Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gerard Reinmuth, Professor of Practice, University of Technology Sydney

China has a new ban on “plagiarising, imitating, and copycatting” building designs for public facilities across the country.

In recent years, developers across China have used the allure of copies in projects such an Austrian village in Guangdong, a replica Paris in Hangzhou, a copy of the London Tower Bridge in Suzhou and a (now dismantled) Sydney Opera House in Liaoning province.

This new ban may seem like an encouragement of greater creativity or independence. But – if taken literally – it will force architects working in China to address a question central to their discipline: what is the status of the copy?

Around the world, architects copy openly and relentlessly, and rarely acknowledge their sources. The free circulation and application of architectural knowledge without credit is default.

Built on copies

Architecture may be the creative field with the least regulation of copying.

Architecture has held a similar legal status to other artistic fields since 1990, yet hasn’t seen challenges like those in music, where a number of well-known artists have been successfully sued for the inclusion of someone else’s guitar riff, bassline, or melody.

Intellectual property protections for architecture are underdeveloped and rarely enforced compared to the copyright laws that dictate use of cinema or literature.

Contemporary architectural education was built on copying. Beaux-Arts, a teaching model named after the school in Paris where it originated in the 1860s, conflates copying, studying and producing architecture.

In the 20th century, mechanical reproduction and the ability to mass-reproduce images increased the accuracy of copies and the speed of circulation. Spread from Europe to America, these copycat references would eventually be labelled International Style.

From the 1970s, postmodernism saw tens of thousands of office towers, car parks and housing schemes feature columns, balusters and other remixed components of multiple architectures past.

Today, the architecture books and journals that disseminated architectural knowledge have given way to an avalanche of online material. Designers can find plans, sketches, and technical documents accompanied by an incalculable number of renders and photographs.

The reproduction tradition

The importance of the copy to architecture means even literal copies of buildings also form part of a significant architectural tradition.

Around the world, national museum villages mix relocated and copied buildings: Den Gamle By in Denmark; Poble Español in Barcelona; the completely rebuilt Gyeongbokgung Palace in Seoul.

Every 20 years in Japan, the Ise Shrine is completely rebuilt alongside a neighbouring copy, which is demolished in turn in accordance with Shinto rituals.

The arrival of the Austrian architect Harry Seidler in Australia in 1948 bought us a series of exceptional buildings, and we can now study the lessons of Marcel Breuer or Walter Gropius without leaving Sydney.

A national project

Given these traditions of copying the decision in China seems radical: an effort to curtail one of architecture’s defining characteristics.

But the new ruling must also be read in parallel with a 2016 directive banning “bizarre architecture” and criticising “oversized, xenocentric, weird” buildings.

The 2020 prohibition also recommends any new architecture should “display the Chinese characteristics”.

It turns out copies are only a problem when the original is not domestic.

Architecture has played a major role in the construction of national identity. French classicism began with Claude Perrault’s deceitful scheming to snatch the Louvre Colonnade commission from the Italian architect Gianlorenzo Bernini. Hitler was obsessed with rebuilding Berlin based on Albert Speer’s version of neoclassicism – a vision recently revived in Donald Trump’s call to “make federal buildings beautiful again”.

Read more: Why so many architects are angered by ‘Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again’

In singling out “alien” architectures, the Chinese Government acknowledges architecture as a critical form of national self-realisation.

Xenophobic and nationalistic impulses aside, it also shows architecture’s capacity for cultural production still matters – at least to select governments.

– ref. Architecture was built on copies – China wants it built on nationalism – https://theconversation.com/architecture-was-built-on-copies-china-wants-it-built-on-nationalism-138422

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elina Hypponen, Professor of Nutritional and Genetic Epidemiology, University of South Australia

Recent headlines have suggested vitamin D deficiency could increase the risk of dying from COVID-19, and in turn, that we should consider taking vitamin D supplements to protect ourselves.

Is this all just hype, or could vitamin D really help in the fight against COVID-19?

Read more: 5 ways nutrition could help your immune system fight off the coronavirus

Vitamin D and the immune system

At least in theory, there may be something to these claims.

Nearly all immune cells have vitamin D receptors, showing vitamin D interacts with the immune system.

The active vitamin D hormone, calcitriol, helps regulate both the innate and adaptive immune systems, our first and second lines of defence against pathogens.

And vitamin D deficiency is associated with immune dysregulation, a breakdown or change in the control of immune system processes.

Read more: Six things you need to know about your vitamin D levels

Many of the ways calcitriol affects the immune system are directly relevant to our ability to defend against viruses.

For example, calcitriol triggers the production of cathelicidin and other defensins – natural antivirals capable of preventing the virus from replicating and entering a cell.

Calcitriol can also increase the number of a particular type of immune cell (CD8+ T cells), which play a critical role in clearing acute viral infections (such as influenza) in the lungs.

Calcitriol also suppresses pro-inflammatory cytokines, molecules secreted from immune cells which, as their name suggests, promote inflammation. Some scientists have suggested vitamin D might help to alleviate the “cytokine storm” described in the most severe COVID-19 cases.

Evidence from randomised controlled trials suggests regular vitamin D supplementation may help protect against acute respiratory infections.

A recent meta-analysis brought together results from 25 trials with more than 10,000 participants who were randomised to receive vitamin D or a placebo.

It found vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of acute respiratory infections, but only when it was given daily or weekly, rather than in a large single dose.

The benefits of regular supplementation were greatest among participants who were severely vitamin D deficient to begin with, for whom the risk of respiratory infection went down by 70%. In others the risk decreased by 25%.

Read more: My vitamin D levels are low, should I take a supplement?

Large one-off (or “bolus”) doses are often used as a quick way to achieve vitamin D repletion. But in the context of respiratory infections, there were no benefits if participants received high single doses.

In fact, monthly or annual vitamin D supplementation has sometimes had unexpected side effects, such as increased risk of falls and fractures, where vitamin D was administered to protect against these outcomes.

It’s possible intermittent administration of large doses may interfere with the synthesis and breakdown of the enzymes regulating vitamin D activity within the body.

Vitamin D and COVID-19

We still have relatively little direct evidence about the role of vitamin D in COVID-19. And while early research is interesting, much of it may be circumstantial.

For example, one small study from the United States and another study from Asia found a strong correlation between low vitamin D status and severe infection with COVID-19.

But neither study considered any confounders.

In addition to the elderly, COVID-19 generally has the greatest consequences for people with pre-existing conditions.

Importantly, people with existing medical conditions are also often vitamin D deficient. Studies assessing ICU patients have reported high rates of deficiency even before COVID-19.

So we would expect to see relatively high rates of vitamin D deficiency in seriously ill COVID-19 patients – whether vitamin D has a role or not.

Some researchers have noted high rates of COVID-19 infections in ethnic minority groups in the UK and US to suggest a role for vitamin D, as ethnic minority groups tend to have lower levels of vitamin D.

However, analyses from the UK Biobank did not support a link between vitamin D concentrations and risk of COVID-19 infection, nor that vitamin D concentration might explain ethnic differences in getting a COVID-19 infection.

Although this research adjusted for confounders, vitamin D levels were measured ten years earlier, which is a drawback.

Researchers have also suggested vitamin D plays a role by looking at the average vitamin D levels of different countries alongside their COVID-19 infections. But in the hierarchy of scientific evidence these types of studies are weak.

Should we be trying to get more vitamin D?

There are several registered trials on vitamin D and COVID-19 in their early stages. So hopefully in time we’ll get some more clarity about the potential effects of vitamin D on COVID-19 infection, particularly from studies using stronger designs.

In the meantime, even if we don’t know whether vitamin D can help mitigate the risk of or outcomes from COVID-19, we do know being vitamin D deficient won’t help.

Read more: Can you get the COVID-19 coronavirus twice?

It’s difficult to get enough vitamin D from food alone. A generous portion of oily fish can cover much of our need, but it’s neither healthy nor palatable to eat this every day.

In Australia we get most of our vitamin D from the sun, but about 70% of us have insufficient levels during winter. The amount of exposure we need to get enough vitamin D is generally low, only a few minutes during summer, while during the winter it might take a couple of hours of exposure in the middle of the day.

If you don’t think you’re getting enough vitamin D, speak to your GP. They may recommend incorporating daily supplements into your routine this winter.

– ref. Does vitamin D protect against coronavirus? – https://theconversation.com/does-vitamin-d-protect-against-coronavirus-138001

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrea Harvey, Veterinary Specialist, PhD scholar (wild horse ecology & welfare), University of Technology Sydney

Cats have recently been on the tail-end of bad press, with recent research finding roaming pet cats kill 390 million animals per year in Australia. Most of them are native species.

To protect our native wildlife, who never evolved with such an efficient predator, it’s imperative we keep our cats contained – all day, every day.

Read more: One cat, one year, 110 native animals: lock up your pet, it’s a killing machine

In Australia, Canberra leads the way in introducing initiatives such as “cat curfews”, and rangers can seize free-roaming cats in declared areas with infringement notices of up to A$1,500. It’s likely this will be followed in other places as local government authorities become more proactive.

Some people will think measures like these are draconian. But keeping cats inside can actually be in the best interests of the cat, as well as the environment.

Outdoor cats die sooner

Cats live substantially longer, safer lives if environmental dangers of free-roaming are eliminated. An exclusively inside (or contained outside) life precludes the chance of many common and important causes of life-threatening trauma.

The most significant risk is being injured or killed by a vehicle, especially for young cats who haven’t learned the dangers of traffic.

Read more: Ticked off: let’s stop our dogs and cats dying of tick paralysis this year

Other animals can prey on cats. Dogs are the most common risk, and your local vet can testify to the horrendous injuries cats suffer when they’re bailed up by dogs. Venomous snakes, monitor lizards, urban foxes and dingoes also put cats in danger. Tick paralysis is also a risk in some areas.

Cats, especially sexually intact males, are territorially aggressive and fight among themselves. And cats that fight are commonly infected by the feline immunodeficiency virus which can spread, along with other viral and bacterial pathogens, through the transfer of blood during fighting.

What’s more, free-roaming cats who catch mice and rats that have eaten poison baits can become poisoned secondarily. Other things are also toxic to cats, such as lilies and anti-freeze, and some cats are maliciously poisoned.

But is denying cats ‘the outside’ also cruel?

The bottom line is most cats can be totally happy living indoors – but owners need to put in the effort to provide for their environmental and behavioural needs.

But a 2019 survey with more than 12,000 respondents found many Australian cat owners are not adequately providing for their indoor cats, especially when it comes to toileting and feeding.

This may lead to a range of health and welfare issues, such as obesity and related diseases, behavioural problems and urinary tract disorders.

For example, cats are very fastidious when it comes to toileting, so you need to give them nice clean litter trays (they don’t want to use a place they think another cat has soiled). Cats don’t like to eat near their toilet, so separate their litter trays and feeding area in different rooms. They also need choice, so more than one litter tray is required.

Welfare problems can also arise if indoor cats cannot satiate specific natural desires and behaviours.

For example, cats love to climb and jump, and they like to sharpen their nails. You need to provide the opportunity to perform these activities indoors with a range of cat furniture.

Read more: Pets and owners – you can learn a lot about one by studying the other

Here’s a list of simple ways (taken from a larger study) you can make inside a happy place for your cat, even if you live in a small apartment.

Cleanliness and eating habits

• have one litter tray per cat, plus one (for instance, three litter trays for two cats), in different locations, in quiet areas of the house. Clay litter is best. Scoop out faeces and urine soiled litter on at least a twice-daily basis and change the whole tray once a week. Have one litter tray covered (for privacy) and the other open – cats like variety

• regular grooming with your cat’s favourite grooming brush is fun and feels like a massage. It’s good for the coat and prevents hairballs and matted fur

• consider providing some natural food such as raw chicken drum sticks. Raw meat requires chewing, massaging the gums and provides cats with a sense of possession. Some cats will even “kill” the drumstick by banging it on the ground a few times before eating. Nothing settles a cat more than knocking off a drumstick.

Setting up the space

• cats need vertical space more than horizontal space. So consider a ladder or other objects to let them climb to the top of a wardrobe or the fridge. Use cat furniture which expands vertical space

• cats like windows so they can check out what’s happening outside. Have stands located so they can look out

• cats love multiple points of safety and seclusion. Set up several cat baskets lined with a soft blanket or igloos, and ideally at different heights (for example, a few at ground level and one nice and high – maybe on top of a wardrobe)

• cats have a higher thermoneutral temperature than dogs and people, so they seek out warm places. Place some baskets in the sun, or a basket in front of the heater

• have good border security. Windows need fly screens to keep cats inside. If not, the “high rise syndrome” – where cats drop from a height of two or more stories – can lead to severe injuries. Front doors need automatic closing mechanisms to stop cats getting outside

• provide cat with scratching towers for exercise, and to satiate its desire to sharpen its claws. Vertical and horizontal scratching surfaces should be provided. Better here than on the good furniture

• consider installing a modular pet park (outdoor cat enclosures) or similar contained outdoor setup, which gives the cat an outdoor experience but without risks.

Keep them entertained

• the ideal number of cats is usually one or two. Having two littermates is often ideal, as they are more likely get on and keep each other company when you’re not at home. A single cat will usually just sleep while you’re away and look forward to you coming home. Three or more cats are not recommended as they do not invariably get along which can cause more health and welfare issues

• cat toys can provide fun and exercise, and they don’t need to be expensive. A ping pong ball is cheap. Scrunched up paper is very popular. Cat exercise wheels are costly, but can be a lot of fun and provide good exercise

• puzzle feeders that hide food are also a fun toy for curious cats and can recreate the hunting behaviour of searching for food

• give generously of your time a couple of times a day to pet and play with your cat

• some cats like to watch TV. There are special videos on YouTube for a cat audience showing movements, such as of birds and fish, which cats can find mesmerising and entertaining.

More details can be found here, here and here, using resources developed by the RSPCA to help any cat owner optimise their indoor environment to maximise their pet’s health and welfare.

– ref. Don’t let them out: 15 ways to keep your indoor cat happy – https://theconversation.com/dont-let-them-out-15-ways-to-keep-your-indoor-cat-happy-138716

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Director, Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre; Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Faculty of Arts, Monash University

One week after the horrific killing in February of Hannah Clarke and her three children, Aaliyah, Laianah and Trey, the Australian Senate established an inquiry into domestic violence. The inquiry was to have a particular focus on violence against women and children. This reflected the national outrage and horror at the four deaths and family violence in general.

The committee was required to report by mid-August 2020.

This week that inquiry closed. It did so without conducting any consultations or taking any submissions from the specialist domestic and family violence sector. It did not hear from those with personal experience of family violence.

The inquiry’s final report, tabled this week, states:

The committee formed the view that conducting another lengthy, broad-ranging public inquiry into domestic and family violence in Australia at this time would be of limited value.

Why does the inquiry’s closure matter?

The inquiry’s inaction and closure sends a dangerous message to the Australian community that domestic violence is not a priority area for government. This is particularly concerning given the irrefutable evidence women and children are facing heightened risks of family violence during the current coronavirus pandemic.

Read more: Coronavirus and ‘domestic terrorism’: how to stop family violence under lockdown

The timing of the inquiry’s closure and the release of its final report is ill-conceived.

During the first three weeks of May, six women have allegedly been killed by men’s violence in Australia, equating to two women a week.

While these deaths are just the tip of the iceberg that is Australia’s domestic violence crisis, they are a firm reminder of the significant risk of family violence in Australia.

The need for this inquiry

The inquiry comes after several years of policy attention on family violence in Australia. Since 2015, there have been numerous national and state reviews in the areas of primary prevention and service responses. Key frameworks have been introduced or redeveloped to support informed responses to violence against women across Australian states and territories.

The Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence, for example, undertook 13 months of activity. It received over 1,000 written submissions, held 44 group sessions attended by about 850 individuals, and held 25 days of public hearings. The evidence generated presents one of the most comprehensive examinations of family violence internationally. The 227 recommendations paved the way for the transformation of responses to, and prevention of, family violence.

The Queensland Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence undertook six months of consultation in 2014-15. It delivered 140 recommendations to the Queensland government in its Not Now, Not Ever report. The special taskforce compiled information from 185 submissions, 367 group consultations with victim survivors, service providers and community leaders, and close to 1,000 survey submissions.

The Queensland government accepted the 140 recommendations made by the special taskforce. These are being implemented as part of a ten-year plan.

On the back of these reform activities, as well as numerous others, an argument can be made that the Senate inquiry was not needed. But once it was established, it was in the best interests of the Australian community that it took its role seriously and undertook the task set.

It is certainly questionable now whether that was achieved.

What does the inquiry’s final report say?

As it closed, the inquiry released a 50-page final report, including a three-page dissenting report from South Australian Senator Rex Patrick. The report looks minor against the 370 pages of the Queensland special taskforce’s report and even more so the Victorian royal commission’s seven-volume report.

The Senate inquiry’s final report provides a summary of the findings and recommendations of other government-led recent reviews, including the work of 1800 Respect, the national helpline for violence against women. It poses questions but makes no recommendations.

The president of the Law Council of Australia has criticised the report as a “scanty literature review”. It falls short on all accounts.

What the inquiry should have done

The inquiry has missed an important opportunity to improve Australian responses to coercive and controlling behaviours. More questions than answers remain following the killing of Hannah Clarke and her children. What has become abundantly clear, though, is the coercive control she suffered throughout her marriage to her eventual killer.

The Clarke murders could have provided the pivotal moment at which all Australian governments ensured all agencies charged with monitoring perpetrator risk and keeping women and children safe understand the risk posed by coercive control, which does not necessarily manifest in physical abuse.

Read more: How do we keep family violence perpetrators ‘in view’ during the COVID-19 lockdown?

Australia has yet to grapple in a co-ordinated and meaningful way with the pervasiveness and severity of coercive control in the lives of abused Australian women. The evidence base on coercive control is well established in Australia and internationally. But it is yet to be translated into comprehensive training of frontline practitioners outside the specialist family violence sector.

While the risk posed by non-physical abuse is beginning to feature in risk screening and assessment frameworks, we have little understanding of how this has been applied in practice. We also need to examine if coercive control is being adequately identified, assessed and managed.

An investment in this would save lives.

The inquiry closure also dismisses an opportunity to re-engage with outstanding recommendations from the special taskforce’s report and the Queensland Domestic and Family Violence Death Review and Advisory Board. A renewed commitment to realise these recommendations and understand the impact of reforms to date would have been a welcome contribution.

The Australian government must take action

The government’s focus is firmly on ensuring the health and economic recovery of Australia during the coronavirus pandemic. This is understandable. However, we must not lose sight of what Australia has identified as a national emergency and what the United Nations more recently termed the “shadow pandemic”: violence against women. Family violence remains a significant threat to the lives of Australian women and children.

We may already have the evidence and the answers. But the Senate inquiry’s closure brings the government’s commitment into question. It must commit the resources and take the actions required to secure the lives of Australian women and children.

– ref. The Senate inquiry into family violence has closed, missing an important opportunity – https://theconversation.com/the-senate-inquiry-into-family-violence-has-closed-missing-an-important-opportunity-139106

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

One major theme of COVID-19 media reporting has been stories of individuals craving physical contact and struggling with loneliness.

But for some people with disability, this isn’t just the byproduct of a pandemic, it’s their everyday existence.

A recent Federal Court ruling has given hope to National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) participants that they might be able to use the scheme to access sexual support services.

Read more: Miss hugs? Touch forms bonds and boosts immune systems. Here’s how to cope without it during coronavirus

But the federal government – which has been fighting this push – suggests it may keep trying to stop public funds being used in this way.

This is a worrying development for Australians with serious disabilities, who also have the right to a sex life.

How did we get here?

Last week, the Federal Court ruled the use of a specially trained sex therapist was a “reasonable and necessary” support to be funded under the NDIS.

The applicant in the case was a woman in her 40s who lives with multiple sclerosis and other health conditions, which means she cannot have sexual release without help.

This decision follows the woman’s lengthy battle for sexual support since she was accepted as an NDIS participant in mid-2016.

Last year, her case went to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which also found in her favour, but the outcome was challenged by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA).

Read more: Finally, the NDIS will fund sex therapy. But it should cover sex workers too

Noting there is a difference between a sex worker and a sex therapist (who does not touch the client), the federal government has argued that funding for sexual services are not in line with community expectations.

Directly after the Federal Court decision, a spokesperson for NDIS Minister Stuart Robert told Guardian Australia the government was considering its response, “including possible changes to legislation”.

While the government respects the court’s decision, the government does not believe that use of NDIS funds to pay for the services of a sex worker is in line with community expectations.

On Wednesday, an NDIA spokesperson confirmed the agency was “considering its response to the decision”.

What about human rights?

Australia is a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The CRPD stresses that people with disability have the right to enjoy the highest standard of health without discrimination, including sexual health. It also calls on countries to eliminate discrimination when it comes to relationships.

Disability advocates also stress that people with disability have the right to enjoy “rich and fulfilling lives equal to others in society”.

Read more: The NDIS is changing. Here’s what you need to know – and what problems remain

The reality is people with disabilities face a wide array of different inequities across health, employment, education and other domains. And they also face significant inequities when it comes to accessing the right to a sexual life.

The woman at the heart of the Federal Court case reported that her disability makes it impossible to find a partner. This situation – also highlighted by the 2012 film The Sessions – is all too often experienced by single people with disability.

This case also highlights the physical limitations experienced by some people with disabilities. As the woman said in a written statement:

without the assistance of a professional sex worker I am not able to achieve sexual release and am effectively denied the right to sexual health, pleasure and well-being.

Other people with disabilities might seek similar services, not because they are single, but because they and their partner are unable to achieve intimacy due to their impairments and require support for this.

What is the NDIS here for?

The threshold for accessing NDIS funding is high, as participants must have a permanent and significant disability.

It is estimated that about 10% of Australians with disability will receive individual funding from the NDIS at full roll-out. Then, having established a person’s eligibility, the NDIS will only fund services and supports that are “reasonable and necessary”.

Over the relatively short life of the NDIS we have seen a number of debates concerning the precise meaning of these terms.

But the legislation that underpins the NDIS would seem to support access to sexual support services.

People with disability have the same right as other members of Australian society to realise their potential for physical, social, emotional and intellectual development.

The NDIS was intended to be a way of providing people with disability better choice and control in terms of how they live their lives.

If individuals indicate that experience of sexual intimacy is an important priority for them, then this should be considered to be as significant a need for companionship and well-being as someone else’s choice to go along to the football or a concert.

The community is more supportive than you may think

While the federal government has repeatedly said funding sexual services via the NDIS is not consistent with “community expectations,” a recent survey suggests this is not the case.

The 2018 Victorian government study of community attitudes found 76% of respondents agreed with the statement “people with disability have the right to sexual relationships,” with only 6.5% disagreeing.

Disability advocates also point to a history of state-based schemes (pre-NDIS) and accident compensation schemes supporting people with disability to have a sex life.

So what’s the government’s problem?

The government has also suggested that funding sexual therapy services could lead to a financial blow out of the NDIS, prompting tabloid headlines about an “NDIS sex bomb”.

But both the AAT and the Federal Court dismissed the NDIA’s actuarial evidence here, saying it was based on a “worst case scenario”.

There is also a strong argument that funding sexual support services could improve participants’ well-being, reducing demand for other types of services and supports.

Countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands, fund access to sex workers for people with disabilities on the basis that it is a human right and leads to better overall well-being.

It is hard to find a solid policy argument against expanding NDIS support to help people have a sex life. And it would appear the federal government’s opposition to sexual supports under the NDIS is more political than policy-based.

But if the government succeeds in blocking sexual supports as part of the NDIS, this could see some Australian citizens denied the right to live a fulfilling sex life.

– ref. Why it is “reasonable and necessary” for the NDIS to support people’s sex lives – https://theconversation.com/why-it-is-reasonable-and-necessary-for-the-ndis-to-support-peoples-sex-lives-138727

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Vredenburg, Senior Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Marketing, Auckland University of Technology

So you finally hit the shops and cafes after weeks of lockdown.

After disinfecting your hands, following the arrows around the shop or to your table, taking care to avoid others where possible and, in some cases, providing your contact tracing details – how enjoyable was the experience, really?

The return to shopping and eating out has certainly come as welcome relief in those countries lucky enough to be opening up. The malls are open! You can book your favourite restaurant! Goodbye home cooking, hello table service!

And for the retail and hospitality industries, among the hardest hit during the COVID-19 pandemic, the return to trading couldn’t come fast enough.

The return to normal trading, however, could still be a way off.

The new economic reality will have a profound impact on retail. Some of the routines developed during lockdown, such as cooking and baking at home or foregoing daily takeaway coffees, may continue post-pandemic if money is tight.

Shopping as a sensory experience will change

As well as the public spacing, tracing and hygiene rules, customers may also notice an absence of certain favourite experiential elements. Is a trip to Mecca Cosmetics as enjoyable when you can’t sample the products? Will Peter Alexander still smell like a cosy bedroom or the disinfectant used to clean the store?

As consumers, our senses play a major role in how much we enjoy retail experiences. Retailers have long employed the art of store atmospherics to encourage us to stay and spend.

Read more: New Zealand’s COVID-19 Tracer app won’t help open a ‘travel bubble’ with Australia anytime soon

Atmospherics – such as scent, music, touch, temperature and crowding – all help create an engaging sensory experience for shoppers and patrons. Research suggests customers will stay longer, spend more, feel better, and be more satisfied in a retail environment they find pleasing to their senses.

The new COVID-19 environment has changed all that.

Will shoppers now prefer a reassuring freshly cleaned smell? The Hyatt hotel chain’s “seamless” scent (evocative of home and comfort) was an integral part of its brand experience. But the rival Hilton chain has just announced its CleanStay initiative in partnership with the manufacturer of Lysol disinfectant.

Keep the noise down and don’t touch

In New Zealand, tips on how to stay safe under its COVID-19 alert level 2 include restaurants and bars turning down the music volume. Raised voices, it seems, generate a wider “moist breath zone” that may increase viral spread.

Read more: Denied intimacy in ‘iso’, Aussies go online for adult content – so what’s hot in each major city?

Reduced sound levels might help anxious consumers relax, but what will the atmosphere be like in a painfully quiet pub or restaurant? It could influence customer perceptions of the establishment, which in turn affect financial returns. Studies have found people bought more drinks in a bar when the music was louder than usual.

Retail guidelines in New Zealand recommend consumers only touch and try on merchandise they intend to buy. In the US, no touch retailing seems increasingly likely.

Such measures confound conventional retail theory, which suggests the more consumers touch, sort through, sample and try on, the more they buy. The removal of testers for products such as cosmetics, for example, significantly changes the shopping experience.

Don’t stand so close to me

Retailers in countries entering winter will also need to think quite literally about the atmosphere in their stores. Warmer temperatures tend to create a relaxing environment that encourages shoppers to linger. And physical warmth can even enhance the perceived value of products. But poorly ventilated or air-conditioned indoor spaces have been identified as potential hot spots for the spread of COVID-19.

Will warmer stores subconsciously affect the way shoppers react? Restaurateurs and retailers will be hoping not.

Paradoxically, the advice to keep our distance in public can lead to perceived crowding – a psychological state based on the number of individuals in a store, the extent of social interactions and the configuration of merchandise and fixtures. Higher levels of perceived crowding can lead to less positive emotions and decreased satisfaction.

Read more: Here’s how to stay safe while buying groceries amid the coronavirus pandemic

Shoppers may simply choose not to enter. If they do, they might feel on edge or even overwhelmed if they are trying to keep a safe distance from others. When personal space is invaded or when personal space zones are relatively large, it can lead to intolerance or even leaving.

The customer is always right

Ultimately, if retailers and hospitality service providers want customers to return in greater numbers the goal will be to minimise the perceived risks of infection. Emotionally taxing environments can negatively affect consumer behaviour, so managing the emotional component of the retail or dining experience becomes an even more crucial part of the overall value offered.

Adapting so-called “retail theatre” to include sanitation, hygiene, and keeping consumers calm will create a new kind of psychological comfort for the COVID-19 age. But how far will some go to give themselves an edge over competitors?

From pool noodles, mannequins and glass boxes to inner tubes, will these innovative adaptations draw in the crowds or make people run in the opposite direction?

How readily customers become comfortable with the etiquette of post-pandemic shopping will dictate how effectively retail and hospitality can provide that vital sense of well-being. In time, the words “retail” and “therapy” may again sit comfortably in the same sentence.

– ref. Coronavirus has turned retail therapy into retail anxiety – keeping customers calm will be key to carrying on – https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-has-turned-retail-therapy-into-retail-anxiety-keeping-customers-calm-will-be-key-to-carrying-on-138777

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Woinarski, Professor (conservation biology), Charles Darwin University

No other event in our lifetimes has brought such sudden, drastic loss to Australia’s biodiversity as the last bushfire season. Governments, researchers and conservationists have committed to the long road to recovery. But in those vast burnt landscapes, where do we start?

We are among the wildlife experts advising the federal government on bushfire recovery. Our role is to help determine the actions needed to stave off extinctions and help nature recover in the months and years ahead.

Our first step was to systematically determine which plant and animal species and ecosystems needed help most urgently. So let’s take a closer look at how we went about it.

Sorting through the smoke

One way to work out how badly a species is affected by fire is to look at how much of its distribution – or the area in which it lives – was burnt.

This is done by overlapping fire maps with maps or records showing the species’ range. The greater the overlap, the higher the potential fire impact. But there are several complicating factors to consider:

1. Susceptibility: Species vary in how susceptible they are to fire. For instance, animals that move quickly – such as red-necked wallabies and the white-throated needletail – can escape an approaching fire. So too can animals that burrow deeply into the ground, such as wombats.

Less mobile animals, or those that live in vegetation, are more likely to die. We also considered post-fire recovery factors such as a species’ vulnerability to predators and reproductive rate.

2. What we know: The quality of data on where species occur is patchy. For example, there are thousands of records for most of Australia’s 830 or so bird species. But there are very few reliable records for many of Australia’s 25,000-odd plant species and 320,000-odd invertebrate species.

So while we can estimate with some confidence how much of a crimson rosella’s distribution burned, the fire overlaps for less well-known species are much less certain.

3. The history of threats: The impact of fires on a region depends on the extent of other threats, such as drought and the region’s fire history. The time that elapses between fires can influence whether populations have recovered since the last fire.

For instance, some plants reproduce only from seed rather than resprouting. Fires in quick succession can kill regrowing plants before they’ve matured enough to produce seed. If that happens, species can become locally extinct.

4. Fire severity: Some areas burn more intensely than others. High severity fires tend to kill more animals. They also incinerate vegetation and can scorch seeds lying in the soil.

Many Australian plant species are exquisitely adapted to regenerate and resprout after fire. But if a fire is intense enough, even these plants may not bounce back.

5. Already threatened?: Many species affected by these bushfires were already in trouble. For some, other threats had already diminished their numbers. Others were highly vulnerable because they were found only in very limited areas.

The bushfires brought many already threatened species closer to extinction. And other species previously considered secure are now threatened.

Read more: Sure, save furry animals after the bushfires – but our river creatures are suffering too

Which species made the list?

With these issues in mind, and with contributions from many other experts, we compiled lists of plant, invertebrate and vertebrate species worst-affected by the 2019-20 fires. A similar assessment was undertaken for threatened ecosystems.

Some 471 plant, 213 invertebrate and 92 vertebrate species have been identified as a priority for interventions. Most had more than half their distribution burnt. Many have had more than 80% affected; some had 100% burnt.

Priority invertebrates include land snails, freshwater crayfish, spiders, millipedes, beetles, dragonflies, grasshoppers, butterflies and bees. Many species had very small ranges.

For example, the inelegantly named Banksia montana mealybug – a tiny insect – existed only in the foliage of a few individuals of a single plant species in Western Australia’s Stirling Range, all of which were consumed by the recent fires.

Some priority plants, such as the Monga waratah, have persisted in Australia since their evolution prior to the break-up of the Gondwanan supercontinent about 140 million years ago. More than 50% of its current range burned, much at high severity. During recovery it is vulnerable to diseases such as phytophthora root rot.

Read more: Yes, the Australian bush is recovering from bushfires – but it may never be the same

Some priority vertebrates have tiny distributions, such as the Mt Kaputar rock skink that lives only on rocky outcrops of Mt Kaputar near Narrabri, New South Wales. Others had large distributions that were extensively burnt, such as the yellow-bellied glider.

The priority lists include iconic species such as the koala, and species largely unknown to the public, such as the stocky galaxias, a fish that lives only in an alpine stream near Cooma in NSW.

What’s being done

A federal government scheme is now allocating grants to projects that aim to help these species and ecosystems recover.

Affected species need immediate and longer-term actions to help them avoid extinction and recover. Critical actions common to all fire-affected species are:

1. careful management of burnt areas so their recovery isn’t compromised by compounding pressures

2. protecting unburnt areas from further fire and other threats, so they can support population recovery

3. rapid surveys to identify where populations have survived. This is also the first step in ongoing monitoring to track recovery and the response to interventions.

Targeted control of feral predators, herbivores and weeds is also essential to the recovery of many priority species.

In some rare cases, plants or animals may need to be moved to areas where populations were reduced or wiped out. Captive breeding or seed collection can support this. Such restocking doesn’t just help recovery, it also spreads the risk of population loss in case of future fires.

Long road back

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to some challenges in implementing recovery actions. Like all of us, state agency staff, NGOs, academics and volunteer groups must abide by public health orders, which have in some cases limited what can be done and where.

But the restrictions may also have an upside. For instance, fewer vehicles on the roads might reduce roadkill of recovering wildlife.

As states ease restrictions, more groups will be able to continue the recovery process.

Read more: Scientists find burnt, starving koalas weeks after the bushfires

As well as action on the ground, much planning and policy response is still required. Many fire-affected species must be added to threatened species lists to ensure they’re legally protected, and so remain the focus of conservation effort.

Fire management methods must be reviewed to reduce the chance of future catastrophic fires, and to make sure the protection of biodiversity assets is considered in fire management planning and suppression.

Last bushfire season inflicted deep wounds on our biodiversity. We need to deal with that injury. We must also learn from it, so we can respond swiftly and effectively to future ecological disasters.

Many species experts and state/territory agency representatives contributed to the analyses of priority species. Staff from the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (especially the Environmental Resources Information Network (Geospatial and Information Analytics Branch), the Protected Species and Communities Branch and the Threatened Species Commissioner’s Office) and Expert Panel members also contributed significantly to this work.

– ref. After the bushfires, we helped choose the animals and plants in most need. Here’s how we did it – https://theconversation.com/after-the-bushfires-we-helped-choose-the-animals-and-plants-in-most-need-heres-how-we-did-it-138736

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Whiteford, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

The Morrison government’s changes to welfare payments were among its most significant responses to the coronavirus crisis.

In April, the new Coronavirus Supplement roughly doubled the level of benefits for unemployed people on the JobSeeker Payment (called Newstart until March) and a range of other working-age payments.

But this huge increase will not last, with the $550 fortnightly supplement due to expire in late September.

If we want to keep unemployed Australians out of poverty in future, significant changes will be required to the base rate of JobSeeker.

According to my analysis, an increase of $185 a week is needed.

Debate brewing over the future of JobSeeker

A political debate is now brewing about what happens next to the JobSeeker Payment.

Before coronavirus, there had been consistent calls across parliament, business and community groups to raise the rate of Newstart/JobSeeker, which has scarcely increased in real terms since 1994.

Read more: Coronavirus supplement: your guide to the Australian payments that will go to the extra million on welfare

Prime Minister Scott Morrison appears to be holding firm to the idea that the increased payments will stop later this year.

As he recently said,

we’ve put a COVID supplement in place for the period of the pandemic and that’s what we’ve budgeted for and that’s what our policy is.

But Labor and the Greens say there should be a permanent increase to the JobSeeker Payment (although they do not agree on an amount). Some Coalition MPs are also pushing for a boost.

Millions of Australians will need JobSeeker support

There are currently about 1.6 million Australians receiving the JobSeeker Payment, while the Coronavirus Supplement also goes to recipients of other payments, including Youth Allowance, Parenting Payment, Farm Household Allowance and Special Benefit.

In December 2019, there were more than 400,000 people receiving these payments – and possibly more now.

It is also possible that many of the estimated 6.1 million people currently on JobKeeper will need to claim JobSeeker as the former is phased out. So, would the government really halve income support for more than two million people at the end of September?

As the Grattan Institute has pointed out, cutting income support in this way this would be “a recipe for a second downturn”.

The Coronavirus Supplement and the “benefit cliff”

While the Coronavirus Supplement is a crucial element of support for newly unemployed Australians, it is not well designed. This reflects the speed with which it was developed and the fact it was intended to be temporary.

The chart below shows how the supplement combines with the basic JobSeeker Payment for a single person, and how the package of assistance changes by hours of work per week, paid at the minimum wage of $19.49 per hour.

What is most striking here is the “benefit cliff”: a person working 27 hours per week takes home around $720, but a person working 28 hours takes home $508. This is the result of the loss of the entire Coronavirus Supplement when the last dollar of JobSeeker is lost under the current income test.

This also creates significant anomalies: a person working up to three hours per week would have a higher disposable income than someone working 28 to 31 hours per week. And someone working 38 hours would have a lower disposable income than someone working between 19 and 27 hours.

Read more: What’ll happen when the money’s snatched back? Our looming coronavirus support cliff

The same benefit cliff applies to couples, but because of the relaxation of the couple income test, the effect is not felt until higher levels of income.

At the moment, these anomalies and the benefit cliff are not very pressing because many people on payments will have reduced hours of work, if any.

But as workplaces open up and people return to employment, these design issues will become more problematic. Put simply, the Coronavirus Supplement in its current form should not be continued.

We need to increase the basic JobSeeker rate

This means that to continue to adequately support unemployed Australians and avoid a double dip economic downturn, the basic rates of payments need to be increased.

Last month, a Senate inquiry released its report into the adequacy of Newstart/JobSeeker.

The report by non-government members made 27 recommendations, including:

once the Coronavirus Supplement is phased out, the Australian Government increase[s] the JobSeeker Payment, Youth Allowance and Parenting Payment rates to ensure that all eligible recipients do not live in poverty.

They also recommended that

the Australian Government set a national definition of poverty. The Government should immediately commence work in collaboration with academic experts and the community sector to determine this definition.

Keeping people out of poverty

Clearly, we need to look at how to make the payment more adequate immediately, without waiting for an inquiry to determine how much is enough – a process that could take months.

There is a simple benchmark already available that can be used. This is the rate of pension paid to the aged, people with disability and carers. Including supplements, a single pensioner currently receives up to $944.30 per fortnight.

When the Coronavirus Supplement ends, a single person on the JobSeeker Payment will receive $574.50 (including the Energy Supplement) – a gap of $370 per fortnight or $185 per week.

Setting working-age payments at the same rate as pensions will significantly simplify our overly complex system and provide a consistent treatment of all adults.

It will reduce incentives for people to seek to qualify for higher payments.

It would also mean that if the federal government sets up an inquiry into poverty standards – as the Senate recommended – we would not have to worry about anomalies in current payment rates. We could focus on clear principles of adequacy for all Australians instead.

JobSeeker must increase by about $185 a week

In January, the Australian Council of Social Service called for a minimum $95 a week increase to Newstart.

Read more: How to tweak JobKeeper, if we must

This would have applied at the time to around 850,000 people, at a cost of about $3.8 billion a year.

I estimate that an increase of $185 per week could cost around $7.4 billion, but this does not factor in the projected increase in the number of people needing support.

If we have more than two million people on working age payments in September this year, this would imply a rough budget cost of around $17 billion in a full year.

Raising JobSeeker payments is a substantial budgetary cost. But the current cost of the Coronavirus Supplement over a full year is likely to exceed $30 billion.

The alternative of cutting rates is also extremely costly: a deep increase in poverty among millions of Australian households and the likelihood of a double dip recession.

– ref. When the Coronavirus Supplement stops, JobSeeker needs to increase by $185 a week – https://theconversation.com/when-the-coronavirus-supplement-stops-jobseeker-needs-to-increase-by-185-a-week-138417

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jenny Chesters, Senior Lecturer/ Research Fellow, University of Melbourne

It is well-established that recessions hit young people the hardest.

We saw it in our early 1980s recession, our early 1990s recession, and in the one we are now entering.

The latest payroll data shows that for most age groups, employment fell 5% to 6% between mid-March and May. For workers in their 20s, it fell 10.7%

The most dramatic divergence in the fortunes of young and older Australians came in the mid 1970s recession when the unemployment rate for those aged 15-19 shot up from 4% to 10% in the space of one year. A year later it was 12%, and 15% a year after that.

Unemployment rates 1971-1977

At the time, 15 to 19 years of age was when young people got jobs. Only one third completed Year 12.

What is less well known is how long the effects lasted. They seem to be present more than 40 years later.

The Australians who were 15 to 19 years old at the time of the mid-1970s recession were born in the early 1960s.

In almost every recent subjective well-being survey they have performed worse that those born before or after that period.

Read more: There’s a reason you’re feeling no better off than 10 years ago. Here’s what HILDA says about well-being

Subjective well-being is determined by asking respondents how satisified they are with their lives on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is totally dissatisfied and 10 is totally satisfied.

Australia’s Household, Income and Labour Dynamics survey (HILDA) has been asking the question since 2001.

In order to fairly compare the life satisfaction of different generations it is necessary to adjust the findings to compensate for other things known to affect satisfaction including income, gender, marital status, education and employment status.

Doing that and selecting the 2001, 2006, 2011 and 2016 surveys to examine how children born at the start of the 1960s have fared relative to those born earlier and later, shows that regardless of their age at the time of the survey, they are less satisfied than those born at other times.

Subjective wellbeing by birth cohort over four HILDA surveys

The consistency of lower levels of subjective well-being reported by the 1961-1965 birth cohort suggests something has had a lasting effect.

An obvious candidate is the dramatic increase in the rate of youth unemployment in at the time many of this age group were trying to get a job.

Over time, labour markets can recover but the scars of entering the labour market during a time of sudden high unemployment can be permanent.

Read more: The next employment challenge from coronavirus: how to help the young

The impacts of the early 1980s and early 1990s recessions on young people were alleviated somewhat by the doubling of the Year 12 retention rate and later by the doubling of university enrolments.

But the education sector is maxed out and might not be able to perform the same trick for the third recession in a row.

Reinvigorating apprenticeships and providing cadetships for non-trade occupations might help. Otherwise the effects of the 2020 recession on an unlucky group of Australians might stay with us for a very long time.

– ref. Recessions scar young people their entire lives, even into retirement – https://theconversation.com/recessions-scar-young-people-their-entire-lives-even-into-retirement-137236

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

While discontent at the federal government’s lack of support for the cultural sector during the coronavirus epidemic continues to grow, the few people still in jobs are readying for the optimistically termed “recovery period”.

Physical access to arts events is becoming a possibility. Now cultural leaders must discern, through a mazy gloom of stalled budgets and frayed nerves, what challenges the future holds.

A significant proportion of Australia’s cultural sector is made up of 150-plus performing arts centres in our cities and regions. Though a national figure is hard to obtain, an estimate can be derived through the Victorian Association of Performing Arts Centres, Circuit West, Stage Queensland and Create NSW websites.

It is performing arts centres – more than the museums and galleries, where social distancing measures can be readily enforced – that will be hardest hit by COVID-19: the first to close, the last to reopen.

Examining the fortunes and pressures facing Gold Coast’s Home of the Arts (HOTA) helps us understand the challenges for this part of the sector.

Read more: As we turn to creativity in isolation, the coronavirus is a calamity on top of an arts crisis

Safety first

There is no such things as a typical performing arts centre. But a median band might include HOTA, established in 1986.

Operating two theatres, two cinemas, an outdoor stage and several function rooms, construction is underway on a A$60.5 million gallery. Total visitor numbers in 2019 were 652,251. The forecast turnover for 2020-21 was $21 million. It is anyone’s guess where those figures will land now.

“The last time we programmed anything was March 12th,” says Criena Gehrke, HOTA’s CEO.

Artists were starting to get uncomfortable performing. A couple of events had the HOTA choir in them so ‘at risk’ community members were involved. And audiences started to react in an uncertain way. We wanted everyone to be safe, so we closed a week before the government asked us to.

Within days, HOTA was delivering $1000 rapid artists’ response grants. Gehrke describes the roller-coaster of the shutdown:

Along with the most heartbreaking decision of my professional life – standing-down the HOTA team, and the companies and artists due to perform here – the proudest I’ve been is how quickly we turned the situation around. We stuck to what we said we were going to do: give artists notification within a week of applying, put the money in the bank in a few days and ask for no more than three or four-days’ work. It shows it is possible to be tapped into the world in which our community lives, and what artists desire and require.

As a subsidiary of the Gold Coast City Council, none of HOTA’s 112 full and part-time staff or its 152 casuals were eligible for JobKeeper. As a result, 85% were stood down. Now, the centre comprises Gehrke, her assistant, a skeleton programming and operations team, two finance officers, and a lone ghost light on the theatre stage. Gehrke comments:

When it turned out we weren’t eligible for JobKeeper it threw into sharp relief what I call the Emperor’s New Clothes Syndrome. As a sector we’ve been pretending we are wearing elaborate clothes. But when you strip it back, the issues are a huge casual work force and artists getting lost in the hell we currently find ourselves in.

Is the modelling around subsidised art sustainable? How do you value arts and culture but not escalate ticket prices and block admission to them? Instinct says, ‘we need to get commercial’. But I think we need to get subsidised in a smarter way.

Resuming normal programming

HOTA hopes to do some light programming by October, with a return to a full schedule in April 2021. This optimistic scenario is underpinned by advantages both natural and human.

A big plus is the 7.5 hectares of parkland around it, where its outdoor stage is situated. Another is the Gold Coast’s sunny weather. The immediate future, Gehrke says, “looks like limited numbers of people having exquisite picnics and listening to gorgeous music”.

HOTA’s new gallery is due to open in early 2021. The centre has announced it will commission up to 20 Australian artists to create new work for the opening. Strong support from the Gold Coast Council is a major reason it remains on schedule – though it helps to have research biologist Ned Pankhurst as Chair of the board in what Gehrke calls “a Renaissance model” of management.

For HOTA and performing arts centres like it, the pandemic raises deep questions about their role in the community and the value they contribute.

Read more: Artists shouldn’t have to endlessly demonstrate their value. Coalition leaders used to know it

Against the federal government’s business-as-usual talk, Gehrke sees the future as more fragile, in large part because the audiences HOTA serves are more fragile. It is not a simple government-is-bad/culture-is-good binary. Rather, there is need for more honesty on both sides. Gehrke is interested in how we can have a different conversation.

The JobKeeper exclusion reflects a lack of government understanding about how our sector works. But empathy and kindness are everything. I am more forgiving of our politicians now because what I deal with is nothing compared to trying to save hundreds of thousands of people from dying.

We need to say to the government, ‘this was a sliding doors moment: Australia could have looked so much better coming out of COVID-19 if the cultural sector hadn’t been completely annihilated’. But we also need to take a hard look at ourselves too. We can’t claim to be the mirror held up to society and not gaze in the mirror ourselves.

For the moment, the conversation between the federal government and the cultural sector continues to be a numbing one. As generous assistance is extended to many parts of the economy, it seems not to apply to the arts.

When the bill finally arrives, in the form of higher taxes, government cuts or both, will it also carry a “but not the arts” rider? For the sake of those at HOTA and 150 other performing arts centres, it bloody well should.

Artists on the Gold Coast haven’t stopped creating despite COVID. The Interconnectivity Gold Coast project explores connections between the people, places and nature of the city.

– ref. Home of the Arts – inside an arts centre keeping body and soul together – https://theconversation.com/home-of-the-arts-inside-an-arts-centre-keeping-body-and-soul-together-138801

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ipek Kurtböke, Senior Lecturer, Environmental Microbiology, University of the Sunshine Coast

Qantas has unveiled a range of precautions to guard passengers against COVID-19. The safety measures expected to be rolled out on June 12 include contactless check-in, hand sanitiser at departure gates, and optional masks and sanitising wipes on board.

Controversially, however, there will be no physical distancing on board, because Qantas claims it is too expensive to run half-empty flights.

The COVID-19 pandemic is forcing airlines to look closely at their hygiene practices. But aircraft cabins were havens for germs long before the coronavirus came along. The good news is there are some simple ways on-board hygiene can be improved.

Read more: Sanitising the city: does spraying the streets work against coronavirus?

Common sense precautions

As an environmental microbiologist I have observed, in general, a gradual loss of quality in hygiene globally.

Airports and aircrafts have crammed ever larger numbers of passengers into ever smaller economy-class seats.

Although social distancing can’t do much in a confined cabin space – as the virus is reported to be able to travel eight meters — wearing face masks (viral ones in particular) and practising hand hygiene remain crucial.

Since microorganisms are invisible, it is hard to combat such a powerful enemy. During flights, I have observed a vast array of unwitting mistakes made by flight crew and passengers.

Some crew staff would go to the bathroom to push overflowing paper towels down into the bins, exit without washing their hands and continue to serve food and drinks.

We have the technology for manufacturers to install waste bins where paper towels can be shredded, disinfected and disposed of via suction, as is used in the toilets. Moreover, all aircraft waste bins should operate with pedals to prevent hand contamination.

Also, pilots should not share bathrooms with passengers, as is often the case. Imagine the consequences if pilots became infected and severely ill during a long flight, to the point of not being able to fly. Who would land the plane?

For instance, the highly transmissible norovirus, which causes vomiting and diarrhoea, can manifest within 12 hours of exposure. So for everyone’s safety, pilots should have their own bathroom.

Food and the kitchen

Aircraft kitchen areas should be as far as possible from toilets.

Male and female toilets should be separated because, due to the way men and women use the bathroom, male bathrooms are more likely to have droplets of urine splash outside the toilet bowl. Child toilets and change rooms should be separate as well.

Food trolleys should be covered with a sterile plastic sheet during service as they come close to seated passengers who could be infected.

And to allow traffic flow in the corridor, trolleys should not be placed near toilets. At times I have seen bread rolls in a basket with a nice white napkin, with the napkin touching the toilet door.

Also, blankets should not be used if the bags have been opened, and pillows should have their own sterile bags.

Mind your luggage

In March, luggage handlers were infected with COVID-19 at Adelaide Airport.

As a passenger, you should avoid placing your hand luggage on the seats while reaching into overhead lockers. There’s a chance your luggage was placed on a contaminated surface before you entered the plane, such as on a public bathroom floor.

Be wary of using the seat pocket in front of you. Previous passengers may have placed dirty (or infected) tissues there. So keep this in mind when using one to hold items such as your passport, or glasses, which come close to your eyes (through which SARS-CoV-2 can enter the body).

Also, safety cards in seat pockets should be disposable and should be replaced after each flight.

Read more: Air travel spreads infections globally, but health advice from inflight magazines can limit that

In facing the COVID-19 crisis, it’s important to remember that unless an antiviral drug or a vaccine is found, this virus could come back every year.

On many occasions, microbiologists have warned of the need for more microbiology literacy among the public. Yet, too often their calls are dismissed as paranoia, or being overly cautious.

But now’s the time to listen, and to start taking precaution. For all we know, there may be even more dangerous superbugs breeding around us – ones we’ve simply yet to encounter.

– ref. Plane cabins are havens for germs. Here’s how they can clean up their act – https://theconversation.com/plane-cabins-are-havens-for-germs-heres-how-they-can-clean-up-their-act-134552

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mahmoud Elkhodr, Lecturer in Information and Communication Technologies, CQUniversity Australia

New Zealanders finally have access to the government’s new tracing app to help people monitor their movements as lockdown continues to ease.

As businesses can now open, the NZ COVID Tracer app allows people to keep a register of the places they visit. This “digital diary” can be used to contact people if it finds they have been in the same place as someone infected with COVID-19.

But the app has some significant shortcomings. These won’t be addressed until at least June, which raises questions about whether it has been released too soon.

How do you set up and use the app?

Registering for the app is a four-step process. When you sign up for an account you are presented with a privacy statement. This tells you your personal information is securely stored by the Ministry of Health.

The app then asks you to enter your email address and pick a password.

Some may find the password requirements too difficult to meet, especially if you struggle to remember a password of at least ten characters of mixed lower and uppercase letters and numbers.

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

After entering your email, you will receive a verification code via email to complete the registration.

In step 4, the app asks you to enter your name and a phone number. The phone number is not mandatory as I was able to create an account using just my first and last names.

An “Account created” message will then appear before you get to a home page with three navigational items:

• dashboard (this is the current home page)

• scan (where you can scan the QR code, I’ll explain why in a moment)

• my profile (where you can log off, update your contact details and address, provide feedback and access a range of other general services such as privacy and security statements).

By scrolling down the dashboard page, you are presented with features to register your details, update your address and “do a daily self-isolation checking” – this last feature is labelled as coming soon.

Two types of registrations?

The register option asks you to enter your first name, any middle name, last name, phone number, date of birth, gender and ethnicity.

This seems confusing as you must go through two forms of registration. First when registering for an account, as we saw earlier, and second when registering your details here.

These two processes should have been streamlined into one. The app also asks for gender and ethnicity details, but the justification provided is too generic, saying this “helps us confirm we are serving all New Zealanders”.

So how does the app works?

The app helps you keep track of the places you visit, like checking in to a restaurant on Facebook. But this process is not done automatically.

To add a place you visit to your digital diary, you must scan a QR code available at that location. It should be in the form of a poster advertised at the entrance of a business.

But this means businesses must register for a QR code, via Business Connect, and have it clearly advertised at their premises.

By scanning the QR code, the app will then log the location, date and time you visit this business. You can’t manually enter the details of places you visit.

How will authorities contact you?

The information provided during registration will be sent to a National Close Contact Service (NCCS) so it can contact you if you are identified as having been in close contact with someone who tests positive for COVID-19.

An update is expected in June, to allow you to transmit your digital diary of the locations you have visited to the NCCS.

Until this function is implemented, if the NCCS contacts you, you will have to read out the locations you have signed into with the app.

How will they know if you have been in contact with someone infected? Not via the app but through contact tracing procedures already in place. Until the auto upload is implemented, I don’t believe they should have released the app.

This approach is a workaround for not using GPS to log your locations, as in the Facebook restaurant check-in scenario. This could be to avoid issues pertaining to location privacy.

But this approach has shortcomings.

It is not reliable to use in commonly used or open spaces, such as food courts, school entrances, airports, train stations or any other places where you could come in contact with other people. This will require the use of lots of QR codes and lots of scanning.

The app is not useful when visiting friends and family. You don’t expect them to have QR codes at their houses, and they can’t actually get one.

Comparing the NZ and Australian apps

So how does the New Zealand app compare to Australia’s COVIDSafe app?

The New Zealand app is not scalable to use in Australia as it would require Australian businesses to register for a Business Connect QR code, which they can’t. Likewise, Australia’s app is not for New Zealand.

Visitors to either country would need to use the app specific to that country.

Countries such as Iceland, Italy and Norway have not shied away from using GPS to track their citizens’ whereabouts. Australia and Singapore opted to use Bluetooth technology for contact tracing without accessing people’s location information.

Read more: Why a trans-Tasman travel bubble makes a lot of sense for Australia and New Zealand

New Zealand has opted for a softer approach to COVID-19 contact tracing by using only a digital diary. But the director-general of health, Ashley Bloomfield, told Radio NZ Bluetooth technology should be added as an optional extra feature in June.

So, at this stage, the NZ COVID Tracer app seems to be a work in progress. It tries to balance or makes some trade-offs between privacy and usability. But this adds to the burden on businesses (the need to set up QR codes) and limits scope when visiting friends or relatives in New Zealand.

On May 5 this year, the New Zealand and Australian prime ministers released a joint statement to say they had:

[…] agreed to commence work on a trans-Tasman COVID-safe travel zone – easing travel restrictions between Australia and New Zealand. Such an arrangement would be put in place once it is safe to do so and necessary health, transport and other protocols had been developed and met.

If the Australian COVIDSafe and NZ COVID Tracer apps are to be part of the solution in opening up travel between the nations, much more work will be needed to make the two apps far more compatible with each other.

– ref. New Zealand’s COVID-19 Tracer app won’t help open a ‘travel bubble’ with Australia anytime soon – https://theconversation.com/new-zealands-covid-19-tracer-app-wont-help-open-a-travel-bubble-with-australia-anytime-soon-139026

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

Labor will campaign on the flaws in the JobKeeper program in the Eden-Monaro byelection, shadow treasurer Jim Chalmers says.

“There will be so many people from Eden-Monaro who would have heard the Prime Minister say that there would be wage subsidies only to find out that they’ve either been deliberately or accidentally excluded from those wage subsidies, who can’t understand why someone who might have been on $100 a week before is now getting $750 while they’re excluded from it.”

Chalmers says he intends to campaign in the byelection – for which a date has yet to be set – and has spoken with Labor leader Anthony Albanese about doing so.

As the political debate turns to the strategy for the economic exit from the pandemic, Labor is seeking to define its differences with the government.

“We don’t want to see all of this support withdrawn from the economy in one hit, on one day, based on a faulty assumption about ‘snap back’, when the reality is that the recovery is going to be patchy, Chalmers says.

“It’s going to be longer than ideal, and different types of workers in different types of industries will feel the impacts differently. I think the Government’s policy needs to recognise that.”

The aftermath of the crisis will be the defining debate at the next election,“ Chalmers says.

“I think the next election will be about unemployment in particular. It will be about what the future economy looks like and whether we can create that inclusive, sustainable growth that creates well-paid jobs for more people and more opportunities. I think that’s where the next election will be won or lost for the government and for the opposition.”

“This is not the sort of crisis where we get to September, people forget about it, and the world moves on”

Chalmers, who worked in then-treasurer Wayne Swan’s office during the global financial crisis, contrasts the support Labor has given the Morrison government with the stand of the Coalition opposition then.

“We actually haven’t held anything up in the parliament because the priority is to get this support out the door and into the pockets of workers and businesses as soon as possible.”

“We are deliberately being more constructive than our opponents were a decade ago because we saw firsthand the costs of that kind of oppositionist approach.”

Transcripted (edited for clarity)

Michelle Grattan: Labor has given broad bipartisan support to the Morrison Government’s response to the COVID-19 crisis. But now, while it is not politics back to normal, some greater contestability is returning to the federal scene. The Opposition is challenging aspects of what’s being done at the moment, and it’s setting up lines of argument for how the exit from the crisis needs to be handled. To discuss these issues we talk today with the Shadow Treasurer, Jim Chalmers.

Jim Chalmers what does Labor think should be changed right now in the COVID measures the Government has in place?

Jim Chalmers: Michelle, I think largely the Government’s taking some pretty welcome steps, and where we think that they’re heading in the right direction we’ve said so. There are, unfortunately, some gaps in the JobKeeper program in particular. We think JobKeeper is a good idea being badly implemented and badly communicated. That’s because the Government’s taken a really worthy objective, which is to try and maintain the link between workers and their employer, and they’ve excluded too many people from it. Our job, I think, as the Opposition is to find out where they can deliver this otherwise welcome support more effectively and get more bang for buck.

MG: So, what should they do?

JC: They should include more casual workers. There are more than a million casual workers who have been deliberately excluded from the JobKeeper payments. There should be an opportunity to include more of them. The Treasurer actually has the powers in the existing legislation to change the rules with a stroke of a pen. He’s been unwilling to do that. I think they should do that. Even in the stats which have been released as recently as this week, we see that a lot of the job losses are concentrated in areas where the JobKeeper payment doesn’t apply. If we want to prevent those unemployment queues from getting even longer than they will be, then we need to consider making these payments available to more impacted workers.

MG: Do you think that the people who are now getting more money, in some cases quite a lot more money than they actually earned before the crisis, should have that benefit cut?

JC: We are certainly up for a conversation about that, Michelle. I think that’s one of the genuine concerns that people have in the community. We know all of people who might have been earning $100 or $150 a week, all of a sudden making $750. That’s a good way of illustrating that the improvements that we’ve been suggesting to JobKeeper are not necessarily just about spending more money; they’re about spending the money that the Government has allocated more effectively. It’s bizarre, frankly, to think that there are casual workers, breadwinners in families, aviation workers, university staff, and council workers all excluded from the JobKeeper payment, at the same time as there are workers who are making much more now than they were before. So, our point is, if the Government wants to propose a way to better target this welcome support, then we’re up for that conversation because we can be getting more bang for buck for the substantial money that the Government’s put on the table here.

MG: So, do you believe that any changes to JobKeeper should be kept within the same funding envelope, or will more money have to be made available?

JC: In a crisis as substantial as this one, I don’t think we should be too rigid about it. We should think about what the overriding objectives are. The overriding objective is to keep as many people as possible attached to their employer, because the more we can limit this carnage in the labour market, the easier it will be to recover from it. The longer the unemployment queues get, the harder will be to recover from this crisis. That’s our overriding objective, and so we need to work out where we can get maximum bang for buck from all these dollars. It is an eye watering amount of money, as you know, that’s been committed here. All we’re saying is, let’s spend it as effectively as possible, and let’s try and satisfy that main objective which is to keep as many people in work as possible.

MG: The JobKeeper program is due to run out in September. Do you think it should be extended regardless, or do you think a decision on whether to extend it should be made closer to that cut-off date?

JC: I’d be interested to see what the Treasury is advising, Michelle. Certainly, on the face of it, there’s a case to be made to, at the very least, taper it or maybe target it to those specific industries where unemployment will be an issue for longer, where unemployment will be higher for longer. If you listen to the Reserve Bank, Deloitte Access Economics, or the International Monetary Fund, none of those organisations share the Prime Minister’s assumption that all of a sudden on the last Monday of September, we’re going to wake up and all of these challenges will have disappeared. There’ll be parts of the economy that will recover and that’s a great thing. Some might even recover more quickly than others; again, that would be a good outcome, but we need to be realistic about it. We don’t want to see all of this support withdrawn from the economy in one hit, on one day, based on a faulty assumption about “snap back” when the reality is that the recovery is going to be patchy, it’s going to be longer than ideal, and different types of workers in different types of industries will feel the impacts differently. I think the Government’s policy needs to recognise that. I hope that they are rethinking the fact that all this support gets withdrawn from the economy in that last weekend of September because I think the challenges are more complex than that, and the Government needs to be smarter about it in response.

MG: So, in the broad, do you think we’re going to come out of this downturn in the “V” shape, or will it look more like a “U” shape, or even an “L” shape?

JC: : I think it would be good but unrealistic to expect the whole economy to come out of this in a “V” shape; again, maybe specific industries will be in that category. I think more likely it’s going to be a combination of those, depending on which industry we’re talking about. I think the recovery is not going to be immediate for everyone. Where that worries us most is in the labour market. If you look at those numbers put out by the Reserve Bank and the other institutions, they’re expecting unemployment to be higher for longer. Certainly in the labour market, in aggregate, we don’t expect the “V” at this point, probably something a bit more like a “U”. But if the Government gets its policy response wrong, then we’re in the territory of a “W”. Craig Emerson and others have spoken about this, where just as the recovery is looking likely, it gets cruelled by some bad policy decisions and we end up bouncing back and forth. I think ideally, what the Government would be doing is hoping for the best but planning for the worst. That means having policy which adapts to the fact that the recovery will not be immediate. It will be patchy, and it will be long.

MG: Scott Morrison is floating the idea of some sort of employer-union-government compact to promote growth and reform as we try to get back to some sort of normality, but a better normality. Do you think this is desirable or achievable?

JC: Obviously business, government and unions should have the capacity to work together. It’s shouldn’t be a remarkable thing that a government is at least speaking along those lines. Certainly, when Labor’s in government that’s the intention, to work with business and unions to try and get good outcomes in the economy. The only reason it sounds remarkable or interesting is because the Government spent seven years running down the unions, attacking the unions, and diminishing their contribution to the Australian social fabric. Then all of a sudden we get this rhetoric from the Prime Minister. Let’s see how he goes about it. Let’s see whether he’s serious about it, whether he actually wants to find common ground, or if he’s just reading from a set of talking points given to him by a focus group. It’s clear in the community that people have higher expectations of us in times like this to try and work together. I think his language reflects that but we don’t know yet whether his actions will reflect that in the recovery as well.

MG: There has been of course, in recent weeks, a lot of talk about trying to use this crisis to achieve some economic reforms. What would you see as the top three priorities for change?

JC: Look at the challenges we’ve got, right? We’re going to have a challenge in the labour market; we’re going to have higher unemployment for longer. We had a whole series of issues in the economy even before the crisis hit; flat productivity, business investment going backwards, all of those sorts of things. When you consider all of those sorts of challenges, clearly, we need to get some investment certainty as it relates to energy policy, the absence of a civil energy policies been a handbrake on investment and growth for too long, so energy has to be a high priority. When you think about the makeup of our industries, we need to do a better job commercialising our ideas, and that comes back to research and development, and science which has been undermined and hollowed out for too long. Thirdly, we’ve got to get the human capital side of things right. That means making sure that people can train and retrain throughout their working lives; that we ditch this assumption that the old education and training system will be appropriate for a future dominated by technology. If we do all those three things, those three priorities, energy, ideas and human capital, then we give ourselves a chance to grow out of this crisis the right way, which is more inclusive, more sustainable and more focused on the future, and less reliant on all of the sorts of proposals which got us into this mess in the first place.

MG: But isn’t it true that governments of both complexions have been talking about commercialising ideas, and improving the labour force’s skills for many years, and yet it never seems to really adequately bear fruit?

JC: Clearly there’s unfinished business in each of those areas that I’ve identified. The key here is to work out what we learn from this crisis. Principally, just how precarious and insecure people’s work lives are, just how serious that problem is with business investment and productivity. These are the sorts of solutions that we needed before the crisis, but the crisis has accelerated the challenges in our economy so that they become more acute. We’re up for a conversation about that. We’re up for a big conversation about the future of the economy. We don’t want to see it just narrowed down to the old ideological obsessions that the Government’s been peddling for some time.

MG: People talk about the fact that there are too many jobs that are casual jobs rather than permanent jobs, but isn’t that just the nature of the modern economy? Isn’t that very hard to change in practice?

JC: Clearly, it’s going to be a difficult trend to turn around but that doesn’t mean we should give up on it. One of the key learnings from this whole diabolical economic crisis is that some of the protections that are absent from casual or insecure work, people really need to be able to rely on them. At the start of this crisis, there’s was a lot of conversations about sick leave. There’s been a lot of conversations about portable entitlements and the like. For some people, casual work makes sense and it’s what they want. But a lot of people are working in these insecure jobs out of necessity rather than out of choice. If we care about job security financial security, de-risking life for more and more of our people, then clearly this is one of the issues that we need to address.

MG: But when businesses are in a lot of trouble there’s surely going to be maximum pushback against moves to give people more security and more entitlements, however desirable that might be in itself. How do you overcome that obstacle?

JC: I think on one level that’s true, Michelle. As you’d appreciate, there wouldn’t be a working day where I don’t talk to at least a couple of businesses in the economy, and one of the things that I’ve drawn confidence from is the fact that business recognises the challenges which have been turbocharged by this crisis. They are as susceptible as anyone to the fact that there hasn’t been enough demand in the economy because wages have been stagnant for so long. I think there is a mood amongst the business community to see what can be done, to see where we can create win-win situations. Sometimes, of course, it will get bogged down in the zero-sum conversation but at other times I think people just want to be able to employ more Australians, to pay them well, and for everybody to succeed together. We need to capture that spirit. We shouldn’t assume that all businesses will take a selfish approach to this. I’ve been heartened by the way businesses have been talking in the last little while and I hope it lasts.

MG: What projects do you think will be best to get businesses and employment going again fairly rapidly? The big infrastructure projects, and I think Anthony Albanese the other day was talking about things like the very fast train, don’t necessarily fit where there are the most business collapses and job losses. They’re often in the hospitality industry for example, tourism and so on. So, what’s going to be fit for purpose?

JC: I think you’re absolutely right. There’s the long-term large-scale infrastructure which is crucial to productivity and investment. Some of those projects have begun. Where I’m from, Cross River Rail will make a big difference to the future economy of south east Queensland, for example. You’re right that there’s a gap in the near-term. That’s why Anthony Albanese and Jason Clare have been talking a lot about social housing, because they recognise the construction sector fears in two- or three-months’ time that their work will fall off a cliff, and that there will need to be something done to fill that gap. That’s a good example of it. There’s a role for local governments who have been talking about the smaller-scale infrastructure and maintenance projects which are labour intensive and have a lasting benefit to local communities. The advantage of that is that you can target them to some of the areas impacted along the lines of what you just described, whether it’s tourism communities or other kinds of communities affected. I think there is a need to fill the gap in the near-term. There are smaller-scale projects which the Government is no doubt considering. We think amongst that should be some sort of commitment to social and affordable housing as well.

MG: Now just talking about your home state of Queensland, your Premier has been coming under a lot of flak for not reopening the Queensland border and indeed talking about it still being some quite long time away. Is she being too cautious, or is this justified? Surely this will harm the Labor Government up there, which is a up for election in I think October?

JC: There is an election in October, but I think these sorts of decisions shouldn’t be driven by the politics of the day. They should rely really heavily on the expert advice of the medical community. That’s what Annastacia has been doing. In fairness to her, Queensland has performed extraordinarily well when it comes to new infections and transmission of this virus. It’s appropriate that her Government be as careful and cautious as they can be when it comes to reopening the borders. There is no bigger champion than Annastacia of the tourism industry in Queensland. We all recognise that something like every 10th job here is reliant in one way or another on tourism. We know how heavily a lot of our regional communities rely on tourism dollars in particular. I think she’s taking a careful and cautious approach. She has mentioned September, but also in the same interview said that these things will always be under review month-by-month, probably week-by-week, and that nothing’s set in stone. I think that makes a lot of sense. When you consider that different states have got different levels of infection, transmission and all the rest of it, I think it’s appropriate that Premiers – not just Labor Premiers, not just Premiers of this state where I’m from – take the best advice and proceed cautiously in a way that sees our businesses reopen as soon as it’s safe to do so but not before then.

JC: Now, we find ourselves in the middle of a trade dispute with China, just at a time when we really need to maximise exports because some areas of export -the tourism industry, the education industry – have obviously collapsed. Do you think that the Government is handling this whole affair competently, properly? Or should it be doing different things?

JC: First of all, we desperately need the Government’s efforts to succeed and so we are doing our best to be as supportive as we can be. We do genuinely want these really serious issues which have flared up to be dealt with to the satisfaction of our people and our industries, but also so that the big mutual benefit of this trading relationship can be properly realised. We’ve expressed our concerns in the last couple of weeks, principally through Penny Wong and Anthony Albanese and others, that perhaps it would be more effective from the Government’s point of view if the Foreign Minister took a more prominent role in this discussion, so that we see more of her or more of the Prime Minister and less of the Liberal and National party backbench, which seem to be trying to outbid each other with some of the language that they are adopting. Let’s have an approach which is driven from the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister rather than from the Liberal Party backbench. Let’s make sure that we conduct ourselves in a way that is geared towards resolving these issues and not making them worse.

MG: But do you believe that Australia’s international stands, for example on the inquiry into the virus’ origin and handling, should be robust even if that brings some costs in terms of trade?

JC: Anthony Albanese, Penny Wong, and others have all said that we support the Government’s intention to get to the bottom of how this virus broke out. We’ve been very clear about that. Clearly, as you manage this you need to be cognisant of all the implications of that. Clearly you need to put the work in with international friends and partners. Clearly you need to proceed cautiously. We have said from the beginning that we think it’s appropriate that that inquiry take place, and that the Government needs to do the work to make sure that that happens in a way that is useful and constructive.

MG: Rather inconveniently for both sides, I guess, there’s this by-election in Eden-Monaro coming up. How important is this by-election for Labor? Will you be doing some campaigning there on the ground? And what do you think will be the mix of national and local issues in determining the outcome?

JC: I do intend to do some campaigning in Eden-Monaro. I had a long conversation with Anthony Albanese on Saturday about what that might look like. Obviously, it’s a bit harder to get around at the moment, to get to and from, particularly when you’re not within easy driving distance, but that’s my intention. I’m desperate to get behind the campaign. Kristy McBain is really a terrific candidate. I had a good conversation with her the other day as well. I’m keen to get into it. I think the unusual thing about Eden-Monaro this time around is that there’s not an easy demarcation between national and local issues. This was an area which was devastated by bushfires and devastated by the Prime Minister’s neglect of some of these communities. The two things come together. Clearly, that will be a big part of the campaign. Kristy McBain being a local mayor from that area, deeply enmeshed in the community and in the bushfire response, means that the local and the national will be merged in ways that we’re not really used to. The Government’s response and the people they’re leaving out of the JobKeeper payment will be issues too. I look forward to prosecuting them however that’s possible in the next few weeks.

MG: So you think JobKeeper will be a big issue in that campaign?

JC: Absolutely. There will be so many people from Eden-Monaro who would have heard the Prime Minister say that there would be wage subsidies only to find out that they’ve either been deliberately or accidentally excluded from those wage subsidies, who can’t understand why someone who might have been on $100 a week before is now getting $750 while they’re excluded from it. I think that will be an issue in Eden Monaro, along with all of the other issues that we’ve talked about.

MG: And looking to the next general election, do you think that the COVID exit will be a defining debate at that time, or do you think we’ll have moved on by then?

JC: I don’t just think it will be a defining debate. I think it will be the defining debate. I think the next election will be about unemployment in particular. It will be about what the future economy looks like and whether we can create that inclusive, sustainable growth that creates well paid jobs for more people and more opportunities. I think that’s where the next election will be won or lost for the Government and for the Opposition. This is not the sort of crisis where we get to September, people forget about it, and the world moves on. The recovery will be patchy. The Government has gotten some things right, but some things wrong. We should expect that all to feature whenever the election is, whether it’s next August or later than that.

MG: How constraining will this crisis be on what Labor can offer at the election? Clearly, it’s going to have a less heavy policy bag than it took to the last election which proved to be counterproductive. But it’s going to be very constrained isn’t it, in a budgetary sense, in what positive policies it can put forward?

JC: There will certainly be very substantial budget constraints that this Government will have racked up. It’s an extraordinary amount of debt. What’s not recognised is that they had more than doubled debt even before the crisis had hit. Obviously that’s a constraint. But the constraint is to make sure that we get maximum bang for buck. I think we’re already headed down a path where perhaps we could have been more focused in our policy offerings in the election. Now the real onus is on us, and not just us but the other side as well, to make sure that the commitments that we make can make a real difference, whether it’s low unemployment or to meeting some of those other economic objectives. I think that’s broadly recognised in both the major parties that the next election will be very different in that regard.

MG: Just in terms of how this crisis is affecting you closer to home, your own work, what difficulties have you found? What pressures? You must have been able to get around the boardrooms, for example, for a while?

JC: You’d be surprised, Michelle. I mean, we’ve adapted pretty quickly, I think, as have a lot of workplaces. I’ve done a heap of boardroom consultations. I’ve done some of those with Anthony Albanese as well. We found a way to make it work with the appropriate technology. Just this coming week alone, I’ve got chambers of commerce, I’ve got a major think tank, I’ve got other organisations. We found a way to make it work. It’s harder in terms of constituent contact. We’re doing a lot of that by phone and by email, whereas I’m used to being a bit more engaged directly with people out and about in my community. Even then, people are understanding and people adapt. I think the interesting thing will be, not just in our line of work but across the economy, what things look like after the crisis has subsided a bit. I suspect that most people will want a bit of the best of both worlds; a little bit of working from home, a little bit of working from the office. A lot of companies will see what they can do to accommodate that.

MG: I’m surprised that companies wouldn’t just say to politicians, especially frankly Opposition politicians, we’ve got so much on our plate at the moment, so many problems, just come back in six months and talk to us.

JC: Precisely the opposite has been true.

MG: That’s interesting.

JC: I spend most of the day in Zoom conversations or teleconferences. The engagement with business has gone up rather than down. I am so grateful, Michelle, that even very big CEOs, chairs of companies, boards, and peak organisations have been really willing to compare notes, to make sure that the debate is well informed, but also to make sure that we’re working together to try and work out what the place looks like afterwards. It’s been really quite extraordinary, the level of engagement, including with the banks, the peaks, the big retailers, all of that. I really couldn’t fault them for the way that they’ve engaged with the Opposition, and I assume with the Government too.

MG: Just finally, you were in treasurer Wayne Swan’s office during the Global Financial Crisis. How would you compare the two crises?

JC: We’ve avoided recession then, as you know, and most people think that’s unlikely this time around. That’s an obvious difference. I think there’s a different kind of complexity this time around in that the Government’s trying to keep the economy alive at the same time as they are trying to shut big sections of it down. That’s a “one foot on the accelerator, one foot on the brake” kind of a problem. We had a different set of complexities around the financial system a decade or so ago. I think the other big difference is the then-Opposition during the Global Financial Crisis settled into a position of voting against some of the measures that we were proposing to stimulate the economy.

MG: That was the second round?

JC: The second round, the bigger stimulus was opposed in the Parliament by the Liberals and Nationals. This time around under Anthony’s leadership what we’re trying to do is be constructive. We actually haven’t held anything up in the Parliament because the priority is to get this support out the door and into the pockets of workers and businesses as soon as possible. That’s a big difference, too. We are deliberately being more constructive than our opponents were a decade ago because we saw firsthand the costs of that kind of oppositionist approach.

MG: Jim Chalmers, thank you very much for talking with us today.

New to podcasts?

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

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

Additional audio

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

Image:

Joel Carrett/AAP

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Jim Chalmers on JobKeeper’s flaws and the Eden-Monaro byelection – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-jim-chalmers-on-jobkeepers-flaws-and-the-eden-monaro-byelection-139035

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jill Newby, Associate Professor and MRFF Career Development Fellow, UNSW

As we’re slowly moving out of lockdown, many Australians will be feeling anxious about going outside, away from the safety of home, and returning to normal life.

For most people, these coronavirus fears will be temporary.

But for some, being overly afraid of the coronavirus can have serious implications. People might avoid seeking medical care, isolate themselves from others unnecessarily, or be debilitated with fear.

Others have taken to social media under the hashtags #coronaphobia and #coronaparanoia to share their anxieties, some with humour.

If you’re anxious, you’re not alone. Our survey of more than 5,000 Australian adults during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic found one in four were very or extremely worried about contracting COVID-19; about half were worried about their loved ones contracting it.

But how do you know if your fears of coronavirus are out of control? And what can you do about it?

Read more: Health Check: how do you know if you’re obsessed with your health?

Here are some signs

Your anxiety may be out of control if you notice:

• your fears are out of proportion to the actual danger (for instance, you’re young with no underlying health issues but wear a mask and gloves to the park for your daily exercise where it’s easy to social distance)

• the fear and anxiety is intense and persistent (lasting weeks to months)

• it’s hard to stop worrying about coronavirus

• you’re actively avoiding situations (for instance, places, people, activities) even when they’re safe

• you’re spending a lot of your time monitoring your body for signs and symptoms, or searching the internet about the virus

• you’ve become overly obsessive about cleaning, washing, and decontaminating.

None of these experiences alone are a problem. But when they occur together, are persistent, and negatively impact your life, it’s time to do something about it.

Read more: If Dr Google’s making you sick with worry, there’s help

These seven tips can help:

1. reassure yourself, it’ll get better: for most people, the anxiety will get better as the threat of COVID-19 passes. If anxiety doesn’t go away, it can be treated

2. change your ‘information diet’: spending time reading alarming tales of the horrors of COVID-19 will probably increase anxiety, not reduce it. Instead, try spending time focusing on positive information, stories or activities that take your mind off your fears

3. think logically about the risk: coronavirus has led to tragedy for many families, and we acknowledge the risk and consequences of contracting coronavirus differs from person to person. However, keep in mind over 90% of people infected with coronavirus in Australia have already recovered. The number of cases is also still extremely low, with 7,072 confirmed cases to date out of about 25 million people

4. reduce the focus on your body: when we pay too much attention to our bodies, it can make us notice things we wouldn’t normally notice, which then makes us more anxious. Take your mind off your body by focusing on other things, such as positive, enjoyable activities

5. take things slowly, at your own pace: it’s OK to slowly ease back into doing things you used to do. Take a step-by-step approach, doing one activity at a time, so you feel safe, while slowly building up your confidence

6. channel your anxiety into action: it can help to focus on what’s under your control. Taking active steps to look after your mental health, by sleeping well, exercising, doing fun or relaxing activities, and staying socially connected can make an enormous difference to your mental health

7. get help from professionals, not Dr Google: try an evidence-based online program for health anxiety, seek advice from your GP, or a psychologist who specialises in anxiety.

How about children?

Most children will be pleased to get back into their familiar routine and to re-engage with their peers and friends.

Australian research conducted with adolescents at the height of the pandemic found young people were most worried the impact of the restrictions on their education and friendships (more so than the health risk).

However, for some children, the transition back to preschool or school will be more stressful.

For younger kids, some initial separation anxiety from the family members they have been spending a lot of time with is to be expected and will typically resolve quickly.

Read more: 8 tips on what to tell your kids about coronavirus

A small proportion of children may be excessively worried about leaving the safety of home and in these cases, these tips may help:

1. have an honest and open discussion with your child: ask your child to share exactly what they are worried about. Address their concerns rationally and devise a plan with them about how they can start to face their fears in a manageable way

2. model brave behaviour: children pick up on our anxiety and fears, but also on our behaviour. Model brave behaviours to demonstrate that it is now OK to go outside, and it is safe. You can start with a walk in the park on the weekend together and then transition to attending school. Importantly, if you are feeling overly anxious about the relaxation in restrictions, it is important to address your own anxiety first, before attempting to address your child’s

3. get professional help: if your child remains overly anxious about going outside and this doesn’t resolve over a few weeks, seek professional support. The best place to start is with a GP or psychologist who specialises in anxiety.

Coronavirus mental health resources are available online. Help for adults is also available from THIS WAY UP, myCompass and MindSpot. Help for kids and adolescents is available from BRAVE-Online, ReachOut, Kids Helpline and headspace.

– ref. 7 ways to manage your #coronaphobia – https://theconversation.com/7-ways-to-manage-your-coronaphobia-138120

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Jotzo, Director, Centre for Climate and Energy Policy, Australian National University

The intricacies of climate change policy have not been front of mind for the Australian government this last half year, but the issue is now back on the agenda. Yesterday a review chaired by energy industry executive Grant King into new low-cost sources of emissions reduction was released. The government has accepted many of its recommendations.

Federal energy minister Angus Taylor says the changes create new ways to reduce emissions across the industrial, manufacturing, transport and agriculture sectors.

The package spells a broadening of existing mechanisms and may open the door to some better outcomes. But the existing climate policy patchwork remains deeply inadequate, and in practice the changes may do little more than channel government funding to industry.

The role of carbon capture and storage and storage

In line with the review’s recommendation, the government’s emissions reduction fund will be extended to projects using carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.

CCS involves capturing carbon dioxide from sources such as power stations, gas plants or cement plants and pumping it underground. It tends to be technically difficult and costly per unit of tonne of emissions saved, and usually does not capture all of the emissions.

The Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) has been the government’s primary climate policy mechanism. It gives subsidies to projects that are deemed to reduce carbon emissions – to date, mainly in agriculture and forestry. The policy is vastly less effective and efficient than the carbon pricing mechanism it replaced in 2014.

The obvious criticism is that extending government support to CCS locks in some fossil fuel use, when Australia has great opportunities to put our energy system on a zero-emissions footing using cheap renewable energy.

Read more: Yes, carbon emissions fell during COVID-19. But it’s the shift away from coal that really matters

However, in the path to decarbonising Australia’s economy, the technology may well have a role in some industrial applications such as cement production and natural gas processing. In principle it makes sense to include any technology in a policy mechanism, as long as it is cost-competitive.

The emissions reduction fund currently pays companies about A$16 for every tonne of carbon dioxide presumed to be reduced.

In practice, carbon capture and storage projects in Australia would require far more to be economically feasible. This is because the additional cost per tonne of carbon dioxide removed is usually far higher than in typical agriculture and forestry projects. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy, or saving energy through better efficiency, is typically also far cheaper than cutting emissions through CCS.

So on present settings, where all project types receive the same rate of subsidy, including CCS might be mostly just a nod to the relevant interest groups. Methodologies for establishing and monitoring projects would be established by the bureaucracy but it seems unlikely that many projects would happen.

Energy technology support

The King review also calls for expanding the remit of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) to make them “technology neutral”, so the agencies could support technologies across all sectors of the economy.

This implies expanding ARENA’s research and development activities, and the CEFC’s project finance, to the transport and industry sectors. These are the next big areas for decarbonisation after electricity, and it makes sense to channel resources into them.

A “technology neutral” approach could include carbon capture and storage. ARENA and CEFC make their own decisions about their investments within a broad mandate by government. It is important this remains so, allowing the most promising technologies to be supported, irrespective of the apparent preferences by government for fossil fuel-based technologies.

Broadening the ERF

The review recommends other changes to broaden the ERF, including to make it easier for smaller projects in agriculture and forestry to participate. This may have been prompted by the fact that the last two ERF auctions resulted in only a small number of projects and small volume of contracted emissions reductions.

This change may get extra projects over the line. But it does not fix the fundamental problem with the ERF, or its successor the Climate Solutions Fund.

The scheme pays businesses, in the form of credits, when they take steps to reduce emissions relative to a hypothetical baseline. Since it is generally impossible to know whether a company’s action to reduce emissions would have happened anyway, we can’t know to what extent claimed reductions are real. Despite elaborate estimation methodologies, the fundamental problem remains.

Under an effective and efficient climate policy framework, the ERF would either not exist or have a relatively minor role. But Australia is a long way from effective and efficient climate policy.

Softly, softly towards carbon trading?

Under the government’s Safeguard Mechanism, a company emitting carbon emissions beyond its baseline is required to buy emissions reductions credits to cover the excess.

But in practice, the baselines are set so high that projects rarely reach them, and those that do receive exemptions.

The new recommendation, accepted by the government, is to give emissions credits to companies that stay below their baselines, if it was the result of investment in “transformative” emissions-saving measures. This would create an incentive to do better, rather than just the existing, muted incentive not to do worse than a very unambitious standard.

The question is, who would buy these credits? The review suggests the government, or companies that exceed their baselines, might buy them. The former would expand the subsidy approach to emissions cuts even further. This is quite unnecessary: private money in industry is available for relevant investments if the right incentives or regulations are in place.

But what holds promise is if companies emitting over their baselines have to buy credits from companies that operate below the baseline.

Read more: Want an economic tonic, Mr Morrison? Use that stimulus money to turbocharge renewables

That would create a form of carbon trading. There would be a market price for emissions in industry, and companies would move towards establishing cost-effective measures to curb emissions. There would be no money flowing to or from government, as trades would be only between companies.

The safeguard mechanism was originally designed with this possibility in mind, and perhaps now the door is opening a fraction.

But to create real demand for emissions credits, and a meaningful price on emissions in industry, emissions baselines would have to be drastically lowered and no more exemptions granted. Companies running old, inefficient equipment, of which there are many in Australia, would be put on the spot.

Given the government’s deep aversion to carbon pricing, and the likely opposition by some industry players, this is perhaps more pious hope than imminent prospect.

Spend, spend?

At least for now, we will probably only see a government-funded carrot given to some, and no stick. Government handouts to individual companies will continue to be the measure of Australia’s climate policy.

In these times of dramatic fiscal spending, sending a few more billion dollars of public money to businesses to subsidise new equipment may not seem a big deal. But one day, all that money needs to be recouped through taxation. It will then be obvious that industry should have been required to spend its own funds to cut emissions, and that a comprehensive market mechanism would have led to more efficient and productive investment choices.

Abolishing Australia’s carbon pricing mechanism in 2014 was a consequential failure of politics. The fine-tuning of the patchwork of policies that followed does not make up for it.

Read more: Coronavirus is a ‘sliding doors’ moment. What we do now could change Earth’s trajectory

– ref. Morrison government dangles new carrots for industry but fails to fix bigger climate policy problem – https://theconversation.com/morrison-government-dangles-new-carrots-for-industry-but-fails-to-fix-bigger-climate-policy-problem-138940

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pep Canadell, Chief research scientist, CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere; and Executive Director, Global Carbon Project, CSIRO

The numbers of people cycling and walking in public spaces during COVID-19 has skyrocketed. Cities from Bogota to Berlin and Vancouver have expanded bike lanes and public paths to accommodate the extra cycling traffic. In Australia, the New South Wales government is encouraging councils to follow suit.

Mandatory social distancing under COVID-19 is disrupting the way we live and work, creating new lifestyle patterns. But once the crisis is over, will – and should – the picture return to normal?

That’s one of many key questions emerging as the precise effect of the pandemic on carbon emissions becomes clear.

Read more: Australia listened to the science on coronavirus. Imagine if we did the same for coal mining

Our research published today in Nature Climate Change shows how COVID-19 has affected global emissions in six economic sectors. We discovered a significant decline in daily global emissions – most markedly, on April 7.

The analysis is useful as we consider the deep structural change needed to shift the global economy to zero emissions.

Take, for example, our quieter streets. The fall in road traffic was a main driver of the global emissions decline. So, if we encourage cycling and working from home to continue beyond the current pandemic, our climate goals will become far more achievable.

Crunching the numbers

At the end of each year we publish the Global Carbon Budget – a report card on global and regional carbon trends. But the unusual circumstances this year prompted us to run a preliminary analysis.

We calculated how the pandemic influenced daily carbon dioxide emissions in 69 countries covering 97% of global emissions and six economic sectors.

It required collecting new, highly detailed data in different ways, and from diverse sources.

For example, we examined surface and air transport activity using data from TomTom and Apple iPhone direction requests, highway traffic records and airport departures. We used daily data to estimate changes in electricity usage.

And we built an index showing the level and size of the population under confinement in each country, to extrapolate the available data worldwide.

The pandemic’s peak

In early April, the reduction in global activity peaked. On April 7, global emissions were 17% lower than an equivalent day in 2019.

Total daily emissions in early April were similar to those observed in 2006. The fact that the world now emits as much under “lockdown” conditions as it did under normal conditions just 14 years ago underscores the rapid emissions growth in that time.

Road traffic contributed the most to the emissions decline (43%). The next biggest contributors were the power sector (electricity and heat) and industry (manufacturing and material production such as cement and steel). These three sectors combined were responsible for 86% of the fall in daily emissions.

The peak daily fall in global aviation activity (60%) was the largest of any sector we analysed. But aviation’s contribution to the overall fall in emissions was relatively small (10%) because it makes up just 3% of global emissions.

As people stayed at home, we found a small increase in global emissions from the residential sector.

In Australia, our widespread, high-level confinement triggered an estimated fall in peak daily emissions of 28% – two-thirds larger than the global estimate of 17%.

The 2020 outlook

We assessed how the pandemic will affect carbon dioxide emissions over the rest of 2020. Obviously, this will depend on how strong the restrictions are in coming months, and how long they last.

If widespread global confinement ends in mid June, we estimate overall carbon emissions in 2020 will fall about 4% compared to 2019. If less severe restrictions remain in place for the rest of the year, the reduction would be about 7%.

If we consider the various pandemic scenarios and uncertainties in the data, the full range of emissions decline is 2% to 13%.

Read more: Just how hot will it get this century? Latest climate models suggest it could be worse than we thought

Now for the important context. Under the Paris climate agreement and according to the United Nations Gap report, global emissions must fall by between 3% and 7% each year between now and 2030 to limit climate change well below 2℃ and 1.5℃, respectively.

Under our projected emissions drop, the world could meet this target in 2020 – albeit for the wrong reasons.

Stabilising the global climate system will require extraordinary changes to our energy and economic systems, comparable to the disruption brought by COVID-19.

A fork in the road

So how could we make this byproduct of the crisis – the emissions decline in 2020 – a turning point?

A slow economic recovery might lower emissions for a few years. But if previous global economic crises are any indication, emissions will bounce back from previous lows.

But it need not be this way. The recent forced disruption offers an opportunity to change the structures underpinning our energy and economic systems. This could set us on the path to decarbonising the global economy.

Let’s consider again the extra people now walking and riding bikes. What if governments took the chance now to support such active, low-emissions travel, and make it permanent? What if we accelerate the rollout of electric cars, bikes and scooters, to both broaden transport options and save lives through cleaner city air?

Read more: These 5 images show how air pollution changed over Australia’s major cities before and after lockdown

Encouragingly, the NSW government recently announced a A$15 million fund to help councils create bigger public thoroughfares and extra road crossings during the crisis. If the community embraces the changes, they may become permanent.

And Paris will invest €300 million (A$500 million) into a 650km bicycle network post-lockdown, including new “pop up” cycleways established during the pandemic.

The crisis has opened the way for other structural change. People and businesses have been able to test what travel is essential, and when alternative remote communication might be equally or more efficient.

Finally, energy and material consumption dropped during COVID-19. While such forced reductions are not a long-term answer to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, lower consumption can be achieved in other ways, such as new types of energy efficiency, that allow both environmentally sustainable development and rising well-being, incomes and activity.

We can rapidly return to the old “normal”, and the emissions pathway will follow suit. But if we choose otherwise, 2020 could be the unsolicited jolt that turns the global emissions trend around.

– ref. Coronavirus is a ‘sliding doors’ moment. What we do now could change Earth’s trajectory – https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-is-a-sliding-doors-moment-what-we-do-now-could-change-earths-trajectory-137838

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scarlett Howard, Postdoctoral research fellow, Deakin University

If you were a honeybee, how would you choose where to find flowers? Imagine your first flight out of the hive searching for food. What would you do if you saw flower patches with one flower, or three, or twelve, or twenty?

Our new study, published in the Journal of Experimental Biology, tested honeybees on exactly this question. We wanted to understand how honeybees choose where to forage in environments like greenhouses where our food is pollinated, in local parks, or in our own backyards.

Specifically, our research looked at whether honeybees with no specific numerical training could choose a flower patch based on the quantity of flowers it had.

We found the bees could tell the difference between groups of 1 vs 4 flowers – but not between, say, 4 vs 5. Basically, they couldn’t differentiate between groups of 2 or more flowers.

A mathematical matter of life and death

The ability to tell the difference between two quantities can mean life or death for an animal. “Quantity discrimination” can be vital for survival in tasks including:

• resource comparison: choosing a larger quantity of food

• aggressive interactions: choosing to avoid conflicts with larger groups of individuals, and

• avoiding predators: choosing to stay with a larger group of animals of the same species to reduce your chance of being eaten.

We are gaining a better understanding of quantity discrimination across the animal kingdom. Primates and other mammals, amphibians, reptiles, birds and fish all display some form of quantity discrimination in day-to-day tasks. For example, fish use quantity discrimination to stay in larger groups to reduce the chance of being eaten by a predator.

However, little is known about spontaneous number choices by insects.

Read more: We taught bees a simple number language – and they got it

How do bees choose where to forage?

Honeybees assess the available flowers based on several factors, including scent, colour, shape and size.

Honeybees typically visit around 150 individual flowers per flight from the hive to collect resources such as nectar or pollen. For a honeybee, a high quantity of flowers in a single area would mean less energy exertion than having to fly to many flower patches with less flowers.

Using different numbers of artificial flowers, we wanted to test whether individual honeybees could discriminate between a range of quantities, and how they might determine the quality of a flower patch.

Our honeybees were shown pairs of flower quantities ranging from easier number comparisons (such as 1 flower vs 12 flowers) to more challenging scenarios (such as 4 flowers vs 5 flowers).

Interestingly, despite previous findings that trained honeybees can discriminate between challenging quantities and can also learn to add and subtract, the bees performed poorly in our spontaneous number task.

We found they were only able to discriminate between 1 vs 3, 1 vs 4, and 1 vs 12 flowers – wherein they preferred the larger quantity. When 1 flower was an option they succeeded, but confused any comparisons between groups of 2 flowers or more.

This result suggests flower patch choice based on numerical-type cues is difficult for honeybees. And this has implications for how flower displays are interpreted.

With today being World Bee Day, why not take the opportunity to discover what bees are doing in gardens near you. Chances are they’re going to any flower patch with more than one flower, rather than paying much attention to absolute numbers.

Read more: Bees learn better when they can explore. Humans might work the same way

– ref. One, then some: how to count like a bee – https://theconversation.com/one-then-some-how-to-count-like-a-bee-138815

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pingping Han, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, The University of Queensland

Saliva is one of our biggest foes in the COVID-19 pandemic, because of its role in spreading the virus. But it could be our friend too, because it potentially offers a way to diagnose the disease without using invasive nasal swabs.

Our research review, published in the journal Diagnostics, suggests saliva could offer a readily accessible diagnostic tool for detecting the presence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and might even be able to reveal whether someone’s immune system has already encountered it.

COVID-19 testing is a crucial part of the pandemic response, especially now countries are gradually lifting social distancing restrictions. This requires widespread, early, accurate and sensitive diagnosis of infected people, both with and without symptoms.

Our review looked at the results of three different studies, in Hong Kong, the nearby Chinese mainland city of Shenzhen, and Italy. All three studies found SARS-CoV-2 is indeed present in the saliva of COVID-19 patients (at rates of 87%, 91.6%, and 100% of patients, respectively). This suggests saliva is a potentially very useful source of specimens for detecting the virus.

Read more: The positives and negatives of mass testing for coronavirus

Saliva spreads the SARS-CoV-2 virus via breathing, coughing, sneezing, and conversation, which is why guidelines suggest we maintain a distance of at least 1.5 metres from one another. We also know SARS-CoV-2 can survive in tiny droplets of saliva in an experimental setting.

Saliva is an attractive option for detecting SARS-CoV-2, compared with the current tests which involve taking swabs of mucus from the upper respiratory tract. Saliva is easy to access, which potentially makes the tests cheaper and less invasive. Saliva can hold up a mirror to our health, not just of our mouth but our whole body.

For this reason, saliva has already been widely investigated as a diagnostic tool for chronic systemic diseases, as well as for oral ailments such as periodontal disease and oral cancers. But less attention has been given to its potential usefulness in acute infectious diseases such as COVID-19, perhaps because researchers and clinicians don’t yet appreciate its full potential.

What a mouthful

When we get sick, much of the evidence is present in our saliva – from the germs themselves, to the antibodies and immune system proteins we use to fight them off. Saliva also contains genetic material and other cellular components of pathogens after we have broken them down (for the full biochemical breakdown of the weird and wonderful things in our saliva, see pages 51-61 of our review).

Saliva is also hardy. It can be stored at –80℃ for several years with little degradation.

This means it would be relatively straightforward to track the progression of COVID-19 in individual patients, by collecting saliva at various times during the disease and recovery. Saliva tests from recovered patients could also tell us if they have encountered the disease for a second time, and how strong their immune response is.

However, there is no research yet available on using saliva to monitor immune responses. This will be well worth investigating, given the pressing need for a reliable and cost-effective way to monitor the population for immunity to COVID-19 as the outbreak continues.

Could saliva testing replace nasal swabs?

An ideal saliva test would be a disposable, off-the-shelf device that could be used at home by individuals, without exposing them or others to the risk of visiting a clinic.

One drawback with the research so far is that it has involved small numbers of patients (each of the three studies we reviewed involved no more than 25 people), and there is little published detail on exactly how these studies collected the saliva – whether from the mouth or throat, whether by spitting, drooling or swabbing, and whether collected by the patient or by a clinician.

Nevertheless, based on the modest amount of research done so far, saliva looks like a promising candidate for COVID-19 testing. More research is now needed, in larger groups of people, to learn more about how to confidently test for SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva of both symptomatic and non-symptomatic people.

Read more: Curious Kids: why do we make saliva?

Earlier this month the US Food and Drug Administration approved the sale of saliva-based COVID-19 test kits that will allow people to collect their own samples and send them to a lab for analysis.

A reliable test would offer a cheaper, less invasive and potentially even more accurate way to detect the virus, which would also reduce the risk posed by routine COVID-19 checks to both patients and front-line medical professionals.

– ref. Keep your nose out of it: why saliva tests could offer a better alternative to nasal COVID-19 swabs – https://theconversation.com/keep-your-nose-out-of-it-why-saliva-tests-could-offer-a-better-alternative-to-nasal-covid-19-swabs-138816

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca English, Lecturer in Education, Queensland University of Technology

As schools resume for most Australian students, a new group of parents have emerged.

These parents have decided to give home education a longer term try, finding their children have improved academically and benefited from the calmer home learning environment.

This change may mean some families move to a more child-led way of learning. This approach can be described as unschooling – an informal way of learning that advocates student-chosen activities rather than teacher-directed lessons.

Read more: Homeschooling is on the rise in Australia. Who is doing it and why?

Unschoolers learn through living and are in charge of their own education. Students have the freedom to learn through a variety of means including play, household tasks and personal interests, as well as work experience, travel, books, elective classes, mentors and social interactions.

Sometimes the name unschooling leads people to believe children aren’t being educated or taught anything at all. But unschooling allows children to explore and learn in their own way. It’s a different form of education to that of schools, but it can work extremely well.

During the coronavirus shutdown, schools were providing schoolwork for children to do at home. Some suggested they just focus on the basics, which left plenty of time spare.

Some families found online learning wasn’t working for their children and negotiated with teachers about alternate ways of meeting learning outcomes.

Many parents improvised their children’s education. And so they were unschooling, even if they didn’t know it by name.

Who invented unschooling?

Unschooling is an educational philosophy developed in the 1960s by theorists including John Holt and Ivan Illich.

Their ideas, particularly around children exercising the liberty to choose the direction of their learning, are becoming increasingly popular in educational research.

Illich and Holt said traditional schooling could confuse the creation of a product – such as a test result – with learning. They argued learning is a process, not an end point.

While such ideas may seem radical, Holt was building on a well recognised foundation of educational philosophy: that children learn best when the learning is meaningful and accessible to them.

A typical day unschooling

In unschooling, parents work with their children to meet their educational goals.

This means they support their children’s interests and associated learning. They recognise the learning inherent in life activities and may enrich it via conversation or direction to other sources.

At the heart of unschooling is a belief that, in a rich and stimulating environment, children cannot not learn.

There’s actually no typical unschooling day, as what happens depends on the family and child. In unschooling families, any interest may form the basis of learning.

For example, an interest in dinosaurs may trigger a series of activities, such as:

• children read books and write stories about dinosaurs (Literacy)

• they measure the size of lizards and compare them to dinosaurs (Numeracy)

• they explore how dinosaurs died out (Science)

• they consider how dinosaurs may have influenced our culture, such as with dragons (Humanities and Social Sciences)

• they watch Jurassic Park to see how dinosaurs are represented in film (the Arts).

Children may talk with their peers about their love of dinosaurs and use this as an opportunity for socialisation. They may need a lot of assistance from a parent to do this or may explore on their own.

Read more: Parents, you don’t always need to entertain your kids – boredom is good for them

Everyday activities such as cooking, cleaning, gardening and shopping can also be learning opportunities. Benign neglect, leading to boredom, provides an opportunity for children to discover new interests and activities (and for parents to get some of their own work done).

How do students get assessed?

Unlike in school, unschooling assessment happens on a daily basis, through observing the children’s experiences. Parents may compile photographs or scrap books of their children’s learning experiences and keep them as records.

But many unschooolers will do formal assessment for careers that need certification. They may also do tests in line with university aspirants who do not come straight from school. Or they may go straight to TAFE or study via Open University, both of which don’t need formal test results for entry.

Unschooled students often do very well at university. For example, in the US, unschoolers are sought after by prestigious institutions including Brown, Cornell and Columbia.

One study of 75 unschooled adults found 83% had gone on to some form of formal education after school, and most were “gainfully employed and financially independent”.

Research suggests unschoolers’ success may come down to an intrinsic motivation to learn that’s been fostered through their unschooling experiences.

Evidence of unschooling in the lockdown

During the coronavirus crisis, if your children alternated their schoolwork with other study based on their needs and interests, they were unschooling.

If you went for a walk and identified plants or animals, and discussed them, that was unschooling. Cooking and decorating a sibling’s birthday cake was unschooling.

Discovering your children’s interest in Ancient Egypt and then watching documentaries about the subject was unschooling.

Read more: Maths, reading and better nutrition: all the reasons to cook with your kids

If your child decided to read the whole Harry Potter series in a week, that was unschooling.

It’s entirely possible to unschool and still meet the government curriculum requirements.

In fact, the Singaporean education minister, Ong Ye Kung, effectively recommended unschooling when he said students should take advantage of their time away from school to “learn outside the syllabus, read widely, be curious, find your passions”.

Children following this advice may have benefited, rather than been disadvantaged, from their break from formal learning. For some, continuing home-based learning may be advantageous.

Each state and territory has a legislative framework which allows parents to home educate their children. Support is available from experienced home educators online and through home education support groups.

– ref. Don’t want to send the kids back to school? Why not try unschooling at home – https://theconversation.com/dont-want-to-send-the-kids-back-to-school-why-not-try-unschooling-at-home-136256

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul J. Maginn, Associate Professor of Urban/Regional Planning, University of Western Australia

People have been finding ways to relieve the boredom of being stuck at home since varying degrees of lockdown have been imposed across the world during the COVID-19 pandemic. Recent research points to reduced sexual intimacy as a result of these restrictions, so it really should come as no surprise that porn viewing levels have increased. Our desire for social interaction and solace during the pandemic has driven the hyper-digitalisation and social media-isation of our daily lives.

Social distancing – no handshaking, hugging or kissing – poses obvious challenges for navigating sexual intimacy. Jennifer Powell and Andrea Walling note that technology has the potential to meet different sexual needs and desires. Brigid Delaney has highlighted skyrocketing sales of sex toys in Australia and New Zealand as more of us indulge in a little bit of “self-love”.

Read more: Online sex parties and virtual reality porn: can sex in isolation be as fulfilling as real life?

Joshua Grubbs has outlined why our interest in pornography has increased. Pleasure-seeking is the main reason. People also use pornography as a release to help with “stress, anxiety and negative emotions” – and the pandemic has provoked all of these.

In a Twitter poll in April, I asked: “Which of the following best describes ur online porn viewing habits as a result of the COVID19 pandemic?” Just over 60% of respondents (N=360) indicated their viewing had increased: “slightly more” (21.9%); “moderately more” (15.8%); and “significantly more” (22.5%).

Although not a representative poll, the results resonate with data from Pornhub, one of the world’s most popular porn websites. Globally, daily traffic to Pornhub started to rise in late February with above-average spikes in mid-March. Spikes in Australia started slightly sooner – March 4-6.

Read more: Porn use is up, thanks to the pandemic

Metro-sexuality and porn

A disproportionate number of porn viewers live in the capital cities.

Aggregated data from Pornhub for January 1 to March 31 show almost 80% of Australian traffic came from three states: New South Wales (31.6%), Victoria (27.1%) and Queensland (20.6%). This corresponds with their shares of estimated resident population – 31.9%, 26% and 20.1% respectively. Other states and territories, save Tasmania, had similar patterns in traffic share.

However, the largest capital cities – Sydney (29.2%), Melbourne (25.9%), Brisbane (16.3%), Perth (9.6%) and Adelaide (7.2%) – accounted for a disproportionate share of online traffic relative to population share – 20.9%, 19.9%, 9.9%, 8.2% and 5.4% respectively. The eight capital cities accounted for almost 91% of traffic despite having around 68% of Australia’s population.

The disparity in traffic volumes between metropolitan and regional areas appears to be due, in part, to relatively poorer internet infrastructure and speeds outside the major cities. Other non-technological factors are probably at play, but more social science research on porn viewing is needed.

The largest increase in traffic was in Brisbane. Here volumes in the last week of March were almost 20 indexed points higher than the first week of January. Perth had the second-highest growth, up 14 points over this period.

Traffic growth during March in Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide was above the national trend. Although growth for Melbourne and Sydney was below the trend, this is explained by both cities already having high traffic volumes.

The surge in traffic during March coincided with more people working, studying and staying at home due to restrictions on social gatherings. The closure of bars, clubs, casinos and cinemas, plus the effective suspension of hook-up apps, has reduced opportunities for face-to-face flirtatious interactions that might lead to sexual intimacy. Ultimately, people have sought pleasure via online pornography.

How do cities’ porn preferences vary?

What types of porn have Australians been indulging in?

“Lesbian” porn retains the overall title of top-ranked category across capital cities. It ranked first for Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Perth and Sydney; second in Melbourne; fifth in Hobart and seventh in Darwin. The top-ranked categories in the latter two cities were “Anal” and “Bondage” respectively. “Anal” porn ranked seventh in overall capital city terms and was highest in Perth (fourth) and Canberra (fifth) after Darwin. Bondage porn does not rank in the top 10 of any other capital city.

Hobart and Darwin had notably more diverse porn interests than the larger capital cities where preferences tend to be more consistent.

Japanese-categorised porn made the top 10 of only three cities back in 2018: Canberra (sixth), Sydney (seventh) and Melbourne (ninth). During the pandemic this category of porn was in the top 10 of all capital cities. It is now the second-most-popular category overall.

MILF porn, which has long featured in the “top 3” categories of porn, appears to be losing some ground, ranking fourth overall in the cities.

In contrast, interest in “Amateur” porn has surged. It ranks second in Adelaide, Canberra and Perth, and third in Melbourne and Sydney.

The heightened interest in this category mirrors an increase in the number of people producing “Amateur” porn via platforms such as MyFreeCams, Chaturbate and OnlyFans. The pandemic has arguably played a role here, but so too has austerity and the rise of the gig economy.

The category “Popular with Women” made it into the overall top 10 list, driven by interest in Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. This points to a wider trend of increasing female viewership of porn – females now account for about 30-35% of viewers in Australia.

The “top 10” categories for each capital city are shown below.

Read more: True blue picks: a snapshot of Australia’s favourite porn

As the COVID-19 pandemic has forced many Australians to stay at home, the internet has become a lifeline for maintaining professional, social and personal relations. It has also been a medium for sexual exploration. Porn preferences across Australia’s major cities have shifted somewhat since 2018, which points to a dynamic (sub)urban cosmo-sexuality.

As long as social distancing restrictions prevail, we can expect more interest in online porn. We might even see more spikes in May, being International Masturbation Month.

– ref. Denied intimacy in ‘iso’, Aussies go online for adult content – so what’s hot in each major city? – https://theconversation.com/denied-intimacy-in-iso-aussies-go-online-for-adult-content-so-whats-hot-in-each-major-city-138122

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Harcourt, J.W. Nevile Fellow in Economics and host of The Airport Economist, UNSW

Australia won’t be the same post-coronavirus, but parts of the picture are falling into place.

One concerns our approach to trade. It’ll be a reset, not a rejection.

We will continue to forge strong ties in the Asian Century with members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations including Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam as well as Japan, South Korea, China, India and the emerging economies of the region and beyond.

But our approach to China will be different.

China needs food and energy and infrastructure as it moves from being a nation of shippers to a nation of shoppers and its young people want a quality education.

Ever since Gough Whitlam’s groundbreaking trip to Communist China in 1971 (one year before US President Nixon’s historic trip) and his decision to recognise China on his election in 1972, Australia has been a strong partner of China and a reliable supplier.

Foreign Minister Marise Payne’s call for an international inquiry into how the COVID-19 took hold has been backed by much of the rest of the world, and ultimately by China and is unlikely to get in the way of the relationship.

We will re-think foreign direct investment. It will still be welcome, but from now on any application with geo-political security concerns or state involvement will be considered carefully.

We will need manufacturing capacity onshore

We will also need to rethink global supply chains. No nation wants to be caught short of medical technology and equipment in a pandemic. Some production will probably be brought onshore, and more diversified across the region.

We have seen companies such as the mining equipment supplier Gekkos Systems and food packaging manufacturer Detmold switch to making ventilators and masks, but their nimbleness has also served to put the spotlight on what we can’t do, especially in medicine.

Read more: ICU ventilators: what they are, how they work and why it’s hard to make more

There will be more room for innovative companies along the lines of Resmed, CSL and Cochlear.

The “tyranny of social distance” means we will need to alter our approach to service industries, at least in the short term. In the case of tourism, provided domestic restrictions are relaxed soon, the fall in international visitors could be partly compensated by an increase in domestic visitors.

Many Australians haven’t yet seen the Olgas, Uluru and Kakadu. Australia doesn’t need to rely on repeat visitors like Broadway does in New York, it can do very well out of once in a lifetime vists. (I was amazed to learn at a recent Tourism Australia conference that Kylie Minogue hadn’t been to Uluru until she fronted an advertising campaign last year.)

Education will also need to change as the labour market changes and different skills are required. Many of the new courses will be online, and the lines between vocational, technical and professional education will become increasingly blurred.

We’ll trust government more

For many in the workforce, the coronavirus has accelerated working from home as an option (with huge numbers of workers now equipped with the right technology).

This will continue to reduce congestion and provide more family-friendly working environments.

And it has changed our attitude to our government. During the crisis we looked to our own government rather than the United Nations, the United States, the European Union or the World Health Organisation. We put the usual sniping behind us.

Read more: COVID crisis has produced many negatives but some positives too, including confidence in governments: ANU study

If it wants to, our government will be able put the green back in the green and gold. The pause in activity due to COVID-19 and the bushfires will allow rebuilding along green lines, trialling technologies that can be exported longer term.

We’ve had some success with stand-alone power grids, pre-fab rebuilds in regional areas and electric and hydrogen transport infrastructure.

For some time, we won’t be able to rely on the traditional holy trinity of increased immigration, ever-increasing house prices and rising commodity prices to boost the economy (allowing investors to simply put their money in blue chips and red bricks, big stocks and property).

Read more: Further to fall, harder to rise: Australia must outperform to come out even from COVID-19

But we will have the opportunity in invest in our existing workforce and take advantage of the changes in work patterns and lifestyles the crisis has given us.

As we did in the global financial crisis, so far we have done relatively well on both the public health and economic fronts. We can set ourselves up to respond even better to the other crises that will come this way this century, be they trade wars, geopolitics, an environment catastrophe or even (god forbid) another pandemic.

– ref. The pieces of Australia post-coronavirus are falling into place – https://theconversation.com/the-pieces-of-australia-post-coronavirus-are-falling-into-place-138828

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Wallace-Crabbe, Emeritus Professor in the Australian Centre, University of Melbourne

Why do we have the arts? Why do they seem to matter so much? It is all very well muttering something vague about eternal truths and spiritual values. Or even gesturing toward Bach and Leonardo da Vinci, along with our own Patrick White.

But what can the poets make of, and for, our busy, present lives? What do they have to say during grave crises?

Well, they can speak eloquently to their readers for life, in writing from the very base of their own experiences. Every generation has laid claim, afresh, to its vital modernity. In the 17th century, Andrew Marvell did so with witty lyrical elegance in his verse To a Coy Mistress. Three centuries later, the French poet René Char thought of us as weaving tapestries against the threat of extinction. Accordingly, he wrote:

The poet is not angry at the hideous extinction of death, but confident of his own particular touch, he transforms everything into long wools.

In short, the poet will, at best, weave lasting, memorable, salvific tapestries out of words. The poems in question will come out live, if the poet is lucky, and possibly as disparate as the sleepy, furred animals caged in Melbourne Zoo.

Read more: A beginner’s guide to reading and enjoying poetry

What is truly touching or intimate need not be tapped by elegies, for all that they can fill a mortal need. Yet the great modern poet W. H. Auden wrote in memory of poet, writer and broadcaster John Betjeman:

There is one, only one object in his world which is at once sacred and hated, but it is far too formidable to be satirizable: namely Death.

As William Wordsworth and Judith Wright both well knew, in their separate generations – and quite polar cultures – the best poetry grasps moments of our ordinary lives, and renders them memorable.

Poetry can give us back our dailiness in musical technicolour: in a thousand yarns or snapshots. Poems sing to us that life really matters, now. That can emerge as songs or satires, laments, landscapes or even somebody’s portrait done in imaginative words.

Yes, verse at its finest is living truth “done” in verbal art. The great Russian playwright Anton Chekhov once insisted “nothing ever happens later”, and the point of poetry in our own time – as always, at its best – is surely to shine the light of language on what is happening now. The devil is in the detail, yes. But so is the redemptive beauty, along with “the prophetess Deborah under her palm-tree” in the words of the Australian poet, Peter Steele.

Poetry sees the palm tree, and the prophetess herself, vividly, even in the middle of a widespread epidemic.

Read more: Ode to the poem: why memorising poetry still matters for human connection

Modern poetry is an art made out of living language. In these times, at least, it tends to be concise, barely spilling over the end of the page: too tidy for that, unlike the vast memorised narratives of the Israelites, the Greeks or even the Icelanders. But what it shares with the ancient, oral cultures is its connection with wisdom, crystallising nodes of value, fables of the tribe, moments or decades that made us all.

In the brief age of a national pandemic, poetry’s role and its duties may come to seem all the more important: all the more civil and politically sane. The poem – even in the case when it is quite a short lyric, even if comic – carries the message of moral responsibility in its saddle bag. Perhaps all poets do, even when they are also charming the pants off their willing readers.

Christopher Wallace-Crabbe is judge of the ACU Prize for Poetry. Entries close July 6.

– ref. A thousand yarns and snapshots – why poetry matters during a pandemic – https://theconversation.com/a-thousand-yarns-and-snapshots-why-poetry-matters-during-a-pandemic-138723

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tahu Kukutai, Professor of Demography, University of Waikato

As schools and businesses reopen and attention shifts to the longer-term repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical that Māori be involved in decision making more equitably than has so far happened.

The failure to include Māori in strategy discussions throughout the pandemic has already been roundly criticised, most recently over tangihanga (funeral) restrictions and the Public Health Response bill, which sets up a new legal framework for responding to COVID-19.

Māori public health specialists have repeatedly challenged a one-size-fits-all approach to pandemic recovery. There is also growing unease about who has the authority to make decisions in the best interests of Māori collectives. The sidelining of Māori as Te Tiriti (Treaty of Waitangi) partners cannot continue through our recovery and rebuild.

First do no harm

As restrictions are relaxed under level 2, it is Māori and Pacific communities that carry a higher risk – both to their health and livelihoods.

According to modelling by research centre Te Pūnaha Matatini, infection and death rates would be highest for Māori and Pasifika of all ages if community transmission were to rebound.

Emerging international evidence also suggests the social and economic impacts of the pandemic will be felt for longer and more intensely for people living in precarious conditions – more likely to be racial minorities.

Read more: The answer to Indigenous vulnerability to coronavirus: a more equitable public health agenda

In Aotearoa we know previous economic recessions hit Māori and Pacific communities hardest, with consequences across generations. Even with the government’s NZ$50 billion COVID-19 budget plan, one Treasury forecast says unemployment will peak nationally at 9.6% in June this year.

Māori unemployment was nearly this high even before the pandemic (8.2% in the March quarter) and economists predict levels will surge over the next two years.

Unsurprisingly, last week’s budget was firmly focused on job creation. Among the suite of investments, NZ$900 million was earmarked for specific Māori initiatives, including $NZ136 million for the Whānau Ora programme and a NZ$200 million Māori employment package that includes boosting youth employment.

These will help address short-term employment needs in the most affected regions. But the opportunity to take a long-term transformational view that enables Māori to thrive, not merely survive, was lost.

Local decision making is vital

While there is immense pressure to fast-track economic recovery, the risk is that responses designed by and for largely Pākehā (non-Māori) constituencies will maintain, or deepen, pre-existing inequities.

Decisions must be based on evidence – but evidence takes many forms. New Zealand should draw on its dual knowledge systems: the richness of mātauranga Māori – Māori knowledge and ways of knowing – and “western” science. Now more than ever we need diverse sources of expertise, experience and leadership.

Over the past month, iwi (tribal groups) and Māori communities have demonstrated a remarkable capacity to anticipate and respond to the needs of their people – from setting up checkpoints to protect vulnerable and remote communities, to providing online support for grieving whānau (families) and delivering care packages to elders.

Indigenous communities in Aotearoa and elsewhere demonstrate powerful distributed leadership and a deep capacity to care for each other, based on the strength and knowledge of kin and kin-like connections.

Read more: Five key values of strong Māori leadership

These adaptive capacities have always existed within Te Ao Māori (Māori worldview). The pandemic placed them in the full view of mainstream New Zealand. Māori communities have strong social networks and infrastructures (especially marae – tribal meeting places) and long experience of dealing with the impacts of ongoing colonialism, natural disasters, pandemics, and mass death.

With worldviews that are inherently long-term and holistic, Māori are well positioned to lead circular economies. Māori models of regenerative agriculture and ecotourism can help shape a globally distinctive Indigenous sector that puts inter-generational and environmental well-being first.

Where local solutions have been properly resourced, such as in the development of traditional bassinets to help prevent sudden infant deaths, outcomes have been positive for everyone.

We can learn from such examples and build this evidence systematically into our response with co-determined strategies and solutions.

Reimagining our futures beyond coronavirus

As te Tiriti or a treaty partner, the government has an important role to play. But everyone will lose out if Māori and Pacific community agency and local solutions are not used.

By re-imagining our futures we can address unjust and unsustainable inequities. An unrelenting and system-wide focus on equity is clearly needed. We also need to amplify and support what is strong including a respectful treatment of te taiao (environment) and mana motuhake (self-governance, autonomy) in diverse communities and households.

Read more: Strong sense of cultural identity drives boom in Māori business

Our youthful Māori and Pacific populations are a demographic gift. It must not be squandered in the post-COVID-19 reset. Ongoing investment in their potential will not only benefit wider and future whānau, it will also future-proof regional economies.

If the pandemic has taught New Zealanders anything it is that our well-being as individuals is intimately connected to the well-being of those around us and our environments.

– ref. Recession hits Māori and Pasifika harder. They must be part of planning New Zealand’s COVID-19 recovery – https://theconversation.com/recession-hits-maori-and-pasifika-harder-they-must-be-part-of-planning-new-zealands-covid-19-recovery-137763

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Keiran Hardy, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has introduced a new bill that will amend the controversial questioning and detention powers held by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO).

While some changes are welcome, others are a cause for concern. One major change is that the legislation will allow ASIO officers to coercively question children as young as 14.

For this bill to be passed, Home Affairs must offer a stronger justification as to why the expanded powers are needed in the current security climate.

Read more: Australia has enacted 82 anti-terror laws since 2001. But tough laws alone can’t eliminate terrorism

Calls for new counter-terrorism powers have become commonplace in Australia, to the point where we now have more than 80 laws directed at the threat of terrorism.

Any call for additional powers should be met with careful scrutiny, particularly when the rights of children are at stake.

Repealing controversial detention powers

One of the biggest changes in the bill is that it would repeal ASIO’s power to detain people for questioning. Currently, ASIO has the power to seek a questioning and detention warrant (QDW) that allows people to be detained for up to one week. Detention can be approved if a person is likely to fail to appear for questioning, alert someone involved in terrorism, or tamper with evidence.

During that period, a person can be questioned in eight-hour blocks up to a maximum of 24 hours. This is purely an intelligence-gathering exercise, and is not related to any investigation for a criminal offence. The questioning can be approved if it would

substantially assist the collection of intelligence that is important in relation to a terrorism offence

The questioning is coercive, in that a person faces five years in prison for failing to answer any of ASIO’s questions. The powers are also highly secretive: it’s five years in prison for anyone who reveals anything about a warrant.

These powers are some of Australia’s most controversial anti-terror laws, as no democratic country has granted its domestic intelligence agency the same power to detain people for questioning.

Reviews by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the COAG review of counter-terrorism legislation have all recommended this power be repealed. Such a move would be welcome.

Expanded powers to question minors

At the same time, the bill will expand ASIO’s power to seek questioning warrants (QWs). These trigger all the same questioning processes and criminal offences as QDWs, they just don’t allow ASIO to detain the person outside the questioning period.

If the bill passes, QWs will be split into “adult questioning warrants” and “minor questioning warrants”. Minor questioning warrants will be available for children as young as 14 who are “likely to engage in” politically motivated violence.

This significantly widens the current thresholds. QWs are currently available for 16-year-olds only when the attorney-general is satisfied the person “will commit, is committing or has committed a terrorism offence”.

Some additional safeguards will protect minors under the new measures. Before issuing a questioning warrant, for instance, the attorney-general will need to consider the “best interests” of the child.

This is consistent with international law requirements and Australia’s expanded control order regime, which can include electronic tagging and curfews.

Read more: Control orders for kids won’t make us any safer

Under the proposed laws, a young person can only be questioned in blocks of two hours or less, and a lawyer must be present during all questioning.

However, restrictions currently placed on lawyers will be retained. Lawyers, whether acting for young people or adults, are not allowed to intervene in questioning, except to clarify an ambiguous question. They can even be kicked out of the room, and a new lawyer appointed, if they “unduly” disrupt the questioning.

These restrictions will significantly undermine the ability of lawyers to protect children from any forceful or inappropriate questioning by ASIO officers.

Are the changes even needed?

Dutton has justified the proposed changes by claiming Australia faces a significant threat of terrorism from young people. While we cannot know the intelligence on which this assessment is based, the urgent need for these changes is doubtful.

The statistics show that questioning warrants are used very rarely. The last QW was issued in 2010, and the last one before that in 2006.

Only 16 QWs have ever been issued since their introduction in 2003, and none since the threat from Islamic State emerged.

Read more: Australia’s quest for national security is undermining the courts and could lead to secretive trials

Given this record, it is difficult to see how QWs for 14-year-olds are suddenly needed to prevent acts of terrorism.

Indeed, in a recent PJCIS inquiry, ASIO explained their lack of use by saying the powers were difficult to approve on a short timeframe. This made them not very useful for the kinds of low-tech attacks seen in recent years, such as stabbings and shootings, which require little advance planning.

If the new powers are passed in the bill, they should at least be sunsetted to expire after three years, rather than the proposed ten. Without this amendment, more extraordinary counter-terrorism powers will be on Australia’s statute books for the foreseeable future.

– ref. Australia doesn’t need more anti-terror laws that aren’t necessary – or even used – https://theconversation.com/australia-doesnt-need-more-anti-terror-laws-that-arent-necessary-or-even-used-138827

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Glenn Banks, Professor of Geography and Head of School, School of People, Environment and Planning, Massey University

Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change.

If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nz

Almost every threat to modern humanity can be traced simply to our out-of-control population growth (think about arable land going to housing; continued growth in demand for petroleum fuels). Is anything being done to contain population growth on a national and international scale?

The question of population is more complex that it may seem – in the context of climate change as well as other issues such as biodiversity loss and international development.

As a starting point, let’s look at the statement “out-of-control population growth”. In fact, population growth is more “in control” than it has been for the past 50 years.

Read more: Climate explained: how growth in population and consumption drives planetary change

Population isn’t growing everywhere

The global rate of population growth has been declining from just over 2% per year in 1970 to less than 1.1% in 2020 (and this estimate was made before COVID-19 erupted globally).

To put this in perspective, if the 2% growth rate had continued, the world’s population would have doubled in 35 years. At a 1.1% growth rate, it would now be set to double in 63 years – but the growth rate is still declining, so the doubling time will be lengthened again.

Population growth also varies significantly between countries. Among the 20 most populous countries in the world, three countries have growth rates of more than 2.5% – Ethiopia, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo – while Japan’s population is in decline (with a negative growth rate, -0.3%) and China, Russia, Germany and Thailand all have very low growth rates.

These growth rates vary in part because the population structures are very different across countries. Japan has an aged population, with 28% over 65 years and just 12% under 15 years. Nigeria has only 3% of people in the over-65 bracket and 44% under 15.

For comparison, 20% of New Zealanders are younger than 15 and 16% are older than 65. For Australia, the respective figures are 18% and 17%.

Migration also makes a significant contribution in some countries, propping up the working-age population and shaping the demographic structure. History and levels of economic development play an important role too: higher-income countries almost consistently have smaller families and lower growth rates.

Rise in consumption

It’s certainly valid to link population growth (even a more limited “in control” population growth) with climate change and loss of land. Everything else being equal, more people means more space taken up, more resources consumed and more carbon emitted.

But while population growth has slowed since the 1970s, resource consumption hasn’t. For example, there is no equivalent decline in fossil fuel use since the 1970s.

This is an area where not everyone is equal. If all people were to use the same amount of resources (fossil fuels, timber, minerals, arable land etc), then of course total resource use and carbon would rise. But resource use varies dramatically globally.

If we look at oil consumption per person in 2019, the average American used almost twice as much as someone in Japan, the second oil-thirstiest populous nation, and almost 350 times as much as a person living in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

It is an easy out for us in the industrialised world to say “out-of-control population growth” is killing the planet, when instead it is equally valid – but more confronting – to say our out-of-control consumption is killing the planet.

Read more: Can your actions really save the planet? ‘Planetary accounting’ has the answer

Population growth slows when women are educated

To come to the final part of the question: is anything being done to contain population growth, on a national or international scale?

Even if we set aside the argument above that population is not the only issue, or even the most significant one, in terms of threats to humanity, what factors might influence population growth in parts of the world where it is high?

Things are being done, but they may not be what most people expect. It has long been shown that as incomes rise and health care improves, more children survive and people tend to have smaller families.

This effect is not instantaneous. There is a lag where population growth rates might rise first before they begin to drop. This demographic transition is a relatively consistent pattern globally.

But, at the country level, the single most significant influence on reducing fertility rates, family size and overall population growth is access to education for girls and women.

One study in 2016, drawing on World Bank population data across a wide range of countries, found:

… the main driver of overall fertility reduction is clearly the change in proportions of women at each education level.

In relation to climate change action, this study specifically notes:

It is education, or more specifically girls’ education, that is far more likely to result in lower carbon emissions than a shift to renewables, improved agricultural practices, urban public transport, or any other strategy now being contemplated.

Recent research looked at how the global population might change if we implemented the aspirations of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals. It found the change would be significant and could even mean the global population stabilises by mid-century.

– ref. Climate explained: why we need to focus on increased consumption as much as population growth – https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-we-need-to-focus-on-increased-consumption-as-much-as-population-growth-138602

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Lacey, Senior Lecturer in International Trade, University of Adelaide

Australia has acted with dismay to China’s decision to impose punitive mostly “anti-dumping” tariffs of 80.5% on imports of Australian barley.

The culmination of an 18-month investigation, China’s move threatens to wipe out Australian barley exports to China, worth A$600 million in 2019, unless China withdraws the measure either unilaterally or following a successful challenge at the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

However poorly justified, there are precedents for what China has done, many of them from Australia.

Australian anti-dumping and countervailing measures by country, March 2020

Australia was among the first wave of countries to adopt anti-dumping legislation alongside Canada, New Zealand, the United States and Britain in the early years of the 20th Century.

It remains a prolific user of the system compared to other countries, with an outsized number of measures imposed against imports from one country, China, and imports of one product, steel.

What are anti-dumping measures?

One way to think about anti-dumping measures is the international equivalent of domestic measures intended to combat predatory pricing.

Guidance from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission says that while it is usually okay to sell goods at a below-cost price, “it may be illegal if it is done for the purpose of eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor”.

But in the case of international anti-dumping measures, there is no need to prove purpose.

It suffices that an investigation finds the imported goods were sold below their corresponding price in the home market and that this caused or threatened to cause harm to a domestic industry producing the same sort of goods (known as “like products”).

Chinese steel, glass, cables and A4 copy paper

Technically, Australia imposes two types of measures: “anti-dumping measures”, which are additional duties on so-called dumped imports which are held to have injured Australian industry, and “countervailing measures” which are additional duties on subsidised imports that have injured Australian industry.

They are currently in place or proposed against Chinese wind towers, glass, electric cables, chemicals, herbicides, A4 copy paper and aluminium products, as well as steel.

In theory, WTO rules only allows anti-dumping measures for limited periods (China’s measures on barley have been imposed for five years) but in practice, once in place these measures can be difficult to remove.

They shield us from cut-throat competition

In the broader context of Australia’s relationship with China, they play an important role, shielding Australian import-competing industries from the full and potentially crushing impact of free trade with China.

One aspect of their use that has been particularly galling to Chinese officials is Australia’s failure to follow through on a commitment it made during the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement negotiations to treat China as a market economy for the purpose of anti-dumping investigations.

The concession was seen as highly significant by China and would have made it harder for Australia to conclude that some goods were not being sold at fair prices.

Read more: Barley is not a random choice – here’s the real reason China is taking on Australia over dumping

Australia’s continued use of anti-dumping measures has come under repeated criticism from the Productivity Commission, almost entirely on the basis of economic efficiency arguments.

However, these criticisms ignore a number of important concerns, including the need to keep these measures so they can be used to hit back against other countries that use them. It would make little sense to remove them until other big users agreed to do the same.

Read more: It’s time to drop Australia’s protectionist anti-dumping rules

Another important consideration, which has received greater attention during the current coronavirus crisis, is the need for – systemic resilience. If Australia becomes totally reliant on other countries for (say) steel, it’ll have less ability to get it when it is needed.

Before asking ourselves whether we are prepared to liberalise or do away with our current anti-dumping regime, we need to be able to answer the very important question of whether we are equally prepared to do away with our domestic steel, aluminium, paper and other industries.

I suspect that the answer to this question is no.

There are of course other ways to reinforce these industries or shield them from import competition, but it is more than likely that none would be as effective as the current system of anti-dumping duties. We have kept them because we still have some use for them.

Read more: China might well refuse to take our barley, and there would be little we could do

– ref. China used anti-dumping rules against us because what goes around comes around – https://theconversation.com/china-used-anti-dumping-rules-against-us-because-what-goes-around-comes-around-138541

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ross Garnaut, Professorial Research Fellow in Economics, University of Melbourne

“Pestilence is so common,” writes Albert Camus in The Plague:

There have been as many plagues in the world as there have been wars, yet plagues and wars always find people equally unprepared. When war breaks out, people say: ‘It won’t last. It’s too stupid.’ And war is certainly too stupid, but that doesn’t prevent it from lasting.

Read more: Guide to the Classics: Albert Camus’ The Plague

So, too, with recessions. Too stupid, and so common. Yet they always take people by surprise; and they last.

The damage from the global financial crisis of 2008 lingers in the form of lower economic growth and stagnating wages.

That’s true even in Australia, one of just two developed countries (Korea being the other) that avoided a GFC-driven recession (two successive quarters of declining output).

As I argued in my book title Dog Days: Australia after the boom (Black Inc Books, 2013), Australia has long been primed for a recession. Now it is going to get one. Having gained perhaps more than any other developed nation from open borders and trade, it now has more to lose.

Why recessions happen

Big recessions happen when a shock reveals a weakness in the structure of the economy. There have been manifold points of weakness in the global economy in recent years:

• in the US, the Trump administration’s expansion of fiscal deficits by cutting taxes at a time of full employment with debt and deficits already at record peacetime highs

• the retreats from China’s new model of economic growth from 2017

• the breakdown in global governance on trade, climate change and security, sharpened by the US-China trade conflict

• the unusually high levels of debt in most economies

• the sustained low investment, productivity and wages growth throughout the developed world.

Australia has shared many of the developed countries’ points of vulnerability.

Recession triggers

The immediate cause of recession can be any of many things.

It could be the piercing of unwarranted confidence in the sustainability of an exchange rate fixed in Thailand. This is what led to the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997.

Or it could be an excess of financial deregulation promoting lending for houses far in excess of their value. This what led to the US subprime loans crisis a decade late, with the Global Financial Crisis the result.

For any single country, the trigger can be other countries’ recession and the associated reduced demand for imports, or the associated financial stress.

This time it’s a new virus, emerging from the Chinese city of Wuhan in December 2019.

Had the virus outbreak been contained in China, or its immediate neighbours, the effect would still have been enough impose great damage on the Australian economy. The Australian government was determined to do all it could to avoid a recession.

Read more: The big stimulus spending has just begun. Here’s how to get it right, quickly

Avoiding recession is an important objective, because the costs are large and hard to unwind. But developments mean there’s no chance of that now.

We can work, however, to ensure the recession is as shallow and short as possible, and that Australians have confidence there is a path to better days ahead.

The importance of knowledge

We don’t know yet how deep the Great Crash of 2020 will dive. That depends a great deal on how governments in many countries respond. Those responses, in turn, depend on the knowledge of leaders, and of citizens, about how the economy works.

Knowledge turns out to be an important part of this story.

First, medical scientific knowledge.

Some governments, including Australia’s, have had access to good medical science and have taken it seriously. This has helped to contain the damage.

Some governments have paid little and inconsistent attention to scientific knowledge. The people of the Brazil, Britain and the United States endured pain and expense for their government’s ignorance or stupidity.

The virus keeps on doing what a coronavirus does, whatever humans think about it. Just as carbon dioxide keeps on doing what it does, whether or not governments accept scientific knowledge about its effect on climate.

Second, economic policy knowledge.

Since the Great Depression of the 1930s, we’ve learnt a great deal about how to reduce the depth and length of recessions. We’ve also learned much about the sources of broadly based modern economic growth.

More to gain, more to lose

Australia will have to perform better than most other countries to avoid economic outcomes being worse.

Our economy’s relatively small size and dependence on exporting primary resources means we have more to gain than most other countries from open borders and international trade. We also have more to lose from disruptions.

No other developed economy of comparable size has benefited as much as Australia from the easy international movement of people – for business, pleasure, education, and to build new lives as migrants.

Read more: The Reserve Bank thinks the recovery will look V-shaped. There are reasons to doubt it

Unlike most other developed countries, Australia is also located in a region of developing countries. This means it will be damaged more by the pain the pandemic is likely to disproportionately inflict on the developing world.

The challenge facing Australia is unprecedented. It will require solutions to match.

Ross Garnaut is presenting a six-part online lecture series about rebuilding Australia’s economy after the pandemic, beginning Wednesday May 20 2020 and continuing for six Wednesdays. For more information go here.

– ref. Further to fall, harder to rise: Australia must outperform to come out even from COVID-19 – https://theconversation.com/further-to-fall-harder-to-rise-australia-must-outperform-to-come-out-even-from-covid-19-138802