Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Apte, Senior Senior Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO

For as little as A$1 a tin, canned tuna is an excellent, affordable source of protein, polyunsaturated fats and other nutrients. A tin of tuna is significantly cheaper than many types of fresh meat or fish.

Sounds good, but how much can you eat before you need to worry about mercury?

According to Food Standards Australia New Zealand:

It is safe for everyone (including pregnant women) to consume canned tuna as part of their fish intake.

Canned tuna generally has lower levels of mercury than tuna fillets because smaller tuna species are used and the tuna are generally younger when caught.

But how many tins a week?

Lab tests we did for the ABC TV science program Catalyst in 2015 suggest – depending on your body weight and the exact brand of tuna you buy – you could eat anywhere between 25 and 35 small tins (95g each) of tuna a week before you hit maximum mercury limits.

That’s a level even the most keen tuna-lover would be hard pressed to consume.

Read more:
Australia’s gold industry stamped out mercury pollution — now it’s coal’s turn

How does mercury end up in fish anyway?

Mercury is naturally present in our environment but can biomagnify to relatively high concentrations in fish – particularly predatory fish.

In other words, it builds up as smaller fish get eaten by middle-sized fish, which get eaten by large fish, which get eaten by us. So the bigger the fish, the higher the likely mercury content.

Most forms of mercury are potentially very toxic to humans. But to make matters worse, a substantial proportion of mercury in fish is present as methylmercury – a potent neurotoxin formed by bacteria in waters and sediments.

Although mercury pollution has increased since industrialisation, accumulation of methylmercury in animals is a completely natural phenomenon.

Even fish caught from the middle of the ocean, far from any polluting sources, will contain methylmercury.

Tuna in Australian cupboards is likely smaller species

Over the years, some scientists have raised concerns about high concentrations of mercury in canned tuna.

Mercury concentrations are higher in predatory fish such as tuna and generally increase with age and size. So this concern has largely been associated with the use of tuna species such as albacore and larger tuna specimens.

Skipjack and yellowfin are the main tuna species listed as ingredients in canned tuna in brands sold at Australian supermarkets.

Skipjack are the smallest of the major tuna species, while yellowfin are larger.

So, the fact the canned tuna in Australian cupboards is likely to contain smaller species is already a bonus when it comes to reducing mercury risk.

But let’s drill down to the details.

How much mercury can we have?

According to Food Standards Australia New Zealand:

Two separate maximum levels are imposed for fish ― a level of 1.0 mg mercury/kg for the fish that are known to contain high levels of mercury (such as swordfish, southern bluefin tuna, barramundi, ling, orange roughy, rays and shark) and a level of 0.5 mg/kg for all other species of fish.

However, whether mercury is harmful or not also depends on the amount of fish you eat and how often. After all, it is the dose that makes the poison.

Based on international guidelines, Food Standards Australia New Zealand also provides recommended safe limits for dietary intake. In other words, how much mercury you can safely have from all food sources (not just fish).

This limit is known as the “provisional tolerable weekly intake” or PTWI.

The maximum dose of mercury set for the general population is 3.3 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per week. 1,000 micrograms (µg) is 1 milligram (mg).(The guidelines assume all mercury in fish is present as the more harmful methylmercury as a worst case scenario).

The dose for pregnant women is approximately half this value – 1.6 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per week).

Pregnant women are advised to limit their fish intake because of placental transfer of mercury to the unborn foetus and the effect of mercury on neural development.

Testing three tins

Our laboratory is well equipped to measure mercury concentrations in fish. As part of the Catalyst program in 2015, we analysed mercury concentrations in Australian fish including three tins of canned tuna purchased from the supermarket.

Given the very low sample numbers, our data is just a snapshot of mercury concentrations. More research is clearly needed.

We found none of the canned tuna brands exceeded the safe consumption levels for mercury of 0.5 milligrams of mercury a kilogram. All three tins had slightly different levels of mercury but even the “worst” one wasn’t that bad.

You would have to eat around 25 tins (at 95g a tin) of it a week before you hit the maximum tolerable intake of mercury. For pregnant people (or people trying to get pregnant), the limit would be around 12 tins (at 95g a tin) a week.

It is unlikely many consumers will reach these limits.

But watch out for other species of fish

Some Australian fresh fish can contain higher mercury concentrations than canned tuna.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand recommends that, for orange roughy (also known as deep sea perch) or catfish, people should limit themselves to one 150 gram serving a week with no other fish that week. For shark (flake) or swordfish/broadbill and marlin, the limit is one serving a fortnight.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How much tuna can I eat a week before I need to worry about mercury? – https://theconversation.com/how-much-tuna-can-i-eat-a-week-before-i-need-to-worry-about-mercury-176682

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sophie Hickey, Postdoctoral researcher, Charles Darwin University

Many Australian women rely on and trust maternity services to see them through pregnancy, labour and the early stages of new parenting.

But for First Nations women, these same services can be confronting and can result in poor outcomes. Many women must travel far from family and community to birth. And if they don’t, they often feel misunderstood and judged by mainstream health services.

There is another way. Birthing on Country means First Nations women give birth on their ancestral country. It acknowledges First Nation peoples’ continued ownership of land and unique birthing practices.

What can Birthing on Country services do?

Birthing on Country services centre First Nations values, and are designed to meet First Nations people’s social, emotional, cultural and health needs. The services are embedded within larger health service networks.

Our team works in partnership with First Nations communities to deliver Birthing on Country maternity services that address health inequities.

Our partners in one urban setting saw a profound reduction in preterm birth and increased antenatal attendance and breastfeeding.

Read more:
Birthing on Country could deliver healthier babies and communities

This was achieved through integrating within a wraparound system of care, designed as a one-stop-shop in an Aboriginal community controlled setting.

It also involved redesigning the service using a successful blueprint that prioritises investing in the workforce, strengthening families’ capabilities, and embedding First Nations governance and control in all aspects of maternity service planning and delivery.

However, Birthing on Country services are yet to be trialled in regional and remote Australia. So there is much work to do to ensure all First Nations women can access these services.

Here are five ways to work towards this:

1. Acknowledge safe childbirth is a human right

Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which states Indigenous people have the right to:

• quality, culturally safe health care
• be self-determining and participate in the design of health services
• include and revitalise cultural practices, languages, and medicines.

Birthing on Country services are one example of how this can be achieved.

Commitment to uphold the UN declaration requires resourcing and monitoring to support and celebrate the world’s oldest midwifery practices and cultures.

2. Acknowledge how health systems fail First Nations people

First Nations people and cultures are wrongly blamed as the cause of health inequities, rather than focusing on how the health system continues to fail First Nations families.

Racial bias has been identified as a contributing factor in First Nations maternal deaths. This includes health services dismissing women’s concerns and turning them away from hospital when seeking care – even when they have life-threatening symptoms.

This can make First Nations families feel unsafe and uncomfortable accessing maternity health services.

Large organisations make Western ways of “knowing and doing” dominant in every work practice. This often results in institutionalised racism and dismisses other forms of knowledge suggesting we should or could be doing things differently.

Read more:
Microaggressions aren’t just innocent blunders – new research links them with racial bias

3. Ensure there is ‘nothing about us without us!’

Australia’s health system was designed to serve those who designed it.

First Nations people have been explicitly excluded from decision-making about the services provided to them.

First Nations people want and need to be at the decision-making table, and ensure “nothing about us” is decided “without us”.

Participatory action research is one evidence-based way to work collaboratively with stakeholders to respond to needs identified by the community.

First Nations people value the process as it aligns with principles of self-determination and equity. And it privileges the voices of those often marginalised in research.

Engaging community in design, implementation and evaluation of maternity services brings local knowledge, community activation and investment that leads to lasting change.

4. Recognise how First Nations peoples can improve health care for everyone

Our colleagues in Aotearoa (New Zealand) found maternity systems that privilege whiteness cannot provide equitable health care for all.

All people can benefit from ethical knowledge systems that have safely guided childbirth and the flourishing of First Nations people for millennia.

Relationality – being connected with all human and non-human beings – is at the centre of First Nations values, ways of knowing, doing and being. It ensures our responsibility to be in good relations with each other, whether with community, Country or our research partners.

The current system does not embed relationality in its design; rather encourages capitalism and competition for scarce resources over genuine partnership and equitable care.

Read more:
Why we need to support Aboriginal women’s choice to give birth on country

Our task is to re-centre good relations in our everyday work to make health and wellness gains. We do this by:

• ensuring our work is community-driven
• using methodologies that represent First Nations views
• presenting and defending findings at community forums
• ensuring our research leads to action at the local, state and national level.

5. Share findings in accessible ways

The Caring for Mum on Country project is a community-driven action research project piloting doula (birthing companion) training and exploring reproductive health literacy.

It has shown the power of grassroots community activation in finding Yolŋu solutions to local needs.

Charles Darwin University researchers Sarah Ireland (a co-author of this article) and Ḻäwurrpa Maypilama (in partnership with the Australian Doula College and Yalu Aboriginal Corporation) used community action research to pilot First Nations doula training, locally known as djäkamirr–caretakers of pregnancy and birth.

They made a documentary about their project:

Film is an impactful way to discuss research. Finding creative and accessible ways to share research findings is imperative to bringing learnings to people who can benefit from and enact change.

Health inequities in childbirth will persist until health systems relinquish control and acknowledge the value of First Nations knowledge systems centred on relationality and wellness.

We must work in partnership with First Nations communities to redesign health services and work differently with communities in their journeys to implementing Birthing on Country maternity services.

Sarah Ireland receives funding from NHMRC Partnership Grant 2021: “To Be Born Upon a Pandanus Mat” APP2010289.

Yvette Roe receives funding from NHMRC .

Sophie Hickey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Birthing on Country services centre First Nations cultures and empower women in pregnancy and childbirth – https://theconversation.com/birthing-on-country-services-centre-first-nations-cultures-and-empower-women-in-pregnancy-and-childbirth-170641

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anastasia Powell, Associate Professor, Criminology and Justice Studies, RMIT University

One in three university students (30.6%) have experienced sexual assault at least once in their lifetime. This is one finding from the 2021 National Student Safety Survey (NSSS) report, released today.

The survey responses from 43,819 students enrolled in 38 Australian universities, as well as written responses from 1,835 current and former students, demonstrate the extent and impacts of sexual violence in and beyond the higher education sector.

The survey also found one in 20 (4.5%) had been sexually assaulted in a university context since starting their studies. In the 12 months preceding the survey, 1.4% of women and 0.6% of men reported experiencing sexual assault in a university context.

Rates of sexual harassment were much higher. One in two students (48.0%) had experienced it at least once. One in six (16.1%) had been sexually harassed in a university context since starting their studies, and one in 12 (8.1%) in the preceding 12 months.

Sexual violence reflects patterns of inequality

Universities Australia funded the survey under the Respect Now Always initiative. It builds on a legacy of previous work, including the Australian Human Rights Commission’s 2016 national survey of university students on sexual assault and sexual harassment. That led to its 2017 report, Change the Course.

Read more:
‘Change the Course’ set out to end sexual violence and harassment on campus. 5 years on, unis still have work to do

The 2021 survey also explored student attitudes and knowledge about sexual violence and reporting processes, establishing a benchmark against which universities can measure their progress into the future.

The past two years however have been a time of COVID lockdowns – and it’s likely this impacted on the 12 month results of sexual harassment and assault in university contexts. Only a third of students (33.6%) in the 2021 survey said they had been able to take part in some or all of their classes on campus. It is also worth noting improvements to the survey methodology mean the 2021 prevalence results are not directly comparable with the 2016 results.

Nonetheless the 2021 data still suggest about two students in a tutorial class of 25 would have been sexually harassed or assaulted in a university context at least once in the preceding 12 months.

Read more:
Rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment: what’s the difference?

That is no small problem.

And it is not an evenly spread problem either. Much like the 2016 survey, rates were highest for students who were women, non-binary gender or transgender, sexuality diverse, disclosed a disability or were younger (18 to 21 years).

It happens on and off campus, and is rarely reported

For sexual violence on campus, we can expect universities to be responsible for ensuring a just and timely response, and to take action to prevent these harms. Many of the instances of sexual harassment and sexual assault that impacted people most, as reported in the 2021 survey, did happen in settings such as lectures and classes, libraries, clubs and events, and student accommodation.

But, of course, not all such experiences were on campus. As is the case in society more generally, sexual assault in particular often happened in private homes or residences.

Whether on or off campus, though, a majority of perpetrators were known to the victim through their university. This has significant implications for victim-survivors’ safety and well-being in their ongoing studies.

It is also telling that one in two students who responded to the survey said they knew little or nothing about their university’s reporting or complaint processes.

Overall, few students, about one in 20, formally reported the experience that impacted them most to their university. Many thought it would be too hard to prove, or that they wouldn’t be taken seriously.

Read more:
University students aren’t reporting sexual assault, and new guidelines don’t address why

Universities have a particular duty to act

Sexual violence is a human rights issue, and one Australia has committed to addressing through our national policy plans and prevention frameworks.

Our universities have a crucial role to play in responding to sexual violence. Whether it happens on campus or elsewhere, universities can help ensure victim-survivors are supported to feel safe in continuing their studies – rather than bearing the impacts of sexual violence alone.

Yet universities also have a role in preventing sexual violence through addressing the inequality and discrimination that fosters these harms.

Some efforts, such as the Educating for Equality initiative, have begun to be implemented. But clearly, more needs to be done.

Read more:
We’re still playing catch up with academia’s longstanding #MeToo sexual harassment problem

Students have a vision for change

University students themselves have a clear vision of the role of universities to address and prevent sexual violence.

Through the 2021 research they called for more transparent reporting processes, as well as awareness campaigns so students know what sexual violence is and how to report it or seek help. They wanted visible and proportionate disciplinary action for perpetrators to show universities take such reports seriously. And they wanted properly resourced supports for victim-survivors.

Beyond this, students called for universities to work collaboratively with victim-survivor advocates, and take a more active role in promoting equality and respect on their campuses and beyond.

The 2021 NSSS research tells us sexual violence remains a problem and students are demanding action.

What remains is for universities to demonstrate they are fully implementing and funding the necessary actions – and in doing so, to ensure no institution is left behind.

The author acknowledges the contributions of the Social Research Centre as the lead organisation on the 2021 NSSS reports. In particular, acknowledgement is made to Dr Paul Myers and Dr Wendy Heywood.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732. In immediate danger, call 000.

Anastasia Powell receives funding from the Criminology Research Council and Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS). Anastasia is also a director of Our Watch (Australia’s national organisation for the prevention of violence against women), and a member of the National Women’s Safety Alliance (NWSA). She was a commissioned researcher on the National Student Safety Survey reports.

– ref. 1 in 3 uni students have been sexually assaulted in their lifetime. They demand action on their vision of a safer society – https://theconversation.com/1-in-3-uni-students-have-been-sexually-assaulted-in-their-lifetime-they-demand-action-on-their-vision-of-a-safer-society-179367

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kyle J.D. Mulrooney, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Co-director of the Centre for Rural Criminology, University of New England

While drink driving fatalities and injuries have declined in recent decades, it still remains a major problem on Australian roads.

Blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limits have helped since they were put in place over 25 years ago, but new technology may now be able to stop drink driving altogether.

In the US, the massive infrastructure bill passed by Congress last year mandated car manufacturers equip vehicles with advanced drink-driving prevention technology. These systems can either monitor a driver’s performance to detect if they are impaired, or test a driver’s BAC to determine if it’s above the legal limit.

The US Department of Transportation has been given latitude to choose the type of system that manufacturers use, with a requirement for it to be installed in new cars by 2027.

Similar efforts have been recommended in Australia, with Victoria reportedly being the only jurisdiction outside the US to trial the new technology.

How driving monitoring systems work

Driving monitoring and assistance systems (DMAS) are largely automatic and unobtrusive, operating with little to no active driver input.

These systems monitor things such as steering, braking and driving trajectory, enabling the car to “infer” the driver’s alertness and activate warnings or even corrective action, such as autonomous emergency braking, where necessary.

More recent advancements in DMAS have focused on the driver specifically, using real-time video to track things such as head position, eyelid closure and eye gaze direction to detect driver impairment.

In an emergency situation, these systems can also work together to prevent a crash. The cameras can establish a driver’s impairment, for example, while the automated driving technology steers the vehicle to safety.

À lire aussi :
‘Self-driving’ cars are still a long way off. Here are three reasons why

Such technologies have been been integrated into vehicles since the early 2000s, primarily to monitor fatigue and distraction. Today, most new vehicles come with such systems and they’ve become increasingly sophisticated.

In the European Union, DMAS technology will be required in all new cars from this July. China is also well on its way to requiring it in all new vehicles.

New technologies to target drink driving specifically

Other technologies are being developed to target drink driving more specifically through detection systems that use alcohol sensors.

One is a breath-based system that can determine a driver’s blood alcohol content from normal breathing in the car. Another is a touch-based system that uses sensors in the ignition button or gear shift to determine a driver’s blood alcohol content below the skin surface.

If either system determines the driver is impaired or over the legal limit, it will take action. This could mean not allowing the car to start or move, giving the driver a warning or actively pulling the driver off the road.

This new technology will be available for open licensing in commercial vehicles later this year.

Some critics have voiced concerns about the reliability of such systems, as well as privacy issues related to how driver data is collected and used.

Others have decried the loss of freedom and inconvenience that might result from system failures.

How our current drink-driving approach is failing

Yet, this new technology may be a vast improvement on our current system for policing drink driving, which is expensive, unreliable and hasn’t been effective in stamping out the problem.

Australia and other countries rely largely on impairment tests following random or “probable cause” police stops or from systematic police roadblocks. The very randomness of these interventions limits their effectiveness, especially in non-urban environments. Punitive measures such as prison time also do not appear to have an impact, particularly with repeat offenders.

Additionally, the breath analysis tests used by police may be flawed and are subject to human error.

Our current enforcement methods can also infringe on people’s rights and contribute to discriminatory practices through the over-policing of specific areas or minority groups.

The current approach is also unable to recognise the various cultural, socio-economic, demographic and other factors that lead to harmful alcohol and drug use, impaired driving and subsequent interaction with the criminal justice system.

For example, while Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are less likely to drink alcohol than other Australians, those who do are more likely to drink at dangerous levels, have significantly higher drink-driving conviction rates and be over-represented in alcohol-related road crashes.

À lire aussi :
Booze and driving don’t mix but a zero blood alcohol limit isn’t the answer

Research has suggested a range of contributing factors for these higher rates, many of which are grounded in the long history of colonial violence, mistreatment and dispossession of First Nations peoples.

While a passive driver impairment detection system will not directly address such causal factors, these technologies will at least reduce the likelihood of people’s interactions with the criminal justice system and subsequent legal repercussions, which can have lifelong consequences.

A reduced focus on reactive and punitive responses should create more opportunity for attention to social, cultural and health-based interventions. This is particularly relevant when we consider the role of alcohol dependence in drink driving, and the fact many drink drivers face a range of social, economic and health problems, especially repeat offenders.

Technological design innovations have been used successfully to prevent car thefts. So, if the privacy concerns can be addressed and managed, these systems may be a way to curb drink driving at a reduced financial cost to communities, while also minimising the harms caused by our current legal framework.

À lire aussi :
What would effective, fair and just drug-driving laws look like?

Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur organisme de recherche.

– ref. New drink-driving technology could soon be a fixture in all cars. Here’s why it’s a game changer – https://theconversation.com/new-drink-driving-technology-could-soon-be-a-fixture-in-all-cars-heres-why-its-a-game-changer-175438

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

New Zealanders are about to enjoy cautiously relaxed COVID restrictions under the country’s COVID-19 Protection Framework, starting from this weekend.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced the relaxations today, signalling the end “for now” of vaccine passes, QR codes and vaccine mandates in the education, police and defence sectors from April 4.

Mandates will still apply for health, aged-care, corrections and border control workers, pending more official advice. Settings within the traffic light system have also been revised, but the country remains at the red level and indoor mask use is still required.

New Zealand’s vaccine pass system was designed when we were in the middle of the vaccine rollout, only about one in 400 New Zealanders had had COVID-19, and nobody had even heard of Omicron.

At that time, unvaccinated people had a much higher risk of catching the virus and spreading it to others.

For this reason, vaccine passes were an important part of safely relaxing the Auckland lockdown. They helped us enjoy a summer with very low case numbers and minimal restrictions. Crucially, this meant we avoided the dual Delta-Omicron epidemic that significantly added to the health burden in places such as New South Wales.

The situation we face today is very different. Vaccines remain highly effective at preventing severe illness but aren’t as good at stopping people catching Omicron. And the protection they do provide against infection wanes fairly quickly.

At the same time, increasing numbers of people have some temporary immunity as a result of having had the virus. This means vaccine passes are far less effective as a public health intervention now than they were a few months ago.

But as vaccine passes are phased out, it is important to consider what measures we can use to reduce transmission.

Vaccines still work

Vaccines are still highly effective at preventing severe illness and death from COVID-19. Like New Zealand, Hong Kong is now experiencing a major Omicron wave after initially following an elimination strategy. But in the last two months, Hong Kong has had close to 4,000 deaths per five million people compared to New Zealand’s 130.

Why such a big difference? Vaccines. Hong Kong has much lower vaccine coverage in older groups than New Zealand does.

But it’s clear vaccines are less effective at preventing infection with Omicron. The UK Health Security Agency estimates the effectiveness of two doses of the Pfizer vaccine against symptomatic COVID-19 drops to just 10% after about 25 weeks following the second dose. This jumps to 65% after a booster but also wanes quite quickly to around 40% 15 weeks later.

The proportion of unvaccinated people testing positive is not that different from fully vaccinated people. So if you go to a cafe, a hairdressers or a bar, whether or not there are unvaccinated people there makes little difference to your risk of catching the virus.

Other risk factors are more important: are people wearing masks, is it crowded, is the venue well ventilated or outdoors, are people staying away if they have symptoms?

Read more:
Most COVID patients in NZ’s Omicron outbreak are vaccinated, but that’s no reason to doubt vaccine benefits

We still need public health measures to mitigate COVID

The limitations the vaccine pass system has placed on people’s freedoms are much harder to justify now. But that doesn’t mean we can end all vaccination requirements or remove all public health measures.

COVID-19 is an airborne disease but a comparison with diseases spread through contaminated water is useful. The spread of cholera from contaminated water is one of the earliest examples of an effective public health response to an infectious disease.

The first response was a “boil water” notice, the equivalent of mask wearing to prevent the spread of infections. Longer-term measures involve systemic changes, such as infrastructure for clean water or, in the case of COVID, infrastructure for clean air through ventilation and filtration.

Read more:
No, catching Omicron is not ‘inevitable’ – here’s why we should all still avoid the virus

The time to remove boil-water notices is not when case numbers are peaking, or even when they are back at half of their peak level. It is when there are sufficient systemic changes in place to keep people safe.

Similarly, isolation periods are intended to stop people from infecting others. For Omicron, studies suggest half of all cases were still infectious on day five and the infectious period may be as long as ten days. Given wider availability of rapid antigen tests, we could introduce a test-to-return policy to require a negative test before people leave isolation.

Some vaccine mandates remain

People working in specific high-risk situations, like healthcare and aged residential care, will still be required to be up to date with their vaccinations to protect the vulnerable people they work with.

We are currently in the middle of a major Omicron wave, with hospitalisations and deaths at record levels. At least as many people will get infected on the way down from the peak as on the way up.

Read more:
Evidence supports mandatory COVID vaccination for aged-care workers. But we need to make it easier too

And even when this wave subsides, COVID-19 isn’t going to go away. It’s likely we will continue to see daily case numbers in the thousands for some time. Added to other respiratory illnesses like influenza and RSV, this could cause significant strain on healthcare over the winter months.

Altogether, this means we still need a set of sustainable mitigations to reduce transmission and the health impacts of the virus. This includes strategies to address vaccine inequity and increase booster uptake, mask use when cases are high, better ventilation and adequate financial support for people to take time off work when they are sick.

COVID vaccine passes have outlived their usefulness at least for now. But COVID-19 is going to be with us for the forseeable future.

Michael Plank is affiliated with the University of Canterbury and is funded by the New Zealand Government for mathematical modelling of Covid-19.

Dion O’Neale receives funding from the NZ Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet for providing modelling and analysis related to COVID-19 and from the NZ Health Research Council for research on modeling and equity impacts of COVID-19 in Aotearoa. He is affiliated with COVID Modelling Aotearoa, The University of Auckland, and Te Pūnaha Matatini.

Emily Harvey receives funding from the NZ Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet for providing modelling and analysis related to COVID-19 and from the NZ Health Research Council for research on modeling and equity impacts of COVID-19 in Aotearoa. She is affiliated with COVID-19 Modelling Aotearoa, ME Research, Te Pūnaha Matatini, and the University of Auckland.

– ref. As New Zealand relaxes restrictions, here’s what we can still do to limit COVID infections – https://theconversation.com/as-new-zealand-relaxes-restrictions-heres-what-we-can-still-do-to-limit-covid-infections-179746

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phil Bland, Director, Space Science and Technology Centre, Curtin University

In the past few years, Australia has formed its own space agency and launched a defence “space command”. Billions of dollars for defence, and hundreds of millions for civilian space, have been allocated from the public purse to develop capability in this growing sector.

This funding covers the Moon-to-Mars Program, the SmartSat Cooperative Research Centre, the Modern Manufacturing Initiative, opportunities in defence, various state-funded projects such as SA-SAT, and more.

This level of investment is unquestionably a good thing. But the great majority of it supports applied research and engineering, and commercialisation of outcomes. None of the new funding goes to basic research.

In the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, India, South Korea, China, Russia, and United Arab Emirates – to name a few – basic research in space and planetary science, and science missions, are key elements in strategies to grow their sectors. In Australia, this kind of fundamental work only gets around A$2 million a year. It hasn’t budged in a decade.

Why basic research is important

Applied research and engineering aims to provide practical solutions to well-defined problems by applying existing knowledge.

Basic research aims to expand knowledge. It’s the most successful mechanism humans have ever invented for generating new knowledge.

Every other major spacefaring nation funds basic research in space and planetary science from the public purse. They do it for a good reason, and it’s not to make planetary scientists like me happy.

Read more:
Why outer space matters in a post-pandemic world

It’s because in space science, an unusually short thread connects basic research, applied research and engineering, commercial outcomes, and a trained workforce.

Basic research isn’t an optional extra: it’s a crucial catalyst for everything else.

How it works

In other nations, scientists like me come up with an idea or hypothesis. Something big and exciting about how we think our Solar System works.

To test that hypothesis, we develop a space mission with engineers from both industry and academia. Because the universe defines the problem, not a human, that team is continually presented with unique challenges, requiring completely new technical solutions.

As a happy byproduct, this process creates an environment that is almost perfectly optimised for technology breakthroughs. I learned this lesson on the very first mission I was on: the UK’s Beagle 2 Mars lander.

The mission didn’t succeed. We didn’t get to sniff for trace methane on Mars. But the technology turned out to be a great way to detect early-onset tuberculosis.

And exploring the Solar System to make fundamental new discoveries is a great way to inspire young engineers and scientists. So you inspire your public, you get students interested in STEM careers, and in the long term you get your highly trained workforce of the future.

I see this all the time. It’s one of the joys of my job.

Our space program at Curtin University is called Binar, from the Nyungar word for “fireball”.

We flew our first satellite, Binar-1, last year. We’ll be flying another six over the coming 18 months. Our eventual goal is a lunar orbiter.

At any one time, around 60 undergraduate engineers are involved in Binar. Last week, dozens of high school students visited us. WA government is supporting a program that will see them flying experiments on Binar spacecraft from next year. That’s what inspiration looks like.

And yes, a collateral benefit is that you make planetary scientists happy. But their discoveries win you credibility and visibility on the world stage, so that’s not a bad thing either.

Our work on the geophysical evolution of the dwarf planet Ceres, based on Dawn Mission data, is one example.

Funding cuts have hit home

In Australia, basic research is formally excluded from the new funding schemes (for example, the Moon-to-Mars Demonstrator Mission scheme states “STEM, scientific or research projects without a clear commercialisation pathway” are ineligible activities). So no science missions.

That exclusion, and the lack of funding, means that planetary science is no longer seen as a strategic area by universities. As a result it has been one of the first areas to be cut as belts have been tightened because of COVID.

Colleagues at the Australian National University and Macquarie University have lost their jobs. In fact, our team at Curtin University is the only substantial group left in Australia.

Not a zero-sum game

The Australian model is consistent with a belief that each dollar you spend on science is a dollar less for industry. Is this the case?

NASA doesn’t think so. Its model is built around basic research and science missions.

A recent NASA-commissioned study found this model was extremely successful at generating benefits for the wider economy. Over a single year, every dollar spent on the agency generated around US$3 in total US economic output. Over longer timescales the return is even higher.

Other agencies, large and small, can demonstrate a similar return on investment with science-based models. Each ₤1 the UK Space Agency invests in space science and innovation yields ₤3-4 in direct value to the space industry and additional spillover impacts of ₤6-12.

Read more:
Why isn’t Australia in deep space?

A risky experiment

No other major spacefaring nation has implemented a strategy that formally excludes basic research. It follows that Australia is engaged in a unique experiment to see whether growth of our space sector is optimised by minimising our ability to generate new knowledge.

With hundreds of millions in new funding for civilian space, and billions for defence, our space sector can’t help but grow. The question is whether that investment is efficiently generating growth. Will our taxpayers see the same return on their investment as taxpayers in those other nations if we delete science?

Overseas space agencies can point to an economic return of three to 12 times the original investment. Can our space agency do better with a model that formally excludes basic research and science missions?

I don’t know the answer. Unfortunately, no one does, because there are no examples or studies to draw on.

My hunch is that this novel strategy is not optimal. Hedging our bets – learning from the strategies of other nations – wouldn’t cost much.

It would mean looking again at that A$2 million of annual funding for basic research. Engaging scientists in how research programs are defined. Possibly even the odd science mission. Doesn’t seem like a lot if it buys you peace of mind.

Phil Bland receives funding from the Australian Research Council, and the Australian Space Agency under its Demonstrator Mission Feasibility scheme.

– ref. Australia wants a space industry. So why won’t we pay for the basic research to drive it? – https://theconversation.com/australia-wants-a-space-industry-so-why-wont-we-pay-for-the-basic-research-to-drive-it-178878

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter J. Dean, Chair of Defence Studies and Director, UWA Defence and Security Institute, The University of Western Australia

Unless you have been under a political rock for the past few weeks, you could not have missed the emergence of a “khaki election”.

Obviously thinking it is a vote-winner and a Coalition strength, the Morrison government is hell-bent on putting national security and defence front and centre in the lead-up to the May election.

It becomes glaringly obvious if you look at Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s schedule in March. From a major foreign policy speech to the Lowy Institute on March 7 through to his visit to Perth on March 16-17, Morrison has announced seven major initiatives on national security and defence in a ten-day period. In this time, he took every opportunity to talk about his credentials on defence and attack the opposition’s record on defence spending.

This is occurring with the government well behind in the polls and the PM struggling with his popularity. But the Coalition clearly sees national security as safe political ground and a weak spot for Labor. As journalist Philip Coorey noted:

As the election nears, the Coalition is tidying up its pitch, tying together economics and national security, to a population ready to point the finger over the massive east coast floods and cost of living.

Is the electorate buying?

The early signs for the government’s strategy are not promising. National security does not seem to have the same cut through that it has had in previous elections. Polling suggests voters trust Labor more than the Coalition to manage the relationship with China, while they are neck and neck as the preferred political party to handle the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Read more:
‘National security’ once meant more than just conjuring up threats beyond our borders

The prime minister’s attack on Labor also risks collateral damage by dividing the community and some voters (especially those of Chinese heritage), while laying open the government’s patchy record on defence issues to scrutiny.

Over the past nine years of government, the Coalition has thrown record spending at defence. But this spending has not necessarily translated into actual capability for the ADF. This is especially important as the government ended, in 2020, defence’s long-standing ten-year warning time for major conflict in our region.

But the PM is known for taking political risks. He seems to be banking on a national security election strategy on the basis that while it will not necessarily help Labor to win the election, it may well cost them enough votes to lose one.

Both major parties make missteps

Morrison’s first major tactical approach was to accelerate attacks on the Labor opposition over China. In the last sitting week of parliament, Morrison accused Deputy Labor Leader Richard Marles of being a “Manchurian candidate” for the Chinese Communist Party.

It was a week of relentless attacks, but Labor easily batted these away, using support from former ASIO head Dennis Richardson and current ASIO head Mike Burgess, who warned such divisions could undermine national unity and security.

Read more:
Grattan on Friday: Morrison has sown the seeds for a scare campaign, and Albanese doesn’t know whether they’ll grow

Labor then weakened its position somewhat when Anthony Albanese also used parliament to accuse the prime minister of being the real “Manchurian candidate”. It was an unedifying week in national politics from the Government – but, most significantly, it did not seem to move the opinion polls at all.

In the second week of March, both leaders made their way to the Lowy Institute for major foreign policy speeches. Here we were able to assess the different world views and different policy approaches to national security of both sides.

So, how do they compare on national security?

While many of the themes and pledges were similar, especially on defence spending and China, the focus of the two leaders diverged on key issues. While Morrison focused on an “arc of autocracy” – drawing immediate comparisons to George W. Bush’s “axis of evil” – and a commitment to a new submarine base for the east coast, the Labor leader emphasised climate change, sovereign supply chains, national resilience and unity, as well as the need to accelerate the Australian Defence Force’s (ADF) strike capabilities.

Albanese knows national security is not perceived as safe political ground for Labor, so his main strategy is to try to neutralise Morrison’s lines of attack. Tactically, the opposition has dealt with this through bipartisanship, effectively drawing closer to the government in key areas.

Bipartisanship has become the byword on national security for Labor in opposition since the last election. However, it can be a doubled-edge sword. Too much of it and Labor looks, as Paul Kelly has argued, like a cardboard cut-out of the government. It also narrows Labor’s room to attack the Coalition’s vulnerabilities.

However, climate change is one of the key points of different. The prime minister has refused to clarify the link between climate change and national security.

An image from the week spoke volumes: While the government was under fire for being too slow in deploying the military to support flood victims Morrison and Defence Minister Peter Dutton announced the biggest expansion of the ADF since the Vietnam War in Brisbane, while half the city was underwater.

Labor has no such qualms on climate. This issue has also allowed Labor to reposition itself in contrast to the government on the ANZUS Alliance, because US President Joe Biden has directly linked climate and security, and made it a policy priority.

Labor’s counter-attack is built around the government’s poor performance on defence spending. This includes problems with major projects such as helicopters and new frigates for the navy. But the biggest hole that currently exists is in submarine capability.

We can expect Labor to be relentless on this issue. But submarines are the “third rail” of Australian defence policy – for both sides of politics. Generally, when you touch it, you get burned, badly.

Since 2013, the Coalition has overseen what is the biggest procurement disaster in defence history – and we currently have no submarine contract. However, Labor, as former Secretary of Defence Dennis Richardson noted this week, has its own history with submarine capability.

Meanwhile, the Coalition is keen to focus on money and leadership. Morrison and Dutton have been relentless in attacking Labor’s past performance on defence spending. They have revived, ad nauseam, Tony Abbott’s line from 2013 that Labor in government had driven defence spending down to its lowest level since 1938. Labor has attempted to counter this by committing to reaching the mythical 2% GDP on defence spending, or above.

In fact, using the percentage of GDP to measure defence spending is a poor practical measurement. But it has become the main political measure that counts on defence funding, and there seems little chance of that changing.

Focusing on funding is not the certain the win the government thinks it is. A quick look at other measures of defence spending shows the Morrison government does not compare so well. As a percentage of actual government outlays in the budget, Labor spent 6.65% and 6.52% in its last two years in office. The Morrison government spent 5.1% and 5.8% in 2021 and 2022.

No matter what measures are used, expect defence spending to be shouted at voters until election day.

On to election day

The budget later this month will be a key marker post, and I suspect it will have a heavy national security and defence focus. It seems the government has set the political playing field by using announcements of big-ticket items far off into the budget forward estimates (such as nuclear-powered submarines, submarines bases, increases to the size of the ADF) to lay the groundwork.

The Coalition’s next tactic is to pour on the announcements that will have a more immediate impact on jobs and security. Examples include the WA dry dock and the army’s LAND 400 infantry fighting vehicle project.

Labor will attack the Coalition over its record in office, and will link defence spending to the government’s (mis)handling of the pandemic and the rising cost of living. Morrison will use the benefits of incumbency to relentlessly attack Albanese and his lack of experience in national society portfolios.

But the overarching question is: does this matter to the electorate and will it change votes?

Long-term polling on this issue shows the ADF is one of the most trusted institutions in Australia. But, as Danielle Chubb and Ian McAllister have shown, being supportive of the defence force does not translate into supporting greater funding for defence.

Irrespective of this evidence, the international security landscape in the Indo-Pacific has shifted radically in recent years. We are in uncharted geo-strategic waters, and with a problematic domestic political record the government thinks national security is a vote winner.

Peter J. Dean receives funding from The Australian Research Council, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, The Department of Defence and the US State Department.

– ref. The Morrison government wants a ‘khaki’ election. How do the two major parties stack up on national security? – https://theconversation.com/the-morrison-government-wants-a-khaki-election-how-do-the-two-major-parties-stack-up-on-national-security-179472

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Hellewell, Research Fellow, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, and The Perron Institute for Neurological and Translational Science, Curtin University

Far from the respiratory disease it seemed at first, COVID can impact almost all parts of the body, including the brain. For a small number of people, COVID infection may be accompanied by an episode of post-COVID psychosis, a break from reality which can be frightening for the patient and their loved ones.

Psychosis is a condition characterised by confused thoughts, delusions and hallucinations. People with psychosis can struggle to tell what’s real from what isn’t. Psychosis occurs in “episodes” which may last for days or weeks. Since the start of the COVID pandemic, reports of post-COVID psychosis have come from all over the world.

Post-COVID psychosis is different to psychosis seen in other brain illnesses and diseases. So-called “first episode psychosis” is usually seen in teens or young adults in the development of schizophrenia, or alongside dementia in elderly people.

But people experiencing post-COVID psychosis are typically in their 30s, 40s and 50s, and are experiencing psychosis for the first time. They usually do not have any family history of psychosis. People with post-COVID psychosis also frequently have insight into the way they are feeling. They can recognise this is not normal for them, and something has changed in the way they are thinking.

Read more:
Early intervention for psychosis might cost more initially but delivers a greater return on investment

Features in common

Based on the small number of reports so far, the start of psychosis has been days, weeks or even months after COVID diagnosis. While the symptoms of post-COVID psychosis can be varied, there are some commonalities: people usually have problems sleeping, followed by paranoid delusions and hallucinations. Some people feel compelled to hurt themselves or others.

The scientific evidence of post-COVID psychosis comes mostly from “case reports”, which are research papers describing symptoms and recovery of individual patients.

In the first and most widely reported case, a 36-year-old American woman developed psychosis approximately four days after she started having mild COVID symptoms. She became delusional, thinking that her partner was trying to kidnap her children. She was convinced she was being tracked through her mobile phone.

After trying to pass her children through a fast-food restaurant drive-through serving counter to protect them, she was taken to hospital for care. After one week of in-patient care to treat her psychosis, she was discharged. Her delusions did not return.

In another case, a 43-year-old Bulgarian man
began experiencing psychois two days after he was discharged from hospital for severe COVID.

He believed the doctors had faked the results saying his COVID illness had resolved. He also had delusions that he had already died and his organs were rotten. He became a danger to his family, believing he should kill them to “spare them the same slow suffering”. After two weeks of treatment in hospital, his psychotic symptoms resolved and did not return.

Other case studies have reported people having delusions that patients in the hospital were actors and medical staff were trying to harm them, hearing voices speaking in foreign languages or telling them to take on grand tasks, like saving the earth.

Read more:
Postnatal psychosis is rare, but symptoms can be brushed aside as ‘normal’ for a new mum

Changes in the brain

The cause of post-COVID psychosis is not well understood. Some scientists think it could be due to persistent inflammation in the brain, prolonged inflammatory signals in the body
or due to changes in blood vessels in the brain.

There is new evidence that brain areas undergoing change in mild COVID infection may also be areas that change in people who are at risk of, or who are experiencing, first-episode psychosis (that is, not after COVID infection). These areas are the orbitofrontal cortex
at the front of the brain, and the parahippocampal gyrus – a key memory region deep in the brain. These regions may shrink in both mild COVID and psychosis.

However, more research is needed to understand this link.

Read more:
Even mild COVID can cause brain shrinkage and affect mental function, new study shows

Not the first time

COVID is not the first virus to be linked to psychosis. During the “Spanish flu” influenza pandemic of 1918 there were reports of post-viral psychosis.

Psychosis has been reported after infections with the other human coronaviruses, like those that cause Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). Links between coronaviruses, immune system activation and psychosis have also been found, suggesting COVID may not be the only coronavirus capable of causing psychosis.

Just how common is post-COVID psychosis? The evidence to date suggests it is rare, occurring in about 0.25% of COVID cases who are not hospitalised (and likely have a mild infection), and 0.89% of people who are hospitalised for COVID.

Because there have been so many cases of COVID worldwide, isolated reports of post-COVID psychosis may stand out more. The frightening nature of what people might experience means we might hear more and more about them on social media and in the news.

Although the risk of post-COVID psychosis is low, people who have had COVID and their families should look out for any sudden changes in personality, paranoia or delusions in the days, weeks and months following infection.

If these signs are noticed, seeking medical help is vital. Most cases of post-COVID psychosis resolve quickly with proper psychiatric care and treatment with medication.

Read more:
Could I have had COVID and not realised it?

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Sarah Hellewell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Post-COVID psychosis occurs in people with no prior history. The risk is low but episodes are frightening – https://theconversation.com/post-covid-psychosis-occurs-in-people-with-no-prior-history-the-risk-is-low-but-episodes-are-frightening-179193

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin J. Richardson, Professor of Environmental Law, University of Tasmania

Fifty years ago this week, the world’s first “green” political party was born in Tasmania after the state government purposefully flooded the magnificent Lake Pedder.

The flooding made way for a hydro-electricity scheme, transforming the nearly 10-square-kilometre lake into a reservoir spanning almost 250 square kilometres today. This damaged the surrounding wilderness – now recognised as part of Tasmania’s World Heritage Area – and greatly tarnished its natural beauty.

The controversial move sparked nationwide outcry. In an effort to save the lake, the United Tasmania Group was formed on March 23, 1972 by fielding candidates in the state election that year. The party was the forerunner to the Australian Greens and saw other green-oriented political parties soon follow worldwide, including New Zealand’s Values Party and Switzerland’s Popular Movement for the Environment.

Now, half a century later, environmentalists are upping their campaign to restore the lake to its former glory. It symbolises the broader contest between unsustainable industrialisation and a greener economy that addresses challenges such as climate change.

The lake was once beautiful

Before 1972, Pedder was a remnant glacial lake flanked by a spectacular, pink-quartzite beach and mossy rivulets.

Nestled amid a primeval mountain range 300 metres above sea level, the alpine lake had geomorphological significance as it was formed in the outwash of a glacier an estimated 1 million years ago, when ice sheets covered much of the planet.

And it was spectacularly wild. Prior to the flooding, Lake Pedder was difficult to access, known best to serious bushwalkers and tourists chartering light aircraft. These tourists and hikers brought the lake’s beauty and geological significance to a broader public when threats of flooding began to materialise.

Read more:
The hydropower industry is talking the talk. But fine words won’t save our last wild rivers

The flooding saw heavy ecological losses. The massive hydropower dam drowned about 250 square kilometres of surrounding wilderness. This included a mosaic of diverse ecosystems including wetlands, temperate rainforest and buttongrass moorlands, along with several rare plant species.

The Lake Pedder galaxias (Galaxias pedderensis), a fish once endemic to the lake, is now considered extinct in its natural habitat after 350,000 trout, a predator, were put in.

Four other species of invertebrate fauna, also endemic to the original Lake Pedder, have disappeared or dramatically declined due to the altered habitat.

The birth of Green politics

The loss of Pedder helped trigger the formation of the United Tasmania Group (UTG), which is generally credited as the world’s first political party with a foundation in environmental values.

While the UTG didn’t win seats in that or subsequent elections it contested during the 1970s, it was the forerunner to the Tasmanian Greens and, nationally, the Australian Greens.

Read more:
The Australian Greens at 25: fighting the same battles but still no breakthrough

But the UTG didn’t spring purely from the Lake Pedder controversy. As historian and journalist Paddy Manning identifies in his book on the history of the Greens, the UTG was part of broader global shift to greater environmental awareness in the 1970s. For example, the first Earth Day was held in 1970, and saw 20 million people in the United States demonstrate against the impacts of industrial development.

The name “Green” for environmentally minded political parties, however, came later. Indeed, it was derived from another Australian-first: the “Green Ban” movement in Sydney in the 1970s that united building workers and community groups to save cultural and natural heritage from destruction.

Restoring the lake today

The former Australian Greens leader Christine Milne is presently leading the campaign to restore Lake Pedder. This campaign actually began in the immediate aftermath of the damming for the hydropower scheme, when the Whitlam government appointed an inquiry in 1973 to advise on the area’s future, including possible restoration.

In 1994, the Pedder 2000 initiative was launched, which sought federal assistance to reinstate the lake by the start of the new century. A year later, a federal parliamentary inquiry confirmed the scientific feasibility of restoring the lake.

However, the inquiry concluded that the most compelling reasons to restore the lake were aesthetic rather than for nature conservation. It said the economic costs and opposition by Tasmania’s major political parties meant restoration had “no real prospect of proceeding in the foreseeable future”.

Read more:
The stunning recovery of a heavily polluted river in the heart of the Blue Mountains World Heritage area

Now, over two decades later, the campaign is once again gaining traction. The United Nations declared 2021-2030 the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, calling for projects to replant forests, remove dams, rehabilitate wetlands and more. The 2021 Glasgow Climate Conference reinforced this message by affirming the importance of ecological restoration in mitigating and adapting to climate change.

Restoring Lake Pedder would entail more than pulling the plug on the dams, and it would likely take several decades for the original ecosystems to flourish again. Yet, the major geomorphological features such as the lake’s iconic beach would quickly return as the waters retreated.

The arguments against Pedder’s restoration today primarily rest on its contribution to Tasmania’s electricity generation and its desire to be Australia’s “battery of the nation”.

But the economic advantages from Lake Pedder’s restoration may outweigh its value for electricity production, as new renewable energy projects step in to meet demand, coupled with the benefit of foregoing the growing cost of maintaining the ageing dams.

What’s more, once it is restored, the lake could become a major international tourist attraction. It truly was a scenic wonder on par with Uluru and the Great Barrier Reef, one we should fight to bring back.

Benjamin J. Richardson is affiliated with the Restore Lake Pedder campaign and a member of the Tasmanian Greens

– ref. The legacy of Lake Pedder: how the world’s first Green Party was born in Tasmania 50 years ago – https://theconversation.com/the-legacy-of-lake-pedder-how-the-worlds-first-green-party-was-born-in-tasmania-50-years-ago-178546

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philip Zylstra, Adjunct Associate Professor at Curtin University, Research Associate at University of New South Wales, Curtin University

As coal-fired climate change makes bushfires in Australia worse, governments are ramping up hazard-reduction burning. But our new research shows the practice can actually make forests more flammable.

We found over time, some forests “thin” themselves and become less likely to burn – and hazard-reduction burning disrupts this process.

What does that mean as Australians face a more fiery future? Is there a smarter and more sensitive way to manage the bushfire risk?

To find out, we looked at the forests of south-western Australia, where hazard-reduction burns are very frequent.

Lessons from Black Summer

Hazard reduction burning, also known as prescribed or controlled burning, is the practice of deliberately burning off flammable material in a forest, such as leaf litter, grasses and shrubs. It aims to slow the spread of any subsequent bushfires by reducing the amount of fuel available.

In the summer of 2019-20, the Black Summer bushfires ravaged Australia’s south-east. In the decade before the fires, the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service doubled the area of prescribed burns compared to the previous decade.

In fact, the area of national park burned that decade was the largest in the state’s history. But as we now know, it had little effect.

Where prescribed burns had very recently been carried out, the bushfires were marginally less severe, about half of the time. But the bushfires ultimately burned ten times more forest than any other Australian forest fires on record.

Read more:
Australia’s Black Summer of fire was not normal – and we can prove it

Forests control their own flammability

We wanted to measure how past fires – planned and unplanned – affected the bushfire risk in the forests of Australia’s south-west.

This 530,000 hectares of forest spans the dry jarrah and tuart near Perth, down to Margaret River and east, through tall wet karri and tingle forest, to Denmark and Albany.

We examined official records showing where fires had burned over 65 years in national parks. The results were stark.

Forests were unlikely to burn for five to seven years after a prescribed burn. This finding supported earlier work in the same region.
But there’s more to the story.

Other studies have shown fires cause a massive flush of understorey growth in WA’s karri and jarrah forests.

During bushfires, the understorey is the main driver of large flames which cause destructive crown fires.

Our research corroborated these earlier findings. We found as the understorey grew back, becoming taller and denser, fire risk greatly increased for the next 37 to 49 years.

The trend did not change as the climate warmed from the 1980s onward, although the burned area grew larger.

What about older forests?

Ecologists have long known shrub layers often “self-thin” as a forest grows.

Past studies in WA have shown 25 years after fire, there were 13 times fewer shrub stems in karri forests. In jarrah forests, only a quarter of the previous understorey fuel remained 50 years after fire.

Since the 1800s in Australia, there have been concerns that fire, including prescribed burning, converts self-thinned understoreys into dense thickets.

But we didn’t know how self-thinning affected the flammability of older forests in Australia’s southwest. Our research set out to find the answer.

As the below graph shows, 43 to 56 years after a fire, the forests had thinned their shrub layers. We found this meant they were, on average, seven times less likely to carry a bushfire than forests burned more recently.

In other words, burning made forests on average seven times more flammable for 43 to 56 years.

In the hottest and driest climate conditions, old, self-thinned forests even out-competed recent prescribed burns – those up to seven years old. Bushfires were three times less likely in old forests than they were in recent prescribed burns.

Our previous work in the Australian Alps found similar trends; mature forests there are dramatically less likely to burn.

Cooperating with country

Early Australian colonists recorded many Australian forests as park-like with open understoreys.

This reflected First Nations’ care for country. In southwest Australia, as in many parts of the continent, Indigenous fire use was precise and focused. Unlike prescribed burns, Indigenous practitioners did not attempt to burn vast areas at once.

Read more:
Australia needs a national fire inquiry – these are the 3 key areas it should deliver in

Instead, they cooperated with natural processes such as self-thinning, so country was allowed to age.

Australia’s forests have controlled their own fire risk since they were part of the Gondwana super-continent. We should respect, rather than disrupt, these ancient natural processes.

Cooperating with country today means moving away from prescribed burning across large areas. Frequent burns may be useful only close to homes, or in other locations where we know with confidence they can achieve an ecological goal or help firefighters stop a burning edge.

Elsewhere, we should work with forest landscapes and allow them to become open again. We can support this process by refocusing fire management to quickly suppress fire when it does break out.

Read more:
Native forest logging makes bushfires worse – and to say otherwise ignores the facts

Philip Zylstra received funding for this study from the San Diego Zoo and Botanical Garden via the Australian Network for Plant Conservation.

David Lindenmayer receives funding from The Australian Government, the Victorian Government and the Australian Research Council

Don Bradshaw does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Coming of age: research shows old forests are 3 times less flammable than those just burned – https://theconversation.com/coming-of-age-research-shows-old-forests-are-3-times-less-flammable-than-those-just-burned-179571

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kai Riemer, Professor of Information Technology and Organisation, University of Sydney

We need to talk about Bruno. The theme song from Disney’s hit movie Encanto (We don’t talk about Bruno) has become the first song from an animated movie to top the US charts for multiple weeks. How did this come about? The answer is, once again, TikTok.

The short-video platform is again behind the creation of a hit song. TikTok is changing the music industry, how hits are made and how the platform opens a new way to discover new artists and new music.

At the heart of the phenomenon are viral challenges or trends, in which creators use short clips from a song that are re-used by thousands or millions of other users in their videos.

While TikTok videos do not count towards the Billboard charts, activity on the platform directly drives music consumption on streaming platforms like Spotify and Apple Music. Over 175 songs that trended on TikTok in 2021 charted on the Billboard Hot 100, twice as many the year before.

But how do trends, challenges, and memes make hits? The answer lies in how music has become creative material for social storytelling on TikTok, and how storytelling works when videos are only a few seconds short.

Social storytelling with music

Tom van Laer, associate professor of narratology at The University of Sydney Business School, explains what makes for good storytelling:

For a good story, you need three things. A story has a plot and a character… That’s the minimum for a story. For a good story you need a third thing, which is a dramatic curve.

And this is where the music comes into play. When a challenge or trend emerges on TikTok, it always features the same clip from a particular song, which serves as a common story element across all those videos. As van Laer explains:

What you then get is a certain cultural capital or cultural knowledge that is already there. So then every new iteration is just added to that. And if you’re on the inside, if you in the know, then that is still something you could easily follow because you see the one video of 15 seconds only as another event in the bigger story.

Because the clip is instantly recognisable by the audience it ties together all the videos that make up a TikTok challenge or trend. It acts as the meta-narrative that allows each creator to contribute their own interpretation of the story.

This can take the form of imitations, such as in the “Jamie Big” trend, based on a original video that has been viewed more than 200 million times. It shows a man dancing to Nelly Furtado’s Say It Right in front of his bathroom mirror.

Thousands of videos have since imitated the original, whereby a creator always films themselves in front of their bathroom mirror, switching to the original video on the beat change of the song.

Other trends work by offering different interpretations of the same story line. A good example is the “Things that just make sense…” trend, set to Che la luna, a version of a classic Sicilian folk song. In this video contributors film themselves showcasing the features of a particular location, each doing the same characteristic hand gestures.

An example is Australian Olympian Scott James filming his room at the Olympic village in Beijing.

Because the audience always recognises the characteristic song, they are instantly familiar with the story’s plot; they know what to expect and can thus simply enjoy each interpretation of the theme. The music provides the glue that holds together a social story, collectively told across many videos.

A challenge or trend is thus a form of social storytelling, with the music acting like shorthand to provide the context for all the videos.

We Don’t Talk About Bruno has provided material for a number of different trends, each driving its popularity. And besides the many Encanto fan edits featuring parts of the song, there is a particular clip with a catchy hook that underpins a story-line in which creators try to do a task in the first take of the video and after the beat change reveal why the task is so difficult. This features dance moves from the Encanto movie.

Music as creative material

To understand what makes TikTok such a powerful platform for the music industry, we must “unlearn” music as something we just listen to. On digital platforms like TikTok music is rapidly becoming a material for creating, for self-expression, for storytelling.

Virality is then a by-product of the use of music as creative material for collective storytelling – one that provides the canvas, or meta-narrative, for each creator’s interpretation of the emerging story-line.

With the most popular songs sometimes exceeding 20 billion views on videos they soundtrack, the scale of the phenomenon gives the platform its transformative role for the music industry.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Encanto, TikTok and the art of social storytelling: why music is not just for listening anymore – https://theconversation.com/encanto-tiktok-and-the-art-of-social-storytelling-why-music-is-not-just-for-listening-anymore-178021

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

New Zealand is no stranger to protest, or protest violence. But what happened in the grounds of parliament over 23 days in February and March was unique – and, in the end, extreme.

A country that grinds its teeth at unruly freedom camping by tourists ended up with an unapproved campsite in one of the least appropriate places imaginable. And it ended violently.

How the government and parliament responds to what happened is important for both the future of legitimate protests and for the security of parliament itself.

A review of security arrangements for parliament has already been signalled, but the nature and funding of the protest itself also demands scrutiny. Overall, it may be that a law change, specific to the parliamentary precinct, is needed.

Keeping the grounds open

There is no specific legal right to protest. Rather, it is a manifestation of the wider rights to freedom of movement, association and peaceful assembly. Internationally, these are protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its related framework of human rights treaties, and domestically by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Read more:
From ‘pretty communist’ to ‘Jabcinda’ – what’s behind the vitriol directed at Jacinda Ardern?

In practice, the right to protest is evident in the country’s history. Events that shaped generations and made New Zealand one of the freest and most liberal democracies occurred outside on the parliamentary grounds as much as within the legislative chamber.

From women’s rights and redress for injustices done to Māori, to workers’ rights and foreign policy reform, parliament grounds have been a forum for dissent. Indeed, if there was room for another sculpture in the grounds, it should be of ordinary people delivering a petition to lawmakers.

Keeping the grounds as open and unfenced as possible is therefore critical. A new, bespoke law for the parliamentary precinct – including clear pathways for lawful and orderly protest – should be created.

Rules with consequences

It’s important to remember that the right to protest is not absolute. There is no right to violent or unlawful protest. But while existing laws for prosecuting lawbreakers are adequate, there are clear gaps.

Firstly, New Zealand has more laws about respecting the flag than about protecting the epicentre of its democracy. Even at a symbolic level, this needs to change.

Read more:
The extremism visible at the parliament protest has been growing in NZ for years – is enough being done?

A starting point would be to place parliament alongside Te Pitowhenua, the Waitangi Treaty Grounds, as a national historic landmark. Citizens should be encouraged to look at the capital of the nation’s political and legal history with the same respect.

Currently, parliament grounds are vested in the Queen under the effective control of the Speaker of the House, whose job it is to allow and moderate protests. The rules prohibit a variety of actions, including:

• damaging lawns and flower beds

• interfering with traffic flows and driving onto the grounds

• mounting the main steps of parliament or interfering with the use of parliament buildings

• excessive amplified sound and erecting structures such as tents

• general breaches of the peace and protests lasting more than eight hours or into the night.

To enforce the rules, the speaker can issue a notice under the Trespass Act. But the ineffectual nature of these powers was laid bare during the occupation, with protesters largely indifferent to the weak penalties.

Any new law specific to the parliamentary precinct should uphold the existing right and ability to lawfully and peacefully protest, but increase the penalties for non-compliance.

Funding and foreign interference

Beyond the behaviour of protesters, their ideological origins and funding need to be better understood. Similar “anti-mandate” protests elsewhere are suspected of having received foreign funding. Did this happen in New Zealand?

It’s an important and difficult question. The flow of charitable support across borders for lawful purposes is a good thing. But charitable or other financial support may not always be benign.

Read more:
How protesters demanding ‘freedom’ from COVID restrictions ignore the way liberty really works

There are already laws to protect New Zealand elections from foreign interference by banning foreign donations to political parties and candidates. That concern needs to extend to foreign interests trying to foster lawless or extremist behaviour within New Zealand protest movements.

Such transparency will necessarily involve examining the events at Parliament (and other protest locations) as a starting point, to see whether groups and individuals, either here and/or overseas, attempted to “incite, procure, or encourage violence, lawlessness, or disorder” under the Crimes Act, or breached broadcasting standards and advertising codes. There are also civil law questions, such as whether there was any wrongdoing by registered charities.

And beyond the legal considerations, there is the vexed question of how misinformation has spread as fast as the COVID virus itself.

Read more:
Protesting during a pandemic: New Zealand’s balancing act between a long tradition of protests and COVID rules

** Defending dissent**

None of this is simple. And in the past, New Zealand has sometimes responded to protest or dissent heavy-handedly – for example after the hunger marches in 1932 and the waterfront lockout of 1951.

At other times, wiser counsel prevailed when it came to mending the fabric of society. An example of this was the creation of Independent Police Conduct Authority in the decade after the 1981 Springbok tour protests.

The challenge for lawmakers this time is to reach for deeper solutions t*hat address the importance of protest, but also fix the problem of how poorly the epicentre of our democracy was respected and defended. At the same time, understanding how this protest was different will be important.*

Clamping down on future protests is not the answer. Equally, preventing another episode such as the country has just witnessed is urgent.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The parliament occupation is over – now New Zealand needs new laws to protect the ‘epicentre of its democracy’ – https://theconversation.com/the-parliament-occupation-is-over-now-new-zealand-needs-new-laws-to-protect-the-epicentre-of-its-democracy-179751

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

As well as her interviews with politicians and experts, Politics with Michelle Grattan now includes “Word from The Hill”, where she discusses the news with members of The Conversation politics team.

In this podcast, Michelle and politics + society editor Amanda Dunn talk about Anthony Albanese’s handling of the bullying allegations mounted by friends of the late senator Kimberly Kitching, Labor’s sweeping victory in the South Australian election, and next week’s budget which will contain measures targeting the cost of living, which is escalating as an election issue.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Word from The Hill: Labor will give human rights award in memory of Kitching – https://theconversation.com/word-from-the-hill-labor-will-give-human-rights-award-in-memory-of-kitching-179773

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dana M Bergstrom, Principal Research Scientist, University of Wollongong

Record-breaking heatwaves hit both Antarctica and the Arctic simultaneously this week, with temperatures reaching 47℃ and 30℃ higher than normal.

Heatwaves are bizarre at any time in Antarctica, but particularly now at the equinox as Antarctica is about to descend into winter darkness. Likewise, up north, the Arctic is just emerging from winter.

Are these two heatwaves linked? We don’t know yet, and it’s most likely a coincidence. But we do know weather systems in Antarctica and the Arctic are connected to regions nearest to them, and these connections sometimes reach all the way to the tropics.

And is climate change the cause? It might be. While it’s too soon to say for sure, we do know climate change is making polar heatwaves more common and severe, and the poles are warming faster than the global average.

So let’s take a closer look at what’s driving the extreme anomalies for each region, and the flow-on effects for polar wildlife like penguins and polar bears.

What happened in Antarctica?

Antarctica’s heatwave was driven by a slow, intense high pressure system located southeast of Australia, which carried vast amounts of warm air and moisture deep into Antarctica’s interior. It was coupled with a very intense low pressure system over the east Antarctic interior.

To make matters worse, cloud cover over the Antarctic ice plateau trapped heat radiating from the surface.

Since it’s autumn in Antarctica, temperatures in the continent’s interior weren’t high enough to melt glaciers and the ice cap. But that’s not to say large swings in temperature didn’t occur.

For example, Vostok in the middle of the ice plateau hit a provisional high of -17.7℃ (15℃ higher than previous record of -32.6℃). Concordia, the Italian-French research station also on the high plateau, experienced its highest ever temperature for any month, which was about 40℃ above the March average.

The story is very different on the coast as rain fell, which isn’t really common for the continent.

The rain was driven primarily by an atmospheric river – a narrow band of moisture collected from warm oceans. Atmospheric rivers are found on the edge of low pressure systems and can move large amounts of water across vast distances, at scales greater than continents.

Despite their rarity, atmospheric rivers make an important contribution to the continent’s ice sheets, as they dump relatively large amounts of snow. When surface temperatures rise above freezing, rain rather than snow falls over Antarctica.

Last Monday (March 14) air temperatures at the Australian Casey Station reached a maximum of -1.9℃. Two days later, they were more like mid-summer temperatures, reaching a new March maximum of 5.6℃, which will melt ice.

This is the second heatwave at Casey Station in two years. In February 2020, Casey hit 9.2℃, followed by a shocking high of 18.3℃ on the Antarctic Peninsula.

Read more:
Anatomy of a heatwave: how Antarctica recorded a 20.75°C day last month

So what might this mean for wildlife?

Adélie penguins, which live across the entire Antarctic coastline, have recently finished their summer breeding. But thankfully, the Adélie penguin chicks had already left for sea to start hunting for food on their own, so the heatwave did not impact them.

The rain may have affected the local plant life, such as mosses, especially as they were in their annual phase of drying out for the winter. But we won’t know if there’s any damage to the plants until next summer when we can visit the moss beds again.

What about the Arctic?

A similar weather pattern occurred last week in the Arctic. An intense low pressure system began forming off the north-east coast of the United States. An atmospheric river formed at its junction with an adjacent high pressure system.

This weather pattern funnelled warm air into the Arctic circle. Svalbald, in Norway, recorded a new maximum temperature of 3.9℃.

US researchers called the low pressure system a “bomb cyclone” because it formed so rapidly, undergoing the delightfully termed “bombogenesis”.

Winter sea ice conditions this year were already very low, and on land there was recent record-breaking rain across Greenland.

If the warm conditions cause sea ice to break up earlier than normal, it could have dire impacts for many animals. For example, sea ice is a crucial habitat for polar bears, enabling them to hunt seals and travel long distances.

Many people live in the Arctic, including Arctic Indigenous people, and we know losing sea ice disrupts subsistence hunting and cultural practices.

What’s more, the bomb cyclone weather system brought chaotic weather to many populated areas of the Northern Hemisphere. In northern Norway, for instance, flowers have began blooming early due to three weeks of abnormally warm weather.

A harbinger for the future

Modelling suggests large-scale climate patterns are become more variable. This means this seemingly one-off heatwave may be a harbinger for the future under climate change.

In particular, the Arctic has been warming twice as fast as the rest of the world. This is because the melting sea ice reveals more ocean beneath, and the ocean absorbs more heat as it’s darker.

In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects Arctic sea ice to continue its current retreat, with ice-free summers possible by the 2050s.

Antarctica’s future looks similarly concerning. The IPCC finds global warming between 2℃ and 3℃ this century would see the West Antarctic Ice Sheet almost completely lost. Bringing global emissions down to net zero as fast as possible will help avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

Read more:
Each Antarctic tourist effectively melts 83 tonnes of snow – new research

Dana Bergstrom works for the Australian Antarctic Division and is a Visiting Fellow at the University of Wollongong. Her research and fieldwork in Antarctica was supported by the Australian Antarctic Division.

Sharon Robinson works for the University of Wollongong. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Antarctic Science Grants. She is a member of the United Nations Environment Programme Environmental Effects Assessment Panel.

Simon Alexander works for the Australian Antarctic Division and is part of the Australian Antarctic Program Partnership at the University of Tasmania. His Antarctic research was supported by the Australian Antarctic Division

– ref. Record-smashing heatwaves are hitting Antarctica and the Arctic simultaneously. Here’s what’s driving them, and how they’ll impact wildlife – https://theconversation.com/record-smashing-heatwaves-are-hitting-antarctica-and-the-arctic-simultaneously-heres-whats-driving-them-and-how-theyll-impact-wildlife-179659

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thomas Lumley, Professor of Biostatistics, University of Auckland

New Zealand’s Omicron wave may be peaking, but we’ll continue to record thousands of new cases each day and most people who test positive or are hospitalised with COVID will have been vaccinated.

This is exactly what we should expect and it’s no reason to doubt vaccine effectiveness.

The principal reason why a lot of COVID cases are vaccinated is because most New Zealanders are now vaccinated. As of today, about 94% of people 12 years and older have had two or more vaccine doses, and even if their risk of catching COVID is significantly lower than for an unvaccinated person, they vastly outnumber those who aren’t.

In the week ending March 13, about 93% of the 118,000 confirmed cases 12 years and older were in people with two or more doses. But such crude proportions of cases aren’t all that good an indicator of vaccine effectiveness.

Last year, during the Delta outbreak, the proportions were misleading in the other direction. The rate of cases in people who were unvaccinated was about 20 times that in vaccinated people.

Unfortunately, some commentators talked about that ratio as if it was all a real benefit of vaccination. It wasn’t.

Read more:
How effective are COVID-19 vaccines? Here’s what the stats mean … and what they don’t

The outbreak in Auckland was nearly under control and was spreading among unvaccinated people partly because they had less resistance to infection, but also because they were more likely to come into contact with infected people. Social clustering leads to disease clustering.

What case numbers can tell us

For Delta, two doses of the vaccine produced very good immunity, especially in the short term. The vaccine is less effective for Omicron; two doses give only partial immunity even in the short term, and the effectiveness wears off over time.

About 60% of people 12 years and older have had a booster dose, and in the week ending March 13, only 42% of cases were in people who had been boosted. We can see that boosters help.

Counting cases remains important, because even a non-hospitalised case of COVID can be unpleasant, and because we don’t know how likely a mild case is to lead to long COVID and months or years of disability. We can’t draw strong conclusions from numbers of cases, though.

Many cases, probably most cases, are not being diagnosed at the moment. Unvaccinated people will be less likely to get tested, especially in mild cases of the disease, either because of poor access to the health system or because they don’t think COVID is important. We can’t really tell how much bias this introduces into the numbers.

Hospitalisations and deaths are much more reliably counted than cases. Results from clinical trials and careful population studies of COVID vaccines consistently show the vaccines to be more effective in preventing more serious disease, especially with the new variants. There are plausible biological explanations for this, based on different parts of our immune response.

Antibodies against the COVID virus seem to be affected more by differences between strains than T-cells are; antibodies are probably more important for preventing initial infection and less important for fighting serious disease.

More benefit in protecting from serious disease

When we look at hospitalisations and deaths, the difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated people is much more dramatic. In the week ending March 13, 65% of people over 12 hospitalised were vaccinated, compared to 94% in the population; 32% had a booster dose, compared to 60% in the population. The 5% of unvaccinated people over 12 contributed 20% of hospitalisations.

The number of deaths is, fortunately, too small for the Ministry of Health to publish detailed weekly breakdowns, but vaccinated people are a minority over the period since August.

The relatively small number of deaths in New Zealand’s Omicron wave also shows the effectiveness of the vaccine. Hong Kong had largely eliminated COVID until Omicron; they are now getting a large outbreak similar to New Zealand’s, but only in the number of cases. Over the past week, Hong Kong averaged 280 deaths per day, in a population less than twice that of New Zealand.

The vaccination rate in Hong Kong is much lower. About 71% are fully vaccinated and only 30% have had a booster. Among elderly people, who are at much greater risk from COVID, the vaccination rate is especially lower, with two-thirds of people over 80 and more than a third of those aged 70-80 having been unvaccinated when Omicron hit.

Towards fair comparisons

Comparing across whole populations this way gives some indication of the vaccine benefit, but it is very imprecise. We don’t choose randomly who gets the vaccine and who doesn’t.

In New Zealand, for example, essentially everyone over 75 has been vaccinated. Since people over 75 are much more likely to need hospital care than younger people, the higher vaccination rate in people over 75 makes the vaccine look less effective than it really is.

Statisticians call this “confounding by indication”. Auckland has always had more exposure to new outbreaks and had higher vaccination rates than the rest of the country; this again tends to make the vaccine look less effective that it really is.

Read more:
How does the immune system mobilize in response to a COVID-19 infection or a vaccine? 5 essential reads

More reliable comparisons require either random allocation of vaccine to people, as in the clinical trials performed before the vaccines were approved, or careful statistical matching of vaccinated and unvaccinated groups to get a fair comparison.

Omicron is too recent to have useful clinical trial data, but peer-reviewed statistical analyses of individual case data from the United Kingdom, the United States, and South Africa all agree the vaccines are beneficial.

There’s some evidence vaccination also reduces the risk and severity of long COVID, the most likely bad outcome for healthy people. But there obviously hasn’t been time to do this sort of comparison specifically for the Omicron variant.

Overall, the most reliable comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated people have consistently shown a benefit of vaccination. The effectiveness of the vaccines does wear off over time, and the effectiveness is lower against Omicron than it was against Delta or the original COVID strain, but it still improves your chances of avoiding infection, keeping out of hospital and making a full recovery.

Thomas Lumley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Most COVID patients in NZ’s Omicron outbreak are vaccinated, but that’s no reason to doubt vaccine benefits – https://theconversation.com/most-covid-patients-in-nzs-omicron-outbreak-are-vaccinated-but-thats-no-reason-to-doubt-vaccine-benefits-179648

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hal Swerissen, Emeritus Professor, La Trobe University

You don’t have to look to far to find examples of poor quality residential aged care. Most recently, residents have too often been un-vaccinated, frightened, isolated, and have died alone in aged care facilities during the pandemic.

It’s tempting to see poor quality as simply the result of extreme circumstances or bad actors behaving incompetently or unscrupulously.

But these problems existed well before COVID. As the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety found, they’re built into the system.

Unlike other sectors, such as disability and mental health, Australia doesn’t have a clearly defined, rights-based framework of outcomes for older people when they need care.

Instead, the emphasis has been on managing costs. This has been a particular problem for residential aged care. As a result, Australian residential care has become more privatised and marketised over the past 25 years.

So how has that affected the quality of care? And what can governments do to address this issue?

Snapshot of residential aged care in Australia

The Australian residential aged care system includes around 2,700 services. These are made up of:

• private for-profit organisations, which operate 34% of services
• not-for-profit providers, 57% of services
• government providers, 9% of services.

Around 200,000 Australians live in residential care, at an average cost of around A$90,000 per year. Tax payers contributed around A$13.6 billion in 2019–20.

How do these facilities compare?

Governments want the aged care sector to provide high quality care as efficiently as possible.

In theory, the introduction of private operators promotes market competition. Competition should improve efficiency while maintaining quality.

In practice, there is little evidence this is true – quality costs more.

State government services, which tend to be smaller, charge residents less and provide better quality care than for-profit and not-for-profit providers. This includes nursing hours worked per resident, the rate of assaults per resident, complaints per resident, the use of antipsychotic drugs, and avoidable early deaths.

In research classifying different types of aged care into three tiers of quality (best, middle or worst), just 4% of for-profit providers were in the highest quality tier.

Read more:
There are problems in aged care, but more competition isn’t the solution

Profits increase when costs are kept down. For-profit providers have to deliver returns for their share holders, which leaves less money to reinvest in services compared with not-for-profit and government services.

Pressure to increase efficiency reduces quality through cost-cutting. This includes reduced staffing levels, lower wages and reduced spending on food and other living items for residents. These pressures are there for all aged care providers, but they are greater when profits have to be maintained.

Cutting staffing costs

Staffing costs make up 70% of residential care operating expenses.

Providers reduce staffing costs through the management of staffing ratios and the use of less costly (unskilled) labour. This includes spreading activities such as showering and meals over longer periods, limiting the time scheduled for individual support, and increasing the size of resident groups supported by individual staff members.

The result has been residential care staff are poorly paid and it’s hard to attract and retain them. By international standards, more than half of aged care residents live in facilities with unacceptable levels of staffing. These pressures are greater among for-profit providers.

Read more:
When aged care workers earn just $22 an hour, a one-off payment won’t fix the wage problem

Staff ratios and staff skills and capabilities directly affect the quality of care. Yet one-third of the personal care staff in residential care facilities lack formal qualifications in aged care.

Under-staffing and inadequate training increases the risk of inappropriate and unsafe care and reduces the chance of residents receiving timely care and support. This results in neglect, loneliness and poor health outcomes.

Economies of scale

Private providers optimise profits by building larger institutions where they can more easily manage costs.

Large scale services with more than a hundred beds made up nearly half of the 220,000 residential places available in 2020. And they have increased rapidly, particularly in the private sector. Between 2010 and 2020, private for-profit places increased by one-third and the number of large-scale private places more than doubled.

This trend is mirrored by the increasing market share of the top ten provider groups.

But size affects quality

Smaller aged care facilities tend to deliver higher quality care.

Large scale institutions, meanwhile, lead to routinised and impersonal environments for both staff and residents. The larger the residential facility, the more likely you are to eat, sleep, shower and move about “on the clock” according to institutional routines.

As a result, residents are often lonely, isolated, unhappy and powerless.

Facilities like these were abandoned a generation ago for people with disabilities and mental illness. Not surprisingly, older Australians overwhelming prefer home and community care, even when they have complex health needs.

What can the government do?

There has been too much emphasis on cost and profit for providers and not enough on quality and outcomes for residents.

The federal government needs to restructure residential aged care to get a better balance between quality and cost. This will require an overhaul of regulation, funding and system management, to put much more emphasis on the quality of resident outcomes and experience.

In particular, residential care should be required to provide:

• small scale, home-like environments
• better integration with community services and facilities for residents
• improved staffing ratios and staff qualifications.

This will cost more.

Read more:
How good design can make aged care facilities feel more like home

The outcomes residents experience in residential services should be monitored much more regularly. And providers must be held accountable for the quality and performance of their services, with funding tied to quality and outcomes – with real consequences for providers who fail to meet these outcomes.

Aged care reform may become a key election issue in the coming months, so we’ll be watching next week’s federal budget closely for new announcements.

Hal Swerissen is a non Executive Director of the Murray PHN.

– ref. Quality costs more. Very few aged care facilities deliver high quality care while also making a profit – https://theconversation.com/quality-costs-more-very-few-aged-care-facilities-deliver-high-quality-care-while-also-making-a-profit-178022

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

The biggest question relating to the management of the economy right now has nothing to do with next week’s budget. It has everything to do with the Reserve Bank and the board meetings that will follow it.

The question facing the board – the biggest there is when it comes to how the next few years are going to play out – is whether to hike interest rates just because prices are climbing.

On the face of it, it seems like no question at all. It is widely believed that that’s what the Reserve Bank does, mechanically. When inflation climbs above 3% (it’s currently 3.5%) the board hikes interest rates to bring it back down to somewhere within the bank’s target band of 2-3%.

It’s what it did the last time inflation headed beyond its target zone in 2010.

But the inflation we’ve got this time is different, and failing to recognise that misreads the bank’s rationale for pushing up rates, and what it is likely to do.

Inflation, but not as we’ve known it

The Reserve Bank does indeed target an inflation rate of 2-3%. The target is set down in a formal agreement with the treasurer, renewed each time a new treasurer or governor takes office.

Just about the only tool the bank has to achieve its inflation target is interest rates. If inflation is below the target, it can cut interest rates to make finance easier in the hope the extra money will encourage us to spend more and push up prices.

If inflation is above the target, it can push up rates so it becomes harder to borrow and interest payments become more onerous, taking money out of the economy and giving us less to push up prices with.

Here’s how the bank itself puts it:

If the economy is growing very strongly, demand is very buoyant and that’s pushing up prices, we might need to raise interest rates to slow the economy, to get things back onto an even keel.

Note the qualifier: “if demand is very buoyant and that’s pushing up prices”.

Buoyant demand (spending) is most certainly not the main thing pushing up prices now. The main things are beyond the Reserve Bank’s power to control.

Petrol prices have skyrocketed because of an invasion half a world away. It’s also the reason the global prices of wheat, barley and sunflower oil are climbing.

Food processors such as SPC say higher oil and food prices combined threaten to push up the price of a can of baked beans more than 20%.

The price of a set of tyres is set to climb from A$500 to $750 because tyres are made from oil.

Everything that is shipped and trucked using oil is set to cost more.

And trucks and cars themselves are climbing in price because of a global shortage of computer chips.

And it might get worse. Last week China locked down the high tech hub of Shenzhen, said to be the source of 90% of the world’s electronic goods, among them televisions, air conditioning units and smartphones. It reopened the city this week after testing its 17.5 million residents for COVID.

It’s easy to see why prices have shot up, and easy to see why they might not come down for a while. What is harder to see is how pushing up interest rates to crimp demand, to force Australians to spend less, would do anything to stop it.

What’s missing is inflation psychology

It’s a view Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe seems to endorse. He said this month that what he is on the lookout for is “inflation psychology” – the view that price rises will lead to wage rises, which will lead to price rises in an upward spiral.

It used to be how things worked. Australians who are old enough will remember when, if they saw something at a price they liked, they rushed out to buy it before it climbed in price. Australians born more recently have learnt not to bother.

Read more:
Inflation hits 3.5%, but it won’t budge the Reserve Bank on interest rates

The old psychology could come back, but wages growth – which would have to be high if that sort of thing was to happen – has remained historically low at 2.3%, little more than it was before COVID.

When surveyed, trade union officials expect little more (2.4%) in the year ahead.

It is true that these days most Australians aren’t in trade unions. So the Reserve Bank seeks out the views of ordinary households. On average, those surveyed expect wage growth in the year ahead of just 0.8%, which is next to nothing. The psychology hasn’t taken hold.

Until it does, it is best to think about most of what has happened as a series of isolated externally-driven price rises that have dented our standard of living.

Pushing up interest rates to dent living standards further won’t stop them.

Read more:
Why there’s no magic jobless rate to increase Australians’ wages

The Reserve Bank is right to be on the lookout for internally-driven, self-sustaining inflation. We will know it when we see it – but we’re not seeing it yet.

Asked on ABC’s 7.30 this week whether there was a role for higher interest rates in an oil crisis, a former Reserve Bank board member, Warwick McKibbon, said

the worst thing a central bank can do in a supply shock or an oil crisis is to target inflation, because by targeting inflation you push downward pressure on the real economy

He went on to say that if the bank did it without success and then kept doing it, it would bring on a recession. I am sure the bank doesn’t want to do that.

Peter Martin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why Australia’s Reserve Bank won’t hike interest rates just yet – https://theconversation.com/why-australias-reserve-bank-wont-hike-interest-rates-just-yet-179633

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Mazzola, Lecturer Banking and Finance, Faculty of Business and Law, University of Wollongong

Fearing Russia’s elite will evade economic sanctions by converting their wealth to cryptocurrency, high-profile US Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren has introduced a bill into US Congress to stymie Russian crypto transactions.

Warren warned a Senate committee hearing:

So no one can argue that Russia can evade all sanctions by moving all its assets into crypto. But for Putin’s oligarchs who are trying to hide, you know, a billion or two of their wealth, crypto looks like a pretty good option.

The bill does not seek to impose a blanket ban on all Russian cryptocurrency transactions. But it would give the US government the authority to ban US companies from processing cryptocurrency transactions connected to sanctioned Russian accounts, and to apply secondary sanctions to foreign cryptocurrency exchanges doing business with sanctioned Russian individuals, companies or government agencies.

But is it even necessary?

Even though the evidence shows that Russian cryptocurrency transactions have been increasing in both number and value in the past month, the scale suggests buyers are ordinary Russians seeking to hold on to their savings as the value of the ruble crashes.

Read more:
During the cold war, US and Europe were just as divided over Russia sanctions – here’s how it played out

Targeting sanctions

The economic sanctions imposed on Russia for invading Ukraine are naturally hurting the entire Russian economy. Their intended target, though, is to hit Putin and the billionaire oligarchs who support his rule where it hurts most.

A cornerstone of this strategy is stopping these individuals from using or moving their wealth around by freezing the assets they hold overseas and blocking financial transactions.

But the continued operation of cryptocurrency exchanges in Russia, such as Binance, Yobit and Local Bitcoins, has been worrying US officials for some time. Even before Russia’s latest invasion of Ukraine, the US Treasury Department warned cryptocurrencies could undermine the sanctions already imposed on Russia over its 2014 annexation of Crimea.

Ruble’s falling value

Our first graph below shows why ordinary Russians have good reason to buy cryptocurrency.

Since the February 24 invasion of Ukraine, the ruble’s value against the US dollar has fallen by as much as 40%, from $US1 being worth 76 rubles to 132 rubles. At the time of publication, $US1 was worth about 109 rubles.

The ruble falls off a cliff

More rubles going into Bitcoin

The next graph shows the value of Bitcoin transactions by Russian accounts in rubles.

Bitcoin is not the only cryptocurrency Russians could buy, but it is by far the most traded and trusted of all cryptocurrency offerings, so is a useful proxy for the market. This data comes from Coin Dance, a leading Bitcoin statistics and services company.

Since the war began on February 24 until time of publication, spending on Bitcoin using rubles has increased by 260%.

Bitcoin trading volumes by Russian accounts in rubles (weekly)

This is an impressive rise, but less impressive when the devaluation of the ruble is factored in. The weekly value of rubles being converted into Bitcoin was about $US28 million last week, compared with about $US14 million in mid-February. That’s a 100% rise.

In global terms, this is still a tiny percentage of the money going into Bitcoin. According to cryptocurrency data provider Kaiko, each week between $US20 billion to US$40 billion is spent on Bitcoin. So the Bitcoin-ruble trade represents less than 0.14% of the total.

Small transaction size

It is also important to consider the number of accounts and size of average transactions.

According to Glassnode, another cryptocurrency data service, the number of Russian Bitcoin accounts has increased from 39.9 million to 40.7 million since the February invasion. (The Russian population is about 144 million.)

The daily average size of each Bitcoin-ruble transaction – based on data from the the largest exchange in Russia, Binance – has risen to $US580 by mid-February. This compares to the average value of American transactions being $US2,198 at the same time.

Read more:
Bitcoin is helping both sides in Ukraine conflict, but it won’t wreck Russian sanctions

The capacity to put large amounts of rubles through crypto exchanges operating in Russia is also heavily constrained by the relatively low liquidity in Russian crypto trade.

Liquidity refers to the ease with which an asset or security – in this case Bitcoin – can be converted from or into cash without affecting its market price. When a market has more buyers and sellers, it becomes easier to complete a transaction, and the less impact there is on the exchange rate. With fewer buyers and sellers, it is harder.

A measure of the liquidity of the Russian Bitcoin exchanges is the value of orders submitted by buyers and sellers at any given time. This is about US$200,000, compared with $US22 million for US-based crypto exchanges – a volume 110 times larger.

These statistics suggest anyone wishing to trade large volumes of Bitcoin against the ruble will have difficulties.

Small-time investors

The evidence therefore points to most of the uptick in Russian cryptocurrency trading being dominated by small-time investors.

It is possible that Putin and his cronies could be using hundreds or thousands of accounts to perform many small-scale transactions to move their fortunes around.

But it’s more likely their wealth is mostly invested through shell companies in assets in places like Monaco, the British Virgin Islands, Ireland or even the US district of Delaware.

Read more:
The next Pandora Papers exposé is inevitable – unless governments do more on two key reforms

There is little argument against the strategy of using economic sanctions to combat recalcitrant regimes. Other than direct military intervention, there are few other meaningful weapons available. But a detailed analysis of any proposed sanction beforehand is needed so as to not overestimate its likely effectiveness.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Are Russia’s elite really using cryptocurrency to evade sanctions? – https://theconversation.com/are-russias-elite-really-using-cryptocurrency-to-evade-sanctions-179559

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ronli Sifris, Senior lecturer in law, Deputy Director of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Monash University

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a nightmare for prospective parents engaged in surrogacy arrangements in the country.

Ukraine has become a popular destination for surrogacy. While exact numbers are difficult to obtain, it’s estimated between 2,000 and 2,500 babies are born each year via surrogacy in Ukraine.

BioTexCom, one of the largest fertility clinics in Ukraine, is expecting 200 babies to be born via surrogacy by the end of May.

More than ten Australian families are expecting babies to be born via surrogacy in Ukraine by the first week of May.

But it’s currently extremely challenging for such parents to cross the border into Ukraine to meet their babies. This is a disaster for the babies, the surrogates and the intended parents.

The babies are left in limbo, born into a war zone without their parents to look after them. The surrogates have to give birth in a war zone and then aren’t able to hand the babies over to the intended parents.

As for the intended parents, one can hardly imagine how distressing it must be to know your baby has been born, or is about to be born, but not know how or when you can reach them.

The situation highlights why Australia must change its surrogacy laws.

Why are Australians travelling to Ukraine for surrogacy?

Ukraine is a popular surrogacy destination for several reasons.

One is financial. Surrogacy in Ukraine is more affordable than in the United States, for example. Surrogacy in Ukraine is estimated to cost approximately USD $40,000 (A$54,000), whereas surrogacy in the United States can cost as much as USD $150,000 (A$202,000).

Another is legal. Under Ukrainian law, unlike in Australia for example, the intended parents are recognised as the legal parents of a child born through surrogacy at birth.

Although it’s worth noting only heterosexual married couples are able to access surrogacy in the country.

Read more:
Arrests and uncertainty overseas show why Australia must legalise compensated surrogacy

For the vast majority of people, surrogacy isn’t their preferred way to have a child, but an option of last resort.

For example, for one Australian couple, the topic of a recent Sydney Morning Herald article, surrogacy was their only option. They’d lost three pregnancies, and their use of surrogacy in Ukraine was the culmination of an excruciating six-year journey.

Australian laws encouraging cross-border surrogacy

The stress involved in cross-border surrogacy highlights this further. The vast majority of Australians who travel overseas to access surrogacy arrangements would prefer to do so back home, but Australian law presents a significant obstacle.

In Australia, only “altruistic surrogacy” is permitted, where the surrogate mother doesn’t benefit financially from the arrangement.

But “compensated” or “commercial” surrogacy, where the surrogate does receive a financial benefit, is prohibited.

The prohibition of compensation is problematic for a number of reasons. From the perspective of the surrogate, it’s inherently exploitative to refuse to allow a woman to be paid for her reproductive labour. And the obsession with “altruism” amplifies problematic stereotypes and expectations of the “self-sacrificing woman”.

From the perspective of intended parents, the prohibition of compensation has led to a predictable dearth of Australian women willing to become surrogates.

This has fuelled the popularity of cross-border compensated surrogacy, which is illegal for residents of New South Wales, Queensland and the ACT but widely undertaken.

What’s the solution?

All Australian states and territories should amend their laws to allow for compensated surrogacy.

Regulating behaviour that is already occurring, and to which law enforcement is turning a blind eye, has three key benefits:

1. regulation ensures the rights of all parties are protected properly. Regulation in Australia can prevent exploitation abroad

2. in a country like Australia, which has a social safety net in place to protect those who are most vulnerable, the question of compensation can be separated from exploitation

3. compensation is a matter of justice. It’s unjust to allow many of the people involved in providing surrogacy – clinics, lawyers, counsellors and others – to be compensated for their time and services, but not the person doing the most labour and assuming the greatest risk.

The anxiety around legalising and regulating compensated surrogacy in Australia does not make sense.

Australia’s legal system has the capability to do this, and in doing so, would minimise the risk of exploitation.

This would also likely reduce the number of Australians going overseas for compensated surrogacy, with the risks and stressors that comes with that.

The most sensible solution, and the solution that best protects the rights of all involved, is for Australia to properly regulate (rather than prohibit) compensated surrogacy arrangements so desperate intended parents aren’t forced overseas.

Ronli Sifris does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Russia’s invasion is wreaking havoc with surrogacy in Ukraine. It shows why Australia must change its laws – https://theconversation.com/russias-invasion-is-wreaking-havoc-with-surrogacy-in-ukraine-it-shows-why-australia-must-change-its-laws-179652

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah Dahlen, Professor of Midwifery, Associate Dean Research and HDR, Midwifery Discipline Leader, Western Sydney University

While most expectant mothers are excited, many are also anxious about giving birth, especially first-time mothers. Perineal trauma is something many expectant mums are fearful about.

It is hard to comprehend being able to give birth to an entire human, but a woman’s vagina is pretty amazing, and nature has designed it to accommodate the baby. Hormones, increased blood supply and a clever, stretchy design all play a role in making this happen. No muscles in the female body are able to stretch without rupturing as much as those of the pelvic floor.

The perineum is the soft tissue between a woman’s vagina and anus, and it has the capacity to stretch significantly during birth. However, it can tear, or may be surgically cut if medically indicated and consented to by the woman (called an episiotomy).

When women have their first baby, they are more likely to have some perineal tearing. Most tears heal well and are never thought about again, but for some women there is ongoing pain and psychological trauma.

Read more:
Why labour is such a pain – and how to reduce it

Perineal trauma prevalence

There are different degrees of perineal trauma (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th). First-degree (involves skin but not muscle) and second-degree tears (involves perineal muscles) are the most common. Third- and fourth-degree tears, known collectively as “severe perineal trauma” are more serious, as they also involve the anal area and can lead to long term consequences, such as pain and incontinence for women.

In Australia, the latest statistics show more than one in four women have no perineal tearing during the birth (more likely when not the first baby), 21% have a 1st degree tear, 30% have a 2nd degree tear and less than 3% have a 3rd or 4th degree tear (more common with the first baby).

Around 24% have an episiotomy, which is worrying as this has doubled in the past ten years (12% in 2009), and there is evidence the recovery is more painful than if the perineum tears naturally.

Read more:
Episiotomy during childbirth: not just a ‘little snip’

There is little doubt the rates of perineal trauma have increased over the past 100 years, with early midwife records indicating most women had no tearing.

An increase in the use of birthing interventions such as vacuum, forceps and episiotomy (which can cause further tearing), women giving birth at an older age to fewer babies, and greater vigilance by midwives and doctors when examining the perineum after birth have all played a role in the increased perineal trauma rates we see today.

Rates of perineal trauma vary across the country, with one report finding a 12-fold difference between hospitals, ranging from six per 1,000 births in some hospitals to 71 per 1,000 births in others.

This difference could come from varying hospital practices such as more frequent use of forceps and vacuum, or from the demographics of the women in a given area (more women having their first baby, or even the country of birth of the women).

How to reduce perineal tearing

There are recommendations on how to reduce the chance of perineal tearing and trauma, based in part on our research.

During pregnancy:

1) perineal self-massage (or with help from your partner) after 34 weeks of pregnancy can help protect your perineum and reduce the risk of third- and fourth-degree perineal tears

2) pelvic floor muscle training may help prepare you for labour and birth and reduce the possibility of a third- or fourth-degree perineal tear.

During a vaginal birth:

3) applying warm compresses to the perineum during the second stage of labour (when pushing and giving birth) can significantly reduce the risk of a third or fourth degree perineal tear

4) slowing the rate at which the baby’s head and shoulders emerge, with the help of your birth attendants, may help prevent perineal injuries

5) perineal massage performed by your health-care professional during the second stage of labour may reduce the risk of third- and fourth-degree perineal tears. However, some women may not feel comfortable with this option, and it is not recommended for everyone

6) listening carefully to your midwife’s voice and following their instructions can help the baby emerge from your vagina gently and slowly. For example, your midwife will tell you to breathe and not push just before your baby is born

7) perineal trauma is less common when women give birth in home-like environments such as at home or in a birth centre, where they have less medical intervention, can use water for pain relief and give birth in upright birth positions.

In a new paper we have also found having two midwives in the room in the late stage of birth, instead of one, can reduce perineal trauma by up to 31%. Our study found having a second midwife in the room meant one of them was focused on the woman at all times, and was not distracted by other things that needed to be done. It also meant they could give suggestions and reinforce the first midwife’s words to the mother during the birth.

Read more:
Vaginal birth after caesarean increases the risk of serious perineal tear by 20%, our large-scale review shows

Treatment and recovery

Following the birth, your midwife or doctor will stitch any perineal trauma that needs to be repaired in the birthing room, and these stitches dissolve over the coming weeks. Some tears are minor and do not require stitches.

Most perineal wounds heal well by resting, applying ice for the first day or two if swollen, changing sanitary pads and keeping the perineum clean, gentle pelvic floor exercises after a couple of days to help healing, and adequate pain relief.

After birth, if you have problems with your perineum, don’t just put up with it. Contact your midwife or doctor to get further advice.

Hannah Dahlen receives funding from NHMRC and ARC.

Christine Rubertsson receives funding from Lund university, Regional South Funds (SUS), Government ALF research grants from Lund university and Lund university Hospital, Jan Hains Foundation.

Malin Edqvist receives funding from The Swedish Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare.

– ref. 7 ways to reduce perineal tearing during childbirth – https://theconversation.com/7-ways-to-reduce-perineal-tearing-during-childbirth-176670

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amanda Sibosado, Research Associate – Aboriginal Mental Health, Curtin University

Readers are advised that the following article contains mentions of sexual assault.

The Teach Us Consent movement – founded by Chanel Contos in 2021 – has gained bipartisan political support to mandate consent education in Australian schools from 2023. The movement was rapidly successful after collecting over 6,600 stories of people who had experienced sexual assault by someone when they were at school.

This was followed quickly by the federal government committing $189 million over five years to strengthen prevention and early intervention efforts in family, domestic and sexual violence.

Consent isn’t just about sex. Consent needs to be taught in the context of our rights to say no to anything we’re not comfortable with. That education needs to start early, hence why the proposed curriculum is from school years K-12.

Teach Us Consent has advocated for comprehensive consent education that moves beyond simply teaching the law or explaining that “no means no”. Consent in a sexual context includes – but is not limited to – respect, healthy relationships, gender stereotypes, ethics, communication and empathy.

As strong and emotive reactions to recent speeches by Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins show, issues of sexual violence and consent are gaining momentum at a national level. Yet, within these important discussions, the voices, experiences and needs of First Nations people are not widely represented or heard.

Drawing on the current momentum and interest in consent education, there is an opportunity to fund place-based, culturally appropriate and co-designed consent education with First Nations young people.

The response to sexual violence must move beyond simply adding “dot paintings” to mainstream curricula to address the conditions that make sexual violence an issue for many.

To have a real impact on young people and our communities, we need to be telling the whole story of women, gender and sexual violence in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s lives against the backdrop of colonisation.

Read more:
Friday essay: ‘fair game’, racial shame and the women who demanded more

Acknowledging the impacts of colonisation

Before colonisation, our diverse cultures were grounded in collective rights and responsibilities for people and Country.

Women were keepers of knowledge and Lore, and were responsible for passing knowledges down through our kinship lines. This involved educating and nurturing young girls as they transitioned into adulthood.

There were laws that regulated behaviours – sexual and otherwise – and women were revered in their roles as Elders, mothers and healers.

However, when Australia was colonised, Aboriginal women’s roles as teachers and matriarchs were rendered invisible by the colonisers’ gaze, guns and violence.

When children were taken and family members murdered, this led to families and communities being displaced, and their cultural roles disrupted. Australia’s assimilation policies laid the foundation for the entrenched racism and displacement we experience today.

This has contributed to First Nations people’s ongoing experience with inequalities in social and health indicators – including sexual and other violence.

The ongoing impact of colonisation, racism and cultural loss are key drivers of violence in First Nations communities. This needs to be understood and addressed if our experiences are to be genuinely included in the national narrative around sexual consent and violence.

Growing relationships with First Nations people, communities and organisations based on genuine respect and cultural strength is fundamental to developing culturally safe education around consent.

Read more:
Mandatory consent education is a huge win for Australia – but consent is just one small part of navigating relationships

Culturally secure co-design for consent curricula

Our Watch – a national leader in the primary prevention of violence against women and children in Australia – has worked closely with First Nations people to develop Changing the Picture. This is a resource to support the prevention of violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and children.

A co-design process would complement and build on the good work of Our Watch and those programs highlighted through this resource. It would draw on the professional and lived experiences of staff and communities working in this space.

Ways to approach consent education will vary depending on cultural, historical and local differences. Our communities need a curriculum that is flexible and adaptable enough to honour these diverse local and cultural needs.

To achieve this, collaboration must occur at all levels and stages of the design, rollout and evaluation of the new consent curriculum.

There has been further commitment to fund responses beyond the national curriculum development, but there must be targeted funding for First Nations to ensure the responses are culturally appropriate.

Read more:
‘We are a nation of jailers’: Jurrungu Ngan-ga is a whirlwind of bodily resistance

Making decisions “with” people instead of “for” people

Co-design with First Nations communities and organisations is about all stakeholders – government, experts on sexual violence, community, advocacy bodies, young people and researchers – working together.

A key principle of co-design is that lived experience participants – in this case Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people – are valued and respected and their knowledge is privileged.

A good example of culturally secure co-design is the Looking Forward project at Curtin University, in which methods were developed in a collaboration between Elders and young people.

The project includes two key truth-telling activities that build relationships and trust, ensuring the space is culturally secure: Storying and On Country.

Storying is the process of sitting as equals and sharing the story of who you are as a person outside your professional role or qualifications. Equally as important is the deep listening and connecting with others in the room through our shared experiences.

Storying is followed by an On Country event. Activities are led, held and weaved together by Elders who share stories and knowledge about Country. This helps to better understand the central role culture has in people’s social and emotional well-being and how to include this in work practices.

Due to the complex legacies of colonisation, the relationships that begin to form through Storying and On Country events are integral in building trust with First Nations people. This enables non-Indigenous people to develop an understanding of culture, kinship and spirit. These activities are part of addressing the racialised power differences and developing a genuine commitment from non-Indigenous people.

This approach forms the foundation for robust discussions that need to occur in the development of any consent education around sexual violence.

These programs may not use the words “consent education”, but they do address the legacy of colonisation that is a driver of sexual violence. Importantly, these examples create culturally safe spaces for all members of the community to engage in conversations about violence against women.

Read more:
Increased incarceration of First Nations women is interwoven with the experience of violence and trauma

Walking forward together

The federal government’s move to mandate consent education is a step in the right direction. If funded and resourced appropriately, it provides a unique opportunity to address sexual violence at a national level.

Moving forward, the voices, experiences and expertise of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples must be listened to. Historical and current colonial violence, as well as the strengths of culture, must be understood and incorporated.

Engaging with First Nations people working in and for the community is where we need to start.

Amanda Sibosado works for the Looking Forward Research Team, on Our Journey Our Story at Curtin University. Our Journey, Our Story is funded by the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) Million Minds Mission.

Michelle Webb works for the Looking Forward Research Team, on Our Journey Our Story at Curtin University. Our Journey, Our Story is funded by the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) Million Minds Mission

– ref. Consent education needs Blak voices for the safety and well-being of young First Nations people – https://theconversation.com/consent-education-needs-blak-voices-for-the-safety-and-well-being-of-young-first-nations-people-177823

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Claire Smith, Professor of Archaeology, College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, Flinders University

It is doubtful Vladimir Putin has visited the memorials along the Alley of the Heavenly Hundred Heroes in central Kyiv.

If he had, he might not have underestimated the will of ordinary Ukrainian people to fight – and die – for their country’s independence and their right to determine its future.

Many countries revere soldiers who have given their lives for their country. What is special about Ukraine’s memorialising is the depth of respect for individual citizens who died defending Ukraine’s liberation and continued independence.

Kyiv’s street memorial to the Heavenly Hundred Heroes features images of ordinary people killed during the 2014 Revolution of Dignity which overthrew the government of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych.

Those who died range in age from 16 to 83. They came from different age groups, genders, educational backgrounds and nationalities. They were entrepreneurs, pensioners, scientists, artists, students and activists.

After three months of peaceful demonstrations, they were attacked by government forces. They protected themselves with rudimentary, low-impact weapons including a catapult.

The Order of the Heavenly Hundred Heroes was established to recognise civil courage, patriotism, upholding the principles of democracy, human rights and freedoms.

Remembering the individuals

There are many ways Ukrainians remember the courage of ordinary individuals.

In 2015, the Soviet-era Defenders of the Fatherland Day was replaced by the Day of the Defenders. This holiday was created to honour veterans and fallen members of the armed forces. Its slogan is “strength of the unbowed”.

At marches on the Day of the Defenders and on Independence Day, people hold photographs of family members who have died supporting Ukraine’s independence.

Since the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014, Ukrainians have increasingly sought to erase Soviet ideological influence on their lands. Some Soviet-era monuments have been dismantled or reworked to emphasise Ukrainian identity.

Ukrainian memorials built over the last decade have been designed to bring attention to suppressed national memories, and to strengthen Ukrainian identity. Many of these were built out of grassroots initiatives, commemorating those who fell in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

A recent study by one of us (Anna Grew) looked at the intensely personal quality of these memorials. Funded by family members, colleagues or local authorities, these monuments do not depict Ukrainians as victims. They show the dead not as an abstract group, but as complex and full people with hobbies, hopes and dreams, and a readiness to fight for their country.

Writing today’s history

Russia has been using heritage as a tool in this conflict, placing Ukraine’s cultural heritage at risk.

Across the country, Ukrainians are working to protect heritage objects and places. Historic statues are wrapped. Museum objects are being relocated to basements and other more secure locations. Disaster plans are being enacted.

Read more:
Ukraine: Heritage buildings, if destroyed, can be rebuilt but never replaced

Important sites and collections have already been destroyed, and others are under threat.

In early March, Babyn Yar – a site where thousands of Jews were killed during the Holocaust, and which today is the site of a Holocaust memorial – was bombed. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said this act aimed to “erase the true history of Babyn Yar.”

In the village of Ivankiv, north of Kyiv, a local history museum burned down. It held works by the famous Ukrainian folk artist Maria Pryimachenko. There is widespread concern Russia has a strategy to diminish Ukraine’s identity as a separate nation by destroying its authentic culture and history.

The National Museum of the Holodomor-Genocide is ensuring the experiences of individuals are not forgotten. On March 15 the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy established a new platform My War, where people can describe their experiences of the war.

As 29-year-old Vladimir Strashko writes:

we are strong, confident and united. We are together. We are Ukrainians.

‘People who do care’

Zelenskyy has prepared Ukraine for a Russian invasion from the day he was elected. He has nurtured Ukrainian unity, recognising it is critical to the outcome of any war.

In a statement from December, he encouraged Ukrainians to sign up as volunteers in the army:

because it is impossible to defeat an army whose number is unknown. An army, the ranks of which in one moment is reinforced by tens, hundreds of thousands, millions of people who do care.

On March 3, Zelenskyy posted on his Facebook page:

They wanted to destroy us so many times. They failed. We’ve been through so much! And if someone thinks that, having overcome all this, Ukrainians will be frightened, broken or surrender, he knows nothing about Ukraine. And he has nothing to do in Ukraine.

Zelenskyy’s message throughout the war has been about the ability and willingness of Ukrainians to defend their country. When we look at symbols like the Alley of the Heavenly Hundred Heroes, we understand the valour of ordinary citizens is at the heart of Ukrainian national character.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How Ukraine’s personal, grassroots memorials honour individual citizens who fought for their nation – https://theconversation.com/how-ukraines-personal-grassroots-memorials-honour-individual-citizens-who-fought-for-their-nation-178899

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ray Norris, Professor, School of Science, Western Sydney University

In 2019, my colleagues and I discovered spooky glowing rings in the sky using CSIRO’s ASKAP radio telescope in Western Australia. The rings were unlike anything seen before, and we had no idea what they were.

We dubbed them odd radio circles, or ORCs. They continue to puzzle us, but new data from South Africa’s MeerKAT telescope are helping us solve the mystery.

Read more:
‘WTF?’: newly discovered ghostly circles in the sky can’t be explained by current theories, and astronomers are excited

We can now see each ORC is centred on a galaxy too faint to be detected earlier. The circles are most likely enormous explosions of hot gas, about a million light years across, emanating from the central galaxy.

Our paper showing these results has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication by Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

A closer look

We now have beautiful images of one of these rings taken with South Africa’s MeerKAT radio telescope, which shows the ORC in stunning detail.

For example, MeerKAT sees a small blob of radio emission in the centre of the ring, which is coincident with a distant galaxy. We are now fairly certain this galaxy generated the ORC.

We see these central galaxies in other ORCs too, all at vast distances from Earth. We now think that these rings surround distant galaxies about a billion light years away, which means the rings are enormous – around a million light years across.

From modelling the faint cloudy radio emission that MeerKAT detects within the rings, it seems the rings are the edges of a spherical shell surrounding the galaxy, like a blast wave from a giant explosion in the galaxy. They look like rings instead of orbs only because the sphere appears brighter at the edges where there is more material along the line of sight, much like a soap
bubble.

Energetic electrons

MeerKAT has also mapped the polarisation of the radio waves, which tells us about the magnetic field in the ring. Our polarisation image shows a magnetic field running along the edge of the sphere.

This suggests that an explosion in the central galaxy caused a hot blast to collide with the tenuous gas outside the galaxy. The resulting shock wave then energised electrons in the gas, making them spiral around the magnetic field, generating radio waves.

One big surprise from the MeerKAT result is that within the ring we see several curved filaments of radio emission. We still don’t know what these are.

But we do know that the sphere is so huge that it has swallowed up other galaxies as it blasted out from the central galaxy. Perhaps the filaments are trails of gas ripped off the galaxies by the passing shock wave?

Colliding black holes or the birth of millions of stars?

The big question, of course, is what caused the explosion. We are exploring two possibilities.

One is that they were caused by the merging of two supermassive black holes. Such a “merger event” releases an enormous amount of energy, enough to generate the ORC.

Another possibility is that the central galaxy went through a “starburst” event, in which millions of stars were suddenly born from the gas in the galaxy. Such a starburst causes hot gas to blast out from the galaxy, causing a spherical shock wave.

Both black hole mergers and starburst events are rare, which accounts for why ORCs are so rare (only five have so far been reported).

The puzzle of ORCs is not solved yet, and we still have much to learn about these mysterious rings in the sky. So far, we have only detected them with radio telescopes – we see nothing from the rings at optical, infrared, or X-ray wavelengths.

Getting a better view

To find out more, we need a tool even more sensitive than MeerKAT and ASKAP. Fortunately, the global astronomical community is building just such an observatory – the Square Kilometre Array (SKA), an international effort with telescopes in South Africa and Australia.

ASKAP and MeerKAT were built to test the sites and technology for the SKA. Quite apart from their role as precursors for the SKA, both telescopes have been hugely successful in their own right, making major discoveries in their first years of operation.

Read more:
Analysis of 2 000 galaxies using the MeerKat radio telescope reveals fresh insights

Their success in discovering and studying ORCs therefore bodes well for the SKA.

The two telescopes are also beautifully complementary – ASKAP is superb at surveying large areas of sky and finding new objects, while MeerKAT is unrivalled for zooming in on those objects and studying them with higher sensitivity and resolution.

The SKA promises to surpass both. No doubt the SKA will find many more ORCs, and will also be able to probe them to find out what they are telling us about the lifecycle of galaxies.

Ray Norris is affiliated with CSIRO.

– ref. ‘Odd radio circles’ that baffled astronomers are likely explosions from distant galaxies – https://theconversation.com/odd-radio-circles-that-baffled-astronomers-are-likely-explosions-from-distant-galaxies-178290

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deshan Sebaratnam, Conjoint Senior Lecturer, Medicine, UNSW Sydney

If you’ve had a skin cancer check lately, you might have been told to consider adding a daily vitamin B3 pill to your skin safety regime (hopefully, you already use sunscreen, wear sun-smart clothes and avoid sun exposure in the middle of the day).

So, what is this vitamin and why is it sometimes recommended as a way reduce skin cancer risk?

Australia is the skin cancer capital of the world, where two-thirds of people can expect to develop some form of skin cancer by retirement age. It is the most common type of cancer and also exerts the costliest burden on the health-care system. Anything that can help minimise the burden of skin cancer is worth considering.

Read more:
What is the UV index? An expert explains what it means and how it’s calculated

Supplementing your diet with with vitamin B3 may benefit the skin

The key chemical you need to know about is called nicotinamide (also known as niacinamide).

Nicotinamide or niacinamide is a variant of vitamin B3. It’s found in dietary sources such as meat, fish, nuts, grains and mushrooms. It is the precursor of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+), essential for many physiological reactions that help cells obtain energy.

If you don’t get enough vitamin B3, you can get the disease pellagra. Pellagra affects organs with high cellular energy requirements such as the brain, skin and gut, manifesting with what medical professionals sometimes call the “4 Ds” – dermatitis, diarrhoea, dementia and death.

Recently, emerging evidence suggests supplementing your diet with with vitamin B3 may have a range of benefits, particularly for the skin.

Nicotinamide has been shown to replenish cellular energy, enhance DNA repair, act as an anti-inflammatory and modulate some of the local immunosuppression caused by ultraviolet radiation.

Much of the work in this field has been led by Professor Diona Damian, Head of Dermatology at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney. Building on from her pioneering laboratory work in the field, she went on to lead the landmark ONTRAC trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2015.

In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised controlled study, 386 patients at high risk of skin cancer took either nicotinamide 500mg twice daily or a placebo for 12 months. The results were striking: the rate of new non-melanoma skin cancer was 23% lower in the nicotinamide group than in the placebo group.

Similar improvements have been observed in a small studies of renal transplant patients – a group well known to be at increased risk of developing skin cancer.

Nicotinamide is also becoming increasingly employed in cosmetics and skincare products. Several small clinical studies have demonstrated niacinamide may help improve wrinkles, excess pigmentation, redness, sallowness and elasticity of the skin.

Aged skin has less nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide in it. The theory is supplementing with nicotinamide may help replenish these levels, which then helps repair cellular dysfunction.

Taking niacinamide supplements

Nicotinamide is a well-tolerated supplement. It is easily available from most pharmacies or supermarkets, costing less than 10c per capsule.

You should be aware different formulations of vitamin B3 exist over the counter, such as niacin (which can cause profound flushing upon consumption). It is better to seek out the niacinamide formulation.

The optimum long-term niacinamide dose is not known, but given the ONTRAC study used a regime of 500mg twice daily, this is generally what is recommended.

Its role in children is less clear. It appears to be safe, but the therapeutic benefit offered by niacinamide in paediatric patients is yet to be determined.

Based on the scientific literature to date, it is reasonable to recommend niacinamide for people at high risk of skin cancer.

It is, however, is only one of the pillars of sun safety. Using sunscreen and sun-smart clothing, avoiding sun exposure during the middle of the day and being aware of new or changing spots on the skin all remain crucial.

Read more:
I can’t get sunburnt through glass, shade or in water, right? 5 common sunburn myths busted

Deshan Sebaratnam has received funding from Novartis, AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, Galderma, Leo/FB Dermatology, Johnson & Johnson, Solbari, Neutrogena, Ego Pharmaceuticals, Bulldog Skincare.

– ref. Vitamin B3, niacinamide and reducing skin cancer risk: what does the research say? – https://theconversation.com/vitamin-b3-niacinamide-and-reducing-skin-cancer-risk-what-does-the-research-say-177729

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

To our horror, another mass coral bleaching event may be striking the Great Barrier Reef, with water temperatures reaching up to 3℃ higher than average in some places. This would be the sixth such event since the late 1990s, and the fourth since 2016.

It comes as a monitoring mission from the United Nations arrives in Queensland today to inspect the reef and consider listing the World Heritage site as “in danger”.

As coral reef scientists, we’ve seen firsthand how the Great Barrier Reef is nearing its tipping point, beyond which the reef will lose its function as a viable ecosystem. This is not only due to climate change exacerbating marine heatwaves, but also higher ocean acidity, loss of oxygen, pollution, and more.

Scientists are at our own tipping points, too. The reef is suffering environmental conditions so extreme, we’re struggling to simulate these scenarios in our laboratories. Even though Australia has world-class facilities, we are proverbially beating our heads against the wall each year as conditions worsen.

It’s getting harder for scientists to predict how these conditions will affect individual species, let alone the health and biodiversity of reef ecosystems. But let’s explore what we do know.

What is coral bleaching and why does it happen?

Corals are animals that live in a mutually beneficial partnership with tiny single-celled algae called “zooxanthellae” (but scientists call them zooks).

Zooks benefit corals by giving them energy and colour, and in return the coral gives them a home in the coral tissue. Under stress, such as in too-hot water, the algae produce toxins instead of nutrition, and the coral ejects them.

Leer más:
5 major heatwaves in 30 years have turned the Great Barrier Reef into a bleached checkerboard

Without the algae, the corals begin to starve. They lose their vibrant colours, revealing the bright white limestone skeleton through the coral tissue.

If stress conditions abate, the algae can return and coral can recover over months. But if stress persists, the corals can die – the skeletons begin to crumble, removing vital habitat for other species.

We had hoped for a reprieve

Scientists and managers had hoped for a reprieve this year. Much of the Great Barrier Reef was in the early stages of recovery following the 2016, 2017, and 2020 bleaching events.

In the tropical paradise of northern Queensland, we’ve been wishing for cloudy days and cooler temperatures, hoping for rain and even storms (but not big ones). These conditions typically come with La Niña – a natural climate phenomenon associated with cooler, wetter weather, which has now happened two years in a row.

But despite these effects of La Niña, climate change meant 2021 was one of the hottest years on record. Now, at the tail end of Australia’s summer, the reef is experiencing another marine heatwave and is tipping over the bleaching threshold.

There’s not enough time for coral to recover between events. Even the most robust corals require nearly a decade to recover. There is also no clear evidence corals are adapting to the new conditions.

To make matters worse, climate change is supercharging the atmosphere and making even the natural variations of La Niña and its counterpart El Niño more variable and less predictable. This means Australia will not only endure more intense heatwaves, but also flooding, droughts and storms.

How will this hurt marine life?

A healthy Great Barrier Reef is home to at least 1,625 species of fishes, 3,000 species of molluscs, 630 species of echinoderms (such as sea stars and urchins), and the list goes on.

Marine life in coral reefs have three options in warming waters: adapt, move, or die.

1. Can they adapt?

Over generations, species can make changes at the molecular level – their DNA – so they’re more suited to or can adapt to new environmental conditions. This evolution may be possible for species with fast generation times, such as damselfishes.

But reef species with slower generation times can’t keep pace with the rate we’re changing their habitat conditions. This includes the iconic potato cod and most sharks, which take a around a decade or longer to reach sexual maturity.

2. Can they move?

Some species of reef fishes may start moving to cooler waters before the harmful effects of warming take hold.

But this option isn’t available to all species, such as those that depend on a particular habitat, certain resources, or protection. This includes coral, as well as coral-dwelling gobies and several damselfishes.

A citizen science project called Project RedMap, has been documenting the poleward migration of reef fish species due to climate change. Studies have found that larger, tropical fishes with a high swimming ability are more likely to survive in temperate waters, such as some butterflyfishes.

3. They can die

The third option is one we don’t like to talk about, but is becoming more of a threat.

If marine life can’t adapt or move , we’ll see extinctions at a local scale, total extinction of some species, and dramatic declines in fish populations.

Listing the reef as ‘in danger’

While the reef is bleaching, UNESCO delegates have arrived in Queensland to monitor its health, as the World Heritage site is once again being considered for an “in danger” listing.

The visit will likely include seeing the bleaching currently occurring, the damage to the reef still apparent from past events, and they’ll hear firsthand from scientists and managers who’ve witnessed these impacts.

Listing the Great Barrier Reef as “in danger” would raise the alert level for the international community and hopefully inspire climate action.

Reducing the major source of stress the reef faces – climate change – will require ongoing collaborations between Australian and international governments, with work on local management issues also involving business owners, reef managers, Traditional Owners, scientists, civil society groups, and other stakeholders.

Leer más:
The $1 billion Great Barrier Reef funding is nonsensical. Australians, and their natural wonder, deserve so much better

We’ve known for a long time the most important step to save the reef: cutting emissions to stop global warming. Indeed, future projections of coral bleaching from the 1990s suggested that frequent and severe events would begin from the late-2010s – and they’ve been alarmingly prescient.

The Great Barrier Reef’s continuing demise is one of the most visible examples of how our inaction as humans has profound and perhaps irreversible consequences. We are rapidly accelerating toward the tipping point.

Jodie L. Rummer receives funding from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies.

Scott Heron receives funding from Australian Research Council and NASA ROSES Ecological Forecasting.

– ref. Adapt, move, or die: repeated coral bleaching leaves wildlife on the Great Barrier Reef with few options – https://theconversation.com/adapt-move-or-die-repeated-coral-bleaching-leaves-wildlife-on-the-great-barrier-reef-with-few-options-179570

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrienne O’Neil, Principal Research Fellow & Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellow, Deakin University

The sad passing of Kimberley Kitching and Shane Warne (both 52) from suspected cardiac conditions has put a spotlight on the causes of heart disease.

In recent days, attention has turned to the issue of psychological stress in the context of allegations of workplace bullying as a potential contributor to Ms Kitching’s physical health before her death. Ms Kitching’s ALP colleagues have strongly denied bullying claims.

But we are learning more and more about how mental stress can endanger our hearts.

Read more:
How often do young women die of heart attacks and what can you do to improve your heart health?

Heart disease is more common in those who experience extreme stress

Psychological factors are under-recognised risk factors for heart attack when compared to more established ones like high cholesterol or blood pressure. Yet centuries of evidence show the intricate link between the heart and mind.

Historical accounts dating back to the 17th century show heart conditions were more prevalent in people exposed to extreme stress and trauma, like those serving in the military compared to the civil population.

Much of this excess burden was thought to be due to rheumatic fever or heavy labour. But studies of contemporary, community-based veterans show stress plays a key role. Veterans with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have a greater risk of developing heart conditions like heart failure when compared to those without PTSD.

Further evidence comes from people experiencing acute distress following natural disasters or the loss of a loved one. The latter can lead to Takotsubo syndrome (an acute heart failure syndrome) also known as “broken heart syndrome” which is especially common in women.

What our research shows

Our recent paper, presenting research led by Deakin University’s Food and Mood Centre’s Meghan Hockey, found it is not just exposure to extreme stress that can increase one’s risk of having a heart event.

The study followed 195,531 American adults over 5.9 years. We found people reporting mild, moderate and severe levels of psychological stress died prematurely from cardiovascular disease (usually stroke or heart attack).

What was striking was that the association worked in a dose-response manner – the risk of someone dying from a heart condition increased with the severity of psychological stress (22% for mild stress, 44% for moderate and 79% for severe levels, respectively). This association remained even after we considered other factors like age, gender, ethnicity, education, income, body mass index, physical activity, smoking and alcohol intake.

Job stress increases your chance of having a heart attack

Workplace conditions – how much control you have at work, long working hours, shift work, discrimination, bullying and sedentary activity – can shape your cardiovascular and emotional responses over the course of a working day. This, in turn, affects your risk of heart disease.

Chronic exposure to these forms of stress can influence your “fight or flight response” causing a release of cortisol and an inflammatory response that can accelerate the thickening or hardening of the arteries that lead to heart attacks, called the “atherosclerotic process”.

While there is evidence some of the association between stress and heart disease may be explained by behavioural factors like poor diet, smoking or drinking that might be used as stress coping mechanisms, research shows an independent relationship exists between both acute and chronic psychosocial stressors and cardiac disease.

Read more:
Concerned about your risk of a heart attack? Here are 5 ways to improve your heart health

What can employers do?

Often, the assumption is that the responsibility for preventing heart disease rests solely with an individual. But given the sources of stress and trauma may be beyond an individual’s control, it is important we consider the environment in which we work, age and play when we think about our heart health.

Scientists have calculated 5% of new cardiovascular events (first hospitalisation from heart attack or stroke) could potentially be prevented if workplace bullying was eliminated. Given there are approximately 161 cases of heart attack or unstable angina in Australia each day, this is not insignificant.

In 2015, the American Heart Association launched a Worksite Health Achievement Index by which employers can benchmark their practices related to heart disease prevention.

Such a tool goes beyond assessing individual employees’ health based on conventional risk factors to consider policy, programs and environmental factors that can improve the heart health of their employees. The benefit to employers is likely to be happier, healthier, more productive employees. Of course, rigorous research is needed to confirm this.

Read more:
Getting a heart check early can prevent heart attack and stroke in Indigenous Australians

What can you do if you are struggling?

Seeking professional support via your GP, psychologist, publicly available services like beyond blue or employee assistance programs to help manage stress is critical.

Promisingly, there is evidence people who receive comprehensive mental health care over one year (antidepressants, therapy) halve their risk of having a cardiac event over the next eight years compared to those who do not.

We are currently developing clinical guidelines on behalf of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry that aim to provide clinicians with evidence-based recommendations for treating patients with depression that include considerations around employment, environmental, social and lifestyle targets (due for publication mid 2022).

This type of approach is likely to have both mental health and cardiovascular benefits which in turn benefit individuals, families, businesses and society.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Adrienne O’Neil receives funding from the National Health & Medical Research Council

– ref. Stress can cause heart attacks. Could tackling workplace bullying save lives? – https://theconversation.com/stress-can-cause-heart-attacks-could-tackling-workplace-bullying-save-lives-179578

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katharine Kemp, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law & Justice, UNSW, UNSW Sydney

On the last day of his 11 years as chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), Rod Sims announced the commission is bringing a “world-first” claim against Meta (owner of Facebook) in the Federal Court for false or misleading conduct.

The ACCC alleges Meta failed to take sufficient steps to stop displaying scam cryptocurrency ads on Facebook in 2019, even after receiving complaints. Sims said the ads led to more than A$650,000 in losses for one consumer.

“Those visits to landing pages from ads generate substantial revenue for Facebook,” Sims said.

Almost a decade ago, the ACCC failed in an arguably similar misleading conduct claim against Google. This time, however, the commission has some new arguments that focus on Facebook’s business of targeting ads at particular consumers.

If the ACCC succeeds, digital platforms would need to rethink their hands-off approach to the ad content they host. Especially when they help advertisers target individuals based on detailed profiling by both the platform and advertiser.

Read more:
Crypto theft is on the rise. Here’s how the crimes are committed, and how you can protect yourself

How were the ads misleading?

The relevant ads for cryptocurrencies and other investment schemes were published on Facebook in 2019. They contained links to fake media articles on other websites that made it look like well-known Australians were endorsing the promotions.

Some ads featured images of mining billionaire Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest, businessman Dick Smith, television presenter David Koch and former New South Wales premier Mike Baird – but these individuals had no prior knowledge of or connection to the ads. Other celebrities from overseas have also found themselves associated with such schemes.

The ACCC says Meta failed to take sufficient steps to stop the ads, even after celebrities complained about the misleading conduct.

In February, Forrest launched criminal proceedings against Facebook in Australia for its part in the misleading ads. He has also brought civil proceedings against Facebook in California (where Meta’s headquarters are located). Both cases are yet to be heard.

Meta will likely argue it did not engage in any misleading conduct itself, because it was only passing on a communication from the advertiser to the consumer and did not endorse the representation. Essentially, the argument would be that Meta is much like your postie delivering mail, or a newspaper printing an ad – a “mere conduit” for the message.

Google succeeded with a similar argument in the High Court of Australia in 2013, after the ACCC brought a misleading conduct claim against it. In that case, advertisers bought ads on Google which misled consumers searching for a rival business.

For example, when consumers searched for a supplier via Google search (such as “Harvey World Travel”) the results page published “sponsored link” ads with a similar title (such as “Harvey Travel”), but which linked to the website of a rival advertiser instead (in this case, STA Travel).

The court found Google did not make the relevant representation itself, or endorse or adopt the advertisers’ representation. The advertisers set the sponsored link to run in response to the entry of certain search terms. Google was found to be a mere publisher, like a newspaper or radio broadcaster.

Why Meta’s targeted ad model makes this different

The problem for Meta is that Facebook is not comparable to your postie delivering the mail. Not unless your postie profiles you by checking out the car in your garage, the clothing brands on your washing line and the gas company billing you – and then makes money if you respond to the advertising material he helped to target you with based on this information.

In its marketing, Facebook boasts of its “targeting capabilities” and claims it can connect advertisers with Facebook audiences based on information including users’ online purchases and behaviour:

Facebook will automatically show your ads to people who are most likely to find your ads relevant.

It seems likely the ACCC will argue Meta’s conduct in displaying the ads could lead people into error, even if it did not make the representations itself. The ACCC’s claims focus on Meta’s control of the ad technology and its targeted ad business – similar to the arguments raised by Andrew Forrest in his cases.

The ACCC says Meta is involved with targeting ads at the consumers most likely to click on the ad, and that Meta makes revenue as a result of consumers responding to the ads. (Google engages in similar “behavioural advertising” in some of its ad businesses).

Saved by the fine print?

Meta will likely argue there is a contractual exclusion clause in Facebook’s Terms of Service which rules out its liability to consumers in these cases. One term in the fine print states:

We do not control or direct what people and others do or say, and we are not responsible for their actions or conduct […] or any content that they share (including […] unlawful and other objectionable content).

But this won’t necessarily save Meta from a claim under the Australian Consumer Law. In these cases, the court must assess the conduct as a whole, in light of all the relevant circumstances.

It could decide an exclusion clause obscured in the fine print is not prominent enough to offset the appearance that the ads were validated by Meta’s approval process.

The ACCC alleges Meta did, in fact, lead users to believe it would detect and prevent scams and promote safety on its platform. If it can prove certain false representations under the Australian Consumer Law, Meta could be fined either up to A$10 million, three times the value of the benefit Meta received, or 10% of its turnover in the 12 months prior (whichever is largest).

Read more:
We can’t trust big tech or the government to weed out fake news, but a public-led approach just might work

Katharine Kemp receives funding from The Allens Hub for Technology, Law and Innovation. She is a Member of the Advisory Board of the Future of Finance Initiative in India, and the Australian Privacy Foundation.

– ref. The ACCC is suing Meta for celebrity crypto scam ads on Facebook. Here’s why the tech giant could be found liable – https://theconversation.com/the-accc-is-suing-meta-for-celebrity-crypto-scam-ads-on-facebook-heres-why-the-tech-giant-could-be-found-liable-179655

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland

The Australian Greens have lobbed a large rock into the placid pool of economic policy by announcing a proposal for a “Liveable Income Guarantee”.

The policy would increase all income support payments – for those looking for work, studying full-time or unable to work because of age, disability or caring responsibilities – to A$88 a day (about $32,000 a year) from July 2023.

This payment level is based on the poverty line calculated by the Melbourne Institute. Increases to all payments would be indexed to changes to the poverty line. The policy would also scrap mutual obligation programs such as “work for the dole” and relax eligibility restrictions.

Currently welfare payments vary widely, with the age pension for a single person being about $70 a day, while JobSeeker is about $44 a day.

JobSeeker vs age pension

This is the first significant economic policy in the undeclared campaign for the next federal election campaign. Up to to this point it looked like there wouldn’t be much to talk about.

Apart from some sweeteners carefully targeted at marginal seats and voting blocs, and small-scale initiatives like Labor’s social housing program, the only significant new policy from either major party likely to follow the election is the “Stage 3” tax cuts legislated under the Turnbull government.

These cuts are supported by both the government and the opposition. Both major parties have also committed to “budget repair”, a euphemism for expenditure cuts, but are unlikely to provide any details until after the election.

COVID-19 changed the landscape

The Greens’ plan shares its name, and many of its design features, with a proposal put forward in July 2020 by Tim Dunlop, Elise Klein and myself.

We proposed this after the massive expansion of the JobSeeker program to deal with COVID-19 demonstrated Australia did have the resources to eliminate most sources of poverty when it was considered necessary to do so. We argued a liveable income guarantee would be an ideal way to make the achievements of JobSeeker permanent.

Read more:
Forget JobSeeker. In our post-COVID economy, Australia needs a ‘liveable income guarantee’ instead

The Greens’ policy differs from our 2020 proposal in two main respects.

First, it is more generous, raising all benefits. The Parliamentary Budget Office has calculated this will cost about $43.7 billion in the first year, and $44.9 billion in the second.

On the other hand, we proposed expanding payment eligibility to people engaged in volunteering, community projects and artistic and creative activity. The Greens’ proposal maintains the existing set of benefit categories.

How to pay for liveable welfare payments

As debt and deficits have faded as a political point-scoring issue, the idea that all new spending programs need to be matched with other cuts or extra revenue has become less compelling.

But resources used for one public program can’t be used for other programs, or for private expenditure. So it’s important to ask what kinds of measures could offset the call on public resources proposed in the liveable income guarantee.

The option with the biggest impact would be to cancel or defer the Stage 3 tax cuts, which will cost an estimated $18-20 billion a year. That would offset nearly half the money spent on the liveable income guarantee.

The Greens have also pointed to tax measures they have previously proposed, including a billionaires tax and a corporate super-profits tax.

It has always hard to estimate how much revenue such measures would collect, given the capacity of wealthy individuals and corporations to rearrange their tax affairs. On the other hand, with improved global cooperation on tax, thanks mainly to initiatives from the OECD, there is more capacity to make billionaires and large corporations pay a fairer share of the costs of the society that supports them.

Another source of offsets could arise from what used to be called “tax expenditures” and are now referred to more obscurely as tax benchmark variations. These are tax concessions or exemptions applying to particular activities or classes of taxpayer.

These total about $150 billion a year according to the latest Treasury estimates. The biggest elements are concessions on capital gains tax and superannuation.

Read more:
How to camouflage $150 billion in spending: call it ‘tax expenditure’

A policy for serious debate

The Greens proposal would greatly improve the position of millions of Australians on low incomes at the expense of reducing the disposable incomes and wealth of the well-off, with a particular impact on the very rich.

Barring a complete revolution in Australian politics, there’s no chance the next election will lead to such a result, or even a serious move in that direction.

It is a striking commentary that the Greens’ Liveable Income Guarantee will be rejected by a government led by Scott Morrison, a self-declared conservative, and also by Anthony Albanese, a leader from the Labor Party faction still sometimes called the “socialist left”.

Based on current polls, the most that millions of Australins living in poverty can hope for is a Labor government in need of Green support raising benefits a little, and softening some of the most oppressive features of the current system.

But the point of an election is to debate and decide on the future direction of the country. By putting forward this bold initiative, the Greens are providing us the chance to have such a debate.

Other Greens proposals, like phasing out the use of coal, once seen as outside the realm of possibility, are now widely accepted. Similarly, the liveable income guarantee may make its way on to the policy agenda for the future.

John Quiggin has undertaken research on the design of a Liveable Income Guarantee, but has not received external funding for this work. He is not a member of any political party.

– ref. The Greens’ liveable income guarantee is a serious idea the major parties won’t touch – yet – https://theconversation.com/the-greens-liveable-income-guarantee-is-a-serious-idea-the-major-parties-wont-touch-yet-179573