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

The government and the Australian Defence Force are bracing for reputational damage to the military from damning findings in an imminent report on Australian Special Forces’ behaviour in Afghanistan.

The report, expected within a month, is from a long-running inquiry by Justice Paul Brereton. Earlier this year the inspector-general of the ADF noted the inquiry was examining 55 separate incidents or issues.

They include allegations of killings of unarmed civilians and insurgents who had surrendered. Some such alleged atrocities have been aired publicly by the ABC, including helmet-camera footage taken at the time.

The government and the ADF will argue action has been taken to address the culture and circumstances behind the various incidents examined by Brereton, which mostly took place between 2007-13.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison gives the military a special status on public occasions – when he makes speeches, he pays tribute to them after he acknowledges the local Indigenous people.

Last week, Defence Minister Linda Reynolds was blunt about what the Brereton inquiry would find, although she said she hadn’t seen the report.

“I think that will make some very significant findings – ones that I’m certain will make many Australians uncomfortable and also dismayed.

“So I think we do need to prepare ourselves for that,” she said.

But she went on to say that since the alleged incidents, the army and particularly the Special Forces had engaged in “self reflection” about the conduct of soldiers in Afghanistan and what was needed to prevent any repetition.

Read more: It’s time for Australia’s SAS to stop its culture of cover-up and take accountability for possible war crimes

She also stressed the past behaviour “in no way reflects on our current serving men and women both here and overseas who are doing an extraordinary job for our nation.”

Chief of Defence Force Angus Campbell has now appointed Tom Frame, a UNSW professor and former former Anglican Bishop to the Defence Force in 2001-07, to write an “independent academic study of Australian Special Forces in Afghanistan”.

The Defence department said the book would “aim to provide an understanding of Australia’s Special Forces, including consideration of the ethical standards and command culture of Special Operations Command and its people on operations from 1999 until the present day, with a focus on service in Afghanistan”.

“It is expected that the publication will be used as an academic reference to guide our leaders in the years ahead and contribute to the professional development of the Australian Defence Force today and into the future,” the department said.

“The study is not a historical record of Australia’s Special Forces or operations in Afghanistan, and is separate to the Australian Government Official History of Australian Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan project.”

Frame’s book will be published in 2022.

As the Brereton inquiry has progressed, the alleged Afghanistan incidents have become a highly charged public debate.

One of those interviewed by the inquiry was VC recipient Ben Roberts-Smith, who has brought defamation action after allegations reported in the media – which he denied – concerning his behaviour in Afghanistan.

Neil James, executive director of the lobby group the Australia Defence Association, wrote last year in an article about Special Forces:

“The war in Afghanistan was fought under particularly difficult operational, legal and environmental conditions.”

“High operational tempo fostered both worthy and risky elements of elite-unit culture.

“As did regular tax-free pay and allowances when deployed, protected-identity status and public curiosity about personnel and their necessarily high-security operations. Individual and collective recognition of these risks became obscured.”

– ref. Government bracing for damning report on alleged Special Forces’ incidents in Afghanistan – https://theconversation.com/government-bracing-for-damning-report-on-alleged-special-forces-incidents-in-afghanistan-144284

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

The government and the Australian Defence Force are bracing for reputational damage to the military from damning findings in an imminent report on Australian Special Forces’ behaviour in Afghanistan.

The report, expected within a month, is from a long-running inquiry by Justice Paul Brereton. Earlier this year the inspector-general of the ADF noted the inquiry was examining 55 separate incidents or issues.

They include allegations of killings of unarmed civilians and insurgents who had surrendered. Some such alleged atrocities have been aired publicly by the ABC, including helmet-camera footage taken at the time.

The government and the ADF will argue action has been taken to address the culture and circumstances behind the various incidents examined by Brereton, which mostly took place between 2007-13.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison gives the military a special status on public occasions – when he makes speeches, he pays tribute to them after he acknowledges the local Indigenous people.

Last week, Defence Minister Linda Reynolds was blunt about what the Brereton inquiry would find, although she said she hadn’t seen the report.

“I think that will make some very significant findings – ones that I’m certain will make many Australians uncomfortable and also dismayed.

“So I think we do need to prepare ourselves for that,” she said.

But she went on to say that since the incidents, the army and particularly the Special Forces had engaged in “self reflection” about how such incidents could have happened and what was needed to prevent any repetition.

She also stressed the past behaviour “in no way reflects on our current serving men and women both here and overseas who are doing an extraordinary job for our nation.”

Chief of Defence Force Angus Campbell has now appointed Tom Frame, a UNSW professor and former former Anglican Bishop to the Defence Force in 2001-07, to write an “independent academic study of Australian Special Forces in Afghanistan”.

The Defence department said the book would “aim to provide an understanding of Australia’s Special Forces, including consideration of the ethical standards and command culture of Special Operations Command and its people on operations from 1999 until the present day, with a focus on service in Afghanistan”.

“It is expected that the publication will be used as an academic reference to guide our leaders in the years ahead and contribute to the professional development of the Australian Defence Force today and into the future,” the department said.

“The study is not a historical record of Australia’s Special Forces or operations in Afghanistan, and is separate to the Australian Government Official History of Australian Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan project.”

Frame’s book will be published in 2022.

As the Brereton inquiry has progressed, the Afghanistan incidents have become a highly charged public debate.

One of those interviewed by the inquiry was VC recipient Ben Roberts-Smith, who has brought defamation action after allegations reported in the media – which he denied – concerning his behaviour in Afghanistan.

Neil James, executive director of the lobby group the Australia Defence Association, wrote last year in an article about Special Forces:

“The war in Afghanistan was fought under particularly difficult operational, legal and environmental conditions.”

“High operational tempo fostered both worthy and risky elements of elite-unit culture.

“As did regular tax-free pay and allowances when deployed, protected-identity status and public curiosity about personnel and their necessarily high-security operations. Individual and collective recognition of these risks became obscured.”

– ref. Government bracing for damning report on Special Forces’ incidents in Afghanistan – https://theconversation.com/government-bracing-for-damning-report-on-special-forces-incidents-in-afghanistan-144284

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zachariah Wylde, Postdoctoral Researcher in Evolutionary Biology, UNSW

As time passes, our fertility declines and our bodies start to fail. These natural changes are what we call ageing.

In recent decades, we’ve come leaps and bounds in treating and preventing some of the world’s leading age-related diseases, such as coronary heart disease, dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.

But some research takes an entirely unique view on the role of science in easing the burden of ageing, focusing instead on trying to prevent it, or drastically slow it down.

This may seem like an idea best left to cranks and science fiction writers, but it’s not.

The futurist’s quest

There have been myriad scientific research efforts focused on stopping or slowing the effects of ageing.

Last year, scientists studying the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans (a common model organism for ageing-related research) managed to manipulate its biochemical pathways. The resulting worms lived five times longer than their typical lifespan of 20 days.

The length of the telomere has also received a lot of interest. This is a tiny structure within a cell that protects chromosomes from deterioration. One study found a faster rate of telomere shortening resulted in a shorter lifespan in many species, including humans.

This suggests that if we can protect these structures, we could greatly increase our lifespan. However, telomere maintenance is complex and telomeres can vary in how quickly they shorten, depending on where they are in the body.

The drug metformin, usually prescribed to manage type 2 diabetes, has also been touted as a way to delay the onset of a range of age-related diseases, thus increasing “health-span” (how long we remain healthy).

Nir Barzilai, director of the Institute for Ageing Research at Yeshiva University’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine, is seeking approval from the US Food and Drug Administration for the first clinical trial of metformin to “treat” ageing.

But other researchers are concerned, as metformin intake has an association with a higher risk of B vitamin deficiencies. Some studies suggest this can result in cognitive dysfunction.

One 2018 study also found metformin can reduce aerobic capacity and quash the benefits of excercise – something we know helps fight the effects of old age.

Metformin also seems to show mixed results in its effects on ageing depending on which model organism is used, such as rats, flies or worms. This raises doubts about whether its supposed benefits would apply to humans.

Another compound of interest is nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD). This naturally occurring substance is vital to energy metabolism in most animals including humans, plants, bacteria and even yeast. In mice and humans, NAD levels appear to decline as we age.

NAD and compounds like resveratrol (a chemical isolated from wine) have been shown to work together to maintain the function of our mitochondria – the structures that produce energy inside our cells – and thus fight off ageing in mice. But this research lacks much-needed human trials.

The immortal jellyfish

Evolutionary biologists know ageing is a highly “plastic” process that can be influenced by many factors including diet, climate, genetics and even the age at which our grandparents conceived our parents. But we don’t know why some species age more slowly than others.

Research has shown that several species appear not to age. For example, the “immortal” jellyfish Turritopsis dohrnii can revert to a juvenile stage of life and seemingly escape the process of ageing.

To figure out why some species age better than humans, we have to understand so-called “epigenetic changes” which alter our DNA expression throughout the ageing process.

Read more: Ageing: how our ‘epigenetic clocks’ slow down as we get older

Epigenetic changes are mechanisms that can determine which genes are turned on or off in offspring. These mechanisms have a huge influence on the course of a species evolution.

Understanding them could also help us understand why humans and other animals evolved to age in the first place.

The culture of DIY biology

When it comes to research on ageing, immense interest from the public and large companies has created an environment where it’s difficult to separate unfounded claims from science. In this grey area, biohackers emerge.

“Biohacking” is a term used to describe actions that supposedly let you “hack” your brain and body to optimise their performance, without traditional medicine.

Its proponents often peddle claims exaggerated by cherry-picked evidence.

One example is alkaline water, claimed to slow ageing by reducing oxidative stress.

Two studies highlight alkaline water’s positive effects for acid-base balance in the bloodstream, or increasing hydration status during exercise. But both of these studies were funded by companies selling alkaline water.

A systematic review of the literature shows there is no research to support or disprove beliefs about alkaline water being a biohack.

There are also bogus “young blood transfusions”, in which an older person is injected with a younger person’s blood to “cure” ageing. This is a very real and exploitative part of the anti-ageing industry.

Even if we could, should we?

The concept of fighting ageing has long been woven into the human narrative.

But forcefully extending the human lifespan by even one decade would present difficult social realities, and we have little insight into what this would mean for us.

Would a “cure” for ageing be abused by the wealthy? Would knowing we had longer to live decrease our motivation in life? Perhaps it’s a good thing we won’t be diving into the fountain of youth any time soon – if ever.

Read more: Want to live longer? Consider the ethics

– ref. Can ageing really be ‘treated’ or ‘cured’? An evolutionary biologist explains – https://theconversation.com/can-ageing-really-be-treated-or-cured-an-evolutionary-biologist-explains-143255

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Janneke Berecki-Gisolf, Associate Professor, Accident Research Centre, Monash University

COVID-19 restrictions in Victoria have had a marked effect on how and where we spend our time. For many people, home has become the workplace, and for most school-aged children, home is also the classroom.

We compared Victorian emergency department presentations in May 2020 to those in May 2019 and found this extra time at home has affected the rates at which people are presenting to hospital with injuries — and the types of injuries they’re presenting with.

Importantly, overall presentations to the emergency department were down. But some categories saw notable increases, including the number of “unintentional home injuries”, which grew by 21%, and the number of injuries caused by “assault in the home”, which was 48% greater than the same time last year.

Although motor vehicle related injuries decreased, there was an increase in bicycle injuries, particularly among children.

What we did

At Monash University’s Victorian Injury Surveillance Unit, we’ve been tracking injury rates throughout the pandemic.

We get our data from the Victorian Emergency Minimum Dataset, which holds deidentified clinical records of presentations at Victorian public hospitals with 24-hour emergency departments (currently 38 hospitals).

We’re also tracking emergency department presentations overall, to determine how much more common different types of injuries are becoming as a proportion of usual emergency department presentations. We call this measure “relative to emergency department caseload”.

So for example, in our most recent bulletin, we took the total emergency department presentations during May 2020. But because we’re looking for the proportion of usual emergency department presentations — that is, outside a pandemic — we excluded presentations directly or indirectly related to the pandemic from the total.

To calculate “relative to emergency department caseload”, we worked out the injuries as a proportion of this total.

Illness

Emergency presentations in Victoria were 24% lower in May 2020 than in May 2019 (118,793 versus 156,708 respectively). This decrease should be considered in the context of steady growth in emergency department presentations in Victoria in recent years. It’s difficult to deny the COVID-19 pandemic is deterring people from presenting to hospital.

Respiratory illness-related presentations (such as asthma or pneumonia) in particular saw a steep reduction. Some 4,748 people presented to Victorian emergency departments with respiratory issues in May — 63% fewer than in May last year, when there were 12,847 such presentations.

Even people with potentially life-threatening conditions were less likely to present to hospital. Heart attack presentations were down 15% compared with the same period one year prior (721 versus 613), and stroke presentations were down 19% (858 versus 693).

Read more: Even in a pandemic, continue with routine health care and don’t ignore a medical emergency

Injuries

The overall number of injury presentations to Victorian emergency departments was actually 26% lower in May 2020 than in May 2019 (26,991 versus 36,293).

But breaking this down by the place where the injury occurred shows a marked reduction in injuries that took place in sporting venues and schools, and an increase in injuries that occurred in the home and on farms.

Unintentional home injuries, including DIY injuries, increased from 10,105 to 12,265 (21%) from May 2019 to May 2020. Relative to emergency department caseload, this was a 56% increase. At both timepoints, falls were the most common cause of unintentional home injuries.

Self-harm injuries did not increase in May 2020 versus May 2019 in terms of the raw numbers (719 versus 773). But relative to emergency department caseload, self-harm injury presentations increased by 20%.

This can be taken with more recent data outside of our research which showed a 9.5% rise in the number of overall Victorian hospital admissions for self-harm in the past six weeks.

Read more: It’s not only teenage girls, and it’s rarely attention-seeking: debunking the myths around self-injury

According to our data, assault in the home increased from 118 presentations in May 2019 to 175 in May 2020: a 48% increase in frequency and a 91% increase relative to emergency department caseload.

Finally, transport injuries overall were not much different in May 2020 compared to May 2019 (1,669 versus 1,766). This was, however, a 22% increase when considered relative to emergency department caseload. While motor vehicle injuries decreased by 30% (833 to 581), bicycle injuries increased 55% from 371 to 576.

For children under 15 years, the rate of transport-related injury presentations to emergency departments increased 78% from May 2019 to May 2020.

Staying safe at home

The bulletins we previously released for March and April, and the data we’re now collating for June, reflect similar trends in the rates and types of emergency department presentations, as compared to the same time points last year.

Our findings have a few different implications.

First, we should encourage people who are sick and need hospital care to present to hospital — not to stay home for fear of contracting COVID-19.

Second, alongside the messaging we’re receiving to “stay home” and “stay safe” from coronavirus, public health messaging should include advice on staying safe at home.

With reduced face-to-face contact with health practitioners, some injury prevention messaging, such as the information provided through child-maternal health services, general practitioners and nurses, should be made available through other channels. These could include social media, radio, television, and telephone consultations.

Improving awareness of cycling safety, including messaging around cycling road rules, would also be pertinent at this time.

Read more: There are ways to reduce injuries in kids that don’t involve wrapping them in cotton wool

Finally, trends in self-harm and assault in the home need to be closely monitored, particularly during stage 4 restrictions in Victoria.

The stricter lockdown conditions may result in further increases in violence in the home and compound the effects on mental health, and we need to provide support accordingly.

– ref. Victorian emergency departments during COVID-19: overall presentations down but assault, DIY injuries up – https://theconversation.com/victorian-emergency-departments-during-covid-19-overall-presentations-down-but-assault-diy-injuries-up-144071

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Wilson, Associate Professor in Education, University of Sydney

To fix inequality in Australian education, governments should fully fund all non-government primary schools, according to former former NSW Education Minister and now head of the UNSW Gonski Institute, Adrian Piccoli.

In an opinion piece published in the Sydney Morning Herald, Piccoli suggests government funding be dependent on non-government schools no longer collecting fees from parents and agreeing to abide by the same enrolment and accountability rules as public schools.

The fully-funded non-government primary private schools would still be run by the same organisations as before, and abide by the same educational philosophy. But no student would be turned away.

Fully funding primary schools would enable parents to access neighbourhood non-government schools at no cost. It would provide welcome relief for parents who now send their children to non-government primary schools, but who are facing difficulties paying fees due to the COVID-19 recession.

We are co-authors on a report documenting the rising inequality in Australian education, with Adrian Piccoli and educational consultant Chris Bonnor. The report will be released by the Gonski Institute in coming days.

Read more: Explaining Australia’s school funding debate: what’s at stake

Our previous analysis of the MySchool website found many non-government schools cost the government almost as much money as government schools. Having them abide by the same rules as do public schools would go some way towards decreasing inequality in Australian education.

How it might work in Australia

Fully-funding all Australian primary schools is a relatively straightforward proposition. But attached to it must be a renegotiated set of mutual obligations between schools and those who fund them — that is, elected governments. This must have the explicit goal of improving equitable outcomes for all communities, not just those which are already advantaged.

The additional cost of full recurrent public funding of all non-government primary schools is estimated to be about A$500 million a year across Australia. Given Australian governments spend almost $60 billion a year on school education this equates to a relatively small investment.

Our earlier report has shown many non-government schools are nearly fully-funded to the levels established by the Gonski reviews and some fall short. Yet, remarkably, some remain in excess of their calculated entitlement — a quirk of a decision to not disadvantage over-funded schools.

By fully funding primary schools these disparities can be addressed and more equitable funding provided.

Removing fees will likely create additional demand for some schools. Parents who value a particular model (Montessori, Steiner, religious) but who do not have the resources to pay might increase enrolment interest.

Read more: Yes, some Australian private schools are overfunded – here’s why

Funding would flow with the student. This means the schools would be resourced to cater for their enrolment. Exclusion would not be permitted, as is currently the case in fully-funded government schools.

More radically, non-government schools could partner more closely with other local government schools, perhaps even relocating students through local proximity.

Other countries do it already

While the suggestion to fully fund primary private schools might appear radical to many Australians, a variety of models already exist outside Australia.

The UK government funds state schools in which a foundation or trust (usually a religious organisation), contributes to building costs and has a substantial influence in the running of the school. In most cases the foundation or trust owns the buildings. These are called voluntary-aided schools.

New Zealand has state-integrated schools. These allow for collaboration between the government and a private proprietor in a way that preserves the special character of the proprietor and the school — such as having Montessori and Steiner approaches.

Read more: The UK Labour Party wants to abolish private schools – could we do that in Australia?

In Canada, provision of faith-based schooling derives from the founding Constitution. Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan, for instance, provide students with fully funded Catholic schools.

We aren’t necessarily advocating for any of these particular models in Australia. On the contrary, we are calling for a redesign that will reflect our contextual governance, history and culture, and that must also include better outcomes for our First Nations Peoples.

Given the financial difficulties now facing many families, and schools, now is the time to act. Redressing the growing and accelerating segregation and inequity in Australian schools is critical to the future of Australia’s youth and our economy.

– ref. Australian primary private schools should be fully funded by governments — but banned from charging fees – https://theconversation.com/australian-primary-private-schools-should-be-fully-funded-by-governments-but-banned-from-charging-fees-131753

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ilana Finefter-Rosenbluh, Lecturer, Faculty of Education, Monash University

Over the weekend, Victorian Education Minister, James Merlino, announced the individual impact of COVID-19 will be taken into account for every Year 12 student in the state when calculating their VCE score and ATAR.

Under usual circumstances, individual students are assessed for special consideration on a case by case basis. But this year, the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA) will introduce a “Consideration of Educational Disadvantage” process to recalculate VCE scores for every student, individually.

The authority may consider, alongside a range of formal data such as exam results, a student’s General Achievement Test (GAT), their expected achievement levels before the impact of coronavirus, and school assessments completed prior to remote and flexible learning.

At the heart of these announcements is an acknowledgement of individual differences. The premier’s website says it may also include

assessing the individual impact of coronavirus on each student, including school closures, direct impacts on the health of a student, students dealing with substantial extra family responsibilities, ongoing issues with remote learning and mental health challenges.

This kind of individual assessment is what educational advocates have been calling on for decades.

How COVID-19 has affected students

Victoria’s decision is intended to support worried students and soften the blow of the graduation implications complicated by the pandemic. Its social, emotional and psychological effects are being recognised alongside academic pressures.

Teachers and school leaders have put forth their best efforts to ensure all students have transitioned to online learning effectively. But the unexpected change may have led already vulnerable students, such as from lower socio-economic backgrounds who may not have reliable access to internet, towards further disadvantage.

Students already disengaged from school may have become more disengaged during remote learning. Teachers who completed a survey in Australia during the last remote learning period said many of their students were not logging in to remote classes or completing their school work. Teacher participants in another survey said student disengagement and equity were a key concern.

Teachers have also expressed concern about the emotional toll of remote learning on students.

Read more: Students in Melbourne will go back to remote schooling. Here’s what we learnt last time and how to make it better

Not all students have experienced adversity as a result of COVID-19. There are many who have thrived in home learning environments. Students who would typically experience social or separation anxiety resulting in school refusal, for instance, have found the online way of learning works better.

The initiatives taken by governments, such as the latest Victorian announcement, acknowledge the necessity to go beyond dry numbers and to account for individual differences — a step towards a more inclusive education.

It’s a human right

The United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals establish the core underpinnings of quality education. Specifically, goal number four is to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”.

Read more: Victoria’s Year 12 students are learning remotely. But they won’t necessarily fall behind

Inclusive education is where all students of all capabilities have the opportunity to learn and express their abilities. Inclusion takes into account student circumstances, such as individual learning needs and health. These include well-being and behavioural challenges.

The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) committee has noted:

education has to be flexible so it can adapt to the needs of changing societies and communities and respond to the needs of students within their diverse social and cultural settings.

How can we do this?

Studies show teachers see school assessment as isolated, offering a limited understanding of the teaching and learning environment. Including as many aspects as possible in assessment processes seems to be more important now than ever. This might involve harnessing student perspectives or inviting parents into the conversation regarding their child’s progress.

Policymakers will assure student equity by providing clear grading guidelines. These can include acknowledgement of the need for special examination arrangements not only during a pandemic. They could enable the support of a health-care worker during a test, for instance.

Universities could also work with secondary schools and agree to consider entrance exams or portfolios that are relevant to the courses students are applying for.

Read more: Students are more than a number: why a learner profile makes more sense than the ATAR

Some people may be concerned the government proposal will not result in fair outcomes across the board. But for assessment to be truly fair, each student must receive the individual level of support they need.

The unfolding developments of the pandemic have opened a door for a more inclusive assessment in schools. Perhaps it is time to reconsider this practice beyond the special circumstances of an outbreak and beyond VCE students, to include all year 12 students this year, and every year.

– ref. Every Victorian Year 12 student will have COVID-19 factored into their grade — we should do it for all Australian students – https://theconversation.com/every-victorian-year-12-student-will-have-covid-19-factored-into-their-grade-we-should-do-it-for-all-australian-students-144192

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Clift, Teaching Fellow and PhD candidate, University of Melbourne

The arrest this week of pro-democracy media tycoon Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong reveals the repressive reality of the city’s new made-in-China national security law.

It also sends a sharp signal to the remaining independent media in the territory: watch your step, or you could be next.

Lai, his two sons and four top executives of the Next Digital media group were all arrested under the new law. On the same day, police raided the offices of Next’s flagship publication, Apple Daily, deploying over 200 officers to search the premises for almost nine hours.

China imposed the national security law in June, bypassing the local legislature and breaching the principle of non-interference in the city’s governance.

The new law established a comprehensive PRC-style national security regime overriding aspects of Hong Kong’s common law legal system.

The national security law is designed to make dissent all but impossible in Hong Kong, including in the city’s once-freewheeling but gradually diminished independent media.

What the new law means for journalists

Lai and the others were arrested under article 29 of the new law, which criminalises collusion with a foreign country or external elements to endanger national security.

Banned acts include collaborating with a foreign entity to impose sanctions on Hong Kong or China, seriously disrupting the making of laws or policies, or provoking hatred of the government among Hong Kong residents.

Although Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement is a grassroots, homegrown affair, Beijing has sought to portray it as the result of foreign meddling. Hong Kong’s last two leaders, Carrie Lam and CY Leung, both alleged foreign forces were behind the protests that took place during their terms.

Read more: Hong Kong activists now face a choice: stay silent, or flee the city. The world must give them a path to safety

Beijing has already signalled that collusion will be broadly interpreted under the law.

Police have not disclosed the specifics of Lai’s offences, but his July meeting with US Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is likely to be under the microscope, as is an opinion piece he wrote for The New York Times in May.

Lai’s status as an influential media owner and prominent pro-democracy activist has positioned him in Beijing’s crosshairs. He has been the target of extraordinary vitriol from mainland state media and was arrested by Hong Kong police in February and April on charges of participating in an illegal assembly.

Lai’s case is undoubtedly intended to serve as a warning — “killing the chicken to scare the monkey,“ to borrow a Chinese saying — and an inducement for the city’s journalists to self-censor, lest they fall foul of the new law.

For instance, an editorial calling for Hong Kong’s constitutionally guaranteed autonomy to be preserved could be interpreted by a zealous prosecutor as inciting secession under articles 20 and 21 of the law.

An uncertain future for independent media

Although self-censorship has long been a concern, Hong Kong has traditionally enjoyed a vibrant free press. In 2002, Reporters Without Borders ranked it 18th in its inaugural World Press Freedom Index.

However, by 2020, the city had plunged to 80th. (China, meanwhile, ranked 177th of 180 countries.) The application of the national security law in Hong Kong will no doubt see the territory’s ranking tumble even further.

Apple Daily’s days appear to be numbered. Similar fates could befall other outspoken independent media, like the crowd-funded Hong Kong Free Press, which launched in 2015 amid rising concerns over declining press freedoms in the city. This was around the same time the South China Morning Post, Hong Kong’s venerable English-language daily, was acquired by the mainland conglomerate Alibaba.

Read more: China is taking a risk by getting tough on Hong Kong. Now, the US must decide how to respond

Over the years, much of Hong Kong’s media has been bought up by China-owned or -affiliated entities, some of which are ultimately controlled Beijing’s Liaison Office in Hong Kong. More than half of Hong Kong’s media owners are now members of political bodies on the mainland.

The public broadcaster Radio Television Hong Kong has remained editorially independent, but it is under review again, having recently fallen foul of the local regulator for criticising the police handling of pro-democracy protests in a manner that was

irresponsible, and could be regarded as a hate speech with the effect of inciting hatred against the police.

International media still operate in Hong Kong relatively unrestrained, but visa refusals for foreign journalists suggest this is changing.

In recent years, Financial Times editor Victor Mallet’s visa renewal was denied after he chaired a discussion with a pro-independence politician, and New York Times reporter Chris Buckley’s Hong Kong work permit was denied, without any specific reason, months after he was also kicked out of China.

The Times has moved some of its former China- and Hong Kong-based reporters to South Korea and Taiwan in response. However, foreign journalists who engage in critical reporting on China and Hong Kong could be in breach of the national security law regardless of where they are based, as the law applies extraterritorially and to non-Chinese citizens as well as nationals.

Speaking for the party’s will

China’s constitution purports to preserve freedom of expression. It has never met the promise of its terms. In 2016, President Xi Jinping told the country’s press,

all news media run by the party must work to speak for the party’s will and its propositions and protect the party’s authority and unity.

The guarantees of free speech and a free press under Hong Kong’s Basic Law are now on the same trajectory.

It is unlikely the media in Hong Hong will be nationalised to the extent it is on the mainland. Instead, Beijing is deploying a combination of acquisition, co-optation and intimidation to obtain its compliant silence.

– ref. ‘Killing the chicken to scare the monkey’: what Jimmy Lai’s arrest means for Hong Kong’s independent media – https://theconversation.com/killing-the-chicken-to-scare-the-monkey-what-jimmy-lais-arrest-means-for-hong-kongs-independent-media-144206

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caroline Gargett, NHMRC Leadership Fellow and Head of Women’s Health Theme, The Ritchie Centre, Hudson Institute of Medical Research, Hudson Institute

Endometriosis is a debilitating, chronic condition that affects 1 in 10 women worldwide. It occurs when tissue which has similar properties to the womb lining, ends up in the body and attaches to organs, forming a patch of tissue called a lesion.

The condition can cause chronic pelvic pain, bowel and bladder dysfunction, and pain during sex. Painful symptoms can often make it hard for women to work or study, which has long-term socioeconomic impacts.

Unfortunately, women with endometriosis can wait up to 10 years for a diagnosis. But why does it take so long?

Diagnosis is difficult

Endometriosis can only be diagnosed through surgery, and in Australian public hospitals it is common to have to wait up to a year for this procedure. This is partly because surgery for endometriosis is classified as category 3 – the lowest-priority elective surgery in Australia.

To diagnose the condition, lesions need to be surgically removed and analysed by a pathologist. The operation is performed by keyhole surgery, but it can have significant financial and health impact on sufferers.

Read more: Endometriosis costs women and society $30,000 a year for every sufferer

Surgery costs are covered in public hospitals, but long wait times mean women who can afford it are more likely to use private hospitals for endometriosis surgery than for other diseases.

Then, to have a pathologist analyse the lesions removed during surgery and provide a diagnosis can cost A$5,546 with only a fraction covered by Medicare, leaving patients out of pocket.

Non-invasive imaging by ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can often detect lesions on the ovary (endometrioma), and deep lesions that invade the bowel or bladder. But while this indicates endometriosis, lesions analysed by a pathologist are still considered the gold standard for a formal diagnosis.

Ultrasounds and MRIs also can’t detect lesions that are on the surface of organs (superficial) and are thought to be an early stage of the disease.

Read more: 1 in 10 women with endometriosis report using cannabis to ease their pain

A prior lack of endometriosis research funding in Australia has hampered progress towards developing non-invasive screening tests. But newly developed tests may incorporate emerging evidence that endometriosis has several distinct subtypes, each with a specific diagnostic and treatment profile. Recognition of distinct subtypes has improved and informed the treatment of breast cancer, and this might also be true for endometriosis.

Until such tests are developed, some clinicians are advocating for a diagnosis based on symptoms instead of lesions, but this hasn’t been standardised or validated yet.

“It just comes with being a woman…”

Normalisation of period pain means women often wait two to three years from the onset of symptoms before seeking medical help. And public awareness of endometriosis and its symptoms are low. This explains why only 38% of women with suspected endometriosis present to their GP each year.

Even if a woman does present to her GP with symptoms, a lack of education in GPs and general gynaecologists can result in late referral and misdiagnosis. This can add more than two years to a diagnosis journey. While Australian data is lacking, European women with suspected endometriosis have very low rates of GP referral for diagnostic testing (12%) or to a gynaecologist (44%).

Read more: Sex and women’s diseases: it’s common and important to include men’s perspectives

Biases come into play

In the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis gender, race and socioeconomic biases come into play.

If a man reported to his general practitioner (GP) with severe pelvic pain, he would likely be sent for tests immediately. This is because there probably isn’t a “normal” underlying reason for his pain. But in cases of endometriosis, pelvic pain can be confused with menstrual cramps, resulting in delays for further tests.

A woman’s annual salary may impact her diagnosis time too. Those who can afford private healthcare can access specialist gynaecologists quickly, and can avoid the long waiting lists for diagnostic surgery.

In fact,65% of endometriosis hospitalisations in Australia are either self-funded or funded by private healthcare. But even with private healthcare, women with endometriosis pay, on average, $3,670 a year in out-of-pocket expenses for tests, treatments and surgeries.

Read more: Research Check: have scientists found the cause of endometriosis?

Despite a having a similar disease incidence, women of colour are less likely to be diagnosed than Caucasians. In fact, Australian Indigenous women are 1.6 times less likely to be admitted to hospital for endometriosis. This may be due to difficulty accessing health care, the costs associated with treatment, and cultural differences in health-seeking behaviour.

Hope for the future

The Australian government’s National Action Plan for Endometriosis outlines a roadmap to overcome many of these diagnostic hurdles.

It was developed in consultation with the Australian Coalition for Endometriosis and includes public health campaigns and educational resources for both the general public and GPs. It also supports research into the innovation of new diagnostic tools and the development of centres of excellence for diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis. These centres will enable early access to specialised care and appropriate screening and diagnosis.

The Action Plan was accompanied by the greatest investment to date in Australian endometriosis research by Australian and international funding bodies.

The current research investment (totalling A$14.55 million) for Australian endometriosis research is only 0.2% of the annual cost of endometriosis in Australia (A$7.4 billion). But it is an important start to transform endometriosis patient outcomes.

Read more: Considering surgery for endometriosis? Here’s what you need to know

Steps to take if you think you have endometriosis

1. Know the many and varied symptoms of endometriosis. Period pain that cannot be relieved by over-the-counter anti-inflammatories such as naprogesic is not normal. Nor is painful sex

2. document your menstrual cycle and symptoms – several apps are available, but a diary also works

3. ask your GP for a referral to a specialist endometriosis gynaecologist

4. if a pelvic ultrasound is needed, ensure it is done by a sonographer who specialises in detecting deep infiltrating endometriosis

5. if your concerns are not addressed, seek a second (or third) opinion.

Transmen and non-binary people can also be affected by endometriosis. This community already experiences delays to healthcare, often exacerbated when they seek help for conditions not matching their outward gender.

– ref. 1 in 10 women are affected by endometriosis. So why does it take so long to diagnose? – https://theconversation.com/1-in-10-women-are-affected-by-endometriosis-so-why-does-it-take-so-long-to-diagnose-141803

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Meagan Tyler, Senior lecturer, RMIT University

The COVID-19 crisis has thrown up an array of new habits and coping mechanisms. But the fetishisation, and even sexualisation, of prominent health officials is one of our more unexpected pandemic pastimes. Is this trend equality in action, or an extension of harmful objectification?

In Australia, a lot of attention has been focused on Victoria’s Chief Health Officer, Professor Brett Sutton. You can buy a Brett Sutton bedspread, join in with the Sutton stans on Twitter, or become a “Suttonette” and like the Brett Sutton is HOT Facebook page (along with more than 8000 other people).

To put things in a global context, Sutton’s iconic status is not particularly unusual. Examples from India, to France, to New Zealand show various medical experts and administrators have become like rock stars; worshipped, even deified.

Much of the appeal seems to lie in their competence and confidence, offering a point of public reassurance in turbulent times.

The sexualisation of Sutton offers another dimension. He’s been dubbed a “silver fox” and a photo of him as a young man has been doing the rounds on social media with much accompanying commentary on his physical appearance.

If the professor had been a woman, this kind of treatment would have been acknowledged as unacceptable and we’d likely see a huge backlash against it. So why is this different?

Read more: How highly sexualised imagery is shaping ‘influence’ on Instagram – and harassment is rife

A different rule for men

There are several reasons why the sexualisation of men in public roles plays out quite differently to that of women.

Firstly, as a man, Sutton is not being reduced to his physical attractiveness through a prism of sexual inequality.

The concept of objectification – essentially the reduction of a girl or woman to her sexual body parts or functions – emerges from a broader context of sexual inequality between men and women. This can be anything from staring and catcalling in the street to violent sexual assault.

Any attempt by women to sexualise men doesn’t occur against a corresponding background of widespread sexual intimidation and abuse.

Read more: Sexually objectifying women leads women to objectify themselves, and harms emotional well-being

Fixating on a heterosexual man’s appearance therefore doesn’t have the same effect as it does for a woman. This is, in part, because it doesn’t have the equivalent cultural weight.

Comments about women’s attractiveness are both a cause and consequence of stereotypes about men’s sexual entitlement to women’s bodies. There are no analogous, longstanding stereotypes about men for women’s sexually-charged comments to feed on.

Sutton’s perceived attractiveness is also less harmful in terms of his status because it’s not seen as at odds with his competence. If anything, he is seen as more trustworthy or suitable for the role as a result of the “silver fox” tag.

This tallies with various studies suggesting men’s attractiveness has a more positive effect on their assumed intelligence, compared to women.

Good for the gander?

It’s difficult to imagine a similarly aged, grey-haired female professor being publicly praised and sexualised in the same way, let alone afforded as much assumed competence.

British historian Professor Mary Beard’s experience – the acclaimed expert was advised she “should be kept away from cameras altogether” by critic A. A. Gill – provides an instructive comparison.

But mass sexualisation of public figures shouldn’t really be the goal, either. So it’s slightly bizarre to see feminist commentators describing Sutton as a “CHOttie”.

Read more: Hey, sexy: objectifying catcalls occur more frequently than you might think

While such observations don’t diminish or reduce Sutton in the way they would for a woman in his position, the ultimate aim of feminism isn’t for everyone to be equally sexualised.

A feminist understanding of objectification is, at its heart, a critique of inequality. And it provides the groundwork for imagining a sexuality free from eroticised power difference.

The end game of liberation from patriarchy isn’t trying to recreate power dynamics that might enable some kind of shared objectification, it’s about abolishing those very dynamics.

Should we be worried about the current fixation with Brett Sutton’s looks? It’s hardly the most pressing problem in the middle of a global pandemic.

But it does provide an opportunity to reflect on how far we still have to go in terms of understanding the contours of sexism that women face in public roles, and the kind of steps we need to take in order to truly address sexual inequality.

– ref. Calling Brett Sutton a ‘CHOttie’ is not objectification – but it’s not feminism either – https://theconversation.com/calling-brett-sutton-a-chottie-is-not-objectification-but-its-not-feminism-either-144134

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Bradfield, Research Fellow in Behavioural Neuroscience, University of Technology Sydney

As COVID-19 lockdowns were introduced, we all suddenly had to find new ways of doing things. Schooling shifted online, meetings moved to Zoom, workplaces brought in new measures and even social events have changed to minimise physical interactions.

Many of us have found it hard to adapt to these transformations in our lives. Our research into memory, learning, and decision-making suggests part of the reason is that, for our brains, the change didn’t simply involve transferring existing skills to a new environment.

More often, our brains are in effect learning entirely new skills, such as how to conduct a meeting while your cat walks across your computer keyboard, or how to work while filtering out the sound of kids yelling in the garden.

However, our research may also offer some reassurance that in time we will come to terms with a new way of life.

Read more: How memories are formed and retrieved by the brain revealed in a new study

How rats learn

Our new research, published in Nature Neuroscience, offers some suggestions about why doing new things can initially be so difficult, especially in a new or changing environment, but gets easier over time. Our findings indicate our surroundings have a changing influence on our choices and actions over time, and our brains process them differently as well.

We taught rats how to perform new actions, such as pressing a lever for food, in one place. Next, we moved them to another room with different wallpaper, flooring, and odours.

We then “asked” them to perform the same actions to receive a reward, but they were no longer able to do so. It was as if the rats needed to recall all the details of the memory of learning the task to perform it correctly, including the seemingly irrelevant ones.

Things were different when we tested the rats again a week later. By this time they could make accurate choices in either environment.

We also found that if we inactivated the hippocampus, the part of the brain that encodes detailed memories of the environment, rats could no longer perform a task they had just learned. However, they could still accurately perform tasks they had learned some time ago.

What this means for people

Our findings suggest that with experience and time, there’s a change in both the psychological mechanisms and the brain mechanisms of learning how to do new things and make choices.

While the hippocampus appears to be crucial for a brief period, it becomes less important as time goes on.

If even details that ultimately prove irrelevant are necessary for us to remember a new skill in the early stages of learning, this may help to explain why new behaviours can be so difficult to learn when our circumstances change. For our brains, working from home may be like learning a whole new job — not just doing the same job in a new place.

But the good news is it gets easier. In the same way rats eventually adapt to a new environment, we humans can learn to work with Zoom calls and interrupting pets.

Read more: Depression damages parts of the brain, research concludes

These findings may also help us understand conditions in which the hippocampus is damaged, such as Alzheimer’s disease and other neurodegenerative disorders, as well as psychiatric disorders such as depression and substance abuse. In time, better understanding could lead to insight into how people with such diseases might regain some functionality.

The implications for humans do come with caveats, of course: our study was done in rats, not people. But if you have struggled to adapt to a new way of doing things during this pandemic, we hope that it is of some comfort to know you are not alone. Rats, too, struggle to learn how to do new things in new places — but it does get easier over time.

– ref. Slow to adjust to the pandemic’s ‘new normal’? Don’t worry, your brain’s just learning new skills – https://theconversation.com/slow-to-adjust-to-the-pandemics-new-normal-dont-worry-your-brains-just-learning-new-skills-144198

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, University of Melbourne

Media coverage of disasters follows a broadly similar trajectory, even though the disasters themselves might take very different forms.

The COVID-19 crisis in Victoria is no exception.

Although it is unfolding over a long time instead of in a single dramatic episode, it is possible to see familiar patterns emerging, and events over the past three weeks indicate that a notable shift has taken place.

From impact and response – which constitute the first two phases of disaster coverage – the focus has broadened to include the blame phase. From a media perspective, this can be called the accountability phase.

This shift can be explained to some extent by a change in political rhetoric. The theme of unity across levels of government and party lines has begun to fracture, particularly with remarks by the federal treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, directed at the Victorian government.

On August 7 he said Victorians deserved answers about “serious failures with deadly consequences” in the state’s coronavirus hotel quarantine system.

However, Frydenberg was only echoing what the media had already started to investigate, and journalists with trusted sources had begun getting leaks.

In mid-July, The Age drew on leaked emails to reveal that a senior bureaucrat in the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions raised the alarm on March 28. Senior people in the Department of Health and Human Services and Emergency Management Victoria were urged to ask Victoria Police to deploy officers to the quarantine hotels.

According to the newspaper, the police were not asked, so no police were sent.

Two months later, the first case was logged of a security guard at Rydges on Swanston testing positive for coronavirus. This cluster grew rapidly to six cases.

Even though this startling information was now in the public domain, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews remained focused on impact and response.

When asked what went wrong with hotel quarantine, he would say only that he was ultimately responsible and that retired judge Jennifer Coate’s inquiry would provide the answers. Meantime, he would not be running a commentary on it.

Victorian Health Minister Jenny Mikakos took the same line in state parliament on August 4. She later tweeted, though, that she was “deeply sorry” if her efforts had not been enough.

“Let the cards fall where they may”, she said, referring to the inquiry.

Principled though this is, it shows the government has not sufficiently appreciated that the trajectory of the coverage has undergone that important shift, from impact and response to accountability.

Coate has herself licensed public debate about these matters.

In failing to respond to repeated questions both in parliament and at the premier’s daily media briefings, the government has lost control of the accountability narrative.

A report in The Age and Sydney Morning Herald on August 8 rammed home this point.

It stated that the executive director of employment in the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions had been removed from their role over the quarantine bungle.

It went on to describe a well-intentioned, if misguided, decision to engage a company called Unified Security in the hotel quarantine operation. Unified was reported to have satisfied the criteria for receiving contracts under the government’s social inclusion procurement policy.

Moreover, the government’s international trade agency, Global Victoria, with no obvious experience in security or public health, reportedly also had a role in establishing the quarantine arrangements.

Even before these revelations, frustration was building among reporters at the government’s refusal to engage on the issue of accountability.

At Andrews’ daily briefing on August 6, a reporter from The Australian, Rachel Baxendale, pressed the premier for answers.

The upshot was that Baxendale, who was only doing her job, became the completely undeserving target of a stream of online hatred, including death threats.

This response suggests several things.

First, some people have a sociopathic problem with strong women in the media who try to hold powerful men to account. We saw it recently with a similar attack on the ABC’s Leigh Sales after she had interviewed the prime minister on the 7.30 program.

Read more: Leigh Sales showed us the abuse women cop online. When are we going to stop tolerating misogyny?

Second, Daniel Andrews may retain considerable support in the wider community for fronting up every day to tell unwelcome truths.

It stands in sharp contrast to the crass name-calling indulged in by Liberal MP Tim Smith, which has undermined the efforts of his leader, Michael O’Brien, to offer constructive proposals for economic recovery.

Third, the public may still be very much absorbed in the impact and response phases of the disaster and not ready to move on to the accountability phase.

This is sometimes difficult for the media to judge.

In the aftermath of the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires, the Victorian media were noticeably slower to get into the accountability phase than were the national and interstate media.

Victoria-based journalists and editors said that, in covering a disaster close to home, it was important not to get into the blame game while the community to whom they were publishing was still acutely anxious and grieving.

With an ongoing disaster, this judgment becomes even more delicate.

However, a second line of inquiry in pursuit of accountability that might be more in tune with community sentiment is open to the media: what went wrong in privately run nursing homes, for which the federal government is responsible?

Minister for Aged Care Richard Colbeck has not been giving daily briefings. Some close questioning of him might be in order, with less risk of public blow-back.

– ref. Tensions rise on coronavirus handling as the media take control of the accountability narrative – https://theconversation.com/tensions-rise-on-coronavirus-handling-as-the-media-take-control-of-the-accountability-narrative-144195

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Madeline Taylor, Lecturer, University of Sydney

New South Wales planning authorities relied on flawed evidence when backing a highly controversial coal seam gas project that may endanger critical water supplies, farmland and threatened species, our analysis has found.

Early next month, the Independent Planning Commission NSW (IPC) is due to announce its decision on the future of the A$3.6 billion Narrabri Gas Project. The commission will presumably give substantial weight to an assessment report by the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE), which recommended the proposal be approved.

However, we contend DPIE has failed to substantiate its claims that the Narrabri Gas Project:

• will improve gas security for NSW
• does not pose a significant risk to important water resources
• will not cause significant impacts to people or the environment.

Some 23,000 submissions were made on the Narrabri Gas Project, 98% of which opposed it. They include Australia’s former chief scientist Penny Sackett, who says the project is at odds with the nation’s Paris climate commitments.

The pending decision comes at a critical time for Australia’s gas industry. The Morrison government has flagged a gas-led economic recovery from COVID-19, and on Monday there were reports the October federal budget will contain support for the industry.

The experience of the Narrabri Gas Project so far shows government decisions on such proposals must be evidence-based and take full account of risks to the environment, people and the economy.

What is the Narrabri Gas Project?

The Narrabri Gas Project aims to produce “unconventional” or coal seam gas, by sinking 850 wells in the Pilliga region near Narrabri in northwest NSW.

State authorities have spent four years assessing the project, and a decision by the IPC is due by September 4.

Read more: A single mega-project exposes the Morrison government’s gas plan as staggering folly

Some 60% of the project is located in the Pilliga forest – the largest forest and woodlands in western NSW and home to threatened species including the koala. The remaining 40% of the project is next to prime farmland. It is also located on the traditional lands of the Gomeroi people.

As assessment by DPIE recommended the proposal be approved. We believe the evidence upon which the department based its decision was flawed. Here are three big problems we identified:

1. Gas security

DPIE says the Narrabri Gas Project is in the public interest because it will contribute to gas security for NSW. This assertion is based on a scenario in which Santos commits to providing all gas from the project solely to NSW, rather than the wider East Coast Gas Market.

Yet, DPIE’s recommended conditions for approval make no mention of Santos promising, or being legally compelled, to reserve gas for NSW consumers if the project is approved.

2. Water risks

The assessment fails to provide evidence showing the project does not pose significant risk to high-quality groundwater in a region and ecosystem highly dependent on it.

The project will drill extensively below the Great Artesian Basin, potentially contaminating groundwater, land and surface water. Despite Santos and the department’s assumptions that risks will be minimal, recent research shows methane contamination of groundwater occurs due to changes in pressures during water and gas extraction.

This risks human health and safety, and compromises water quality. Wastewater has already leaked in the proposed project area during pilot exploration and production, demonstrating the high risks involved.

Read more: Scott Morrison’s gas transition plan is a dangerous road to nowhere

The department’s assessment of threats to the water table and management of waste brine is not robust. For example, the government’s own independent Water Expert Panel recommends brine be disposed of at landfill facilities. But brine and salt generated by the project would be highly soluble in comparison to standard landfill waste, and require robust storage management to prevent leaching and migration, according to our colleague and co-author of our assessment, Matthew Currell.

The department’s recommendation of an “adaptive management” approach – essentially “learning by doing” – is risky, given the highly complex potential impacts which are almost impossible to guard against.

3. Effect on people

DPIE’s assessment does not provide robust evidence that people will not be significantly harmed by the project.

Santos commissioned a social impact assessment, and the department engaged University of Queensland professor Deanna Kemp to review it. DPIE took the view that this review constitutes support for the project and states “overall, the negative social impacts of the project can be appropriately managed”.

However in correspondence with our colleague and co-author of our assessment Rebecca Lawrence, Professor Kemp expressed concern the department “misconstrued” her advice and misinterpreted it as giving the project a “green light”. Professor Kemp stated that her advice in no way constitutes a recommendation of approval of the project.

Read more: Nice try Mr Taylor, but Australia’s gas exports don’t help solve climate change

We believe Professor Kemp was not commissioned by DPIE to comprehensively assess the social impact merits of the project, nor did she do so.

In a response to The Conversation, Professor Kemp said she did not contest the claims made by the authors of this article, and said “any suggestion that my review constitutes an approval of the project would be incorrect”.

There is sufficient evidence to suggest the social impacts in the short and long term will be unmanageable. These include social conflicts over the proposed gas project, loss of rural livelihoods from contamination of both groundwater and surface water, and effects on Aboriginal people and the broader Narrabri community – which is already socially disadvantaged and vulnerable.

A big decision

The Narrabri Gas Project presents considerable and significantly underestimated risks to the environment, sensitive water resources and communities.

The department’s argument that Narrabri gas will increase NSW’s energy security is highly unlikely and at present there’s nothing to suggest such a condition would be legally enforced. And its assertion the project would not harm people or the environment is not backed by evidence.

On this basis, we believe the Narrabri Gas Project is unsustainable, unviable and not in the public interest.

Comment was sought from the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment and Santos. A response had not been received at the time of publication.

– ref. A contentious NSW gas project is weeks away from approval. Here are 3 reasons it should be rejected – https://theconversation.com/a-contentious-nsw-gas-project-is-weeks-away-from-approval-here-are-3-reasons-it-should-be-rejected-144201

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Noetel, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Australian Catholic University

In response to COVID-19, almost every university has scrambled to move its teaching online.

To do this, academics have been choosing between two approaches: live videoconferencing using tools such as Zoom, or pre-recording videos and posting to platforms such as YouTube.

Previous reviews have shown videoconferences are an okay substitute for classes, but what about videos?

What do students say?

Previous reviews have looked at student preferences for online learning as opposed to face-to-face lectures and they do not find any differences. Even when teachers make monumental efforts to create flipped classrooms, where they provide online videos before interactive workshops, there are no differences in student satisfaction.

Read more: Lab experiments in the pandemic moved online or mailed home to uni students

So students don’t mind whether they learn online or face-to-face. We academics care about satisfying students, but we also want to make sure students learn new things.

Student learning is totally unrelated to student satisfaction. Student satisfaction is more closely related to their teacher’s physical attractiveness. So we wanted to see whether videos increased or decreased student learning for mugs like us.

Videos improve learning

We did a systematic review to see what happens when videos replace classes. We searched for every best-practice study that measured learning after university students were given videos.

To make sure we were looking at real learning differences, not just student preferences, we excluded studies that only asked for opinions and those that were not randomised.

We found more than 100 studies. A quarter gave videos in addition to existing content. As you’d expect, students who got extra content learned more.

This means teachers giving face-to-face lectures can significantly improve student learning by also offering videos (before or after class). When videos accompanied existing methods, there were huge benefits for student learning.

But what about when we swapped existing face-to-face learning for videos, as many teachers are now having to do?

We found 83 studies that replaced some type of teaching with videos. About 75% of the time students learned more when given a video instead of a class.

On average, the effects are small (about +2 marks) but consistently favour videos. Effects are much larger when videos replace books (+7 marks), or when videos are used to teach skills (+6 marks) instead of knowledge.

It didn’t matter if the videos were swapped for lectures or tutorials. It didn’t matter if the videos were used for one lesson or a whole semester. And it didn’t matter if the exam was right after the video or at the end of the semester.

We found videos were consistently good for learning. There are several reasons for this and they can help us give better face-to-face classes too. Here are a few video tips from what we discovered.

Tip 1: videos use multiple forms of media

Students have two main channels for learning: what they see and what they hear. This is why videos worked much better than books, websites or podcasts, because these only use one channel whereas video uses both.

On video, teachers can edit themselves to best use both channels, by showing useful visuals that are perfectly timed to the spoken explanation. Great teachers do this in lectures as well, but it’s harder when you can’t edit out your mistakes.

Tip 2: videos give students control

Videos allow for students to control how fast they learn. They can speed us up, slow us down, stop to take notes or have a break for a coffee.

This lets students master content without getting overwhelmed (good lecturers do this too).

Mastery learning – where students progress at their own pace once competent – has been around for a long time and been shown to improve learning in higher education.

Tip 3: videos make learning authentic

Videos can show things more authentically than lectures can. In person, lectures can make learning authentic through role playing and simulation. Lectures can be authentic by bringing in guest speakers: for example, we used to bring in clients who had Parkinson’s to talk to students.

But videos help achieve even this kind of authenticity. Instead of burdening clients every year, we recorded interviews with clients so students could learn from them for years to come.

On video lecturers can also show real situations not possible in class, such as CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation), surgery or construction. Making learning authentic helps motivate students and stimulates learning.

Tip 4: videos make learning interactive

Interactivity is also critical for learning. Lecturers can make classes interactive through open-ended questions, pop quizzes and small-group discussions.

But we found video is usually as interactive, or more interactive, than most lectures. That’s because most lectures aren’t that interactive. There are many technologies (try EdPuzzle or H5P) that let staff easily embed questions and feedback in videos.

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

When things get back to normal (whatever that is)

Academics shouldn’t feel like they’re wasting their time by making lots of videos this year. Students are probably learning more, and when face-to-face classes get back to normal, the videos will be a great asset for years to come.

We don’t want to be replaced by a YouTube playlist, but parts of our teaching are probably better that way.

– ref. Videos won’t kill the uni lecture, but they will improve student learning and their marks – https://theconversation.com/videos-wont-kill-the-uni-lecture-but-they-will-improve-student-learning-and-their-marks-142282

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Doran, Associate professor/Deputy head of school, UNSW

The stock market is not the economy.

This old and playful maxim is typically not true: often the stock market is a good proxy for the economy and a very good indication of what will happen to it.

But it aptly captures the current divergence between stock markets and the worst economic crisis in a century.

In the United States the NASDAQ (which include tech stocks such as Amazon, Apple, eBay, Microsoft and Google’s parent company Alphabet Inc) is now 10% higher than before COVID-19 fears crashed global markets between late February and late March.

The benchmark S&P 500 index is now on the verge of an all-time high. Last week it closed at 3,349 points, just 1% lower than its February 19 high of 3,386.

Compare this reversal of fotune to the S&P 500’s trajectory after the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-8. Then it took about five years for the index to claw back its losses.

And this despite the US economy now being in a much worse position than during the GFC, with an unemployment rate of more than 10%, a muddled federal government response and Congress unable to agree on a new economic stimulus package.

Read more: Will the GOP let Congress send money to states and cities reeling from the pandemic? 4 essential reads on the economic crisis

Other national stock markets have had similar if less exuberant rebounds. From their pre-COVID highs, Britain’s FTSE 100 is still down about 20%, Japan’s Nikkei 225 about 6.5% and Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 index about 15%. Nonetheless their recoveries are still remarkable.

The least worst best

Normally stock markets tell us a lot about the economy. Buying and selling shares is a near-instant response to new information. The aggregation of those best guesses is generally an accurate indicator of the way things are going.

This time there might be a structural reason why the markets appear divorced from reality.

Investors could be bidding up stock prices because they have to put their money somewhere, and stocks are the least worst bet.

Read more: Blue-chip, volatile, high-risk: retail investors are buying while professionals are selling

Broadly speaking, investors can put money to work in five places: stocks; property; commodities; bonds or money in the bank.

Property investment has become extremely risky. Values remain high due to temporary support schemes, and significant falls are likely.

Commodities are generic tradeable items such as oil, wheat and coffee beans.

Like all tradeable items, their prices rise and fall, and the pandemic has been driving them down. In April the World Bank’s Commodity Markets Outlook warned the risks to forecasts were “large in both directions”.

Bonds are paying less and less

What about bonds – the ultrasafe investment offered by governments?

Their attractiveness depends on the interest they pay, and that depends on expectations about interest rates and inflation.

Both were going downhill before the pandemic, and COVID-19 has pushed them down further. In March the US Federal Reserve cut its interest-rate target range to 0-0.25%. The Reserve Bank of Australia cut its target to 0.25% but has in practice been prepared to accept a cash rate closer to zero.

Read more: The government has just sold $15 billion of 31-year bonds. But what actually is a bond?

The interest rates that influence bonds also affect returns on bank deposits.

That leaves stocks.

A notable feature of the stock market’s buoyancy has been the influx of retail (at the expense of professional or institutional) investors.

Since the market peaked in late February they have become net buyers of stocks, while professional institutional investors have become net sellers.

Cumulative net buying (A$ billion)

Researchers Carole Comerton-Forde and Zhou Zhong suggest this might be due to people having fewer other spending opportunities, and more time on their hands – the so-called boredom markets hypothesis.

Governments have helped with programs to prop up businesses, among them the US$659 billion Paycheck Protection Program and Australia’s A$86 bllion JobKeeper and A$40 billion Coronavirus Small and Medium Enterprises Guarantee programs.

In April and May this year Australian government spending jumped 11% on the same months last year. In April, May and June US government spending more than doubled. It’s likely some of that money has flowed thorough to people who have used it to play the stock market.

Detached from reality

In the past the stock markets have fallen just before unemployment rose, heralding what was to come.

This happened in the US recession at the start of the 2000s and the Great Recession during in the Global Financial Crisis, as the following graph shows.

US unemployment rate and S&P 500

What’s notable is that the stock market didn’t fall just before unemployment rate climbed this time.

Now, more than ever before, the stock market tells us little about where the economy is heading.

– ref. The S&P 500 nears its all-time high. Here’s why stock markets are defying economic reality – https://theconversation.com/the-sandp-500-nears-its-all-time-high-heres-why-stock-markets-are-defying-economic-reality-142707

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isaac Gross, Lecturer in Economics, Monash University

The government has widely touted its support for small businesses – most notably the provision of loans subsidised by the Reserve Bank.

In its economic update on Friday the Reserve Bank talked up its low-cost Term Funding Facility. Take-up was “increasing steadily”.

The scheme gives banks ultra low-interest money (0.25% per year for three years) on the understanding they will lend it to households and businesses that need it.

The first allocation was a proportion of each lenders’ loan book. The second was conditional on the the lender expanding lending to business.

Read more: More than a rate cut: behind the Reserve Bank’s three point plan

For every extra dollar the bank extended to large business, it would get one extra dollar of funding from the Reserve Bank. For every extra dollar it lent to a small or medium size business it would get an extra five dollars.

Yet the official figures suggest that the overwhelming bulk of the new money has gone to big businesses, those with turnovers of more than A$50 million per year.

Medium-sized businesses have barely got a look-in. Lending to small businesses has actually gone backwards.

Outstanding credit to businesses

Loans outstanding for big businesses are 7.4% higher than at the start of the year, loans outstanding for medium-sized businesses are just 1.3% higher, and loans outstanding for small businesses are down 0.6%.

Not only have banks channelled the overwhelming bulk of their new lending to large businesses, they have also done so at lower interest rates.

Credit spread reductions for businesses

Why have small businesses missed out? One explanation might be that they are not interested in borrowing.

However, ask any economist, and she will tell you that demand for a good is usually a function of its price.

This ought to be also be true for business credit. The Reserve Bank says small businesses are being charged as much as 4.5%.

If the interest rate was lower there is a fair chance the amount borrowed would rise.

Banks don’t think they’re worth the risk

Another explanation might be that banks don’t see much profit in lending to small businesses. Start ups are risky, even more so in a recession. But the Term Funding Facility was specifically set up to counter this.

Unfortunately it has proved inadequate to the task. The Reserve Bank’s offer of a three year loan fixed at 0.25% has not been generous enough to appeal to a banking sector whose cost of funding from traditional sources has also plunged.

What can it do to re-calibrate the Term Funding Facility? It is is due to expire in January and will need to be extended in one form or another.

They might if the money was free

One solution would be to take a leaf out of Europe’s book and make the interest rate on part of the next phase of the program negative, essentially free money.

The European Central Bank’s scheme offers loans at rates as low as -1% to banks that are willing to expand lending to small and medium-sized businesses.

This offer has helped drive the interest rate faced by small and medium-sized businesses as low as 2%, well below the 4.5% sometimes charged in Australia.

If the Reserve Bank offered part of the Term Funding Facility at a negative interest rate for banks that expanded lending to small businesses, it would likely see some expansion.

Read more: ‘Yield curve control’: the Reserve Bank’s plan for when cash rate cuts no longer work

It would both help stimulate the economy and increasing financial stability by making small business failures less likely.

Some might argue against this by saying that negative interest rates are unprecedented in Australia. But this argument does not hold water.

The times, and almost every proposed solution to our current problems, are unprecedented too.

– ref. Small businesses are being starved of funds: here’s how to make their loans cheaper – https://theconversation.com/small-businesses-are-being-starved-of-funds-heres-how-to-make-their-loans-cheaper-143834

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marie Hadley, Associate Lecturer in Law, University of Newcastle

The Australian Copyright Agency has licensed an Indigenous artwork for a custom tattoo. It is the first instance of tattoo licensing for the agency, and perhaps Australia at large.

The agency granted a licence for Jarrangini (buffalo) (2018) by Tiwi artist Chris Black following consultation with the artist, the Jilamara Arts and Crafts Association, and other senior Indigenous artists. Darwin tattooist Ryan Birkinshaw applied the buffalo print to the arm of art gallery manager and artist Katie Hagebols.

In an industry beset by appropriation – of Indigenous and Western imagery – the licensing of this artwork is a rare sign of respect for the intellectual property rights of artists.

In the Australian tattoo industry, licences govern the use of tattoo stencils, pre-produced images known as “flash”.

But the practice of licensing for custom tattoos – one-off original designs created specifically for clients – is virtually non-existent. Copying usually occurs without any thought given to obtaining a licence.

The Jarrangini (buffalo) licence recognises that tattoo is an artform regulated by copyright law.

Read more: Friday essay: power, perils and rites of passage – the history of the female tattoo

Tattoo copyright

There are no Australian cases that directly confirm copyright exists in tattoos. However, a drawing in ink falls within the definition of “artistic work” in s 10(1) of the Copyright Act. A tattoo will be copyright so long as it does not copy a substantial part of another artwork.

In Australia, the person who reduces the artwork to “material form” is the default copyright owner. This means that the tattooist is usually the first copyright owner of a custom tattoo because they are the person who draws it, or tattoos it directly on the skin.

A tattoo wearer might also hold joint ownership rights, if they contribute more to the design process than just ideas. They might actively collaborate in the refinement of a design, for example, by deleting some aspects and drawing the replacement’s features together with the tattooist.

In New Zealand, more restrictive rules around commissioned art and copyright mean a paying client can be the first copyright owner of a custom tattoo, regardless of whether they actively contributed to the design process.

Australia’s commissioned art rules do not apply to drawings as a category of artistic work. Thus tattoos are excluded from them. (Interestingly, there is an exception here when it comes to portraits, with the copyright for tattoo portraits likely owned by the person who paid for it).

In both countries, where a tattooist creates a design in the course of their employment, their employer will be the copyright owner. All of these rights can be varied by contract.

Read more: To dye for? Jury still out on tattoo ink causing cancer

Copying is common

Despite the law in this area, copying is common in the tattoo industry both here and in New Zealand.

My unpublished research among tattooists in New Zealand suggests there can be a lot of pressure from clients to copy existing images. “I do get brought art or pictures of other people’s tattoos,” said one tattooist, and quite a few pictures “come straight off the internet.”

Clients often request direct reproductions of imagery they have downloaded. In these circumstances, appropriation can be a pragmatic business decision.

Some people regard the copying of a custom tattoo as a form of identity theft because a one-off tattoo is seen as a unique form of self-expression.

Copyists might also be criticised by other tattooists as “scratchers” or “hacks” or subject to gossip that infers they are poor artists. Creativity is highly valued within this artist community.

So, why don’t tattooists sue over copying?

In some art industries, there can be a big gap between holding rights and exercising them.

To tattooists, appropriation is mostly seen as a matter of ethics or manners rather than law.

Many tattooists are skeptical of litigation. Intellectual property rights only “hold value if you have money and are willing to go through the courts in order to take somebody through the ringer,” said one tattooist I interviewed.

There is also a view that the tattoo belongs to the client not the artist because money changed hands. Another tattooist told me it was “complete nonsense” that copyright applies to tattoos because the art is “on a body, man!”

Tattooists tend to only threaten legal action when the infringement of their design involves a tattoo on the body of a high profile celebrity (such as footballer David Beckham, UFC fighter Carlos Condit, or NBA player Rasheed Wallace).

Even then, they might be criticised by other tattooists for threatening to enforce their copyright. This is because tattooing a celebrity is “good advertising”, as one tattooist said. There have been no high profile tattoo infringements in Australia.

These norms aside, copyright law does apply to tattoos. Whether or not more tattoo enthusiasts will seek an appropriate licence, as occurred in the case of Jarrangini (buffalo), or a copyright owner will sue for a rights violation, is another matter.

– ref. Explainer: who owns the copyright to your tattoo? – https://theconversation.com/explainer-who-owns-the-copyright-to-your-tattoo-142825

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Maylea, Senior Lecturer, Law and Social Work, RMIT University

The second wave of the coronavirus and the resulting restrictions have impacted all Victorians. Many are struggling, but some are struggling more than others.

In response to the increasing number of people having a hard time coping with the pandemic, the Victorian government yesterday announced an additional A$59.7 million in funding for mental health services.

Read more: Number of Australia’s vulnerable children is set to double as COVID-19 takes its toll

More than half of the new funding is for hospital–based services or services for people after they have left hospital. Most of the rest is focused on services for people who are really unwell or distressed, in an effort to avoid the need for hospitalisation.

A busy emergency department is never an ideal place for someone experiencing mental distress. But now, to reduce the risk of infection, it is even more important to give people the support they need before they end up in hospital.

The mental health system was “broken” before COVD-19

Victoria’s mental health system was in crisis before COVID-19 hit. In 2018, Victoria had the lowest per person funding for mental health in the country. Premier Daniel Andrews described the mental health system as “broken”, and launched the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System.

The royal commission had only released its initial recommendations and interim report when the coronavirus hit, overwhelming an already broken system.

Read more: The government will spend $48 million to safeguard mental health. Extending JobKeeper would safeguard it even more

Accelerated initiatives

The new funding is in addition to the work of the royal commission and the funding announced in Februrary and April.

The government has increased the total number of new mental health inpatient beds to 144, nine more than the royal commission’s recommendation. Some A$30 million has been allocated to fast-tracking the new mental health inpatient beds in Geelong, Epping, Sunshine and Melbourne, and A$4.1 milliom will go to existing hospital-based services.

Just over A$4 million has been committed to accelerating the statewide rollout of the Hospital Outreach Post-Suicidal Engagement (HOPE) program to Box Hill, Royal Melbourne, Monash, Heidelberg and Broadmeadows hospitals. But as with the extra inpatient beds, this program was already in the Royal Commission’s recommendations, so it’s not a new initiative, just accelerated.

New initiatives

But there are also some genuinely new initiatives. Some A$11.1 million has been designated to community-based mental health services to be open seven days a week, with extended hours and additional staff. General hospitals and general practitioners will have increased consultancy from psychiatrists to the tune of A$7 million. Headspace, which provides community mental health support to 12-25 year olds, has also received A$1 million across 15 Melbourne sites to reach young people in their homes.

The Victorian Mental Illness Awareness Council, Victoria’s peak body for people who use mental health services, and Tandem, Victoria’s peak body for carers of people who use mental health services, received a combined A$900,000 to continue their work supporting and representing people who use the mental health system.

More than A$1 million has also been allocated to supporting the mental health of police, paramedics, nurses and midwives. This is a valuable investment, but is arguably filling an existing need rather than catering to the effects of the pandemic.

Why now?

Since the same period last year, people going to emergency departments for self-harm has increased by nearly 10%. For young people, this has increased by 33%. With limited access to services and fewer opportunities for self-care, more people are ending up in emergency departments. In fact, compared with last year, the number of people seeking emergency mental health health support has increased by nearly a quarter.

Read more: Predicting the pandemic’s psychological toll: why suicide modelling is so difficult

Increased restrictions have made accessing services even harder. Telehealth services are increasing, but for many people a virtual meeting is no replacement for face-to-face contact. Some people don’t have the devices necessary for virtual meetings, can’t afford the data, or are not proficient in using technology.

Limited access to services is only part of the problem. Normally, people maintain good mental health by being active, working, and staying connected to their families and communities. These activities cannot be replaced by a weekly online counselling session.

Will it make a difference?

The coronavirus and related restrictions have had devastating effects on people’s lives and livelihoods. Those who are most affected by restrictions include Victorians in precarious work, those who are experiencing family violence, or Victorians who live in disadvantaged areas.

This new funding is certainly welcome, and if it prevents the loss of even one life, it will be worth the investment. But the funding ultimately equates to only about A$10 per Victorian, and there will be many people who still can’t get access to services. The royal commission may bring much needed change to the system, but in the meantime many of our most disadvantaged community members will still not receive the support they desperately need.

What is really required is an approach that recognises this is just as much a social issue as it is a health issue – no amount of government support can replace a connected and supportive community.

– ref. The Victorian government has allocated $60 million to mental health. But who gets the money?  – https://theconversation.com/the-victorian-government-has-allocated-60-million-to-mental-health-but-who-gets-the-money-144188

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Louise Stone, General practitioner; Clinical Associate Professor, ANU Medical School, Australian National University

Last week, the Australian government announced it will provide ten extra Medicare-subsidised psychological therapy sessions for Australians in lockdown areas due to COVID-19.

In such a stressful time, many people are experiencing poorer mental health, and some need additional support. However, our mental health system is complex and fragmented, so it can be challenging to find the care you need.

Here’s how to start seeing a therapist if you never have before.

What is a mental health treatment plan?

Under Medicare, you can already access ten subsidised sessions per calendar year with a registered psychologist, social worker or occupational therapist. Twenty sessions are now subsidised “for anybody who has used their initial ten services in a lockdown area under a public health order,” said Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt. Currently this includes all of Victoria.

But to get access to these sessions, first you need to get a mental health treatment plan from your GP. This involves an assessment of your physical and mental health, and a discussion of your particular needs. The GP then helps you decide what services you need.

All GPs who write mental health treatment plans have undergone additional training in mental health. There are also plenty of GPs with further interest and expertise in this area. It can be helpful to ask for recommendations from friends and family if you are unsure who to see.

Physical and mental health issues frequently overlap, so a visit to a GP is an opportunity to assess any physical issues that may impact mental health as well. The GP should explore a person’s strengths and vulnerabilities, before agreeing on a plan for care.

Generally, this process takes 30-40 minutes, so it’s important to book a longer consultation with your doctor. At the end of this consultation, you can have a copy of the plan, and it’s also sent to the therapist of your choice. Once the mental health plan is billed to Medicare, you can get subsidised sessions with your preferred therapist. You will need to make the appointment with the therapist, but GPs or practice nurses will often help make this appointment for patients who are feeling too unwell to manage this phone call.

Using telehealth

Telehealth enables you to get care from your GP by phone or video. The Medicare requirements of telehealth are changing rapidly, so check when you make your appointment to see if telehealth is available and to make sure you will be eligible for a Medicare rebate for this consultation.

At the moment, to get a Medicare rebate for telehealth, you must have seen the GP in their practice face-to-face at some point in the past 12 months.

But this requirement doesn’t apply to:

• children under 12 months

• people who are homeless

• patients living in a COVID-19 impacted area

• patients receiving an urgent after-hours service

• patients of medical practitioners at an Aboriginal Medical Service or an Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service.

So if you live under the Victorian lockdowns, you can get a mental health care plan via telehealth, even if you have not seen the GP before.

Once you’ve got your care plan, you can do the therapy sessions via telehealth too. And you can now claim them under Medicare (though this wasn’t the case before COVID-19).

Read more: Coronavirus has boosted telehealth care in mental health, so let’s keep it up

Choosing a therapist

Your GP can help you choose a therapist, but it’s important to think about what you need from a psychologist. Psychological care can range from coaching when life is particularly challenging, to deep and complex work helping people manage mental health disorders or trauma.

Also consider the sort of person you prefer to see. Some people prefer practitioners from a particular cultural group, gender or location. You may have a preference for a very structured, problem-solving style, or you may want someone with a more conversational style. You may also have a preference for the type of therapy you need. If your GP can’t recommend someone appropriate, or if you are having trouble finding someone who is available to meet your needs, the Australian Psychological Society has a searchable database of therapists.

Psychologists, occupational therapists and social workers must be registered under Medicare to provide these services, so it’s important to check this with the receptionist when you make your appointment. The Medicare rebate varies according to the qualifications of the practitioner, and a psychologist’s fees may be well above the rebate, so clarify your expected out-of-pocket expenses when you make an initial appointment.

A clinical psychologist has additional training, and will give you a rebate of around $128, whereas a general psychologist has a rebate of around $86. Remember that a psychologist may charge well above the rebate, so you may be out of pocket anywhere from nothing to over $200.

Read more: 5 ways to get mental health help without having to talk on the phone

If you decide seeing a therapist under a mental health plan is not the right option for you, there are some alternatives. Some non-government organisations, like Headspace, provide counselling services through Medicare for no additional cost, as do some schools. Some workplaces also have psychological options like the Employee Assistance Program.

Some people benefit from online programs that teach psychological techniques. Head to Health also provides a searchable database of evidence-based sites to explore. Most are free or very low cost.

If you are very unwell, local mental health services attached to public hospitals can provide crisis support and referral.

These are difficult times.

It’s important to at least discuss your situation with someone you trust if you’re having difficulty sleeping, your mood is affecting you or your family, or you’re having frightening or worrying thoughts. Your GP is a good, confidential first port of call.

If you or someone you know needs assistance, contact Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800, Lifeline on 13 11 14, or Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636.

– ref. Want to see a therapist but don’t know where to start? Here’s how to get a mental health plan – https://theconversation.com/want-to-see-a-therapist-but-dont-know-where-to-start-heres-how-to-get-a-mental-health-plan-143990

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wanning Sun, Professor of Media and Cultural Studies, University of Technology Sydney

US President Donald Trump’s recent moves against Tiktok, the popular video-sharing platform, have been widely seen as part of a new “tech Cold War” between the US and China.

Trump has cited security concerns to justify his targeting of TikTok. But the use of the platform by those seeking to mock him and sabotage his rally in Tulsa in June has led some to believe this might be the real reason behind his aversion to the platform.

Last week, Trump effectively banned TikTok, as well as the Chinese messaging and payment app, WeChat, by executive order.

The targeting of WeChat, also due to perceived security concerns, has caused more confusion than Trump’s actions toward TikTok.

The nature and extent of the ban on WeChat is unclear. In fact, some have speculated that stoking uncertainty might actually be Trump’s aim.

Read more: As the US election looms, Trump is running as hard against China as he is against Biden

WeChat and the right-wing Chinese diaspora

Unlike TikTok, WeChat is the main — if not the only — social media platform regularly used by the Chinese diaspora worldwide, especially those who have migrated from China.

So far, the US mainstream media have responded to the ban by reporting on escalating US-China tensions and national security concerns. What is less discussed is the paradoxical role WeChat plays in domestic politics.

Research shows that like other social media platforms, WeChat has been vulnerable to disinformation campaigns.

However, it was also effective in garnering support for Trump among conservative and far-right American Chinese voters during the 2016 presidential presidential election, as well as Chinese liberal intellectuals.

In short, Trump has a lot be thankful for when it comes to WeChat.

And it’s now possible the ban could even alienate some of his supporters — an outcome Trump may not have anticipated when he made the decision.

A vehicle for robust political debate

But it is not just the Chinese diaspora on the right who use WeChat to participate in domestic US politics. Intellectuals on the left, especially second-generation Chinese Americans, are also active on the platform.

As such, the banning of WeChat has the potential to shut down important debates in the US, as well as among the rest of the Chinese diaspora.

During the Black Lives Matter protests, for instance, Yale student Eileen Huang published an open letter on WeChat to Chinese Americans of her parents’ generation. Huang noted how Chinese Americans have long held deep-seated prejudices against Black people, and called on them to pledge solidarity with Black Americans to fight racism.

Huang’s letter drew widespread criticism. One person, Lin Fei, wrote another open letter condescendingly calling Huang a “child” who was “brainwashed by the lefties” and naively assumed African Americans would side with Asian minorities’ views.

Within a week, the two letters were shared widely on WeChat, precipitating more open letters between younger Chinese studying at Ivy League universities and older Chinese Americans.

The debate within the Chinese community in the US, enabled by WeChat, is nothing short of a minor cultural revolution. As one commentator wrote,

This is a rare large-scale, open and direct ideological confrontation in the history of Chinese Americans.

Trump’s ban on WeChat has also caused much alarm, confusion and fear within the Chinese diaspora, prompting lively and anxious discussions in many of the WeChat groups I observe, both in the US and Australia.

Some ask with trepidation whether they will suddenly be thrust back to the old days of having to rely on phone cards and scratchy long-distance calls to stay in touch with family in China. Others fear if they update their phones, they may no longer be able to access the app.

Read more: TikTok tries to distance itself from Beijing, but will it be enough to avoid the global blacklist?

Misconceptions about WeChat in Australia

So far, the Australian government has responded to the US bans with caution. In July, Prime Minister Scott Morrison indicated his government would monitor TikTok “very closely” and “won’t be shy” about taking action.

Last week, however, the government announced it would not ban TikTok after finding the platform did not pose serious security concerns.

My policy brief on WeChat outlines a number of public misconceptions surrounding the platform in Australia.

Read more: Who do Chinese-Australian voters trust for their political news on WeChat?

Perhaps the most worrying misconception is many people believe WeChat to be a monolithic communications system primarily used by the Chinese Communist Party for propaganda purposes.

It is true content circulated on WeChat’s various platforms is subject to scrutiny and censorship by the Chinese authorities. However, there is a crucial distinction between WeChat being subject to censorship and WeChat being an instrument of CPC propaganda.

As part of research into Chinese-language social media in Australia, my colleagues and I conducted a study of the 50 top-ranked WeChat subscription accounts here over a one-week period in July 2019.

We found evidence of censorship of content being shared on WeChat in Australia. And users responded to this by refraining from publishing material that could alert the censors in China.

This censorship, however, did not amount to direct intervention of the platform or control of its content by the Chinese Communist Party.

Another study from the same project showed how WeChat was used to spread misinformation during the 2019 federal election. But we also uncovered new ways in which WeChat has been used for citizen education, with new Chinese Australians learning about democratic procedures and values.

WeChat is also used by the Chinese diaspora to partake in civic actions. During the summer bushfires, for instance, Chinese migrants in Australia used WeChat to organise fundraising events and mobilise their fellow citizens to make donations for the victims.

And during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, WeChat was used widely by Chinese Australians returning from China to reinforce the importance of self-isolation and offer moral support to one another. Thousands of volunteers also sprang into action, organising through WeChat to deliver food, groceries and other necessities to those confined in their homes.

It’s for these reasons that banning WeChat for the Chinese diaspora does not seem to make much sense.

– ref. Why Trump’s WeChat ban does not make sense — and could actually cost him Chinese votes – https://theconversation.com/why-trumps-wechat-ban-does-not-make-sense-and-could-actually-cost-him-chinese-votes-144207

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lily O’Neill, Research Fellow, Australian National University

Huge clean energy projects, such as the Asian Renewable Energy Hub in the Pilbara, Western Australia, are set to produce gigawatts of electricity over vast expanses of land in the near future.

The Asian Renewable Energy Hub is planning to erect wind turbines and solar arrays across 6,500 square kilometres of land. But, like with other renewable energy mega projects, this land is subject to Aboriginal rights and interests — known as the Indigenous Estate.

While renewable energy projects are essential for transitioning Australia to a zero-carbon economy, they come with a caveat: most traditional owners in Australia have little legal say over them.

Projects on the Indigenous Estate

How much say Aboriginal people have over mining and renewable energy projects depends on the legal regime their land is under.

In the Northern Territory, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) (ALRA) allows traditional owners to say no to developments proposed for their land. While the commonwealth can override this veto, they never have as far as we know.

In comparison, the dominant Aboriginal land tenure in Western Australia (and nationwide) is native title.

Native title — as recognised in the 1992 Mabo decision and later codified in the Native Title Act 1993 — recognises that Aboriginal peoples’ rights to land and waters still exist under certain circumstances despite British colonisation.

Read more: Indigenous people no longer have the legal right to say no to the Adani mine – here’s what it means for equality

But unlike the ALRA, the Native Title Act does not allow traditional owners to veto developments proposed for their land.

Both the Native Title Act and the the ALRA are federal laws, but the ALRA only applies in the NT. The Native Title Act applies nationwide, including in some parts of the NT.

Shortcomings in the Native Title Act

Native title holders can enter into a voluntary agreement with a company, known as an Indigenous Land Use Agreement, when a development is proposed for their land. This allows both parties to negotiate how the land and waters would be used, among other things.

If this is not negotiated, then native title holders have only certain, limited safeguards.

The strongest of these safeguards is known as the “right to negotiate”. This says resource companies must negotiate in good faith for at least six months with native title holders, and aim to reach an agreement.

But it is not a veto right. The company can fail to get the agreement of native title holders and still be granted access to the land by government.

For example, Fortescue Metals Group controversially built their Solomon iron ore mine in the Pilbara, despite not getting the agreement of the Yindjibarndi people who hold native title to the area.

In fact, the National Native Title Tribunal — which rules on disputes between native title holders and companies — has sided with native title holders only three times, and with companies 126 times (of which 55 had conditions attached).

There are also lesser safeguards in the act, which stipulate that native title holders should be consulted, or notified, about proposed developments, and may have certain objection rights.

Negotiating fair agreements

So how does the Native Title Act treat large-scale renewable energy developments?

The answer is complicated because a renewable energy development likely contains different aspects (for example: wind turbines, roads and HVDC cables), and the act may treat each differently.

Broadly speaking, these huge developments don’t fall under the right to negotiate, but under lesser safeguards.

Does this matter? Yes, it does. We know from experience in the mining industry that while some companies negotiate fair agreements with Aboriginal landowners, some do not.

Read more: Rio Tinto just blasted away an ancient Aboriginal site. Here’s why that was allowed

For example, two very similar LNG projects — one in Western Australia and the other in Queensland — resulted in land access and benefit sharing agreements that were poles apart. The WA project’s agreements with traditional owners were worth A$1.5 billion, while the Queensland project’s agreements were worth just A$10 million.

Likewise, Rio Tinto’s agreement for the area including Juukan Gorge reportedly “gagged” traditional owners from objecting to any activities by the company, which then destroyed the 46,000-year-old rock shelters.

A matter of leverage

We also know the likelihood of a new development having positive impacts for Aboriginal communities depends in part on the leverage they have to negotiate a strong agreement.

Read more: Uranium mines harm Indigenous people – so why have we approved a new one?

And the best leverage is political power. This comes from the ability to wage community campaigns against companies to force politicians to listen, or galvanise nation-wide protests that prevent work on a development continuing.

Legal rights are also very effective: the stronger your legal rights are, the better your negotiation position. And the strongest legal position to be in is if you can say no to the development.

For land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, this ability to say no means traditional owners are in a good position to negotiate strong environmental, cultural heritage and economic benefits.

For land under the Native Title Act, traditional owners are in a weaker legal position. It is not a level playing field.

A just transition

To remedy this imbalance, the federal government must give native title holders the same rights for renewable energy projects as traditional owners have under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act in the NT.

Read more: Charles Perkins forced Australia to confront its racist past. His fight for justice continues today

Or, at the very least, extend the right to negotiate to cover the types of large-scale renewable energy projects likely to be proposed for native title land in coming decades.

We must ensure the transition to a zero-carbon economy is a just transition for First Nations.

– ref. Why most Aboriginal people have little say over clean energy projects planned for their land – https://theconversation.com/why-most-aboriginal-people-have-little-say-over-clean-energy-projects-planned-for-their-land-139119

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Uri Gal, Associate Professor in Business Information Systems, University of Sydney

The recent questioning of the heads of Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple in the US Congress has highlighted the threat their practices pose to our privacy and democracy.

However these big four companies are only part of a vast, sophisticated system of mass surveillance.

In this network are thousands of data brokers, ad agencies and technology companies – some of them Australian. They harvest data from millions of people, often without their explicit consent or knowledge.

Currently, this includes data related to the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, data giant Palantir has provided lab test results and emergency department statuses to the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.

How much do they know?

Data companies gather data about our online activity, location, DNA, health and even how we use our mouse. They use a range of techniques, such as:

This expansive tracking generates billions of data points that can reveal every facet of our lives including our family status, income, political affiliation, interests, friendships and sexual orientation.

Data companies use this information to compile detailed individual consumer profiles. These are used for purposes such as targeting us with ads, determining our eligibility for loans and assessing the riskiness of our lives.

The data industry in Australia

Some of the world’s largest data companies operate in Australia. Quantium is an Australian data analytics firm that acquires data from various partners including NAB, Qantas, Woolworths (which owns 50% of the company) and Foxtel.

These partnerships allow Quantium to “tap into the consumer data ecosystem with an unrivalled picture of the behaviours of more than 80% of Australian households, spanning banking, household and retail transactions”.

A company spokesperson told The Conversation most of its work is “data science and AI (artificial intelligence) work with first-party de-identified data supplied by the client”. From this, Quantium delivers “insights and AI/decision support tools” for clients.

Anonymised or “de-identified” data can still be accurately re-identified. Even if a person’s details are de-identified by being converted to an alphanumeric code, the conversion method is identical across most companies.

Therefore, each code is unique to an individual and can be used to identify them within the digital data ecosystem.

Read more: The ugly truth: tech companies are tracking and misusing our data, and there’s little we can do

A lack of transparency

With a revenue of more than US$110 million last year, the insights from Quantium’s data seem to be proving valuable.

From this revenue, more than A$61 million between 2012 and 2020 came from projects commissioned by the Australian government. This includes two 2020 engagements:

• a “COVID-19 Data Analytics” project worth more than A$10 million with a contract period from March 17, 2020 to December 31, 2020

• a “Quantium Health Data Analytics” project valued at more than A$7.4 million with a contract period from July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021.

Quantium’s spokesperson said they could not discuss the details of the contracts without government approval.

In the past decade, the Australian government has commissioned dozens of projects to other data analytics firms worth more than A$200 million.

These include a A$13.8 million Debt Recovery Service project with Dun & Bradstreet and a A$3.3 million National Police Checks project with Equifax – both started in 2016. It’s unclear what and how much data has been shared for these projects.

Last year, Quantium was one of several larger companies put on notice by Australia’s consumer watchdog for sharing data with third parties without consumers’ knowledge or consent.

How do they work?

Data companies largely operate in the shadows. We rarely know who has collected information about us, how they use it, whom they give it to, whether it’s correct, or how much money is being made by it.

LiveRamp (formerly Acxiom) is a US-based company partnered with Australia’s Nine Entertainment Co. This partnership allows the Nine Network to give marketers access to online and offline data to target consumers across Nine’s digital network.

This data may include the Australian electoral roll, to which LiveRamp gained access last year.

Similarly, Optum is a US-based health data company that collects information from hospital records, electronic health records and insurance claims.

It has data on more than 216 million people and used this to develop a predictive algorithm that was shown to discriminate against black patients.

Compromising our democracy

The prevalence, scope and stealth of the abovementioned data practices are not congruent with the basic principles of a liberal democracy.

According to philosopher Isaiah Berlin, liberal democracies can only thrive if they have autonomous citizens with two types of freedoms:

1. freedom to freely speak, choose and protest
2. freedom from undue inspection and intervention.

Our data-driven world signals an extreme diminishing of both these freedoms. Our freedom of choice is harmed when our informational environments are doctored to nudge us towards behaviours that benefit other parties.

Our private space is all but gone in a digital environment where everything we do is recorded, processed and used by commercial and governmental entities.

How can we protect ourselves?

Although our ability to disconnect from the digital world and control our data is eroding rapidly, there are still steps we can take to protect our privacy.

Read more: The privacy paradox: we claim we care about our data, so why don’t our actions match?

We should focus on implementing legislation to protect our civil liberties. The Australian Consumer Data Right and Privacy Act stop short of ensuring the appropriate data protections. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission highlighted this in its 2019 report.

In 2014, the US Federal Trade Commission recommended legislation to allow consumers to identify which brokers have data about them – and that they be able to access it.

It also recommended:

• brokers be required to reveal their data sources
• retailers disclose to consumers that they share their data with brokers
• consumers be allowed to opt out.

If we care about our freedoms, we should try to ensure similar legislation is introduced in Australia.

– ref. How the shady world of the data industry strips away our freedoms – https://theconversation.com/how-the-shady-world-of-the-data-industry-strips-away-our-freedoms-143823

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This week’s federal Newspoll, conducted August 5-8 from a sample of 1,509, gave the Coalition a 52-48 lead, a one-point gain for Labor since the last Newspoll, three weeks ago. Primary votes were 43% Coalition (down one), 33% Labor (down one), 11% Greens (up one) and 4% One Nation (steady). Figures from The Poll Bludger.

68% (steady) were satisfied with Scott Morrison’s performance, and 29% (up two) were dissatisfied, for a net approval of +39, just off Morrison’s record +41 in the last two Newspolls.

Anthony Albanese’s net approval improved two points to +3. Despite these slight movements against Morrison and favouring Albanese, Morrison’s better PM lead widened to 60-25 from 59-26 three weeks ago.

So far the Victorian Labor government is taking the blame for the coronavirus crisis. Three weeks ago, Newspoll polled the ratings of NSW Liberal Premier Gladys Berejiklian and Victorian Labor Premier Daniel Andrews. 57% were satisfied with Andrews and 37% were dissatisfied for a net approval of +20, down 20 points since late June. Berejiklian’s net approval also slid eight points to +34, with 64% satisfied and 30% dissatisfied.

As long as the Victorian government is blamed for the new coronavirus surge, while the federal government escapes blame, it is likely the federal Coalition will maintain its poll lead.

Rex Patrick’s resignation from Centre Alliance makes Senate easier for Coalition

On Sunday, SA Senator Rex Patrick announced he was leaving Centre Alliance and would continue in the Senate as an independent.

After the 2019 election, the Coalition held 35 of the 76 senators, Labor 26, the Greens nine, One Nation two, Centre Alliance two and Cory Bernardi and Jacqui Lambie one each. In January, Bernardi resigned from the Senate, and his seat reverted to the Liberals.

Before Patrick left Centre Alliance, the Coalition’s easiest path to the 39 votes required to pass legislation opposed by Labor and the Greens was to win support from One Nation and one of Centre Alliance or Lambie.

Now the Coalition has an extra option if they win One Nation’s support, needing just one out of Lambie, Patrick or Centre Alliance.

Queensland Newspoll: 51-49 to LNP

The Queensland election will be held on October 31. A Newspoll, conducted July 23-29 from a sample of 1,000, gave the LNP a 51-49 lead. Primary votes were 38% LNP, 34% Labor, 12% Greens and 11% One Nation.

This poll was branded as Newspoll, but Newspoll is conducted by YouGov. A YouGov poll in early June gave the LNP a 52-48 lead from primary votes of 38% LNP, 32% Labor, 12% Greens and 12% One Nation.

Despite the LNP lead on voting intentions, Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk’s ratings improved from the late June premiers’ Newspoll. 64% (up five) were satisfied with her performance, and 29% (down six) were dissatisfied, for a net approval of +35. Opposition Leader Deb Frecklington was at 34% satisfied, 42% dissatisfied. Palaszczuk led as better premier by 57-26.

Both Palaszczuk and Morrison had great results on handling coronavirus, with Palaszczuk at 81% well, 14% badly and Morrison at 80% well, 17% badly.

Biden’s lead over Trump narrows

This section is an updated version of an article I had published for The Poll Bludger last Friday.

In the FiveThirtyEight poll aggregate, Donald Trump’s ratings with all polls are 41.4% approve, 54.7% disapprove (net -13.3%). With polls of registered or likely voters, Trump’s ratings are 42.0% approve, 54.4% disapprove (net -12.4%). Since my article three weeks ago, Trump’s net approval has improved about two points.

Less than three months before the November 3 election, FiveThirtyEight’s national aggregate has Joe Biden’s lead narrowing to a 49.9% to 42.1% margin over Trump, from a 50.3% to 41.2% margin three weeks ago.

In the key states, Biden leads by 7.8% in Michigan, 7.3% in Wisconsin, 6.0% in Pennsylvania, 5.2% in Florida and 3.6% in Arizona.

On current polling, Pennsylvania is the tipping-point state. If Trump wins all states more favourable for him than Pennsylvania, and Biden wins Pennsylvania and other states that are better for him, Biden wins the Electoral College by 278 Electoral Votes to 260. But the issue for Biden is that Pennsylvania is currently 1.8% more pro-Trump than the national average.

Trump’s gains come despite a coronavirus death toll that has trended up to over 1,000 daily deaths on most days. There have been over 160,000 US coronavirus deaths. However, the daily new cases have dropped into the 50,000’s from a peak of over 78,000 on July 24.

I believe Trump has gained owing to memories of George Floyd’s murder fading, and thus race relations becoming less important to voters. An improving economic outlook could also explain the poll movement.

Despite the coronavirus’ effect on the US economy, Trump’s economic approval is close to a net zero rating according to the RealClearPolitics average. Analyst Nate Silver says real disposable personal income increased sharply in April, contrary to what occurs in most recessions. This increase was due to the coronavirus stimulus, and explains Trump’s better economic ratings.

In the RealClearPolitics Senate map, Republicans lead in 46 races, Democrats lead in 45 and there are nine toss-ups. If toss-up races are assigned to the current leader, Democrats lead by 51 to 49. If Trump’s numbers continue to improve, Republicans are likely to be boosted in congressional races.

Danger for Democrats in mail voting

Owing to coronavirus, much of the US election will be conducted by mail voting. Trump has been castigating mail voting, and this could depress Republican mail turnout. But there is a danger for Biden and Democrats in Trump’s attacks.

As Cook Political Report analyst Dave Wasserman says, mail votes can be rejected owing to voter error. Also, while there are some states that conduct elections mostly by mail, the US as a whole does not. This means there could be errors such as voters not being sent their ballot papers in time.

If Republicans mostly vote in person, while Democrats mostly vote by mail, it is likely to distort the election night results as mail votes usually take longer to count. Furthermore, mail errors, whether by election officials or voters, are likely to cost Democrats in close races.

If Trump could get within five points in national polls, his advantage in the Electoral College and the mail issue could see him sneak another win.

Another good US jobs report

After the terrible US April jobs report, the last three have indicated a clear recovery trend from coronavirus. In July, 1.8 million jobs were created and the unemployment rate fell 0.9% to 10.2%. The unemployment rate is still high by historical standards, but much better than the 14.7% in April.

Job gains in July slowed from 4.8 million in June and 2.7 million in May. The employment population ratio – the percentage of eligible Americans employed – increased 0.5% in July to 55.1%, but is still over 3% below the 58.2% low reached in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.

NZ Labour has huge poll lead ahead of September 19 election

On July 28, I wrote for The Poll Bludger that a New Zealand Reid Research poll gave Labour a thumping 61% to 25% lead over the opposition National. A Colmar Brunton poll, released after the Poll Bludger article was published, gave Labour a 53% to 32% lead.

– ref. Coalition maintains Newspoll lead federally and in Queensland; Biden’s lead over Trump narrows – https://theconversation.com/coalition-maintains-newspoll-lead-federally-and-in-queensland-bidens-lead-over-trump-narrows-144193

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Plank, Professor in Mathematics, University of Canterbury

Our latest modelling shows New Zealanders need to redouble their efforts to keep track of people they meet, if we are to have a chance of controlling any re-emergence of COVID-19.

The director general of health, Ashley Bloomfield, recently warned that a new case of COVID-19 community transmission is a matter of when, not if. He said:

We’re working on the basis it could be anytime, of course coupled with doing everything we can to intercept the virus at the border and stop it coming any further.

So far, our border restrictions and quarantine have kept the virus out, but with the pandemic accelerating globally, the threat of re-emergence is small but ever present. Should an infectious person slip through the border, our modelling shows comprehensive contact tracing and quick isolation are our best defences, without having to resort to another lockdown.

Read more: 100 days without COVID-19: how New Zealand got rid of a virus that keeps spreading across the world

Speed is of the essence

New Zealand has now gone for 100 days with no community transmission of COVID-19.

One way to measure the effectiveness of public health measures such as contact tracing is the virus reproduction number: the number of secondary infections for each new positive case. If this number can be kept below one, then one missed case at the border won’t lead to an outbreak.

Our new modelling results show that if we can trace and quarantine 80% of contacts within two days on average, we can reduce the effective reproduction number from 2.5 to 1.5. Some additional physical distancing and mask use could bring the number below one.

But contact tracing can only do this if we all help. So far, more than 600,000 new Zealanders have registered for the NZ COVID Tracer app, which now allows manual entries as well as scanning business QR codes. But regular use has been slow to catch on.

Our modelling also shows people will need to quarantine themselves promptly, even before they have symptoms. This might sound obvious, but it is easier said than done, especially for people in insecure employment, without paid sick leave, or with care-giving responsibilities.

The statutory sick leave entitlement in New Zealand is only five days but traced contacts may need to quarantine for up to 14 days, in some cases without showing any signs of illness. In England, there are fears people are reluctant to pass on details of contacts who may not have the financial resources to self-isolate.

In Australia, the state of Victoria has recently introduced a A$1,500 payment for people required to isolate after they or a household member tests positive. The Scottish government has also recognised the importance of this, adopting a “test, trace, isolate, support” approach. We need similar support put in place in New Zealand.

Read more: How New Zealand could keep eliminating coronavirus at its border for months to come, even as the global pandemic worsens

Targeted testing

Once an outbreak gets too large, the contact tracing system will not cope. The earlier we can catch an outbreak, the better chance we have of containing it. This means doing lots of testing. Our current testing rate has dropped to around 2,000 per day from a high of around 7,500 per day in late June. We could be testing more people, but it is important to target high-risk groups.

At the moment, New Zealand’s biggest risk is at the border. We already test international arrivals twice during their quarantine.

People who work at the border, either in airports or at quarantine facilities, are also at higher risk of catching the virus. This is how Melbourne’s current outbreak started. It is crucial these workers are trained in infection prevention and proper use of protective equipment, and separated from people in quarantine.

Staff at quarantine hotels in Rotorua and Hamilton are now being tested fortnightly and have daily symptom checks. This needs to be extended to all staff at airports and quarantine facilities who have any contact with quarantined arrivals.

People with symptoms of COVID-19 should also be offered tests. If the border keeps doing its job, all of these tests will come back negative. But if we do get a case, we are much more likely to find it by testing people with symptoms rather than just testing randomly.

Read more: ‘An endless game of COVID-19 whack-a-mole’: a New Zealand expert on why Melbourne’s stage 4 lockdown should cover all of Victoria

Digital contact tracing

Because speed is essential, there is interest around the world in digital tracing systems such as Bluetooth apps or cards. But an effective digital tracing system needs to be well integrated with manual contact tracing.

A system that immediately provides a list of close contacts and phone numbers could make the job easier and faster for contact tracers. Apps that just send an automatic notification with no follow-up are less likely to result in effective quarantine.

Even with gold-standard contact tracing, our model suggests we would need to follow moderate social distancing rules to bring the reproduction number below one. If we don’t get on top of an outbreak very quickly, we can expect limits on gathering size, or even regional or national lockdowns. Past experience has shown that starting these measures as early as possible is the key to successful elimination.

– ref. A new community case of COVID-19 in New Zealand is a matter of when, not if. Is the country prepared for it? – https://theconversation.com/a-new-community-case-of-covid-19-in-new-zealand-is-a-matter-of-when-not-if-is-the-country-prepared-for-it-143746

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Dobson, Professor and Dean of Education, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

The English language in education today is all-pervasive. “Hear more English, speak more English and become more successful” has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Some say it’s already a universal language, ahead of other mother tongues such as Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Spanish or French. In reality, of course, this has been centuries in the making. Colonial conquest and global trade routes won the hearts and minds of foreign education systems.

These days, the power of English (or the versions of English spoken in different countries) has become accepted wisdom, used to justify the globalisation of education at the cost of existing systems in non-English-speaking countries.

The British Council exemplifies this, with its global presence and approving references to the “English effect” on educational and employment prospects.

English as a passport to success

In non-English countries the packaging of English and its promise of success takes many forms. Instead of being integrated into (or added to) national teaching curricula, English language learning institutes, language courses and international education standards can dominate whole systems.

Among the most visible examples are Cambridge Assessment International Education and the International Baccalaureate (which is truly international and, to be fair, also offered in French and Spanish).

Read more: Beyond the black hole of global university rankings: rediscovering the true value of knowledge and ideas

Schools in non-English-speaking countries attract globally ambitious parents and their children with a mix of national and international curricula, such as the courses offered by the Singapore Intercultural School across South-East Asia.

Language and the class divide

The love of all things English begins at a young age in non-English-speaking countries, promoted by pop culture, Hollywood movies, fast-food brands, sports events and TV shows.

Later, with English skills and international education qualifications from high school, the path is laid to prestigious international universities in the English-speaking world and employment opportunities at home and abroad.

But those opportunities aren’t distributed equally across socioeconomic groups. Global education in English is largely reserved for middle-class students.

This is creating a divide between those inside the global English proficiency ecosystem and those relegated to parts of the education system where such opportunities don’t exist.

For the latter there is only the national education curriculum and the lesson that social mobility is a largely unattainable goal.

The Indonesian experience

Indonesia presents a good case study. With a population of 268 million, access to English language curricula has mostly been limited to urban areas and middle-class parents who can afford to pay for private schools.

At the turn of this century, all Indonesian districts were mandated to have at least one public school offering a globally recognised curriculum in English to an international standard. But in 2013 this was deemed unconstitutional because equal educational opportunity should exist across all public schools.

Read more: Lessons taught in English are reshaping the global classroom

Nevertheless, today there are 219 private schools offering at least some part of the curriculum through Cambridge International, and 38 that identify as Muslim private schools. Western international curricula remain influential in setting the standard for what constitutes quality education.

In Muslim schools that have adopted globally recognised curricula in English, there is a tendency to over-focus on academic performance. Consequently, the important Muslim value of تَرْبِيَة (Tarbiya) is downplayed.

Encompassing the flourishing of the whole child and the realisation of their potential, Tarbiya is a central pillar in Muslim education. Viewed like this, schooling that concentrates solely on academic performance fails in terms of both culture and faith.

Learning is about more than academic performance

Academic performance measured by knowledge and skill is, of course, still important and a source of personal fulfilment. But without that cultural balance and the nurturing of positive character traits, we argue it lacks deeper meaning.

Read more: The top ranking education systems in the world aren’t there by accident. Here’s how Australia can climb up

A regulation issued by the Indonesian minister of education in 2018 underlined this. It listed a set of values and virtues that school education should foster: faith, honesty, tolerance, discipline, hard work, creativity, independence, democracy, curiosity, nationalism, patriotism, appreciation, communication, peace, a love of reading, environmental awareness, social awareness and responsibility.

These have been simplified to five basic elements of character education: religion, nationalism, Gotong Royong (collective voluntary work), independence and integrity.

These are not necessarily measurable by conventional, Western, English-speaking and empirical means. Is it time, then, to reconsider the internationalising of education (and not just in South-East Asia)? Has it gone too far, at least in its English form?

Isn’t it time to look closely at other forms of education in societies where English is not the mother tongue? These education systems are based on different values and they understand success in different ways.

It’s unfortunate so many schools view an English-speaking model as the gold standard and overlook their own local or regional wisdoms. We need to remember that encouraging young people to join a privileged English-speaking élite educated in foreign universities is only one of many possible educational options.

– ref. When English becomes the global language of education we risk losing other – often better – ways of learning – https://theconversation.com/when-english-becomes-the-global-language-of-education-we-risk-losing-other-often-better-ways-of-learning-143744

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stuart Richards, Lecturer in Screen Studies, University of South Australia

Review: Welcome to Chechnya, screening at the Melbourne International Film Festival

Welcome to Chechnya, screening online as part of MIFF 68½, is a bracing documentary. This film is part of a queer trilogy of sorts for filmmaker and investigative reporter David France, who also directed 2012’s How to Survive a Plague (for which he received an Oscar nomination) and 2017’s The Death and Life of Marsha P. Johnson.

This third film is a distressing look at the torture and murder of LGBTQ people in Chechnya and the inspiring work of activists who fight to help them escape.

The “gay purge” of Chechnya is a political extermination, with Chechen leader, Ramzan Kadyrov, laughing in one interview as he describes LGBTQ people as subhuman:

We don’t have any gays … to purify our blood; if they are here, take them.

Read more: Suicide of Egyptian activist Sarah Hegazi exposes the ‘freedom and violence’ of LGBTQ Muslims in exile

Different paths, the same fate

The torture of men and women is very different in Chechnya.

For men, they are rounded up and sent to concentration camps where they are abused and murdered. One scene features “Grisha” slowly telling his boyfriend “Bogdan” of how he was abused.

For Chechen women, they are returned to their families, where their abuse and murder is more silent. The plight of “Anya”, whose father is an influential figure in the Chechen government, is included here. Her uncle has discovered that she is a lesbian and is threatening to tell her father if she doesn’t sleep with him. If her father discovers Anya’s secret, the result would most certainly be murder.

In one particularly intense moment, the hidden cameras film the activists going undercover in two teams to Grozny to sneak her out across the Russian border. We see Anya get quizzed by border officials and pace up and down in her new shelter while she awaits news of her asylum application.

The film depicts just how tenuous this political situation is. When a fugitive attempts suicide, the group are unable to call an ambulance as they need to keep their shelter hidden from authorities.

Fake identities

Rather than using traditional filmmaking techniques, such as pixilation or darkness, to keep those escaping anonymous, France employs deepfake technology to digitally transplant the faces of New York-based queer activists onto the Chechen fugitives.

The result lends a smoothness to the faces that reminds me of the age-defying work done in Scorsese’s The Irishman. Yet, it is made clear when the technology is being employed and when it is not during Welcome to Chechnya.

The edges of the “replaced” faces are blurry, which allows the viewer to identify which participants, like coordinators David Isteev and Olga Baranova, are sharing their real faces. The very presence of France’s camera puts many of these activists at risk.

Read more: LGBTQ caravan migrants may have to ‘prove’ their gender or sexual identity at US border

This digital technology adds an interesting element to the documentary’s aesthetic – flipping between slick and rough elements. Both the deepfake faces and the shaky cell phone footage are a reminder of the constant peril these people face.

While deepfake technology is intrinsically associated with a lack of authenticity, here it allows imperilled fugitives to participate to tell their story. As Grisha reveals his torture, Bogdan’s emotional response is evocative as he tenderly strokes his partner’s hands. The digitally transplanted face does not change or take away from this moment.

There are a number of videos interspersed throughout the documentary that were uncovered by LGBTQ activists in the region. These grainy images, often handheld and, in one instance CCTV footage, feature the abuse, murder and rape of queer Chechens.

It’s a confronting reminder of just how violent the homophobic and misogynistic values of the Chechen government and its operatives are. Some will find the more violent imagery upsetting. But it adds context and justification to the palpable rage that drives this film.

Like all great political documentaries, Welcome to Chechnya is a call to action. It’s a call for justice for the tortured and murdered in Chechnya, and a stark reminder of the realities many queer asylum seekers are facing.

As activist David Isteev states, if there is no punishment for those that treat LGBTQ people as subhuman, “anyone can find themselves in the shoes of gay Chechens”.

MIFF is online until 23 August 2020.

– ref. Deepfake technology unlocks real stories of LGBTQ persecution in Welcome to Chechnya – https://theconversation.com/deepfake-technology-unlocks-real-stories-of-lgbtq-persecution-in-welcome-to-chechnya-144053

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

Australia’s aged care sector was “underprepared” to deal with the COVID-19 outbreak and federal authorities had no specific plan for it, according to a stinging indictment from Peter Rozen QC, senior counsel assisting the royal commission into aged care.

In a statement critical of authorities and providers, Rozen said while much was done to prepare the health sector more generally for the pandemic, “neither the Commonwealth Department of Health nor the aged care regulator developed a COVID-19 plan specifically for the aged care sector”.

Rozen was speaking at the start of several days of hearings to look at the sector’s preparations and response to the crisis. The commission will probe the NSW outbreaks in homes but not delve in detail into particular homes in Victoria because the crisis is ongoing there.

Aged care is a Commonwealth responsibility, while the states are responsible for health.

Rozen said on Commonwealth data, more than 1000 residents had been diagnosed with COVID-19, of whom 168 had died.

The pandemic had “starkly exposed” the flaws in the sector that had been highlighted during the royal commission.

In view of the deficiencies it was “hardly surprising that the aged care sector has struggled to respond to COVID-19”.

He stressed the consequences of the deskilling of the aged care workforce and a shortage of clinical skills in homes.

Rozen quoted health minister Greg Hunt saying on July 29 that “aged care around the country has been immensely prepared”. But, Rozen said, “in a number of important respects, the evidence will demonstrate that the sector has been underprepared”.

“We will be asking if greater attention to preparation may have saved lives and could save lives in the future.”

Rozen said that between June 19 and August 3, a crucial period when new infections in Victoria escalated, there was no updated advice for the aged care sector from the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee – the main source of COVID advice.

“There was no advice about how the sector should respond to the risk posed by aged care workers who may be COVID-19 positive yet asymptomatic, particularly those who work in multiple facilities.”

Rozen was critical of the Commonwealth regulator, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, which oversees the sector.

“The regulator did not have an appropriate aged care sector COVID-19 response plan. Given that it was widely understood that recipients of aged care services were a high risk group, this seems surprising.”

On March 17, the regulator wrote to providers with a survey asking about their preparedness. Overwhelmingly they claimed to be prepared, but evidence would be critical of this survey, Rozen said.

He questioned the late timing of the regulator’s action in relation to the Newmarch House in Sydney and the fact the regulator had not investigated the circumstances of the Dorothy Henderson Lodge and Newmarch House outbreaks.

Read more: View from The Hill: Aged care crisis reflects poor preparation and a broken system

“We also have concerns about whether the regulator’s powers of investigation are adequate,” Rozen said, adding that comparable regulators in areas such as workplace or airline safety were not as fettered.

There were “notorious problems” in the relationship between the health system run by the states and the Commonwealth aged care sector, Rozen said.

He detailed an argument between federal and NSW authorities about whether residents with COVID should be transferred to hospitals, with the federal authorities wanting transfers and the state official opposing.

“Equal access to the hospital system is the fundamental right of all Australians young or old and regardless of where they live,” Rozen said.

“Many of the residents in aged care homes worked their entire lives to build the world class health system of which Australians are justifiable proud.

“They have the same right to access it in their hour of need as the rest of the community. To put it very directly, older people are no less deserving of care because they are old. Such an approach is ageist”.

Rozen noted the time it took, after experience in Sydney, for the Commonwealth health department to advise providers that 80-100% of their workforce might need to isolate in a major outbreak, and even then it was not highlighted.

“Regulators in other fields such as workplace safety publish page one ‘alerts’ to disseminate promptly via safety information they learn from incident investigations.”

Rozen said masks were not made compulsory for aged care workers until July 13 – two days after the first recorded deaths of an aged care resident in Victoria. On July 13, the number of new Victorian infections was 250.

“Why did authorities wait until after the fir st death to take what seems the simple and obvious step of making masks compulsory for aged care workers?”

– ref. Federal departments had no specific COVID plan for aged care: royal commission counsel – https://theconversation.com/federal-departments-had-no-specific-covid-plan-for-aged-care-royal-commission-counsel-144204

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cordelia Fine, Professor, History & Philosophy of Science program, School of Historical & Philosophical Studies, University of Melbourne

How useful are the well-known and hotly contested categories of “male brain” and “female brain”?

Among experts, nobody really questions that anatomical sex differences in the brain exist. But since the advent of brain science, the scientific community has been divided over how many differences there are, which ones have been definitively proven, how large or small they are, and what they actually mean.

And, over the past several years, a new debate has been brewing among experts. Do anatomical differences in the brain “add up” to two clearly recognisable (sex-specific) brain types? Or do they rather “mix up” and form idiosyncratic combinations or “mosaics”, independent of sex?

Read more: Brain scientists haven’t been able to find major differences between women’s and men’s brains, despite over a century of searching

A mosaic of male and female features

The mosaic hypothesis was supported by the results of a ground-breaking study published in 2015 by Daphna Joel and her collaborators at Tel-Aviv University.

Using brain scans of more than 1,400 participants, Joel and company identified the 10 regions showing the largest differences in size between men and women. Next, they classified each region of each brain as “male-typical”, “female-typical” or “intermediate”.

Most of the brains turned out to be “mosaics” of male-typical and female-typical features, rather than being consistently male-typical (“male brains”) or female-typical (“female brains”). Joel concluded that brains “cannot be categorised into two distinct classes: male brain/female brain”.

Read more: Medicine’s gender revolution: how women stopped being treated as ‘small men’

Algorithms can ‘predict’ sex from brain data

Critics of the mosaic brain theory, however, point to machine-learning algorithms that can use a brain scan to “predict” an individual’s sex with 80 to 90 percent accuracy.

If an algorithm can classify brains into sexes so easily, the argument goes, it must be recognising some underlying difference.

To some extent, this is a disagreement about what the terms “male brains” and “female brains” should entail. For Joel, using these categories would only be justified if, for example, knowing somebody had a “female” or “male” brain allowed you to predict other things about their brain’s features.

But for Joel’s critics, the important thing is predicting the individual’s sex. It doesn’t matter whether or not slotting somebody’s brain into a sex category gives you more information about its structure.

Most machine-learning classification algorithms are “black boxes”, which means they don’t reveal anything about how they combine brain features to define “male” and “female” brains. Despite the accuracy of the algorithms, their definitions may not even be consistent: some evidence suggests the algorithms use different brain features when classifying different subpopulations of females and males.

Algorithms’ sex prediction may depend on head size

And now even this classification accuracy is under challenge. A research team led by one of us (Carla Sanchis Segura) published a new study that considers a neglected complication. On average, women have smaller bodies, heads and brains than men.

In the early days of brain science, these differences in body and brain were mistakenly taken as evidence of (white) men’s intellectual superiority. But in recent years, it has been recognised that head size variation poses a problem for neuroscientists interested in sex differences.

When you see a female/male difference in the size of a brain region, how do you know if you are seeing a specific effect of sex? It might simply be a difference between larger brains (more of which belong to males) and smaller brains (more of which belong to females), or a combination of the two.

Neuroscientists try to solve this problem by statistically “controlling” for head size. But exactly how is this done?

There are several different statistical methods in use. The current “gold standard” for assessing their validity is comparing the sex differences in the brain they find with those obtained in selected groups of females and males matched to have similar head sizes.

Read more: How we inherit masculine and feminine behaviours: a new idea about environment and genes

Using this “gold standard”, the Sanchis-Segura research team found, in an earlier study, that not all currently used methods are effective and valid. They also found that the method used has a major impact on the number, the size and even the direction of the estimated sex differences.

Having worked out which statistical control techniques are the most valid, Sanchis-Segura and her team were able to investigate an important question: to what extent does the high accuracy of “brain sex” classification depend on head size variation?

The researchers tested 12 different sex-predicting machine-learning algorithms with data that had been properly adjusted for head size variation, data that had been poorly adjusted, and data that had not been adjusted at all.

The algorithms delivered highly accurate results when using both raw data and poorly adjusted data. But when the same 12 algorithms were fed with properly adjusted data, classification accuracy dropped to 10% above ‘chance’, at about 60% accuracy.

One particularly deflationary finding of the study was that the algorithms achieved high accuracy if they were given just one piece of information – namely, head size!

These new findings continue to challenge the usefulfness of the categories “male brain” and “female brain”. Sex certainly affects the brain, and sex effects are important to study. But current attempts to classify brains into the categories “male brain” or “female brain” using machine-learning algorithm seem to add little beyond what has been known since the inception of modern science – that men, on average, have larger heads.

– ref. Are there ‘male’ and ‘female’ brains? Computers can see a distinction, but they rely strongly on differences in head size – https://theconversation.com/are-there-male-and-female-brains-computers-can-see-a-distinction-but-they-rely-strongly-on-differences-in-head-size-143972

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Bongiorno, Professor of History, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University

Earlier this month, there were media reports that Liberal backbencher Craig Kelly had posted to Facebook advocating the anti-malarial drug, hydroxychloroquine, as a treatment for COVID-19.

Kelly went so far as to suggest Victorian Labor Premier Daniel Andrews might have to do some solid prison time after blocking its use. It might be recalled that Kelly’s preselection for the federal seat of Hughes had been in some difficulty before the last election, until he was reputedly saved by his leader, Scott Morrison.

What was remarkable about Kelly’s recent intervention in favour of a drug advocated by Donald Trump, but whose efficacy is not supported by research, is not that it was out of character. Kelly has said many outrageous things over the years. Rather, Kelly’s comments seemed to belong to “a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away”, to those olden days before the pandemic changed the world.

Read more: When Trump pushed hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19, hundreds of thousands of prescriptions followed despite little evidence that it worked

Back then, expert opinion was bunk, saying the unsayable could get you a week of media attention and a regular gig on breakfast television, and you could be confident that you were doing your leader a good turn by revving up the base while he went after the middle ground in his baseball cap and rugby top.

As I said, avant le pandemic.

In Australia, the hyper-partisanship of those times now seems to be confined to the fringes of mainstream politics – and the Liberal opposition in the Victorian parliament.

Scott Morrison has resisted promptings from his own side of politics to attack Labor state premiers, including Andrews during Victoria’s current ordeal. The anti-science, anti-reason discourse that wrecked climate change policy has never been as at home in the world of COVID-19 in this country. It instead finds its place among a sprinkling of “sovereign citizens”, social media obsessives of a certain kind, and in the occasional newspaper column that few read and fewer still take seriously.

Read more: Why good leaders need to hold the hose: how history might read Morrison’s coronavirus leadership

In Australia, the centre always holds

Pessimism about the state of Australian politics over the past few years has obscured a significant point that the pandemic has shown up starkly: the centre has held. The historian Stuart Macintyre pointed this out as long ago as 2017, in his Geoffrey Bolton Lecture. Australia, along with Canada and New Zealand, have from time to time experienced right-wing populist mobilisations – think Joh-for-PM and Pauline Hanson – but these have been “ephemeral”. That is also true of the right-wing insurgency of the recent past.

That insurgency contributed to climate policy failure; although it would not have achieved that result without the Murdoch media and the resources industry. It helped destroy Malcolm Turnbull’s prime ministership; but he also had a big hand in that himself. It helped get Peter Dutton within five party-room votes of the prime ministership; yet that would not have happened without the spinelessness of some of Turnbull’s erstwhile allies. It got Pauline Hanson’s One Nation a few seats in the federal upper house, where they subsequently managed to persuade Coalition senators that a resolution proclaiming “it’s OK to be white” was worthy of affirmation. But the Coalition soon changed its collective mind and, with Labor’s cooperation, was able to vote the other way the next day.

Still, it has been a politics of stunts and pinpricks rather than of transformation or revolution. And while Australian survey after survey has in recent years revealed disillusionment and distrust with politics and politicians, there is no evidence Australians generally gave up believing that government capable of looking after them.

Australian governments are good in a crisis

Historically, Australian governments have done better at dealing with crises than managing prosperity. The 2019-20 bushfire crisis and COVID-19 pandemic, especially the latter, have largely conformed to this pattern. Governments of all stripes have made many mistakes. But most Australians are sufficiently aware of what is happening elsewhere in the world, and what a worst-case scenario might actually look like, to realise that while their governments could be better, they could also do a whole lot worse.

For the time being, this attitude is a boon to incumbents. For Morrison in particular, it has been a very good pandemic. The man who went to the last election making a virtue of having little to offer except that he would stop Labor coming after your money now had serious work to do. And he has generally muddled along well enough. Sometimes, he’s needed to resist his worst instincts and sometimes, as when attending a Rugby League game as a new wave of infections hit Melbourne, not quite managing to do so.

If the Churchillian qualities identified in political commentary of the sub-literate kind are there, Morrison keeps them well hidden. Rather, if you enjoy comparison with British politics, Harold Wilson would be closer to the mark. Morrison improvises as each crisis comes along, without too many backward glances at what he claimed to believe wholeheartedly yesterday. The policies are sometimes bad, sometimes OK, and sometimes confused and confusing. But they are always well calculated to get him through to the next crisis – and with a sly peak ahead to the next election.

The various twists and turns of federal government policy on JobSeeker, JobKeeper, childcare, superannuation and so on keep the show on the road, especially while eyes are turned to each day’s announcement from Victoria. The reduction of parliamentary sittings has reduced opportunities for the pyrotechnics that oppositions need if they are to get any public attention.

Read more: Remembrance of rorts past: why the McKenzie scandal might not count for a hill of beans

Most politicians want to be seen to be cooperative and constructive, even when it is their job to hold the government accountable. Scandals such as “sports rorts”, which would otherwise have been a running sore, fail to regain traction. Journalists are more interested in pursuing the Andrews government over failures in hotel quarantine than the Morrison government over failures in aged care. Labor leader Anthony Albanese keeps a low profile in a time dominated by those with the power to make decisions.

And after the pandemic?

None of this seems likely to survive the end of the crisis signalled by the Victorian outbreak. At that point, Australians are likely to become more insistent on what the federal government will do to alleviate unemployment, business failure and household insolvency. They might also expect it to take a stronger hand in the matter of whether state borders remain open or closed. On this matter, the only consistency in its position has been its lack of consistency.

Can we afford, possibly for the next couple of years or more, to shut down a border every time the infection rate moves into double figures in a state the size of New South Wales, as Queensland has just done? Or to close down travel to Queensland from the Australian Capital Territory, which has no active cases at all? Can this really be consistent with section 92 of the Constitution? (We may soon know.)

Much in our lives that we took for granted before the pandemic is likely gone forever. But the one area in which snapback is likely to apply is the daily humdrum of Australian politics. In recent months, our politicians have had seriousness thrust upon them, following more than a decade in which there was almost no issue they were unwilling to leave to the future to solve.

In the COVID era, the future comes at you quickly.

– ref. Australia’s politicians have learned that in the era of coronavirus, the future comes at you fast – https://theconversation.com/australias-politicians-have-learned-that-in-the-era-of-coronavirus-the-future-comes-at-you-fast-144057

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carissa Bonner, Research Fellow, University of Sydney

If the media is anything to go by, you’d think people who believe coronavirus myths are white, middle-aged women called Karen.

But our new study shows a different picture. We found men and people aged 18-25 are more likely to believe COVID-19 myths. We also found an increase among people from a non-English speaking background.

While we’ve heard recently about the importance of public health messages reaching people whose first language isn’t English, we’ve heard less about reaching young men.

Read more: We asked multicultural communities how best to communicate COVID-19 advice. Here’s what they told us

What did we find?

Sydney Health Literacy Lab has been running a national COVID-19 survey of more than 1,000 social media users each month since Australia’s first lockdown.

A few weeks in, our initial survey showed younger people and men were more likely to think the benefit of herd immunity was covered up, and the threat of COVID-19 was exaggerated.

People who agreed with such statements were less likely to want to receive a future COVID-19 vaccine.

Read more: The ‘herd immunity’ route to fighting coronavirus is unethical and potentially dangerous

In June, after restrictions eased, we asked social media users about more specific myths. We found:

• men and younger people were more likely to believe prevention myths, such as hot temperatures or UV light being able to kill the virus that causes COVID-19

• people with lower education and more social disadvantage were more likely to believe causation myths, such as 5G being used to spread the virus

• younger people were more likely to believe cure myths, such as vitamin C and hydroxychloroquine being effective treatments.

We need more targeted research with young Australians, and men in particular, about why some of them believe these myths and what might change their mind.

Read more: No, 5G radiation doesn’t cause or spread the coronavirus. Saying it does is destructive

Although our research has yet to be formally peer-reviewed, it reflects what other researchers have found, both in Australia and internationally.

An Australian poll in May found similar patterns, in which men and younger people believed a range of myths more than other groups.

In the UK, younger people are more likely to hold conspiracy beliefs about COVID-19. American men are also more likely to agree with COVID-19 conspiracy theories than women.

Why is it important to reach this demographic?

We need to reach young people with health messaging for several reasons. In Australia, young people:

The Victorian and New South Wales premiers have appealed to young people to limit socialising.

But is this enough when young people are losing interest in COVID-19 news? How many 20-year-old men follow Daniel Andrews on Twitter, or watch Gladys Berejiklian on television?

How can we reach young people?

We need to involve young people in the design of COVID-19 messages to get the delivery right, if we are to convince them to socialise less and follow prevention advice. We need to include them rather than blame them.

We can do this by testing our communications on young people or running consumer focus groups before releasing them to the public. We can include young people on public health communications teams.

We can also borrow strategies from marketing. For example, we know how tobacco companies use social media to effectively target young people. Paying popular influencers on platforms such as TikTok to promote reliable information is one option.

Read more: Most adults have never heard of TikTok. That’s by design

We can target specific communities to reach young men who might not access mainstream media, for instance, gamers who have many followers on YouTube.

We also know humour can be more effective than serious messages to counteract science myths.

Some great examples

There are social media campaigns happening right now to address COVID-19, which might reach more young men than traditional public health methods.

NSW Health has recently started a campaign #Itest4NSW encouraging young people to upload videos to social media in support of COVID-19 testing.

The United Nations is running the global Verified campaign involving an army of volunteers to help spread more reliable information on social media. This may be a way to reach private groups on WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, where misinformation spreads under the radar.

Telstra is using Australian comedian Mark Humphries to address 5G myths in a satirical way (although this would probably have more credibility if it didn’t come from a vested interest).

Finally, tech companies like Facebook are partnering with health organisations to flag misleading content and prioritise more reliable information. But this is just a start to address the huge problem of misinformation in health.

Read more: Why is it so hard to stop COVID-19 misinformation spreading on social media?

But we need more

We can’t expect young men to access reliable COVID-19 messages from people they don’t know, through media they don’t use. To reach them, we need to build new partnerships with the influencers they trust and the social media companies that control their information.

It’s time to change our approach to public health communication, to counteract misinformation and ensure all communities can access, understand and act on reliable COVID-19 prevention advice.

– ref. Young men are more likely to believe COVID-19 myths. So how do we actually reach them? – https://theconversation.com/young-men-are-more-likely-to-believe-covid-19-myths-so-how-do-we-actually-reach-them-143745

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Graeme Pearman, Professorial Fellow, Australian-German Climate and Energy College, University of Melbourne

There is global interest in the potential for a hydrogen economy, in part driven by a concern over climate change and the need to move away from fossil fuels.

This month, for example, Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, released a report showing the use of clean hydrogen as a fuel could slash aviation emissions, including a complete transition from conventional jet fuel around 2050.

A hydrogen economy could tap Australia’s abundant solar and wind energy resources, and provides a way to store and transport energy.

But, to date, there has been little attention on the technology’s potential environmental challenges.

Using hydrogen as a fuel might make global warming worse by affecting chemical reactions in the atmosphere. We must know more about this risk before we dive headlong into the hydrogen transition.

Australia’s hydrogen dawn

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. On Earth, it’s found mostly in water, from which it can be extracted. When renewable energy is used to power this process, hydrogen can be produced, in principle, with no emissions.

Australia’s National Hydrogen Strategy, released last November, identified hydrogen export as a major economic opportunity.

Countries such as Germany, Japan and South Korea have large energy demands and commitments to emissions reduction. But they have limited opportunities to develop their own renewable resources. This creates a major opportunity for Australia to ship hydrogen to the world.

Read more: Hydrogen fuels rockets, but what about power for daily life? We’re getting closer

Hydrogen projects in Australia are gearing up. For example, the Queensland government recently announced A$4.2 million for a trial project to inject hydrogen into the gas network of Gladstone.

A similar project is also proposed for South Australia, supported by a A$4.9 million state government grant. In New South Wales, a proposal is afoot to blend hydrogen into the existing gas network.

But little consideration has been given to the possible environmental consequences of hydrogen as an energy source.

Reactions in the atmosphere

In the atmosphere, ozone and water vapour react with sunlight to produce what are known as hydroxyl radicals.

These powerful oxidants react with and help remove other chemicals released into the atmosphere via natural and human processes, such as burning fossil fuels. One of these chemicals is methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

Read more: Emissions of methane – a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide – are rising dangerously

But hydrogen also reacts with hydroxyl radicals and, in doing so, reduces their concentration. Any hydrogen leaked into the atmosphere – such as during production, transport or at the point of use – could cause this reaction.

This would reduce the number of hydroxyl radicals available for their important cleansing function.

Hydrogen on the rise

Hydrogen concentrations in the atmosphere are monitored around the world. Collectively, the data show an increase over time. This includes in Ireland and at Cape Grim in Tasmania’s northwest, where hydrogen concentrations have increased by about 4% in the past 25 years.

With our current understanding of the hydrogen cycle, it’s not possible to say why this has occurred. Indeed, this is the challenge: improving understanding so we can anticipate any effects of hydrogen leakage and decide what acceptable leakage rates might be.

Based on what we do know, hydrogen may increase global warming by 20-30% that of methane if leaked into the atmosphere.

Read more: Carbon pricing works: the largest-ever study puts it beyond doubt

Our understanding so far suggests that if a hydrogen economy replaced the fossil fuel-based energy system and had a leakage rate of 1%, its climate impact would be 0.6% of the fossil fuel system.

But we need to better understand the hydrogen cycle, such as how land surfaces absorb hydrogen. In the meantime, we must try to minimise leakage of hydrogen in production, storage and use.

Lessons from methane

A commitment to a hydrogen economy must avoid pitfalls that accompanied the expansion of the natural gas economy.

Research published this year found emissions from our increased use of fossil methane is about 25% to 40% greater than previously estimated.

Other research shows methane emissions grew almost 10% from 2000-2006 to the most recent year of the study, 2017.

Coming to grips with methane leakage is difficult because of the many ways it occurs, including:

By contrast, hydrogen emissions will likely mainly occur during distribution and end use via faulty pipe fittings, given the absence of mining in the hydrogen economy.

Looking ahead

It’s possible the emission of hydrogen from reticulation and distribution systems will be low. But specifying how low this should be, and what engineering approaches are appropriate, should be part of the development process.

A hydrogen-based energy future may likely provide an attractive option in the quest for a zero-carbon economy. But all aspects of the hydrogen option should be considered in an holistic and evidence-based assessment.

This would ensure any transition to a hydrogen economy brings climate benefits far beyond fossil-fuel-based energy systems.

This article was co-authored by Richard G. Derwent, an independent scientist working in the United Kingdom on air pollution and atmospheric chemistry.

– ref. Don’t rush into a hydrogen economy until we know all the risks to our climate – https://theconversation.com/dont-rush-into-a-hydrogen-economy-until-we-know-all-the-risks-to-our-climate-140433