “a twin crisis, a crisis on a health front, which is also causing a crisis in the economy as well. And both of them can be equally as deadly, both in terms of the lives of Australians and their livelihood.”

Read more: Politics with Michelle Grattan: Nobel Laureate Professor Peter Doherty on the coronavirus crisis and the timeline for a vaccine

Labor has aligned with the position taken by Andrews and Berejiklian. From the start, the opposition has been urging faster action; this week Anthony Albanese sharpened his criticism.

He disputed “there is a tension between dealing with the health issues and dealing with the economic issues. That is a false distinction.

“The government has a responsibility to deal with this health emergency. That is the first priority. Then, it needs to deal with the economic consequences of the health emergency and the appropriate response. It needs to be done in that order.”

Those who argue Labor is just playing politics and should be sticking to the government line are off beam. This is a policy crisis too and policy arguments are legitimate and indeed necessary.

Among federal officials, the secretary of Home Affairs Mike Pezzullo is reportedly a hard liner.

Chief Medical Officer Brendan Murphy (who has been appointed secretary of the Health department) and his deputy Paul Kelly have been strong public defenders of the gradualist path.

Yet in the health world, many in academia are advocates of a immediate lock down.

The Prime Minister has found his hand being forced by the states (as in Sunday’s argy bargy on shutdowns) or bypassed (on schools).

Morrison has been a firm advocate of keeping the schools open, arguing it’s vital so health workers can continue in their jobs, and also because children shouldn’t lose a year of education.

This week Berejiklian advised parents to keep children home, while Andrews brought forward the school holidays. Western Australia is now encouraging remaining at home as new arrangements are prepared. Next week Queensland schools will be “student free” (apart from children of “frontline workers”). South Australia is likewise planning for the future.

Read more: View from The Hill: A contest of credible views should be seen as useful in a national crisis

Academic experts are at the centre of the policy battle, and this carries its own politics.

Take a paper, commissioned by the federal government, reporting the advice of 22 experts from Group Of Eight universities.

Dated Sunday, it put forward two views.

“One view, influenced by our position on the epidemic curve, the limitations of wide community testing and surveillance and the experience of other countries, argues for a comprehensive, simultaneous ban across Australia.

“The other, influenced by the fact that a large number of our cases are a direct/ contacts of importation (which have now been stopped), influenced by the large variation in case density across Australia and the adverse consequences of closure and the sustainability and compliance to an early closure argued for a more proportionate response”.

The first view was “a dominant position in this group”, the paper said. What it didn’t add was that this was the overwhelming view.

When asked about the paper at a Tuesday news conference, both Morrison and Murphy were noticeably uneasy. Morrison flicked the question to Murphy who said: “Any measures we place, we believe need to be for the long haul. The idea that you can put measures in place for four weeks and suddenly stop them and the virus will be gone is not credible. So we are very keen to put as restrictive measures in place without completely destroying life as we know it”.

Another paper circulating, including to senior business figures, argues “the case for a short, sharp lockdown in Australia”; it has been contributed to by Raina MacIntyre, who heads UNSW’s Biosecurity Program; Louisa Jorm, director of the Centre for Big Data Research in Health, UNSW; Tim Churches, health data scientist at UNSW; and Richard Nunes-Vaz, from Torrens Resilience Institute at Flinders University.

“We are deeply concerned about the prospect of Australia losing control of the epidemic to a degree which would exceed health system capacity and result in far greater numbers of cases, more health and economic losses, and a longer time to societal recovery,” the paper says.

“A short, sharp lockdown of 4-8 weeks will improve control of the epidemic in Australia, reduce case numbers and bring us to a more manageable baseline from which phased lifting of restrictions and economic recovery can occur.

“If we fail to do this, we face continued epidemic growth, potential failure of the health system, and a far longer road to recovery.”

The lockdown would be used to ramp up a massive testing operation to identify and isolate cases, enabling the subsequent ease-off to be done more safely.

On Thursday the federal government’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly suggested challenges to official advice made for public confusion and should be kept behind closed doors.

Not if the challengers turn out to be right.

Morrison received praise in the early days for his handling of the crisis. Now he and his closest health advisers are increasingly finding themselves the odd men out.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Which leaders and health experts will be on the right side of history on COVID-19 policy? – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-which-leaders-and-health-experts-will-be-on-the-right-side-of-history-on-covid-19-policy-134801

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By C Raina MacIntyre, Professor of Global Biosecurity, NHMRC Principal Research Fellow, Head, Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW

As the World Health Organisation keeps reminding health officials around the world, in order to get COVID-19 under control, we must “test, test, test”.

Along with tracing contacts of cases, travel bans and social distancing, testing is one of the four key planks in our pandemic response to SARS-CoV2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

Widespread testing has been the key to reducing transmission in South Korea, which was able to use only limited lockdowns because it tested at a mass scale.

Read more: Coronavirus: South Korea’s success in controlling disease is due to its acceptance of surveillance

Both South Korea and Japan tested people at high risk who didn’t have symptoms. On the Diamond Princess ship, for example, which was quarantined for two weeks in the port of Yokohama, Japanese testers found 634 people were infected and of these, 328 had no symptoms.

In the United States, asymptomatic spread has likely driven the silent growth of an epidemic that was only realised when the health system began overloading. We’ve seen the same in Italy and Spain, which also restrict testing.

Australia’s federal government has expanded the testing criteria beyond just returned travellers and those with close contact with an infected person.

But testing remains restricted to people with symptoms and doesn’t go far enough. Like South Korea, we should also be testing people without symptoms who are in high risk groups, such as close contacts, evacuees from cruise ships, and health workers who request a test.

How do we test for coronavirus?

There are two kinds of laboratory tests. One is a PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test, which detects fragments of the virus RNA in the sputum (phlegm), throat, nose or other body fluid.

The other is a blood test for antibodies to the virus. This can identify people who have been exposed to the virus and produced antibodies, whose swab may be negative.

Currently only PCR tests are widely available, but blood tests (serology) should be available soon.

PCR tests have some shortcomings. Throat swabs in particular can give you a false negative, so it may be necessary to repeat the test in someone who seems to have COVID-19. A nasal swab or sputum (phleghm) specimen is more likely to be positive in an infected person.

The PCR tests will only be transiently positive, while the serology remains positive once you have been infected. Blood tests are less likely to miss infected people, including children and young people. However, a blood test doesn’t tell you if someone is infectious at that time. PCR and serology can be used together for optimal results.

Read more: COVID-19 tests: how they work and what’s in development

Rapid, point-of-care tests which use a swab and have results available in 45 minutes are especially useful in outbreaks in closed settings such as aged care facilities or prisons. These aren’t yet available in Australia.

The government has ordered 1.5 million rapid tests which use blood. But it takes five days for a patient to develop antibodies and become positive to that kind of test. Only a PCR-based test can give an early diagnosis.

Chest CT scans were also used in China for rapid diagnosis because of the problem with PCR being negative.

Australian testing guidelines

The current Australian guidelines, which were expanded yesterday (March 25), restrict testing to people with a fever or respiratory illness who:

• have been in contact with a known COVID-19 case

• are return travellers including on cruise ships

• are in a high-risk setting where at least two COVID-19 cases have been confirmed, such as an aged care facility, prison, boarding school, detention centre, Indigenous community or military base

• are being hospitalised with pneumonia or a respiratory illness of unknown cause

• have illness clinically consistent with COVID-19 in a geographically localised area with elevated risk of community transmission, as defined by health authorities

• are health care workers, aged or residential care workers.

While these guidelines have expanded the testing criteria, they still restrict testing to people with symptoms.

Why more people should be tested

Australia has a high rate of testing compared to many other countries, and a low positive rate.

But we don’t have data on silent transmission that could be bubbling under the surface when infected people don’t have any symptoms or have very mild illness.

On February 14, the Spanish health minister laughed and told the Spanish people there was no COVID-19 in Spain:

Six weeks later the country has around 40,000 cases and a health system in collapse.

Who we should test

To make social distancing measures successful, they must be accompanied by a broadened testing criteria to ensure every new case can be identified rapidly.

Read more: Coronavirus: why should we stay 1.5 metres away from each other?

We should be testing people without symptoms who fall into the groups outlined in the current Australian guidelines, so that we do not miss asymptomatic cases in high risk groups.

This would include asymptomatic people who are: close contacts of people with COVID-19; evacuees from cruise ships; health or aged care workers who request a test; as well as asymptomatic people in closed outbreak settings (aged care centre, prison, boarding school, detention centre, Indigenous community or military base).

We also need to scale up capacity

Social distancing measures also need to be accompanied by scaled-up testing capabilities including:

• expanded capacity for PCR (swab) testing

• the ability to repeat testing (at least three tests) for suspected cases when the initial PCR (swab) test is negative

• drive-through testing sites to make testing accessible and safer for infection control

• increased capacity for Australian laboratories to conduct blood tests at mass scale

• continued investment and development of rapid point of care and commercial serological tests.

If we cannot procure or make enough tests, we could ask South Korea for help as the United States is doing.

It is essential we can identify all cases before we take the foot off the brakes of lockdowns.

Read more: How we’ll avoid Australia’s hospitals being crippled by coronavirus

– ref. To get on top of the coronavirus, we also need to test people without symptoms – https://theconversation.com/to-get-on-top-of-the-coronavirus-we-also-need-to-test-people-without-symptoms-134381

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeff Borland, Professor of Economics, University of Melbourne

The immediate impact of the coronavirus shutdown is striking in its magnitude, its speed and its concentration on a small set of industries.

My attempt to identify where the virus and the shutdown will have the biggest effect suggests that in February 2020 about 2.7 million workers were employed in the most exposed industries.

And while it won’t be possible to know for sure until April 16 when we get data from the Bureau of Statistics on the labour force in March, I believe it’s reasonable to think the jobs of about 900,000 are already under threat.

Who is most at risk?

In the table below I list those whom I think are most at risk.

For one group of about 1.4 million workers – primarily in industries involving eating out, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and air travel – the loss of work is the inevitable result of government shutdowns.

Another group, comprising about 900 thousand workers, are in retail trades (non-food) and personal services, where the effect on jobs is coming from consumers cutting spending apart from on essential items.

Workers in both at-risk groups are predominantly young. More than half are under 35 years of age. Six out of seven are employees. About one in every seven is an owner/manager or works in a family business.

A slightly higher proportion are female than male. They are evenly split between full-time and part-time.

Some industries will grow

Some industries are seeing rapid increases in demand due to the coronavirus. They include the retail grocery trade and associated logistic services, and the supply of office essentials needed to work at home.

In a relatively short period there is also likely to be an increase in demand from the health care and health services industries.

Other areas where increased demand seems likely are the home delivery of goods bought online, cleaning services and services usually undertaken by volunteers and government agencies who are occupied dealing with COVID-19.

The total workforce will shrink

So far there has been little impact of the supply of workers, but it will happen.

It is beginning to occur as schools and childcare centres close and workers withdraw in order to care for their children, and it is accentuated by parents not wanting to risk outsourcing the task to grandparents.

In the coming weeks, there will be further hits to labour supply as illness from COVID-19 causes workers to need to take leave and other workers withdraw to provide care for family members who become ill.

Read more: Here’s a bright idea should schools have to close: enlist childcare workers as nannies for health workers

It is difficult to be precise about the magnitude of withdrawal from the labour market, but it is potentially large.

To start with, most of the impact is likely to come from withdrawal for caring or to avoid illness.

As an indication of the potential scale of withdrawal, in 2019 there were 1.21 million families with children aged from 0-9 years in which either a sole parent or both parents were in paid work.

Read more: State-by-state: how Australia’s new coronavirus rules will affect you

In 2016 there were 634,500 people aged 65 to 84 doing voluntary work.

Workers becoming ill might also have a substantial impact on labour supply.

Under a (hopefully pessimistic) scenario that COVID-19 continues its current rate of growth over the next three weeks, with those infected in the previous two weeks then unable to work, this would be about 67,500 persons out of work due to illness.

COVID-19 has already had a dramatic effect on employment – that much is evident from news images of queues at Centrelink.

Further impacts are almost certain in coming weeks.

The scale and speed of what’s happening is creating the most serious labour market policy challenge of the post-war era.

– ref. Which jobs are most at risk from the coronavirus shutdown?  – https://theconversation.com/which-jobs-are-most-at-risk-from-the-coronavirus-shutdown-134680

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amy Graham, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, UNSW

More than one billion young people around the world are now shut out of classrooms due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Even in Australia where many schools remain open, many parents have chosen to keep their kids home.

Some Australian non-government schools have already shut their doors and moved classes online. Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania have ended the term early so teachers can prepare for online learning in the second term. Queensland has closed schools and moved to online classes.

For some children, learning online will be little more than an inconvenience. For others however, this will further magnify their learning disadvantage.

The digital divide

About 87% of Australians can access the internet at home. But only 68% of Australian children aged 5 to 14 living in disadvantaged communities have internet access at home, compared to 91% of students living in advantaged communities.

Students who have unlimited broadband internet at home might do just fine in this new situation. But students living remotely whose internet is intermittent and not fast or reliable enough to cope with online learning, and those in large families sharing limited digital devices, may get left behind.

Read more: Australia’s digital divide is not going away

When you add in additional family stress like parents facing sudden unemployment, extra anxiety and little experience supporting their children’s learning, the educational outcomes for vulnerable children will almost certainly go backwards.

A number of experts are worried about this worsening inequality. Education Professor Vaille Dawson of the University of Western Australia told us:

even when they are at school, for some students the only wi-fi connection is in the principal’s office. For those children who may be off the grid, already disengaged from their schooling or from vulnerable families, the outcome may be irreparable.

We have been conducting an ongoing research project, Growing Up Digital Australia, to understand how the widespread use of media and digital technologies is impacting the well-being, health and learning of Australian children.

The first findings from our as yet unpublished 2019 data confirm teachers and principals see family poverty as a key factor in accessing technology that students need for learning. More than 80% of teachers thought students’ socio-economic circumstances impact on their access to technology needed for learning. And one-third of teachers directly observed that children living in poverty had less access to technology than their more well-resourced peers.

This situation is likely to get far worse as the digital learning environment becomes the main option for schooling. Ideally, we would have addressed the existing digital divide before thrusting all students into it.

So, here is what we can do

Inequality in Australian education is increasing. School education, according to the OECD and UNICEF, is not treating Australian children fairly.

Political rhetoric to date has failed to recognise the existing educational inequities, especially in disadvantaged communities and many remote parts of the country. Assuming all children can benefit from learning digitally at home inherently privileges the wealthy and further entrenches a multi-tiered educational model.

We are witnessing a massive global social experiment with children and how they deal with this new way of learning.

Governments should act swiftly to lessen the inconvenient impact caused by this unplanned experiment in mass online learning. Assuming children will not go back to school anytime soon, there should be particular interventions to benefit the most needy families.

Some departments have pledged to address this by mailing out learning materials and offer skeletal staff to support the most vulnerable learners. Other ideas might include a rostered system of computers and digital devices children need to enable their study at home.

Read more: Universities need to train lecturers in online delivery, or they risk students dropping out

Authorities could also relax curriculum requirements and give parents autonomy to spend time with children on alternative educational activities. Music, physical activity and free play outdoors whenever possible can be equally educational for children’s learning and well-being as study with a computer indoors.

We are slowly learning the best way to cope with the threat of COVID-19 is through the lens of “we” rather than “I”. Some schools are much further along the journey in preparing for children learning online without coming to school every day.

Our schools have an opportunity to openly share resources, learning solutions and materials to support the learning of all students, regardless of education sector, social or economic background or location.

One thing governments should not do is to make this situation harder than it already is. They should not tell parents and teachers that missing three or four months of invaluable learning time and tests in schools means they must compress all that lost time into a month and catch up.

Instead, this could be an opportunity to level the playing field; for governments to learn some lessons about how education could be designed more equitably.

– ref. Schools are moving online, but not all children start out digitally equal – https://theconversation.com/schools-are-moving-online-but-not-all-children-start-out-digitally-equal-134650

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

The coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which causes the disease COVID-19, has infected nearly half a million people and taken the lives of more than 21,200.

No person in Australia is more qualified to speak on the science of this global pandemic than Professor Peter Doherty. Professor Doherty was awarded the Nobel prize for medicine in 1996 for his work studying the immune system. The Doherty Institute, now at the forefront of Australian research on the coronavirus, bears his name.

In this episode of Politics with Michelle Grattan, Professor Doherty discusses the particulars of the pandemic – including how controlling this pandemic differs from that of other illnesses:

“It’s a problem of dealing with a respiratory infection,” he said.

“It’s different from, say, AIDS. We can all modify the way we behave in the sexual sense, but we can’t decide not to breathe. And so it’s very important that we keep that social distancing right at the front of our mind. In fact, one of the best pieces of advice I’ve seen is, think [as if] you’ve already got it and you don’t want to transmit it to anybody else. And if you think like that, you’ll protect yourself. ”

Scientists from The Doherty Institute were the first to successfully grow the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) from a patient sample. According to Professor Doherty, a COVID-19 vaccine could be available within 12 to 18 months.

“There are a few new concerns … that some vaccine formulations, not all, but some could give you what we call a bit of immunopathology,” he said.

“That is, they might actually make [the illness] a little bit worse or contribute to some bad, bad situation. So we have to be careful with the vaccine. But the first vaccine product from the University of Queensland, I’m told, has already gone into lab animals.”

Listen to the full podcast for more from Professor Doherty, including how his research and institution is furthering the vaccination effort, how the virus affects the body and the future of the crisis.

New to podcasts?

Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click here to listen to Politics with Michelle Grattan on Pocket Casts).

You can also hear it on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Politics with Michelle Grattan.

Additional audio

A List of Ways to Die, Lee Rosevere, from Free Music Archive.

Image:

Dave Hunt/AAP

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Nobel Laureate Professor Peter Doherty on the coronavirus crisis and the timeline for a vaccine – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-nobel-laureate-professor-peter-doherty-on-the-coronavirus-crisis-and-the-timeline-for-a-vaccine-134795

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kris Gledhill, Professor of Law, Auckland University of Technology

Less than a fortnight after the first anniversary of the Christchurch mosque shootings, and on the first day of New Zealand’s four-week COVID-19 lockdown, the Australian man responsible for the attacks has surprised the nation by pleading guilty to all charges.

As well as being guilty of 51 counts of murder and 40 counts of attempted murder, he becomes the first person convicted of terrorism in New Zealand.

Up until now, the accused man – who The Conversation has chosen not to name – had pleaded not guilty to all charges and was due to stand trial from June 2. But the guilty plea means a trial is no longer necessary and the process now moves to the sentencing phase.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said she “let out a massive sigh of relief” when she heard the news of his guilty pleas, and that she expected many New Zealanders would also feel:

a certain sense of relief: that the whole nation, but particularly our Muslim community, are being spared from a trial that could’ve otherwise have acted as a platform.

Nothing will bring their loved ones back. But this is a small reprieve.

But families of victims and the wider New Zealand public look likely to face a long wait before the Australian terrorist is sentenced, as the court processes have been disrupted by the pandemic response. The judge has indicated that sentencing will only take place when all victims who want to attend can be present.

Read more: Far-right extremists still threaten New Zealand, a year on from the Christchurch attacks

Timing of guilty pleas

A note released by the judge, Justice Mander, records that the defendant intimated earlier this week that he wished to plead guilty to all charges and then confirmed that in writing.

Criminal courts continue operating for urgent matters during the lockdown and the Christchurch High Court used audio-visual links for the defendant and his lawyers at the change of plea hearing. Only a small number of media representatives and senior members of the Christchurch Muslim community were present.

No date has been fixed for the sentencing hearing – and this is sensible. Justice Mander has asked for reports on the defendant prior to sentencing.

Aside from any difficulties for probation officers preparing their advice to the judge, sentencing hearings also provide an opportunity for victims and families of victims to present victim impact statements.

These are usually presented orally in cases of serious crime. Managing this process would have been difficult in normal circumstances and is now even more complex during a pandemic lockdown, but the judge has made clear he hopes this can happen.

Speaking after the news of the guilty pleas, Police Commissioner Mike Bush said some police staff who were working on the prosecution of the mosque attacker would now be freed up to help with New Zealand’s COVID-19 response.

Read more: Remembering my friend, and why there is no right way to mourn the Christchurch attacks

Likely sentence and security conditions

The maximum sentence for attempted murder is 10 years, but for a terrorist act or murder it is life imprisonment. The Sentencing Act 2002 requires a life sentence for murder unless that would be manifestly unjust. In this case, there is no doubt the defendant will be sentenced to life in prison.

Some countries add various determinate sentences together to make long sentences, possibly of hundreds of years, but this practice is not followed in New Zealand.

But there is a real question for the judge. A life sentence has two parts: there is an outer limit (the rest of the defendant’s life) and a minimum term that has to be served as punishment. If the Parole Board concludes that the risk to the public is low enough, a person can be released once they have served the minimum term – so this is important.

The Sentencing Act requires a minimum term of at least 17 years for a terrorist murder or for murder involving two or more victims. But the judge is required to look at accountability for harm to victims, denunciation, deterrence and protection of the public and decide whether these factors require that no minimum term be set.

There has been no such whole life sentence in New Zealand to date. But I expect Justice Mander will give it serious consideration, notwithstanding the guilty plea, which is often given credit at the sentencing stage.

A prisoner is in the custody of the Department of Corrections. The defendant, an Australian self-declared white supremacist, has been in the highest security category and subject to additional restrictions since his arrest. It will be a long time, if ever, before he is managed outside high-security conditions.

There are various treaties relating to the transfer of serving prisoners, but New Zealand is not a party to them. It requires foreign prisoners to serve their sentence and then deports them. New Zealanders who are sentenced abroad cannot serve their sentence here.

When asked today about deportation, Prime Minister Ardern said it was too soon to make any decisions about the future, and that it was important to let the sentencing process finish first.

But it is generally accepted that the executive can make arrangements on an individual basis in special circumstances. It remains to be seen if the New Zealand and Australian governments make relevant arrangements.

– ref. Life in prison looms for Australia’s Christchurch gunman, now NZ’s first convicted terrorist – https://theconversation.com/life-in-prison-looms-for-australias-christchurch-gunman-now-nzs-first-convicted-terrorist-134780

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Helen Dickinson, Professor, Public Service Research, UNSW

The COVID-19 pandemic is terrifying for many of us, but people with a disability have more reason to worry than most.

People with a disability often have underlying health conditions that make them more susceptible to serious illness or death if they contract COVID-19. They may also be more at risk of contracting the virus if they have disability workers entering their home.

The federal government has made several policy announcements to protect older Australians in aged care facilities, hospitals and GP clinics, but we’re yet to see the same consideration for people with disabilities.

Read more: Private hospitals get grace period before freeze on non-urgent elective surgery

People with disability are already disadvantaged

One in five people in Australia has a disability. Of these, more than three-quarters report a physical disability, although many report multiple types.

People with disabilities are at higher risk of serious illness and death from coronavirus death due to higher rates of co-exisiting health conditions such as diabetes, asthma and chronic pulmonary obstructive disease:

People with disability are more likely to be poorer, not working and more socially isolated. This makes them more vulnerable to poor health outcomes during the pandemic.

Evidence for previous pandemics shows that health inequities worsen during epidemics as more marginalised communities have fewer resources (financial and social) and struggle to access necessary supplies and services.

On top of this, health information is rarely presented in an accessible format for children and adults with intellectual disabilities, such as Easy English (a style of writing that’s simple and concise) and/or pictorial formats.

People with disabilities must not be de-prioritised

At a time when there is unprecedented demand for health services, we need to ensure people with disability don’t miss out.

Read more: How we’ll avoid Australia’s hospitals being crippled by coronavirus

Health services can be inadequate for people with disability at the best of times because of barriers such as physical inaccessibility, lack of understanding of a person’s disability, and cost.

We’ve already seen reports around the world that older people and those with disability have been de-prioritised in health services.

In Italy, the professional organisation that sets guidelines for intensive care has stated health resources should prioritise those with the highest chance of “therapeutic success”.

If people with disability have pre-existing health conditions, or if their particular impairment means their chance of recovery is diminished, they may be de-prioritised for intensive care.

Last week the Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care Society updated its guidelines for doctors, acknowledging that when the coronavirus pandemic peaks, difficult decisions may need to be made.

It recommends doctors make decisions based on the probable outcome, whether people have underlying health conditions, and the “burden of treatment” for the patient and their family.

The guidelines don’t mention people with disabilities, but it’s easy to see how an assessment of the “burden of treatment” could include people with intellectual disability becoming upset by treatment, or taking more time to deliver.

Read more: The coronavirus pandemic is forcing us to ask some very hard questions. But are we ready for the answers?

Access to protective equipment and support

For people who require support with activities of daily living (dressing, bathing, meal preparation, and so on) it’s likely they have one or possibly several care workers who will move in and out of their home every day.

Currently, many workers don’t have access to protective equipment, such as gloves and masks.

Disability care workers’ movement across multiple homes makes it likely that some of them will acquire and transmit COVID-19 to the people they care for.

Many of those working in care roles are among some of the lowest paid in our society and many are employed on a casual basis. If they don’t work a shift, they will not be paid.

This means we might be incentivising people who desperately need income to take risks with their health and the health of the people they’re supporting.

Some providers are choosing to cancel shifts and not put their staff at risk. This is one way to protect staff, but will leave some people with a disability in real need.

Even before this pandemic there were disability workforce shortages. This is likely to increase as the number of infections rises.

What should we do?

The following actions are urgently needed to protect people with a disability as the pandemic progresses:

• the establishment of an expert committee with members who have expertise in the disability and health sectors to advise government

• a new MBS item to develop COVID-19 health care plans with children and adults with complex disabilities, so they know how to implement social distancing and hygiene measures, and how to access tests and treatment

• a dedicated coronavirus information hotline for people with disabilities, families and disability services, staffed by people with deep understanding of disability issues and underlying health issues

• significant supplies of personal protective equipment (such as masks, gloves and gowns) for the disability support workforce to reduce transmission

• government guarantees of income for care workers who may be sick, have caring responsibilities or have their shifts cancelled

• the mobilisation of a broader disability workforce, for example by drawing on allied health students.

These actions won’t address all the inequities people with disabilities face, but they will be a good start.

Read more: Coronavirus will devastate Aboriginal communities if we don’t act now

– ref. People with a disability are more likely to die from coronavirus – but we can reduce this risk – https://theconversation.com/people-with-a-disability-are-more-likely-to-die-from-coronavirus-but-we-can-reduce-this-risk-134383

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthea Batsakis, Deputy Editor: Environment + Energy, The Conversation

Right now, the best thing we can do to help stop the alarming spread of coronavirus is to stay home. But that doesn’t mean we can’t find pleasure in nature or help the environment.

Here, a behavioural science expert, a botanist, an environment media expert and an entomologist suggest easy ways to connect with nature in your garden (or on your balcony) while staying safe in isolation.

Read more: B&Bs for birds and bees: transform your garden or balcony into a wildlife haven

Many of these activities can be done with materials found at home. If you don’t have any plants, many nurseries and gardening suppliers will home deliver. Or go online to order plants, seeds, potting mix, gloves and tools.

Finally, try swapping cuttings or sharing gardening tools with neighbours – adhering to social distancing and other health guidelines, of course.

Get creative with containers

Melissa Hatty – Behavioural science doctoral researcher, Monash University

Gardening is great for mental and physical health. And it’s possible to do in just about any space, from growing alfalfa sprouts in cotton wool to building an urban permaculture garden, and everything in between. If space is limited, many herbs, vegetables and fruit trees can thrive in containers.

Container gardening is also an opportunity to express yourself. Art is useful for processing thoughts and intense emotions, while creativity has been linked to a more positive mood. And while we’re stuck at home, creativity expressed through containers might also starve off boredom and loneliness associated with prolonged isolation.

Try planting in an old pair of shoes, jeans, or furniture. Ask friends or neighbours if they have old items you can use to turn into planters. And your upcycling will also be helping the environment, turning trash into something useful.

Backyard science

Judith Friedlander – Environment media researcher, University of Technology Sydney, and PlantingSeeds founder

If ever there was an opportunity to embrace citizen science, it’s now. Everyday people, many with more time on their hands working from home, can still add value to scientific data and repositories, educating themselves all the while and connecting with a like-minded community.

And you can do it from your backyard, or even from gazing out the window, sending data, images, audio files and more to scientists who need it.

Read more: Want to help save wildlife after the fires? You can do it in your own backyard

Try Birddata – BirdLife Australia’s web portal – which works to collaboratively and scientifically collect data from people to protect Australia’s birds. Users engage with an interactive map to identify their area and input information on bird observations and the date observed.

Another is Questagame, a mobile game that gets players outdoors to engage with, learn about and help protect life on earth (while keeping your distance from other people). Users can submit sightings of animals, plants and fungi, or identify the sightings of other players.

You can find other citizen science programs here. Many, like Digivol, can be done from your computer if going outside isn’t an option. Created by the Australian Museum and ALA, Digivol is a crowdsourcing platform where users volunteer to transcribe data from natural history collections.

Make mulch

Greg Moore – Botanist, University of Melbourne

We hardly ever get around to deadwooding the trees and shrubs in our gardens, but with many of us isolating at home, we might have time.

Deadwooding is when you remove all the dead little twigs and branches from your trees and shrubs. Your plants will look better and healthier, and you’ll have removed the risk of this dead material causing damage in the next wind storm.

But the dead material you’ve removed is also great as a part of a good mulch. The best mulch is of mixed particle size – a blend of fine and coarse material and everything in between. That’s where your deadwood plays its role.

Fine twigs break down easily, while the coarse material (up to 50 millimetres in diameter and 30-50 centimetres long) such as larger branches or parts of stems, let in air and water when it rains, and lasts for a few years.

Your mulch should be 75-100mm thick. And if you do it now, when you come to check on your mulch in a year’s time, you will have a healthier garden when, as we hope, the current troubles are all behind us.

Plant for winter pollinators

Tanya Latty – Entomologist, University of Sydney

Although we usually associate bees and other pollinators with summer, in warmer countries like Australia, many types of pollinating insect are active throughout the winter months.

Now, in autumn and while we’ve bunkered down, is the best time to plant a garden for winter-active pollinators like hoverflies, honeybees and (on warmer days) stingless bees.

Read more: A solution to cut extreme heat by up to 6 degrees is in our own backyards

Pollinator-friendly flowers can supercharge natural pest control by attracting beneficial predatory insects. Hoverflies, for example are garden superheroes that pack a double punch; the adults are pollinators, while the larvae are voracious aphid predators.

Choose pollinator-friendly plants with different flowering times so that there’s something in bloom through the winter months.

Brassicas like broccoli, bok choi and mustard greens produce flowers that are a favourite food of many insect pollinators – simply leave some of your harvest to flower. Salvias and Basils are also good choices that will attract a variety of beneficial insects.

But don’t forget to plant native flowers like coastal rosemary, Hardenbergia violacea (“Happy Wanderer”), Wattles , and Grevilia’s (especially “Honey Gem” and “Flamingo”) to support some of our pickier native insects.

– ref. Running out of things to do in isolation? Get back in the garden with these ideas from 4 experts – https://theconversation.com/running-out-of-things-to-do-in-isolation-get-back-in-the-garden-with-these-ideas-from-4-experts-134229

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tamara Kohn, Professor of Anthropology, University of Melbourne

The coronavirus is not only affecting the way we live, it’s also dramatically affecting the way we die.

In Australia, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced that funerals would be limited to a maximum of ten people to limit the spread of COVID-19. However, the states may have some leeway in permitting an extra one or two.

Funeral directors say they are concerned about the availability of crucial health supplies such as masks, hand sanitiser and body bags.

In Italy, people with COVID-19 reportedly “face death alone”, with palliative care services stretched to the limit, morgues inundated, funeral services suspended, and many dead unburied and uncremated.

In Iran, satellite photography shows trenches being excavated for mass burials.

Read more: The case for Endgame C: stop almost everything, restart when coronavirus is gone

As Australia’s coronavirus response moves into a critical period, these examples remind us that how we care for the dead must be part of our pandemic plan.

It is extremely difficult to estimate the total number of people who will die in Australia from COVID-19. Predictions range from 3,000 to 400,000.

Our morgues, crematoria, cemeteries and funeral homes will certainly be stretched to capacity.

Family and loved ones may be facing a very different funeral to the one they envisaged.

And while funeral directors and others in the deathcare industry are changing the way they care for the dead, there are clearly challenges ahead.

Can I kiss my loved one goodbye?

Traditions that include kissing, hugging, and dressing the dead have often been abandoned or significantly modified during pandemics.

For instance, during the Ebola outbreak of 2013-16, governments were forced to separate the dying and dead from their communities, enforce new non-contact methods of burial, and in so doing, transform how people mourned.

In Australia, the latest federal guidelines (updated March 25) advise families not to kiss the deceased. However, they can touch the body if they wash their hands immediately afterwards or use alcohol-based hand sanitiser. In most cases, family members do not need to use gloves.

How are funerals changing?

Travel bans and mandatory self-isolation periods can delay some funerals. And funerals that pull people from distant places into intimate proximity, often including vulnerable people, present a clear health risk.

For instance, in Spain, more than 60 cases of COVID-19 were traced back to one funeral service.

While Australia has limited the size of funerals, other countries have temporarily banned people from attending them altogether.

Read more: Why are older people more at risk of coronavirus?

Deb Ganderton, chief executive of Melbourne’s Greater Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust, told us:

Everyone has the right to expect a funeral and burial service that respects their individual beliefs. For the families, friends and loved ones of the deceased, an end of life service can also be an important part of the grieving process and help them cope with their loss.

So we need to be creative to find ways to both protect that right and protect public health.

More funerals and memorials going online

In many countries, including the US, UK and Australia, as funeral services are being scaled back or suspended to limit spread of the coronavirus, online services are flourishing.

Our DeathTech Research Team has been following this move to streamed funeral and memorial services. We’ve also been following interest in using hired robots, which people control from afar, to allow people to attend a funeral who can’t be there in person. We predict more innovative use of technology in coming months.

We may also see more people using digital technology such as social media sites for sharing personal memories of the dead and expressing emotions, particularly if they can’t attend funerals in person.

What’s happening behind the scenes?

The coronavirus is also challenging the deathcare industry – which includes funeral homes, cemeteries, morgues and crematoria – for a number of reasons.

International guidelines for funeral directors say that after death, the human body does not generally create a serious health hazard for COVID-19. NSW guidelines say funeral directors and people working in mortuaries are unlikely to contract COVID-19 from deceased people infected with the virus.

However, both sets of guidelines do set out detailed infection control procedures.

Adrian Barrett, senior vice-president of the Australian Funeral Directors Association, told us:

There’s a lot of inconsistency in advice about death and funerals between different states and federal government […] Recommendations around coronavirus can be in conflict. We’d rather have and follow conservative guidelines, to make sure we are doing as much as possible.

Then, there’s the issue of staffing. Although many other sectors can find ways to isolate or temporarily close, cemetery, funeral, and crematoria workers provide an essential service and cannot work from home.

We rarely think about the welfare of those who handle the dead. These workers are too often stereotyped as profiteering in the face of grief, or stigmatised by the taboos surrounding their work. But there is a deep sense of service and care that pervades this professional community.

Read more: Friday essay: images of mourning and the power of acknowledging grief

For this community, safe working conditions means ensuring the supply of personal protective equipment. However, Adrian of the Australian Funeral Directors Association told us funeral homes across Australia are struggling to source items such as masks and have run into problems with suppliers profiteering by raising prices.

Finally, we need to advertise broadly a public duty of care for those in the deathcare sector. These are the people who safely dispose of bodies and care for people dealing with the loss of loved ones.

Coronavirus has, in such a short time, radically transformed how we live our daily lives as well as urgently reminded us about the fragility of life.

– ref. Small funerals, online memorials and grieving from afar: the coronavirus is changing how we care for the dead – https://theconversation.com/small-funerals-online-memorials-and-grieving-from-afar-the-coronavirus-is-changing-how-we-care-for-the-dead-134647

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Johnston, Research Affiliate, University of Sydney

Being close to others is intrinsically associated with theatre.

In Shakespeare’s London, theatre gatherings were condemned by the Puritans as evil. They thought the plague spread by theatre crowds was God’s punishment on the wicked for indulging in pastimes such as acting.

The shutting down of Broadway and the West End gives an eerie historical parallel to a world we thought was well in the past. Meanwhile, COVID-19 poses as an existential threat for Australia’s fragile performing arts sector.

While some artists look to stream performances online, there is something missing without others “being there” to witness performance in the flesh. Proximity and touch are crucial to “liveness”.

Festivals of togetherness

Touch is commonly associated with ritual through what anthropologist Victor Turner calls “communitas” – a shared and equal feeling of togetherness. In the Catholic mass, members of the congregation shake hands during the “sign of peace” creating a feeling of community. The Maori pōwhiri (welcoming ceremony) culminates in the “hongi” (pressing noses together). The Hajj is characterised by close embodied proximity of believers at the holy site in Islam.

Touch can be important to cultural festivals too. Performance anthropologist J. Lowell Lewis notes that in Brazil’s Carnival:

the degree of close contact is quite important to the sense of a successful festival, for many, and is directly related to a positive valuation of what they call movimento (literally, movement; figuratively, something like the English colloquial sense of “where the action is” at a party scene or perhaps a “happening” situation) …

Live arts and theatre might not be founded in grand narratives of religious and cultural belief, but they do bring people together in a common experience.

Touching histories in theatre

From the ancient Greeks through to the Romans and Middle Ages, there was a theory we are always in contact through an invisible “ether” that exists between bodies.

The famous Russian director and father of actor-training, Constantin Stanislavski, wrote about a “communion” between actors and audience through invisible rays of communication linking by what he called “irradiation”. He also talked about “grasp” on an audience in moments of inspiration.

Avant garde French poet and theatre-maker, Antonin Artaud, speculated about “theatre and the plague” and dreamt of a direct communication of thought and meaning through the body in live performance.

Brazilian theatre-maker and political activist, Augusto Boal, developed theatre games in which touch was crucial for bringing a community together through what he called Theatre of the Oppressed. Proximity and feeling were important for participants understanding each other’s perspective and exploring different ways we might engage in social and political change.

More recently, we have seen the rise of immersive theatre which breaks the fourth wall and allows audiences and performers to interact in specific surroundings, often through improvisation.

Tactility is part of what ethnographer Clifford Geertz calls our “matrix of sensibility”. Skin-to-skin contact is crucial to the mother-infant relationship and our very first awareness of the world.

But with new media, seeing is the dominant way we tend to consume entertainment. The risk is that we might lose a sense of feeling and responsibility.

Philosophy and Ethics

In many ways, touch is fundamental to the way we come to know the world as theorised by Maurice Merleau-Ponty. The phrase, “getting a handle on something” can mean practical and emotional knowledge about the world. So when we say a performance was “touching”, it can also be an embodied feeling of change.

Arts and theatre companies are already finding innovative ways of reaching audiences. Part of the thrill of being at a live event is a sense of danger. Audience members see each other. Things might go wrong. You might be handpicked as a volunteer from the audience. And there is a mutual obligation developed through laughter, silence and applause.

How these dangers will transmit via Zoom, Skype or Instagram Live remains to be seen.

Read more: When one door closes, open a window – 14 sites with great free art

Evolution

Perhaps limiting touch will serve to increase the meaning of proximity on the occasions that it does occur.

Our heightened awareness of touch and proximity might have benefits in terms of staying away from others if we are unwell, washing hands and maintaining personal hygiene. Lady Macbeth’s untimely demise might serve a double purpose if we say her famous “Out damned spot!”speech twice while scrubbing and rinsing.

In the meantime, new norms around touch and proximity will emerge and performance will play an important part in reflecting and changing social attitudes.

– ref. The power of proximity and the theatre of touch: what losing live audiences may mean for theatre – https://theconversation.com/the-power-of-proximity-and-the-theatre-of-touch-what-losing-live-audiences-may-mean-for-theatre-133515