Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Donne Potter, Professor, Research Centre for Hauora and Health, Massey University

As New Zealand switches from elimination to suppression, those who argue that COVID-19 will become endemic and part of our lives either do not understand or ignore what this would actually mean.

Elimination has always been a tricky word because it implies eradication. But we have only ever eradicated one human disease — smallpox — and are close with several others.

For some, the end of elimination now means we should let the virus spread. But semantics matter less than policy. If we don’t eliminate, we must still aim to contain, mop up, reduce close to zero and thwart this pandemic.

Because we certainly cannot live with endemic SARS-CoV-2.

The Delta variant spreads ominously and without controls, every infected person, on average, would infect six more, then 36, 216, 1296, 7776, 46,656 — we would get to more than twice New Zealand’s five million with three more cycles.

We must continue to either stamp out the virus or keep case numbers very low. To contain case numbers, we need to keep up border protection, mask wearing, distancing, bubbles, contact tracing, testing of people and waste water, and vaccination.

In the current Delta outbreak, more than 95% of those infected were either unvaccinated or had received only their first dose.

Read more:
COVID will likely shift from pandemic to endemic — but what does that mean?

Delta is nothing like the flu

Our most common endemic infections include the common cold (caused by hundreds of different viruses that circulate freely) and the flu (caused by a group of influenza viruses).

Those who dismiss a mild case of COVID-19 as being “no worse than the flu” have forgotten how appalling a case of flu really is. They might also have forgotten that, even with effective vaccination, influenza has a case fatality risk of about 0.1% — it kills about 500 people in New Zealand each year.

Yet some seem to expect that COVID-19 will learn to behave and become endemic. Some even seem to welcome this, claiming a “disease becomes endemic when it is manageable”.

This is not true. Being manageable is not part of the definition of endemic disease. A disease becomes endemic when it is more or less always present in a population. It does not care whether it is manageable.

Read more:
NZ needs a more urgent vaccination plan — with nearly 80% now single-dosed, the majority will support it

Seasonal influenza has a basic reproduction number (R0) of about 1.5, meaning one infected person spreads the disease to fewer than two other people, on average. This is why it takes very little to break the chain of transmission. The annual flu epidemic declines because we have effective vaccines and because seasonal conditions during summer are less favourable to the survival of the virus.

However, as we already mentioned, the Delta variant has an R0 of at least six. This will be as low as it gets from here onward. If a new variant supplants Delta, it will do so because it is even more transmissible.

There will be no season for COVID-19, no breaks in transmission, no declines in infectiousness. We have been struggling worldwide with this virus for 18 months, with spikes everywhere in every season.

School and business closures part of new normal

If COVID-19 becomes endemic, there will not be one or two people sick in a workplace or a home. We will have waves and clusters and multiple local outbreaks. Schools and businesses will close for days, even weeks, because too many people are sick. It will cost the world trillions — consider what it has already done to global supply chains.

If COVID-19 becomes endemic, the burden on our healthcare system will be immense. It will not involve a predictable, modest increase in hospital admissions. Waves and clusters will characterise endemic COVID-19 in the same way they have characterised pandemic COVID-19, overwhelming local healthcare without warning.

If COVID-19 becomes endemic, Merck’s new antiviral drug Molnupiravir will be an important addition to the toolkit because it will be much cheaper than monoclonal antibodies, easy to store, easy to transport and people can take it at home.

The as yet unpublished trials suggest the treatment could cut hospitalisations in half, markedly improving outcomes for those already infected. But it will not reduce the number of cases by even one.

Treatment never does — only prevention, public health measures and vaccination reduce case numbers. Those who are less sick and treated at home could spread the virus even more.

If COVID-19 becomes endemic, when the healthcare system fails to accommodate the latest wave, more people will die.

Long-term costs to health and economy

Even if we managed to get COVID-19 down to the severity of influenza (for an individual), endemic Delta – with an R0 about five times that of flu and the fully vaccinated still able to become infected and spread – would still mean thousands of hospitalisations and deaths each year.

Just four cycles of Delta infection could result in more than 250 times as many cases as four cycles of flu.

If COVID-19 becomes endemic, every year, many of us will know someone who dies.

If COVID-19 becomes endemic, more than a third of unvaccinated cases, even the asymptomatic, will have symptoms months later. Flu leaves little lasting damage. Long COVID damages the lungs, heart, brain, hearing and vision as well as the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas, causing diabetes.

The cost of COVID-19 is so much higher than that of the flu, not just because of higher case numbers, hospitalisations and deaths, but more long-term damage and disability.

Read more:
Take-at-home COVID drug molnupiravir may be on its way — but vaccination is still our first line of defence

If COVID-19 becomes endemic, we will live with a stressed, often overwhelmed healthcare system, with schools subject to unpredictable closures, with unsafe workplaces, with a disrupted economy, with our children under threat, with death and disability at a persistently higher level than we have known — probably for decades.

We do not care what the current strategy is called as long as we persist with border protection and public health measures until we achieve close to universal vaccination. Otherwise, many thousands of New Zealanders will be hospitalised, die or experience long COVID.

Ultimately, we will need a sterilising vaccine (one that protects people from getting infected) because we cannot live with endemic COVID-19.

Graham Le Gros receives funding from MBIE to support Vaccine Alliance Aotearoa New Zealand, Ohu Kaupare Huaketo for the development and manufacture of a COVID19 vaccine for Aotearoa NZ.

John Donne Potter and Rod Jackson 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. Why we must not allow COVID to become endemic in New Zealand – https://theconversation.com/why-we-must-not-allow-covid-to-become-endemic-in-new-zealand-169608

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sora Park, Associate Dean of Research, Faculty of Arts & Design, University of Canberra

The impacts of COVID-19 on Australian university researchers are likely to have consequences for research productivity and quality for many years to come.

According to an online survey of academics at the University of Canberra between November 2020 and February 2021, they have deep concerns about their ability to undertake research during the pandemic and the flow-on effects of this. The findings are consistent with those of Research Australia from research in 2020 and 2021 and suggest Australia’s research sector will take a substantive hit from COVID-19.

The knowledge produced by university research generates an estimated 10% of Australia’s GDP. Without access to JobKeeper in 2020, universities across the sector cut back on casual staff and increased the teaching load of full-time academics. Combined with the challenges of working from home, this has had a real impact on research, not just immediately but in the longer term.

Read more:
$7.6 billion and 11% of researchers: our estimate of how much Australian university research stands to lose by 2024

Almost three-quarters (73%) of respondents reported teaching commitments increased in the transition to online learning. Almost two-thirds reported delays in project milestones (63%) and publication (62%).

In addition to reduced research productivity, staff expressed concerns about the quality of outputs as they are aware their general mental well-being has been affected. As one academic said:

“Although I have completed the usual number of papers, I am concerned about their quality due to the sense of being so overwhelmed by work and the COVID impacts that I couldn’t apply my usual critical judgements.”

Impacts on researchers are highly uneven

About half (52%) of respondents felt positive about the flexibility of working from home. In fact, we may see a shift in the work culture following the pandemic. An Australian Bureau of Statistics survey in June found one-third (33%) of Australians said working from home was the aspect of COVID life they would most like to continue.

However, working from home did not translate into work-life balance and productivity for many academics. Domestic arrangements for a significant number have had an overall negative impact. These impacts particularly affected those with carers’ responsibilities.

Of those with children up to year 12, 64% said working at home had a negative impact on the hours of work, compared with 50% of those with no children at home. Those with children at home were three times more likely to say their domestic responsibilities had a negative impact on their research.

The impacts of COVID-19 on academic staff are not evenly distributed. There was a disproportionate gender impact, which is in line with previous reports across the sector. Impacts were greatest on academics in the early stages of their careers, often with young families.

This differential impact is reflected in other research into academic publishing, which shows the gender gap widening during the pandemic.

Read more:
How COVID is widening the academic gender divide

What does the future hold?

Research is a long-term endeavour. It takes years and even decades for research to come to fruition.

We asked respondents how they saw the future of their research. The majority felt pessimistic about all aspects of research: funding, publication, collaborating and supervising PhD students. More than two-thirds of respondents had negative views about their ability to attract funding and pursue research projects in the near future.

More importantly, those who have young families are feeling despondent about their research careers. A majority of them say their ability to publish will be hampered for the next two to three years. This group is the future of Australian academic research, so the negative impact of COVID-19 is of serious concern.

This is bad for Australia in terms of lost or delayed advances in science and technology, stalled or postponed advances in health care and treatment, reduced capacity to inform public debate, and fewer opportunities to contribute to Australia’s lifestyle and culture. The impacts of the pandemic on the emerging generation of researchers will have long-term consequences.

Read more:
Early and mid-career scientists face a bleak future in the wake of the pandemic

In June, the ABS survey of pandemic impacts found one in five (20%) Australians experienced high or very high levels of psychological distress due to COVID-19. This has not changed since last November. Like many Australians, academics are under enormous pressure trying to balance work and home life.

As well as the concerns about the blurring of work and home life, we found evidence of low morale and exhaustion among staff. These findings match those of a report released today by Professional Scientists Australia.

There is a need for both the government and universities to develop a long-term, tailored strategy to support the research community. This will help ensure Australia’s research effort continues at its above-world-class level, with the associated societal benefits it brings.

The survey and the analysis of the data were carried out in collaboration with Janie Busby Grant, Elke Stracke, Simon Niemeyer, Roland Goecke, and Dianne Gleeson at the University of Canberra.

Sora Park receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Alannah Madeline Foundation, NAMLE and Social Science Research Council.

Jennie Scarvell and Linda Botterill 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. Hit hard by the pandemic, researchers expect its impacts to linger for years – https://theconversation.com/hit-hard-by-the-pandemic-researchers-expect-its-impacts-to-linger-for-years-169366

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

Data released by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) this week show fatal police shootings in Australia have reached an all-time high.

With the move to weaponise our police with widespread access to weapons such as military-style rifles and crowd control equipment munitions, are we seeing a move from a community service focus to a more force-orientated model of policing?

Fatal police shootings

The report on deaths in custody in 2019-20 indicated that there were 24 deaths in police custody or custody-related operations. Of these, 16 were attributable to police shootings. This is the highest number of shooting deaths since record keeping began in 1989-90.

Over that period, Australian police have shot dead some 164 people. The latest AIC report shows there has been a 78% increase in fatal police shootings between 2018-19 and 2019-20.

New South Wales and Queensland had the most police shootings with five each, followed by Victoria and Western Australia with two each.

Two of those fatally shot were Indigenous, 11 were non-Indigenous, and in three cases the Indigenous status was not stated.

Read more:
Why Australia should be wary of the rise of the warrior cop, with tools to match

The threat environment

The National Police Memorial lists those police who have been killed on duty or have died as a result of their duties. Since 2010, 22 police members have died, only five of those through the actions of armed offenders. Four involved firearms and one a knife.

To put this is perspective, in 2019-20 there were 58,514 sworn police officers in Australia. While the number of deaths is small, it must be acknowledged that policing is still an inherently dangerous and difficult occupation.

In terms of the general population, homicides in Australia are at historic lows and compare well against international trends.

Crime in general has declined in Australia. This trend has continued
since the COVID pandemic began.

Read more:
Explainer: why homicide rates in Australia are declining

Are police becoming more enforcement-orientated?

There is little doubt Australian police forces are weaponising in the same way as police in the United States have done in recent years. The rise of the warrior cop is well documented. But it seems the COVID pandemic has also encouraged a move away from community engagement to enforcing health directives with little room for tolerance.

New South Wales Police Commissioner Mick Fuller instructed his staff to move to a more enforcement-focused approach to COVID health order restrictions.

I am asking you to put community policing to the side for a short period of time […]

In recent weeks, we saw Victoria Police fire rubber bullets to disperse anti-lockdown protesters as their use-of-force choice. Police warned the protesters:

Leave now or force may be used. No further warnings will be given.

Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Shane Patton later confirmed police used a variety of weapons including pepper balls, foam baton rounds (theses are a less lethal alternative to traditional bullets, also known as kinetic impact projectiles), smoke bombs and stinger grenades that deploy rubber pellets. He justified the use by arguing:

These crowd control equipment munitions were necessary […] because we can’t allow this type of conduct to go on.

Yet when the unlawful gathering of large crowds took place for Black Lives Matter protests during COVID restrictions, Victoria Police took little or no action. Such inconsistency in responses simply undermines the legitimacy of police.

Victoria Police deployed a Bearcat armoured vehicle in response to an anti-lockdown protest. This is despite the claim these vehicles would only be used in high-risk incidents such as sieges or the apprehension of armed offenders.

Holding police accountable

Any use of force must be lawful, and simply being a police officer does not necessarily provide that justification. The application of force, be it lethal or otherwise, must be authorised, justified or excused by law. If not, then the use of such force may be criminal.

In Western Australia, a police officer is on trial for the death of Indigenous woman Joyce Clarke, who was fatally shot while allegedly armed with a knife in 2019.

In the Northern Territory, Constable Zachary Rolfe is charged with the alleged shooting murder of Indigenous man Kumanjayi Walker.

In 2018, the Queensland government agreed to a $30 million payment following a Federal Court ruling that claimants were deemed to have suffered racial discrimination at the hands of police in their response to the 2004 Palm Island riots. The Queensland Police Union of Employees disagreed with the government’s decision.

What do complaint levels about use of force tell us?

In 2019-20 in Victoria, there were 354 allegations of misconduct through use of force, accounting for 11% of total complaints. In the previous year, use-of-force allegations accounted for 18% of complaints.

In Queensland, Crime and Corruption Commission data show the number of use-of-force allegations declined from 892 in 2016 to 493 in 2020. In New South Wales the converse occurred, with the number of allegations increasing from 395 in 2015-16 to 864 in 2019-20.

These data would suggest there is no uniform increase in use-of-force complaints.

Where to now?

We should be concerned about such a drastic increase in fatal police shootings. As COVID continues to affect all aspects of life, police are playing a more pivotal role in enforcing new health and social regulations while ensuring society continues to function in a civil manner.

The welfare of the community should always take precedence. However, we need to ensure police do not move to an enforcement-only mentality to achieve this. We want our police to be safe and enforce the law, but we also want them to keep us safe.

Terry Goldsworthy 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. Australia had a record number of police shootings in the past year. Should we be concerned? – https://theconversation.com/australia-had-a-record-number-of-police-shootings-in-the-past-year-should-we-be-concerned-169354

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Raquel Peel, Lecturer, University of Southern Queensland

“The ick”, much discussed on TikTok and Instagram lately, is where attraction to a current or potential partner is suddenly flipped to a feeling of disgust.

It’s often triggered in an instant, social media users say, by witnessing some kind of turn-off – a bad dance move, a grating laugh, or an off-putting eating style.

So what might be behind “the ick”?

Read more:
Love lockdown: the pandemic has put pressure on many relationships, but here’s how to tell if yours will survive

Are you letting ‘the ick’ undermine your chances in love?

One possibility is this is a self-defensive mechanism or strategy to protect against relationship failure, fear of commitment, fear of intimacy, or rejection sensitivity.

Models of relationship counselling practice explain attraction is a “flip flop” phenomenon, where the thing that attracts you to someone today can be the same thing that repulses you tomorrow.

While the “flip” are the positives and the “flop” are the negatives, they often are side by side characteristics that cannot exist without the other. For example, if what you love about a person is their crazy sense of humour, you might need to accept their loud, weird laugh is part of the same package.

Different meanings can be assigned to these characteristics as the relationship progresses and depending on life circumstances. For instance, someone you initially found to be “carefree” can turn out to be “irresponsible” in important situations. Someone you originally found to be “decisive” might seem “controlling” later on.

Most of us want to feel safe with a partner, to trust them, have open communication, and share interests. But if an unexpected behaviour is suddenly turning you off, ask yourself what might be happening for you; their behaviour might have triggered a long-term unresolved issue for you or it might reflect a difficulty you’re having coping with life stressors. Reactions that may seem “out of the blue” often have an explanation that runs deeper.

Humans are innately driven to seek proximity and security. But if we feel threatened or confronted, we might look for ways to distance ourselves out of a drive for self-protection.

But if you suddenly get “the ick”, don’t act too rashly. Ask yourself if this is part of a pattern of holding back in relationships (knowingly or unknowingly) and in turn undermining your chances in love.

A trigger to move on

In my research, I have seen people move quickly from one relationship to the next looking for something specific (and, most of the time, unrealistic). A “trigger” to move on can be anything such as a bad fashion sense, bad taste in music, or a “childish nickname”.

One participant in my research would go on Tinder dates, and while at the date, be actively looking for other options around her, in case there was something better. Dating apps such as Tinder offer us such an astonishing number of possibilities, some may be asking themselves: “Why should I settle? Why can’t I aim for that perfect someone?”

Research has found fixed beliefs in “destiny” – in other words, a belief that relationships are either “meant to be” or they are not – can see people fail in the search for love.

Instead, we should be adopting a more flexible view of growth – that is, see a relationship as something that can grow and change, and problems as something that can be overcome together.

Adopting a growth belief can help us get to know the people we are dating and develop a synergy that will guide the relationship beyond the initial attraction, or “honeymoon stage”.

Examining ‘the ick’ in the moment

If you get hit with “the ick”, stop and think about what’s happening.

Are we protecting ourselves because we’ve just witnessed a red flag suggesting they are just not the right partner for us? “The ick” isn’t always triggered by tiny things; it could be red flag behaviours like being rude to waitstaff, or constantly talking over you.

Or are we getting “the ick” because we’re engaging in self-sabotage and, in turn, undermining our chances of a successful intimate engagement?

This process does take insight, but it is worth the exploration.

Read more:
The safest sex you’ll never have: how coronavirus is changing online dating

Raquel Peel 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. What is ‘the ick’? A psychological scientist explains this TikTok trend – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-ick-a-psychological-scientist-explains-this-tiktok-trend-169546

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liz Sonenberg, Professor, Computing and Information Systems, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research Systems), and Pro Vice-Chancellor (Digital & Data), The University of Melbourne

A major new report on the state of artificial intelligence (AI) has just been released. Think of it as the AI equivalent of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, in that it identifies where AI is at today, and the promise and perils in view.

From language generation and molecular medicine to disinformation and algorithmic bias, AI has begun to permeate every aspect of our lives.

The report argues that we are at an inflection point where researchers and governments must think and act carefully to contain the risks AI presents and make the most of its benefits.

A century-long study of AI

The report comes out of the AI100 project, which aims to study and anticipate the effects of AI rippling out through our lives over the course of the next 100 years.

AI100 produces a new report every five years: the first was published in 2016, and this is the second. As two points define a line, this second report lets us see the direction AI is taking us in.

One of us (Liz Sonenberg) is a member of the standing committee overseeing the AI100 project, and the other (Toby Walsh) was on the study panel that wrote this particular report. Members of the panel came from across the world, with backgrounds in computer science, engineering, law, political science, policy, sociology and economics.

The promises and perils of AI are becoming real

The report highlights the remarkable progress made in AI over the past five years. AI is leaving the laboratory and has entered our lives, having a “real-world impact on people, institutions, and culture”. Read the news on any given day and you’re likely to find multiple stories about some new advance in AI or some new use of AI.

For example, in natural language processing (NLP), computers can now analyse and even generate realistic human language. To demonstrate, we asked Open AI’s GPT-3 system, one of the largest neural networks ever built, to summarise the AI100 report for you. It did a pretty good job, even if the summary confronts our sense of self by being written in the first person:

In the coming decade, I expect that AI will play an increasingly prominent role in the lives of people everywhere. AI-infused services will become more common, and AI will become increasingly embedded in the daily lives of people across the world.

I believe that this will bring with it great economic and societal benefits, but that it will also require us to address the many challenges to ensure that the benefits are broadly shared and that people are not marginalised by these new technologies.

A key insight of AI research is that it is easier to build things than to understand why they work. However, defining what success looks like for an AI application is not straightforward.

For example, the AI systems that are used in healthcare to analyse symptoms, recommend diagnoses, or choose treatments are often far better than anything that could be built by a human, but their success is hard to quantify.

Read more:
GPT-3: new AI can write like a human but don’t mistake that for thinking – neuroscientist

As a second example of the recent and remarkable progress in AI, consider the latest breakthrough from Google’s DeepMind. AlphaFold is an AI program that provides a huge step forward in our ability to predict how proteins fold.

This will likely lead to major advances in life sciences and medicine, accelerating efforts to understand the building blocks of life and enabling quicker and more sophisticated drug discovery. Most of the planet now knows to their cost how the unique shape of the spike proteins in the SARS-CoV-2 virus are key to its ability to invade our cells, and also to the vaccines developed to combat its deadly progress.

The AI100 report argues that worries about super-intelligent machines and wide-scale job loss from automation are still premature, requiring AI that is far more capable than available today. The main concern the report raises is not malevolent machines of superior intelligence to humans, but incompetent machines of inferior intelligence.

Once again, it’s easy to find in the news real-life stories of risks and threats to our democratic discourse and mental health posed by AI-powered tools. For instance, Facebook uses machine learning to sort its news feed and give each of its 2 billion users an unique but often inflammatory view of the world.

The time to act is now

It’s clear we’re at an inflection point: we need to think seriously and urgently about the downsides and risks the increasing application of AI is revealing. The ever-improving capabilities of AI are a double-edged sword. Harms may be intentional, like deepfake videos, or unintended, like algorithms that reinforce racial and other biases.

AI research has traditionally been undertaken by computer and cognitive scientists. But the challenges being raised by AI today are not just technical. All areas of human inquiry, and especially the social sciences, need to be included in a broad conversation about the future of the field. Minimising negative impacts on society and enhancing the positives requires consideration from across academia and with societal input.

Governments also have a crucial role to play in shaping the development and application of AI. Indeed, governments around the world have begun to consider and address the opportunities and challenges posed by AI. But they remain behind the curve.

A greater investment of time and resources is needed to meet the challenges posed by the rapidly evolving technologies of AI and associated fields. In addition to regulation, governments also need to educate. In an AI-enabled world, our citizens, from the youngest to the oldest, need to be literate in these new digital technologies.

At the end of the day, the success of AI research will be measured by how it has empowered all people, helping tackle the many wicked problems facing the planet, from the climate emergency to increasing inequality within and between countries.

AI will have failed if it harms or devalues the very people we are trying to help.

Liz Sonenberg has received funding from the Australian Research Council for several projects in the AI domain. She is a member of the AI100 Standing Committee (https://ai100.stanford.edu/people-0) that commissioned the report discussed in this article.

Toby Walsh receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a project in Trustworthy AI. He was one of the 17 members of the AI100 Study Panel that produced the report described in this article.

– ref. Artificial intelligence is now part of our everyday lives – and its growing power is a double-edged sword – https://theconversation.com/artificial-intelligence-is-now-part-of-our-everyday-lives-and-its-growing-power-is-a-double-edged-sword-169449

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Kemish, Former Ambassador and Adjunct Professor, School of Historical and Philosophical Inquiry, The University of Queensland

Things were looking very bad three months ago for both Papua New Guinea and Fiji. The two Pacific countries were each looking very vulnerable to the COVID Delta variant, albeit in different ways.

On July 10, PNG recorded its first official Delta case, and the nation’s health professionals were soon warning the combination of very low testing rates, high percentage of positive tests and an extremely slow vaccine rollout provided a “recipe for a major spread”.

Fiji was already in the thick of it at the time. After the deadly Delta strain entered the country via a quarantine breach in April, per capita infection rates became the highest in the world in the middle of the year.

Daily infections reached more than 1,800 in mid-July – a huge number for a country of only 900,000 people. The crisis caused 647 deaths.

Fast forward several months and PNG and Fiji are heading in opposite directions. More than 95% of eligible Fijians over the age of 18 have now received their first jab, and 80% are now fully vaccinated.

By contrast, PNG is in the grips of a major wave, with less than 1% of the total population fully vaccinated. PNG is trailing much of the world.

Why have two Pacific countries, which share Melanesian cultural connections, handled their vaccine rollouts so differently?

Not a matter of geography or vaccine supply

Fiji’s daily infection rate today is 4% of what it was at the peak, and it’s falling. Less than 50 new cases are currently being reported on average each day.

In PNG, the official infection rate is now averaging just under 300 new cases per day, but this drastically understates the reality of what is happening in the country.

Extremely low testing rates simply cannot be relied upon. The country’s own health data reportedly shows 2.6 million cases of flu- and pneumonia-like symptoms over the last year, and Port Moresby General Hospital is now reporting positive COVID testing rates of 60%. Like other hospitals across the country, it risks being overwhelmed by the virus.

Read more:
The Pacific went a year without COVID. Now, it’s all under threat

It’s not simply a vaccine supply issue. At this stage of the global crisis, PNG, like Fiji, has received substantial vaccine deliveries – principally from Australia, New Zealand and the COVAX vaccine delivery initiative.

In fact, thousands of PNG’s early deliveries went to waste because the health authorities were unable to use them. The PNG government has recently made the best of a bad situation by re-gifting 30,000 vials donated by New Zealand to Vietnam.

We can also set aside any suggestion Australia, as the major regional donor, is somehow favouring one country over the other.

The Australian government has put a high priority on providing vaccines to both countries in recent months. Its assistance has also extended to education and logistical efforts, along with targeted medical emergency teams and support for those with expertise and capacity on the ground.

Nor is it really a matter of distribution.

PNG’s geography does present some challenging physical barriers to distributing vaccines – its legendary mountainous terrain and the remoteness of many of its inhabitants are well known.

Read more:
Australia wants to send 1 million vaccine doses to PNG – but without reliable electricity, how will they be kept cold?

But companies from Digicel to South Pacific Brewery manage to penetrate the most inaccessible areas with their products despite these difficulties. And the authorities manage to deliver the vote across the nation every five years in what is one of the world’s most extraordinary democratic exercises.

With its own rugged terrain and dispersed populations across multiple islands, Fiji has also faced major physical impediments to its vaccine rollout.

The major difference: leadership and belief

We get closer to the problem when we think in terms of trust, understanding and belief.

Fijians have embraced the vaccination rollout almost as one, following the guidance of their medical authorities and falling in line with the firm “no jabs, no job” policy of its prime minister, former military commander Frank Bainimarama.

In PNG, the term “vaccine hesitancy” understates the problem. One survey earlier this year showed worrying low willingness to take the vaccine, and another survey of university students showed a mere 6% wanted it.

Vaccine patrols have received death threats in some areas, and any politician who speaks out in favour of vaccination risks a political backlash. Strong efforts are now being made to overcome this problem, with the health authorities preparing a fresh approach and iconic figures such as rugby star Mal Meninga supporting the publicity effort.

These dramatically contrasting pictures cannot be explained fully through differences in education standards, or the quality of medical advice and attention.
To be sure, Fiji leads PNG in these respects – Fiji has 99% literacy compared to just over 63% in PNG, according to the latest available figures. And while Fiji’s medical system has its challenges, the decline in PNG’s health services due to chronic lack of investment puts it in a very different category.

Read more:
Pacific nations grapple with COVID’s terrible toll and the desperate need for vaccines

In PNG, trust in leadership has flagged following decades of frustration with growing wealth inequality and concerns over governance and transparency.

Rather than trust official sources, people often look to Facebook and other social media for their information, and are thus vulnerable to the dangerous nonsense peddled by the anti-vaccination movement in the west.

I know how quickly Papua New Guineans tap into what’s happening in neighbouring Australia, too. They will have seen how the public debate here has dented confidence in the AstraZeneca brand – the mainstay of their own vaccine supply.

But perhaps most troubling of all is the sense that many Papua New Guineans have developed a fatalistic belief that COVID is just another health challenge to add to the litany of other serious problems facing the country, among them maternal mortality, malaria and tuberculosis.

It’s almost as if they believe this is all somehow PNG’s lot. But it doesn’t need to be.

Ian Kemish is a former Australian diplomat, serving as high commissioner to PNG from 2010 to 2013. He currently chairs the Kokoda Track Foundation, which receives some funding from the Australian Government for its work to combat Covid-19 in PNG, and is Pacific representative for the World Bank’s Global Partnership for Education. He is a nonresident fellow with the Lowy Institute’s Pacific program.

– ref. PNG and Fiji were both facing COVID catastrophes. Why has one vaccine rollout surged and the other stalled? – https://theconversation.com/png-and-fiji-were-both-facing-covid-catastrophes-why-has-one-vaccine-rollout-surged-and-the-other-stalled-169356

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kristin Naragon-Gainey, Associate Professor, School of Psychological Science, and Director, Emotional Wellbeing Lab, The University of Western Australia

As lockdown eases today in New South Wales, and will do so in Victoria later this month, many people will begin readjusting to “normal” life.

Exiting lockdown after several months can lead to a range of feelings, from excitement and relief to stress and worry.

While it may seem counter-intuitive to feel anxious about returning to past freedoms and ways of life, it’s natural for such a major change to be stressful.

So why might it be anxiety-inducing, and how can you cope?

Mixed emotions

Humans are creatures of habit, and the lockdowns have persisted long enough for people to become comfortable with and accustomed to their lockdown daily routines – even those parts they don’t like. Reinventing a new daily routine takes effort, as it requires overriding our current habits and inertia.

Furthermore, some people may experience certain aspects of lockdown as beneficial, such as not commuting to work, spending more time with immediate family or roommates, and greater flexibility in work hours. People may miss these positive aspects after lockdown ends.

Home may also have become associated with safety and control during lockdown, so resuming life in public can seem daunting.

What’s more, while lockdown may come to an end, there’s uncertainty regarding the pandemic’s future impact on our lives, creating a new backdrop of anxiety.

For all these reasons, many people may have mixed emotions – including anxiety and fear – about leaving lockdown.

Everyone has experienced lockdown differently

While everyone responds differently, returning from lockdown may be especially difficult for some groups of people.

In particular, people with psychological conditions associated with anxiety when outside the home or interacting with people may have experienced less social stress than usual during lockdown, if they weren’t faced with as many anxiety-provoking situations. These include some people with, for example, social anxiety, agoraphobia, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or people on the autism spectrum.

At the same time, many of these people also felt greater loneliness and other anxieties during lockdown, similar to the general population.

Read more:
Most of us will recover our mental health after lockdown. But some will find it harder to bounce back

Other people may be experiencing strong anxiety or depression for the first time, or may feel overwhelming worry about contracting COVID or the impact of the pandemic.

A wealth of research has shown that when people avoid situations that make them feel anxious, they may feel less stress immediately, but over time avoidance makes them feel as anxious or even more anxious in those situations in the future.

In contrast, engaging in these situations repeatedly helps reduce anxiety over time, as demonstrated by treatments like exposure therapy.

This process seems to manifest in lockdown. One study found that although college students’ social anxiety tended to decrease over the course of the academic year in recent years, anxiety remained high during this same period in lockdown, perhaps due to decreased social interactions.

While reduced interaction with the public during lockdown may have eased social stress for some people, it may also make it more challenging to re-engage in these interactions now.

4 ideas to help you cope

There are numerous strategies you can use to help you successfully cope with anxiety and worry as you leave lockdown behind.

1. Expect a readjustment phase

It can be helpful simply to remind yourself a period of readjustment is normal, given the unusual and stressful situation the world is facing, and any distress is generally temporary.

Keeping this in mind can lead to more realistic expectations for yourself and others who might be struggling, as well as greater compassion for yourself and others. Allowing some downtime and leeway for bad days will facilitate a quicker and smoother readjustment.

2. Talk to supportive friends

Seeking support from others you feel comfortable with and talking about how you’re feeling is also important for many people, particularly as others may be struggling with the same feelings and challenges.

3. Re-engage with fun

You can also make an effort to do activities you generally find enjoyable and/or meaningful — particularly those you haven’t been able to do during lockdown and were looking forward to, even if you have mixed feelings now about doing them.

4. Stay in the moment

Deep breathing or mindfulness practice can help people get through difficult emotions or situations following lockdown.

Although many things about the pandemic are out of our control, taking concrete steps to decrease your stress level — even in small ways — can help you feel better and more in control.

Read more:
Languishing, burnout and stigma are all among the possible psychological impacts as Delta lingers in the community

When should you see a professional?

For most people, anxiety and stress post-lockdown will be mild and will fade quickly as people settle back into their pre-lockdown routines.

However, there are some signs that indicate you may benefit from seeking professional help. These include experiencing distress or anxiety that persists for weeks and is impacting your ability to function well at work or at home.

Others may find they’re still managing to get through their day, but have strong worries about COVID or leaving the house that don’t go away and make it difficult to focus or be present. Lots of people may have bad days or occasional feelings like this, but help may be needed if these experiences are severe and/or persistent. If you are feeling hopeless and thinking of harming yourself, please seek help immediately.

While some people may require longer to readjust post-lockdown than others, there’s support available to help people return to their pre-lockdown lives and enjoy the freedoms that go along with it.

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

Kristin Naragon-Gainey receives funding from the National Institutes of Health (United States). The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

– ref. Why you might feel anxious returning to ‘normal’ after lockdown — and how to cope – https://theconversation.com/why-you-might-feel-anxious-returning-to-normal-after-lockdown-and-how-to-cope-169089

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Reeve, Deputy Program Director, Energy and Climate Change, Grattan Institute

Carbon offsetting has been in the news lately after a report raised concerns about the integrity of the federal government’s offsetting scheme, the emissions reduction fund.

Offsetting refers to reducing emissions or removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in one place to make up for emissions in another. Done well, it lowers the costs of reducing emissions. Done badly, it increases costs and gives us false confidence about our progress towards net zero emissions.

It’s a difficult part of the climate change conversation worldwide and, because of past problems, there’s understandable cynicism about its potential.

The Grattan Institute has just released a new report on the role of offsetting in achieving net zero targets. In it, we show even with strong policies to reduce emissions wherever possible, Australia is going to need offsetting — potentially lots of it — to reach a target of net zero emissions.

What is offsetting?

Offsetting is often done through a system of credits or offsets — units that represent one tonne of emissions reductions achieved, or one tonne of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere.

For example, a mining company with a net-zero target might be able to partially reduce its emissions through adjusting its operations, but could find it still has emissions that are too expensive or technically impossible to reduce.

In this case, it might buy an “offset” to cover these emissions. The offset could come from another company with plenty of options to reduce emissions (such as a landfill owner), or it might come from an activity like tree-planting.

Why carbon offsetting is a touchy subject

Offsetting raises strong views. Some see it as an excuse for polluting companies to delay reducing emissions. Others say it destroys the fabric of rural communities because it encourages farmers to turn farming land into places for tree-planting and other carbon-storage activities.

Some international schemes have been criticised for crediting offsetting activities that aren’t “additional”. This refers to activity that would have happened anyway, such as rewarding a landholder for maintaining vegetation that was never going to be cleared, or rewarding a manufacturer for investing in low-emissions technology when that would have occurred regardless.

Australia’s emissions reduction fund has also been criticised on these grounds.

It has also been criticised for the baselines against which offsets are measured and projects receiving credit for activity that hasn’t yet occurred and may never.

Read more:
Direct Action not giving us bang for our buck on climate change

All public policy that relies on incentives must grapple with the question of whether an activity is “additional”. It is a hard problem, and it may never be fully solved.

But when it comes to offsetting, it matters, because one of the roles of offsetting is to lower the cost of reducing emissions. In other words, if you can reduce your emissions more cheaply than I can using current technology, it makes sense for me to pay you to do so while I wait for technology costs to come down.

As the chart below shows, if there are too many emissions reduction or removal activities that are credited but didn’t actually happen (“hollow” offsets), then we get a false sense of progress towards net zero. Someone ends up overpaying, so the progress we do make costs more.

This limits the market’s effectiveness. If buyers aren’t sure they’re getting what they pay for, they won’t pay as much. This pushes prices down, which limits the number of producers willing to do offsetting, because they won’t be paid as much.

More profoundly, these hollow credits give a dangerous false sense of security that emissions are reducing at a particular rate, when in fact they aren’t.

Still, we will need more carbon offsets

Most offsetting in Australia is done by reducing emissions. But as we get closer to net zero, these offsetting options will disappear. There will literally be fewer emissions to reduce, and those that remain will be more difficult and more expensive to eliminate.

Read more:
5 reasons why the Morrison government needs a net-zero target, not just a flimsy plan

Even with strong policies to reach net-zero emissions in time, Australia will need offsets for hard-to-abate emissions sources, such as aviation, cement and beef cattle. The only option to deal with these emissions will be to offset them by deliberately removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Australia has plenty of land for planting trees to draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but we don’t have plenty of water or productive soil, and we’ll have even less as the climate warms.

Governments should invest in research and development and early-stage technology development, such as direct-air carbon capture and storage. While these technologies are very expensive and might not work at scale, it would be better to find that out now than in 2050.

Most importantly: governments should put in place stronger policies to reduce emissions. The earlier reports in the Grattan Institute’s Towards Net Zero series have recommendations for cutting emissions from transport, industry, and agriculture.

Every tonne of greenhouse gas going into the atmosphere is contributing to global warming and climate change. The tonne we don’t emit is the tonne we don’t have to offset.

Offsetting needs integrity

Clearly, we need offsetting to reduce emissions — but only if it’s done with integrity. In our latest report, we explain how to make this happen.

We recommend the federal government returns to its original commitment made in 2014 to review every method for creating offsetting units in the emissions reduction fund, every four years. It should allocate additional resources to do this, with independent experts.

International rules to underpin integrity and trade in offsetting units should be settled at the next month’s international conference on climate change (COP26) in Glasgow.

Read more:
US scheme used by Australian farmers reveals the dangers of trading soil carbon to tackle climate change

If negotiations drag on, we recommend the federal government put in place rules around the export of Australian offsetting units anyway, to stop potential integrity issues emerging.

Both these actions will show the government is serious about maintaining integrity in its offsetting units. Regular reviews may find problems are minimal – that would be a good outcome.

But if there’s widespread perception that offsetting is some sort of dodgy cheat, then the government will find it even more difficult to use it as a policy tool. So being transparent about problems and moving to fix them quickly is the best solution.

Alison Reeve 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. We can’t stabilise the climate without carbon offsets – so how do we make them work? – https://theconversation.com/we-cant-stabilise-the-climate-without-carbon-offsets-so-how-do-we-make-them-work-169355

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karen Malone, Professor, Environmental Sustainability and Childhood Studies, Swinburne University of Technology

Leaders across the country – particularly in the states with the largest outbreaks, New South Wales and Victoria – have designed road maps towards reopening the states after long lockdowns. Safety in childcare, schools and universities is a core component of reopening plans.

Year 12 students in Melbourne go back to school this week, and there are staggered return plans for the rest of the year levels over the coming weeks. All students are set to return to the classroom full-time by November 5.

Regional Victorian students have a different schedule with all students back in the classroom full-time by October 26.

NSW students will be returning to class in a staggered fashion too. Kindergarten, year 1 and year 12 students are to return on October 18; all other grades will return on October 25.

Managing a safe return includes managing indoor classrooms via ventilation, sanitation and social distancing. But the NSW Education Department has said it will also support schools to use “outdoor learning areas”. And the Victorian strategy includes advice for early childhood centres and services to “move to an indoor/outdoor program (shifting to as much outdoor programming as possible)”.

Read more:
From vaccination to ventilation: 5 ways to keep kids safe from COVID when schools reopen

Moving classrooms outside is not a new idea. It has been done in past disease outbreaks such as tuberculosis and the Spanish flu. We can learn lessons from history and take pointers from international schools that have already made moves to learn outside.

A history of outdoor education

As tuberculosis was spreading and taking a toll on children in the early 1900s, an open-air school movement was launched in Germany. In 1904, the Waldschule (forest school) opened in Berlin. Its success spread, with forest schools opening in Scandinavia and open-air schools in Britain. A nationwide movement for fresh-air schools was launched across the US a few years later.

In 1912 New York, a private school moved classes onto the roof. Another school took up classes in an abandoned ferry and another in Central Park.

Schools around the world are now using outdoor classrooms again as a key strategy to mitigate the risks of COVID while remaining open.

The US National COVID-19 Outdoor Learning Initiative has been pushing for schools to have classrooms outdoors and many have done so.

By last October New York City officials alone approved 1,100 proposals for public school students to spend at least part of their day outdoors.

Some wanted to use their school grounds, closed down streets or take students to local parks for lessons. Essex Street Academy, a public secondary school in Lower Manhattan, was one of these schools. Students have been taking multiple classes on the expansive roof. According to the principal of the school, the roof of the vertical schools was designed as a school yard – so nothing needed to be adjusted.

Read more:
Physical distancing at school is a challenge. Here are 5 ways to keep our children safer

Without any specific directions, many teachers around Australia have also been heading outdoors. A K-1 primary teacher in NSW told me:

Since the pandemic, on the days I’m onsite, I keep the kids outside most of the day. We go into the garden and read stories, complete writing tasks, art and maths games – using the gardens as stimulus.

A university lecturer in Victoria said:

Last semester, to support social distancing and increase fresh air, I took classes outdoors. Our classroom was the campus grounds, a local park, the botanic gardens and the National Gallery.

Here are seven reasons why schools should be moving classes outside as much as possible.

1. Being outdoors supports students’ health and well-being

Being outside lowers the risk of transmission of the virus by making it easier to socially distance and providing better ventilation and fresh air.

It also supports students’ mental well-being. Research shows being outside has many positive health, social, emotional, ecological and learning benefits for students and staff.

2. Setting up an outdoor classroom is relatively inexpensive and easy

Compared to the other options such as opening up walls or windows in classrooms, installing ventilation systems or rotating home/school attendance to ensure smaller class numbers, moving outdoors can be implemented with limited resources.

3. Outdoor classrooms may mean schools stay open

Schools could safely accommodate more students by going outside. Therefore, there is less likelihood of disruption to the lives of students and families. By lowering risks once students return, schools are more reliably able to remain open.

4. What is normally taught indoors can be adapted for outside

For early childhood and primary school everything can be outside. Experiences overseas have shown well-resourced roof spaces or pavilions have overcome issues of special equipment.

The question should be what really can’t be taught outside rather than what can – that is the shorter list.

Read more:
Children learn science in nature play long before they get to school classrooms and labs

5. Schools can use a variety of outdoor options

Permanent outdoor classrooms could be set up. Students could use the outdoors for one-off classes during the day, or schools can stagger class numbers by scheduling small groups inside and out throughout the day.

6. Any space outdoors can be used

Around the world, we’ve seen verandahs or external corridors, decks, courtyards, roof tops, school grounds, gardens, ovals, blocked-off streets on school boundaries, nearby local parks and playgrounds, and a vast array of other local community spaces, such as beaches, forests and village centres, used as outdoor classrooms.

7. Educators from outside the school can be used

Educators from national parks, aquariums, museums, zoos and science centres are already trained in teaching outdoors and many have had limited work due to pandemic closures.

Karen Malone 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. Schools have moved outdoors in past disease outbreaks. Here are 7 reasons to do it again – https://theconversation.com/schools-have-moved-outdoors-in-past-disease-outbreaks-here-are-7-reasons-to-do-it-again-168481

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alex Simpson, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Macquarie University

What’s the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion?

The difference used to matter. Evasion was illegal. It meant not paying tax that was due. Avoidance meant arranging your affairs so tax wasn’t due.

Australian media mogul Kerry Packer used the distinction as a complete defence when he told a parliamentary committee in 1991 he was

not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Of course, I am minimising my tax. Anybody in this country who does not minimise his tax wants his head read.

The Pandora Papers — the biggest-ever leak of records showing how the rich and powerful use the financial system to maximise their wealth — shows the distinction has lost its meaning.

The dump of almost 12 million documents lays bare the ways in which 35 current or former leaders and 300 high-level public officials in more than 90 countries have used offshore companies and accounts to protect their wealth.

Only in some of the cases could their activities be categorically declared illegal.

Tax havens are legal

Here’s how tax havens are used. Trusts and companies are set up in places with low tax rates and secrecy laws such as the Bahamas, Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, the US state of Delaware and the Republic or Ireland.

If, for example, a wealthy celebrity or a politician wants to buy a new yacht or a luxury villa but doesn’t want to pay tax or stamp duty or expose their wealth to scrutiny they can get their lawyer or accountant to do it through such a trust.

Read more:
The Pandora Papers: why does South Dakota feature so heavily?

For somewhere between US$2,000 and US$20,000 to set up the trust, the name of the real owner or beneficiary can be hidden.

It isn’t illegal for the celebrity or a politician to move their money (so long as it is theirs to begin with). Assets within the trust are subject to local tax laws (sometimes zero tax) and local secrecy laws (sometimes complete secrecy).

Legal, but used by criminals

These legal means of using complex networks of secret entities to move around money are the same as those used by criminals.

Alongside the likes of India’s cricket superstar Sachin Tendulkar, Colombian pop singer Shakira and Elton John in the Panama Papers are Italian crime boss Raffaele Amato, serving a 20-year jail sentence for weapons and drugs trafficking, and the deceased British art dealer Douglas Latchford, suspected of smuggling looted treasures and money laundering.

It’s far from clear these arrangements should be legal

The big question raised by the Pandora Papers is why any hiding of private wealth from tax authorities ought to be legal.

The International Monetary Fund estimated in 2019 that tax haven deprived governments globally of US$500 billion to US$600 billion per year.

To put that into perspective, the estimated cost of vaccinating the world against COVID-19 is US$50-70 billion.

Some of what’s been uncovered in the Pandora Papers is illegal (“evasion”) but much might not be (“avoidance”, aided by anonimity).

The effect is the same. Dollars that ought to have been paid in tax are withheld and used for the benefit of people who aren’t keen to admit to owning them.

Over the weekend the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, now led by Australian Mathias Cormann, brokered a deal under which 136 countries agreed to charge multinational corporations a tax rate of at least 15%, making tax havens harder to find.

Ireland, previously used as tax haven, signed up.

The nations concerned did this because because, even where legal, the use of tax havens costs billions.

We’ll soon have to consider removing a distinction in law that vanished in practice some time ago.

Alex Simpson has received funding from Economic and Social Research Council, UK.

– ref. The Pandora Papers show the line between tax avoidance and tax evasion has become so blurred we need to act against both – https://theconversation.com/the-pandora-papers-show-the-line-between-tax-avoidance-and-tax-evasion-has-become-so-blurred-we-need-to-act-against-both-169353

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

The government’s leadership group is due to consider plans for a revised climate policy this week, as Scott Morrison goes all out to land a deal the Nationals will accept.

The stakes are very high for both Morrison and Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce.

Morrison needs to be able to commit to net zero emissions by 2050 and to improve the government’s medium term ambition, if he is to keep faith with the expectations of Australia’s allies, the United States and Britain.

Joyce has to get a package that is sufficiently acceptable to a majority of the Nationals so that his party room doesn’t feel their restored leader has sold them out.

Morrison and Joyce have been in discussions for some time but with the Glasgow climate conference looming early next month, reaching finality is now becoming urgent.

The leadership group includes, besides the PM and Joyce, treasurer Josh Frydenberg, finance minister Simon Birmingham, attorney-general Michaelia Cash, defence minister Peter Dutton, deputy Nationals leader and agriculture minister David Littleproud, Nationals Senate leader and regionalisation minister Bridget McKenzie, and health minister Greg Hunt.

After the leadership group considers it, the policy will go to the wider cabinet.

Read more:
Grattan on Friday: To go or not to go — Morrison grapples with Glasgow

The Nationals will meet Monday virtually, but will not have a substantive policy to discuss. They have indicated they want to consider the plan in a face-to-face meeting. The first opportunity for that is when parliament meets next week. The policy would also go to the joint parties room.

Morrison will announce the policy before the Glasgow meeting.

Assuming he lands a satisfactory deal, he is still unclear about whether he will go to Glasgow, and has not sounded enthusiastic. He has pointed to onerous quarantine requirements as a disincentive but the new NSW treasurer Matt Kean indicated to Sky NSW would smooth that problem if need be.

There are other disincentives to the PM’s trip, which would also include the G20 meeting. One is his need to concentrate on domestic politics in the final part of the year.

Read more:
Turnbull slams ‘deceitful’ Morrison for giving Australia a reputation as untrustworthy

Another is the prospect of awkward moments on the trip. French president Emmanuel Macron will be at the G20, and it is not certain how an encounter would go, given the tension between the two countries over the cancelled submarines contract. Former PM Malcolm Turnbull will be at Glasgow, which could make for another difficult encounter.

On the other hand, the Glasgow conference is a major international occasion and Morrison would be criticised for not attending.

The Business Council of Australia bought into the climate debate at the weekend, backing net zero for 2050 and a big lift in the 2030 target – to a 46-50% economy-wide range against 2005 levels. The present target is for a reduction of 26-28%.

However the BCA – which represents Australia’s largest companies – immediately came in for some flak.

Some critics homed in on its change of position, because it had derided Labor’s proposal for a 45% reduction target before the last election. The BCA said this would be economy wrecking.

Energy minister Angus Taylor was somewhat dismissive of the BCA report saying it made “a number of recommendations that have concerning impacts for households and businesses”.

Read more:
COP26: what’s the point of this year’s UN climate summit in Glasgow?

For instance, “the BCA’s recommendation to expand the Safeguard Mechanism and bring down baselines would force companies to reduce their emissions, regardless of whether economically viable technologies are available, risking competitiveness and jobs – this is a carbon tax”.

Joyce, speaking to the Western Australian Nationals conference, said: “BCA and those who you represent — you are now on the hook for what you state, the cost is now yours.

“Future governments will say that you asked for this, and if it’s a flop, if it’s a disaster, as the energy crisis now is in the UK, Europe and China, you have to pay to fix it.”

Michelle Grattan 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. Government’s leadership group to consider climate policy this week, with high stakes for Morrison and Joyce – https://theconversation.com/governments-leadership-group-to-consider-climate-policy-this-week-with-high-stakes-for-morrison-and-joyce-169610

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

Former prime minister Tony Abbott has warned China could “lash out disastrously” at Taiwan very soon.

In a speech in Taipei, Abbott condemned China’s growing belligerence towards Taiwan and said Australia should not be indifferent to its fate.
Abbott – who as prime minister concluded the free trade agreement with China – recalled the warmer relations between China and Australia in those days.

“Much has changed in just six years, but it’s not Australia’s goodwill towards the people of China, about a million of whom are now Australians and making a fine contribution to our country,” he said.

Australia had no issue with China, Abbott said. “We welcome trade, investment and visits – just not further hectoring about being the chewing gum on China’s boot.”

He said if the “drums of war” could be heard in the region – as home affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo put it in April – “it’s not Australia that’s beating them.

“The only drums we beat are for justice and freedom – freedom for all people, in China and in Taiwan, to make their own decisions about their lives and their futures,” Abbott said.

“But that’s not how China sees it, as its growing belligerence to Taiwan shows. Sensing that its relative power might have peaked, with its population ageing, its economy slowing, and its finances creaking, it’s quite possible that Beijing could lash out disastrously very soon.”

Abbott said that “our challenge is to try and ensure that the unthinkable remains unlikely and that the possible doesn’t become the probable.”

“That’s why Taiwan’s friends are so important now: to stress that Taiwan’s future should be decided by its own people and to let Beijing know that any attempt at coercion would have incalculable consequences.”

Abbott’s visit comes at a time of high tension between China and Taiwan, with China repeatedly sending large numbers of military aircraft into Taiwan’s air defence zone.

Taiwan’s defence minister claimed this week military tensions between China and Taiwan were at their worst in more than 40 years.

Asked earlier this week about the visit, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said it was a private trip and Abbott was not passing on any government messages.

“Tony is in Taiwan as a private citizen, and I didn’t have any conversation with him before that.”

But Abbott has been given VIP treatment during his visit and accorded high-level government meetings.

Australia has a “one China” policy diplomatically but there are close economic relations between Australia and Taiwan, including trade and investment and, before the pandemic, tourism.

In his speech, Abbott said China had created the new Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (between the United States, Australia, Japan and India), “because it’s been so unreasonable”.

“And the more aggressive it becomes, the more opponents it will have,” Abbott said.

The US State Department had just affirmed America’s commitment to Taiwan was “rock solid”, he said.

“I don’t think America could stand by and watch Taiwan swallowed up. I don’t think Australia should be indifferent to the fate of a fellow democracy of almost 25 million people.”

Abbott observed the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, had put it well when he said America would be competitive with China when it should be, collaborative when it could be, and adversarial when it must be.

“Provided it’s real, collaboration is still possible and trust could yet be rebuilt. But Taiwan will be the test,” Abbott said.

He said Taiwan should be welcomed into the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

But China, which is seeking to join the trade pact, “could never be admitted to the TPP while engaged in a trade war with Australia, and in predatory trade all-round”.

Michelle Grattan 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. Tony Abbott warns China could ‘lash out’ at Taiwan soon – https://theconversation.com/tony-abbott-warns-china-could-lash-out-at-taiwan-soon-169543

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charlotte Phelps, PhD Student, Bond University

Wireless earphone sales are booming, with Apple alone selling an estimated 100 million sets of AirPods in 2020. Being untethered from our phones or devices means we are likely to wear earphones for longer periods.

As a result, you might notice your ears feeling more sticky or waxy. Is this common? And what happens to our ears when we wear earphones?

Although wireless earphones are fairly new to the market, there is a large amount of research investigating the long-term use of hearing aids, which in many cases, have a similar mechanism. From this research, it appears prolonged use of in-ear devices can cause problems with earwax.

Read more:
Are your kids using headphones more during the pandemic? Here’s how to protect their ears

What does earwax do?

The production of earwax (also known as cerumen) is a normal process in humans and many other mammals. There should always be a thin coating of wax near the opening of the ear canal.

This wax is a waterproof and protective secretion. This acts to moisten the skin of the external ear canal and works as a protective mechanism to prevent infection, providing a barrier for insects, bacteria, and water. Wet earwax is brown and sticky, whereas the dry type is more of a white colour.

In fact, earwax is such a great barrier, in the 1800s there were reports of it being used as an effective balm for chapped lips!

Earwax is a naturally occurring substance produced in the external portion of the ear canal. It is created by the secretions of oil glands and sweat glands released by the hair follicles, which then traps dust, bacteria, fungi, hairs and dead skin cells to form the wax.

The external ear canal can be thought of as an escalator system, with the wax always moving towards the outside, preventing the ears from becoming filled with dead skin cells.

This migration of earwax is also aided by natural jaw movements. Once the earwax reaches the end of the ear, it simply falls out.

Read more:
Curious Kids: how do scabs form?

How earphones might affect this system

The ear is self-cleaning and best performs its function without interruption. However, anything that blocks the normal progression of earwax moving outside can cause issues.

Normal use of in-ear devices don’t often cause a problem. But prolonged earphone use, such as if you leave them in all day, could:

• compress the earwax, making it less fluid and harder for the body to naturally expel
• compact the earwax to the extent the body induces inflammation. This results in white blood cells migrating to the area, increasing the number of cells in the blockage
• impact air flow and stop wet earwax drying out. When earwax retains its stickiness for prolonged periods of time, it encourages build-up
• trap sweat and moisture in the ears, making them more prone to bacterial and fungal infections
• create a barrier to the earwax’s natural expulsion, which ends up stimulating the secretory glands and increasing earwax production
• reduce overall ear hygeine, if the pads of the earbuds are not cleaned properly, or contaminated with bacteria or infectious agents
• damage your hearing if the volume is set too high.

If the build-up accumulates, excessive earwax can cause hearing problems, along with other symptoms such as pain, dizziness, tinnitus, itching, and vertigo.

If you need to listen for a prolonged period of time, using over-ear headphones may help a little. These offer a small amount of extra airflow compared to the in-ear earphones and earbuds. However, this is not as good as leaving the ears open to the outside air, and an accumulation of earwax can still occur.

As they sit outside the ear canal, over-ear headphones are also less likely to cause any earwax compaction, or introduce bacteria or pathogens to the ear canal.

Read more:
Health Check: is it bad to regularly sleep wearing earplugs?

Nothing smaller than your elbow

In most cases, the best way to control earwax is to leave it alone. It is not recommended to use cotton buds frequently, as this can force earwax back into the ear canal. The longstanding advice is not to put anything smaller than your elbow in your ear – in other words, don’t put anything in there!

Some traditional methods, such as olive oil drops or ear candles, may also have adverse effects and are not helpful.

If your have ear wax or related hearing concerns, your family doctor will have a range of treatment options to assist, and can also direct you to the correct health service if it requires longer-term management.

Initially, they will look into your ear with a special instrument (otoscope) and see the extent of any blockage or dysfunction.

In the meantime, the ear has a wonderful process of self-cleaning, and we should do our best to let this occur naturally. In most cases earphones are fine, but it might still be helpful to stay aware of how long you spend wearing them. Finally, be sure to always keep the volume at safe levels.

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. Don’t wear earphones all day – your ears need to breathe – https://theconversation.com/dont-wear-earphones-all-day-your-ears-need-to-breathe-168742

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Helen Trenos, Lecturer (Theatre & Creative Arts), Curtin University

Review: Animal Farm, written by Van Badham and directed by Emily McLean, Black Swan State Theatre Company.

In 1937 George Orwell witnessed a boy whipping a horse. This was a catalyst for his novel Animal Farm. Published in 1945, it remains a potent political satire.

A story about the days and months following an animal revolt on a run-of-the-mill English farm, Orwell’s book is an allegory for Stalinist USSR where the ideals of communism were crushed by factionalism, power mongering and a propaganda machine in overdrive.

Severe, harsh and fascist: this is the reality of the overworked and underfed animals of Mr Jones’ Manor Farm. And so the animals rebel, ousting Farmer Jones, establishing Animalism and changing the name to Animal Farm. Still, no creature comforts are afforded the animals.

Except for the pigs – the new power brokers – nothing changes.

Read more:
Orwell’s ideas remain relevant 75 years after ‘Animal Farm’ was published

A contemporary farce

This new production adheres closely to Orwell’s text while simultaneously brimming with contemporary references, including Trumpisms (“Make Animal Farm Great”), tweets, Fox-influenced “Fux News” and a poet pig as a Sia lookalike.

In contrast to the playfulness and farce in Van Badham’s script, Fiona Bruce’s stark set of scaffolding and black corrugated tin suggests a more sinister world. Together with Karen Cook’s chilly lighting design the set is effectively unnerving. Crowd control barriers suggest political rallies or, more disturbingly, the corralling of animals for slaughter.

The only colour in the animals’ world is from the massive cinema screen. It dazzles with a pastiche of specially created videos, stock footage and images.

We see in all his power and glory the lead pig Napoleon, the supreme leader played with a nod to Trump by Alison van Reeken. Speaking from the Oval Office, he is resplendent in his all-too-human clothes.

There are appearances from the leader’s press secretary (Squealer) who seems to be channelling Sarah Huckabee Sanders and is played with cheeky irreverence by Megan Wilding as she defends her leader and warns of the proliferation of fake news.

The images just keep on coming, sometimes at such a dizzying rate there is no time to think. This is key to maintaining power. Keep the masses mindlessly occupied and crucially unaware of their oppression.

Distort the truth, brand opposing viewpoints as fake news and lay the propaganda on thick.

Read more:
Why the world should be worried about the rise of strongman politics

Sensitive performances

Just three actors take on 16 roles. They are the powerhouse of this production. The skill and stamina of the actors (Andrea Gibbs, van Reeken and Wilding) demand audience attention. Immense pleasure is simply had by observing how quickly and seamlessly they transition from one character to another, embodying both animals and humans.

Gibbs’ opening monologue as Old Major is a particular standout. He is a wise boar on his last four legs, now confined to a wheelchair.

This scene could have easily slipped into comedy. For starters, there’s an actor with a pig’s snout and corkscrew tail, evoking Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech as he recalls his own dream of a world void of humans where all animals are free. But Gibbs plays it with dignity and force.

At the end of this speech, Old Major stands to proclaim the tenets of Animalism, among them: “Whatever goes on two legs is an enemy […] And in fighting against men we must never resemble them.”

But there he is, Old Major struggling with all his might to stand, humanlike, on two legs. A terrible omen of what is to come; we know the revolution is doomed to fail.

Slick and fast

Director Emily McLean smoothly orchestrates the shifts between stage and screen, choreographing the numerous entrances and exits with all the precision farce demands.

The performance is slick and fast: you need to strap yourself in. But there are times when you just want the production to slow right down and land.

I wanted to savour moments, space to allow for key events to impact. There were instances I simply needed time to process information, or make sense of who was who – especially given the actors were playing multiple roles.

Adapting a novel for the stage has its challenges. One of the biggest is how to deal with exposition, and unfortunately there were times the play was bogged down by too many words, when what the audience wanted was action and interaction between characters.

Perhaps casting more actors would have achieved this capacity to create more scenes: three actors good, a couple more better.

Animal Farm is at the Heath Ledger Theatre, State Theatre Centre of Western Australia, until 24 October.

Helen Trenos 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. Fake news and propaganda machines: new theatre production pulls Animal Farm into the now – https://theconversation.com/fake-news-and-propaganda-machines-new-theatre-production-pulls-animal-farm-into-the-now-167894

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Stanisic, Associate Research Leader, Institute for Glycomics, Griffith University

The world’s first mass vaccination program against malaria, announced this week, is set to prevent millions of children from catching malaria and thousands dying from this debilitating disease.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended widespread use of the RTS,S/AS01 (Mosquirix) vaccine in young children who are most at risk of malaria in Africa.

Malaria is a big deal

Mosquitoes spread the parasite Plasmodium falciparum from person to person when they bite. So until now, our fight against malaria has involved using mosquito nets to avoid being bitten and spraying insecticide to kill mosquitoes. Then there are drugs to prevent or treat malaria infection.

However, the parasite has developed resistance to antimalarial drugs and mosquitoes have developed resistance to insecticides. Nevertheless existing control measures have resulted in a significant decrease in the number of malaria deaths since 2000.

In recent years, however, progress has stalled. In 2019, malaria infection resulted in 409,000 deaths around the world, mostly in children under five years old, and 229 million new malaria cases.

So we need extra tools, such as an effective malaria vaccine, if we are to control the disease globally.

WHO’s recommendation to roll out the Mosquirix vaccine to children at high risk of infection with P. falciparum, which is widespread in Africa, is an important step towards controlling the deadliest of human malaria parasites.

Read more:
How our red blood cells keep evolving to fight malaria

What did the WHO recommend?

The WHO recommended four doses of the vaccine in children from five months old.

This recommendation follows recent results from a pilot program in Ghana, Kenya and Malawi, involving vaccinating more than 800,000 children since 2019.

The program showed delivering the vaccine is feasible and cost-effective in high-risk areas. It also increased the number of children (to more than 90%) who have access to at least one intervention to prevent malaria.

The vaccine has a good safety profile and reduces cases of clinical and severe malaria, which can be deadly.

Read more:
New malaria vaccine proves highly effective – and COVID shows how quickly it could be deployed

What do we know about the vaccine?

Mosquirix is a “subunit” vaccine. This means it only contains a small part of the malaria parasite, which is produced as a synthetic protein.

This protein is coupled with an “adjuvant”, a molecule designed to stimulate a strong immune response.

The vaccine works mainly by stimulating the body to make antibodies against the parasite, neutralising it, and preventing it from entering liver cells. These are the first cells the parasite invades when it enters the body.

The vaccine also works by helping to mount an inflammatory response, when a different part of the immune system responds.

Read more:
Male mosquitoes don’t want your blood, but they still find you very attractive

The vaccine isn’t perfect

The level of protection the vaccine provides isn’t ideal. Protection varies with the age of the child when vaccinated, with less protection for young infants compared with older children. In the older children (5-17 months old), this averaged at about 36% protection against developing clinical malaria over a four-year period.

Protective immunity also decreases rapidly over time. This means regular booster doses will be required. Alternative immunisation schedules are also being evaluated.

Yet, the vaccine can still make a significant contribution to malaria control when used in areas of high malaria risk and with other control measures.

One modelling study estimated that in sub-Saharan Africa, Mosquirix could prevent up to 5.2 million cases of malaria and 27,000 deaths in young children each year.

Why has it taken so long to get here?

Developing a malaria vaccine is challenging. Technically, it is difficult to develop a vaccine against a parasite that lives in two hosts (mosquitoes and humans).

There has also been limited interest by pharmaceutical companies in developing a malaria vaccine.

Although travellers would benefit from a vaccine when travelling to affected countries, the people who most need a malaria vaccine live in some of the world’s poorest countries. So there is little financial incentive to develop a vaccine.

Mosquirix is the result of more than 30 years of research and was created through a partnership between GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in the USA.

This time-frame is not long considering both the antigen design and the adjuvant system were novel.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and GSK supported further development, including evaluating the vaccine in clinical trials. Over three decades, they invested around US$700,000 million to develop the vaccine.

What next?

This current version of Mosquirix is not expected to be the last.
Preliminary results for a new modified vaccine, called R21, are encouraging.

Other malaria vaccines in development include whole parasite vaccines. These use the whole malaria parasite that has been killed or altered so it cannot cause a malaria infection but can still stimulate an immune response.

Passive vaccines are also being investigated. These involve injecting long-lasting antibodies to prevent malaria infection.

Read more:
COVID-19 isn’t the only infectious disease scientists are trying to find a vaccine for. Here are 3 others

A whole new set of challenges

In the meantime, WHO’s recommendation presents a new set of challenges.

Malaria-affected countries must decide whether to include Mosquirix as part of their national malaria control strategy.

Critical funding decisions from the global public health community will be needed to enable a broad rollout of the vaccine to the children who will most benefit from it.

Manufacturing capacity for tens of millions of doses each year, global vaccine supply chains and distribution infrastructure in malaria-affected countries will also be needed.

Finally, each country will need to maximise vaccine uptake and ensure completion of the four-dose immunisation schedule to obtain the vaccine’s full benefit.

Danielle Stanisic receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Medical Research Future Fund, the National Foundation for Medical Research and Innovation and Rotary for the development of a whole parasite malaria vaccine.

Michael Good receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Medical Research Future Fund, the National Foundation for Medical Research and Innovation and Rotary for the development of a whole parasite malaria vaccine.

– ref. World’s first mass malaria vaccine rollout could prevent thousands of children dying – https://theconversation.com/worlds-first-mass-malaria-vaccine-rollout-could-prevent-thousands-of-children-dying-169457

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vincent Hurley, Lecturer in Criminology. Police and policing., Macquarie University

With states and territories beginning to plan their reopening strategies, questions have been raised about whether vaccination passports or certificates will be required to enter public venues – and who will be checking these documents.

The National Retail Association has said the “onus cannot be on the retailer” to enforce vaccine certificate compliance due to the potential for customer abuse. The group is calling on the police to do this.

In New South Wales, the health minister initially insisted police would be enforcing vaccine certificates. The NSW police commissioner, however, said police will not be doing so unless asked by venue owners.

The police commissioner has reason to be hesitant. The policing of vaccinations is not a criminal justice issue, it is a health issue. So why should we expect the police to enforce vaccine certificates?

If police are asked to take on this role, they would have to navigate their way through a “non-crime issue” being watched and critiqued by politicians, the retail sector, the health sector and the community at large.

This would place unfair expectations and undue pressure on our officers to handle a sensitive – not to mention time-consuming – task they should not be asked to do.

Read more:
COVID has changed policing — but now policing needs to change to respond better to COVID

How other countries are enforcing vaccine passports

Similar questions of enforcement are being raised in other countries that are rolling out COVID vaccine passports.

In the United States and United Kingdom, police have largely resisted taking on the responsibility for checking vaccine certificates, although this may change with the proliferation of fake vaccination cards being sold online and through the health sector.

In Switzerland, police will be responsible for ensuring compliance of the vaccine checks at public establishments, but due to lack of resources, this will only amount to spot checks or responding to businesses that ask for help. One canton said it will take a soft approach, with a spokeswoman saying

it is very important for us to proceed in a proportionate manner and with common sense.

In Israel, police will be stepping up enforcement of the country’s “green passes” at public venues. But officers will not be checking people at entrances; rather, they will focus on ensuring venue owners are enforcing the rules.

The constant checking of people’s vaccination status by authorities could be construed as one of the hallmarks of a police state; indeed, this is how China’s digital health code system operates.

Read more:
China’s ‘surveillance creep’: how big data COVID monitoring could be used to control people post-pandemic

If the police universally apply harsh or zero-tolerance policing at the behest of the state without the consent of population, we would in essence be living in a police state. Or worse, a place where police use excessive force under the guise of pandemic social control, such as in the Philippines.

Thankfully, our police have not had to take such a heavy-handed approach to enforce public health restrictions as the vast majority of people have put their trust in institutions and followed the rules.

The problem with using police in this way

But using the police to enforce vaccine certificates for entry into public venues would further shift what is essentially a public health issue into a law-enforcement issue.

The focus will increasingly turn to the police’s ability or inability to manage compliance with public health orders, and police will be on the receiving end of any societal backlash should this enforcement meet with resistance.

Public trust in the police was much higher than that of the government, political parties and the media at the start of the pandemic.

But changing the role of police could erode public confidence in the institution, as police officials have previously warned during the pandemic.

Read more:
Police access to COVID check-in data is an affront to our privacy. We need stronger and more consistent rules in place

Enforcing vaccine certificates is also not the best use of police resources. This would take away from the ability of police to respond to other crimes that are of concern during the pandemic, such as domestic violence and cyber crime.

Police resources are already stretched thin in both Australia and overseas. In the UK, for instance, police officers have been retrained to become temporary ambulance drivers to make up for staffing shortfalls, taking them away from their daily policing roles.

The police is the only domestic agency that has the social mandate to enforce the law, maintain public order and protect life and, if necessary, use force in this process. (Not even the military can do this.) It is because of this far-reaching mandate that police have been called upon to enforce public health orders.

The ease with which governments can ask or demand police to serve certain roles gives forces little – and in some cases no – room to question these decisions. In this case, officers are being asked to police a disease, not a crime, and we should think twice about putting them in this position.

Vincent Hurley 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. Why police should not be responsible for enforcing COVID vaccine certificates – https://theconversation.com/why-police-should-not-be-responsible-for-enforcing-covid-vaccine-certificates-168935

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

University of Canberra Professional Fellow Michelle Grattan and University of Canberra Associate Professor Caroline Fisher discuss the week in politics

This week they talk about the new NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet – his relationship with Scott Morrison, and his steps to differentiate himself from Gladys Berejiklian, with some changes to the road-map out of lockdown.

Meanwhile the hospital wars are back. All the states want more money from Canberra as they prepare for reopening. Scott Morrison is resisting, insisting they’ve had plenty of time and funding to get ready and targeting Queensland in particular.

After Berejiklian’s resignation, triggered by the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption’s probity investigation into her conduct, attention has turned to the federal government’s proposed integrity commission. Ahead of the introduction of the legislation, due soon, debate is raging over what should be the extent of its powers.

Michelle Grattan 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. VIDEO: Michelle Grattan on the new NSW Premier, hospital funding, and a federal integrity commission – https://theconversation.com/video-michelle-grattan-on-the-new-nsw-premier-hospital-funding-and-a-federal-integrity-commission-169525

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

University of Canberra Professional Fellow Michelle Grattan and University of Canberra Associate Professor Caroline Fisher discuss the week in politics

This week they talk about the new NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet – his relationship with Scott Morrison, and his steps to differentiate himself from Gladys Berejiklian, with some changes to the road-map out of lockdown.

Meanwhile the hospital wars are back. All the states want more money from Canberra as they prepare for reopening. Scott Morrison is resisting, insisting they’ve had plenty of time and funding to get ready and targeting Queensland in particular.

After Berejiklian’s resignation, triggered by the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption’s probity investigation into her conduct, attention has turned to the federal government’s proposed integrity commission. Ahead of the introduction of the legislation, due soon, debate is raging over what should be the extent of its powers.

Michelle Grattan 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. VIDEO: Michelle Grattan on new NSW premier, hospital funding, and a federal integrity commission – https://theconversation.com/video-michelle-grattan-on-new-nsw-premier-hospital-funding-and-a-federal-integrity-commission-169525

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Rowe, Emeritus Professor of Cultural Research, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University

Although yet to be confirmed officially, men’s Ashes cricket in Australia seems certain to commence in December. A women’s Ashes test and other matches are also scheduled for early 2022 with much less fanfare. The relief of cricket authorities and fans is palpable.

Negotiations over the tour between the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB), Cricket Australia (CA) and federal and state governments have combined the intricacy of a free trade agreement with the political sensitivities of a submarine contract.

But a sporting contest dating back 140 years is not easily set aside even in the midst of a global pandemic.

Culture and history

An Ashes series is not the biggest thing in world cricket. Any event not involving the Indian superpower is necessarily watched by fewer people and generates less money. The quality of Ashes cricket can be mediocre, such as the 2013-14 tour by England, which the visitors lost 5-0.

But the Ashes retain their worldwide appeal among cricket players and followers because of the weight of history. This is a matter of postcolonialism rather than simple longevity. It explains why in Australia many people who wouldn’t know a “leg before” from a leg of lamb want to beat the English (although Scottish, Welsh and Irish people have all played for England).

While British politicians may claim the romance between the countries is greater than Kylie Minogue’s and Jason Donovan’s in Neighbours, there is no love lost in sport. An England victory over Australia in any sport recovers hurtful memories among a diverse range of people from former British colonies in Europe, Oceania, Asia, Africa and the Americas.

For Australian republicans it is a stark reminder that the apron strings of old Empire are yet to be comprehensively cut. This deep cultural resonance means that while the Ashes are undoubtedly fun for lovers of cricket, they are also significant for many people who are not.

Pandemic politics

With millions of Australian residents unable to return home or cross state borders, admitting touring sport teams and their families prompts loud accusations of favouritism. Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s emphatic statement that there would be “no special deals”, despite pleas from British counterpart Boris Johnson, is clear recognition of this “fair go” factor.

Yet, there have been multiple concessions by federal and state governments to other sportspeople, film stars, dubious celebrities and former politicians.

So it is really a matter of whether the Ashes are deemed special enough to allow English players to enjoy the limited freedom extended to the Indian men’s cricket team during its recent tour of England. This would mean their families receive the same access to luxury resort quarantine afforded to the AFL in Queensland, where the first Ashes Test is scheduled to be held in December.

The British players have spent long months on the road in sporting bubbles since early last year. Several players threatened to withdraw from the tour unless they could break out and spend time with their families.

Preserving the health and well-being of athletes was of concern long before the coming of COVID-19. The pandemic has exacerbated this problem, and there have been many cases of elite sportspeople withdrawing from competition on mental health grounds, including Naomi Osaka, Simone Biles and leading English cricketer Ben Stokes.

Nostalgia about Ashes tours in simpler days has little practical traction. The almost feudal control of sportspeople by the authorities has waned, with greater attention being paid to the needs and demands of commercial sport’s most prized assets – the people who play it.

Read more:
English football holds lessons for cricket, as elites hijack the game

Money and media

Perhaps the most pressing question about the 2021-22 Ashes is this: could they afford not to happen? The financial losses to CA and the ECB would be huge, including likely demands for compensation from the media companies that have already shelled out for the rights to broadcast the series and various associated one-day and Twenty20 matches. Sponsors may also question the value of their investment.

Contemporary sport and media are continuous production global operations that rely on constant live sport action to attract large television audiences. The pandemic first turned the sport screen off, then switched it on again in empty stadiums with images and sounds of fake crowds.

Read more:
Video explainer: How cricket captains make good decisions

Real stadium spectators, their number often reduced for safety reasons, have begun to resurface. They produce the vivid, noisy spectacle that evokes pre-pandemic golden summers of sport.

The Ashes signal a return to a kind of normality, although a precarious one. England’s last scheduled Test match in Manchester was cancelled because of a COVID outbreak in the Indian camp. We don’t yet know who will show up or how the tour will unfold in a pandemic-afflicted Australia bossed by assertive states.

For now, though, the Ashes show goes on, with exhilaration and consternation co-existing in the shadow of the Delta variant.

David Rowe previously received funding from the Australian Research Council for the Discovery Projects A Nation of ‘Good Sports’? Cultural Citizenship and Sport in Contemporary Australia (DP130104502) and Australian Cultural Fields: National and Transnational Dynamics (DP140101970).

– ref. Howzat? The Ashes are on, but so is the pandemic – https://theconversation.com/howzat-the-ashes-are-on-but-so-is-the-pandemic-169370

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maximilian de Courten, Professor in Global Public Health and Director of the Mitchell Institute, Victoria University

Sydney’s lockdown ends on Monday and Melbourne follows later this month, with fully vaccinated people gaining a number of social and economic privileges not available to those who are yet to be vaccinated.

Freedoms for those who are double-vaccinated will vary between states, but include greater access to employment, education and other activities, such as having visitors in your home, going shopping or going to the gym.

With vaccination rates generally lower among low socioeconomic groups, this is likely to further increase the inequality between the most and least socioeconomically advantaged Australians.

Australia faces two main COVID challenges: how to increase vaccination rates in priority populations and how to continue to protect these groups.

Read more:
Opening up when 80% of eligible adults are vaccinated won’t be ‘safe’ for all Australians

How vaccination rates compare

This week’s vaccination data by local government area (LGA) in Victoria show continued uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in most government areas.

The graph below shows the distribution of first and second doses, as well as the required percentage to reach 95% full coverage, in the three most and three least socioeconomically disadvantaged LGAs.

Sydney reports a similar distribution between low and high socioeconomic LGAs but is ahead of Melbourne in overall vaccination rates.

Pandemic of the poor and disadvantaged

COVID-19 is quickly becoming a pandemic of the poor and disadvantaged. Four times as many poorer Australians died of COVID in 2020 than those from wealthier backgrounds.

COVID infection rates are higher where there are higher numbers of essential workers, larger family groups under one roof, and people living in shared homes.

This trend is also seen in a range of other countries, including Chile and Israel.

Indigenous Australians have one of the highest risks of dying from COVID-19. At the end of September, just 30% of First Nations Australians were fully vaccinated, despite being a priority population. Currently this rate is at 41%, showing progress but still insufficient protection.

Disability advocates have warned Australia could face a similar situation to the United Kingdom, where 60% of people who died from COVID had a disability.

As of September 15, only 40% of NDIS participants were fully vaccinated, despite also being a priority population.

Read more:
Children with disability are prioritised in the vaccine rollout, but many struggle to get an appointment

New disease, but old health problems

Disadvantaged groups are much more likely to suffer one or more chronic illness such as diabetes, heart disease and lung disease. These conditions put them at higher risk of severe illness or death if they contract COVID.

These underlying health conditions mean the poorest 20% of Australians die up to 6.4 years earlier than the wealthiest 20%.

People with a severe mental illness die up to 23 years earlier, mostly due to physical ill health.

Read more:
Vaccinations need to reach 90% of First Nations adults and teens to protect vulnerable communities

Poor and disadvantaged Australians are also at greatest risk of getting COVID and becoming seriously ill.

Yet the modelling for easing restrictions does not take into account how “opening up” will affect these groups.

Our health and recovery policies must not leave these groups behind. Targeted and bespoke information and services are needed for disadvantaged Australians to overcome these barriers.

So what needs to happen?

COVID cases are expected to rise when restrictions are lifted and public health measures eased. This will leave vulnerable groups at greater risk of COVID.

As other researchers have argued, in addition to high overall vaccination targets, preventing further lockdowns will require a layered plan that includes:

• specific vaccine targets for priority populations
• making indoor air safer
• maintaining high rates of testing and tracing
• booster shots.

Read more:
Relying only on vaccination in NSW from December 1 isn’t enough – here’s what we need for sustained freedom

Such a layered plan combined with staggered lifting of restrictions is critical to prevent high case numbers and potential severe illness and deaths in populations already disproportionately affected by other health conditions.

We also need to boost the health literacy of disadvantaged Australians so they can better understand and have greater confidence in the information about their health in general, including in relation to COVID and beyond.

Stella McNamara, research assistant at the Mitchell Institute, co-authored this article

Maximilian de Courten is the director of the Mitchell Institute a Think Tank for Education and Health Policy.

Jora Broerse 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. As lockdowns ease, vaccination disparities risk further entrenching disadvantage – https://theconversation.com/as-lockdowns-ease-vaccination-disparities-risk-further-entrenching-disadvantage-169261

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bonnie Mappin, PhD Candidate, Conservation Science, The University of Queensland

The health of many Australian ecosystems is in steep decline. Replanting vast tracts of land with native vegetation will prevent species extinctions and help abate climate change – but which landscapes should be restored, and how much would it cost?

Our latest research sought answers to these questions. We devised a feasible plan to restore 30% of native vegetation cover across almost all degraded ecosystems on Australia’s marginal farming land.

By spending A$2 billion – about 0.1% of Australia’s gross domestic product – each year for about 30 years, we could restore 13 million hectares of degraded land without affecting food production or urban areas.

Such cost-effective solutions must be implemented now if we’re to pull our landscapes back from the brink. This bold vision would transform the way we manage our landscapes, help Australia become a net-zero nation and create jobs in regional communities.

An ambitious agenda

Since European settlement, large areas of Australia’s native vegetation have been progressively cleared for agriculture and urban settlements. Australia’s environment remains under mounting pressure from land clearing, altered fire regimes and invasive species.

Our research shows that about one-fifth of Australia’s ecosystems have less than 30% coverage of healthy native vegetation. Below 30%, ecosystem services and biodiversity sharply declines. We calculate that 13 million hectares of land must be restored to reach the 30% threshold.

Targeted restoration of degraded ecosystems on less profitable agricultural land has enormous potential to alleviate these problems. Farmers can continue to produce valuable crops on their prime land, while rebuilding habitat and sequestering carbon on more marginal land.

Read more:
The clock is ticking on net-zero, and Australia’s farmers must not get a free pass

Almost half of the land requiring restoration is Eucalypt woodlands and almost a fifth is Acacia forests and woodlands. Areas in most need are:

• the Wheatbelt region of Western Australia
• Central Queensland
• Central West, Tablelands and Riverina areas of New South Wales
• Western Victoria
• the Eyre Peninsula and southeast South Australia.

Restoring native vegetation at selected sites would involve actions such as fencing to keep livestock away, pest removal, soil preparation and planting.

As well as direct restoration costs, our costings also included compensation payments to farmers and other landholders, for the cost of retiring the land from farming.

We identified the sites across Australia where revegetation would be most cost-effective. These are the places where land requires the least revegetation work and returns the lowest profit to farmers, thus minimising stewardship payments.

In practice, we recommend restoration sites be secured through voluntary arrangements with land holders.

Cost-effective conservation solutions

We estimate the required restoration would cost approximately A$2 billion annually for 30 years. To put this in perspective, it’s about 0.3% of the federal government’s annual spending last financial year and about 6% of what Australia spends annually on defence.

The restoration project would restore habitat and ecosystem services in our most degraded landscapes. It would expand threatened species’ habitat and re-establish ecosystem functions such as pollination and erosion control.

The revegetation would also help tackle climate change by drawing down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it. We estimate 913 million tonnes of greenhouse gases would be stored over 55 years.

After a decade of vegetation growth, 13 million tonnes would be stored annually – equal to 16% of the emissions reduction required under Australia’s Paris Agreement obligations.

We applied those figures to plausible carbon price scenarios where prices rise 5-10% per year from $15 per tonne, reaching $24-39 per tonne by 2030. If the carbon stored by the project was translated into carbon credits, the potential revenue could be between $12 billion and $46 billion.

The upper end of that estimate would more than cover the costs required to implement the plan. An intensive revegetation effort would also create jobs, mostly in rural areas.

Read more:
Loved to death: Australian sandalwood is facing extinction in the wild

Success is possible

Australia’s environment laws have comprehensively failed to protect nature. This has been compounded by a lack of adequate funding for environmental management, threatened species protection and ecological restoration.

Without doubt, the national project we describe is ambitious. But existing projects are showing the way. In southwest Western Australia, for example, the Gondwana Link program has so far restored 13,500 hectares of marginal farmland, and also aims to connect 100,000 hectares of existing bushland.

Turning around the state of Australia’s environment requires big thinking and an even bigger government and public commitment. But as our research shows, restoring our degraded landscapes is both attainable and affordable.

Read more:
Climate change is testing the resilience of native plants to fire, from ash forests to gymea lilies

Bonnie Mappin has received funding from the University of Queensland Research Scholarship and the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.

James Watson has received funding from Australian Research Council and the National Environmental Science Program. He sits on the science committees of BirdLife Australia and Bush Heritage Australia and a long-term science partnership with Wildlife Conservation Society.

Lesley Hughes has received funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a Councillor with the Climate Council of Australia, a Director of WWF-Australia, and a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.

– ref. Australia could ‘green’ its degraded landscapes for just 6% of what we spend on defence – https://theconversation.com/australia-could-green-its-degraded-landscapes-for-just-6-of-what-we-spend-on-defence-168807

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christina Heris, Research Fellow, Australian National University

Fear is one of the central emotional responses during the pandemic. Every day brings a new level of stress: concerns about getting sick, the stigma of testing positive, financial difficulties due to not being able to work, separation from loved ones in lockdown (or being locked in an unsafe household). The list goes on.

For many of us, uncomfortable feelings can be “natural” responses to a “threat”. Our strong, primitive defence or “threat response” (sometimes called “fight, flight or freeze”) has enabled human beings to survive. This stress response is essential for survival against poisonous snakes, crocodiles and other dangerous situations.

Unfortunately, our “threat responses” are not good at recognising the difference between the “threat” from a crocodile and a pandemic. These responses happen much faster than any conscious thought.

It can be particularly hard for people already experiencing complex post-traumatic stress disorder or trauma associated with earlier exposure to severe, repeated and inescapable threats or abuse, often from those meant to protect them.

As the pandemic hit last year, we were working on the Healing the Past by Nurturing the Future project, which aims to improve support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents experiencing complex trauma.

We asked ourselves whether the public health response to the pandemic can take into account people’s previous trauma.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US thought so when it integrated key principles of trauma-informed care into training for its Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response in 2018.

Read more:
Whiteness in the time of COVID: Australia’s health services still leaving vulnerable communities behind

Taking core concepts from our research and guiding principles, we identified 10 principles that may decrease stress or trauma by fostering a sense of security, well-being, confidence, hope and resilience.

1. Safety

The first priority of any emergency or “trauma-informed response” is to ensure physical safety from the immediate threat (like first aid principles). This includes the safety of people most at risk during lockdowns (for example, those experiencing family violence).

2. Connectedness and collaboration

Humans are social beings and being “connected” is another essential survival strategy that is more helpful to us in the pandemic than “fighting, fleeing, or freezing”.

When we have social support, it’s easier to take action in an emergency. But it’s not easy staying “socially connected” yet “physical distanced” in an infectious disease outbreak.

Read more:
The community-led movement creating hope in the time of coronavirus

Inequitable responses to the pandemic can also lead to divisions in society, such as when one community appears to receive greater financial support or an unfair allocation of vaccines.

However, looking after each other is our ticket out of here. We have seen this with the global scientific collaborations in the quest to create COVID-19 vaccines.

3. Compassion and caring

Acts of kindness, compassion and caring are needed more now than ever. Compassion and empathy promote well-being and we know social supports act as a buffer against difficult times.

Understanding stress and distress responses is an important way to “normalise” our feelings, and the actions of others.

4. Trust and transparency

Clear, compassionate action and transparent communication from governments are also important. These things increase a sense of safety and potential for people to follow public health advice.

Hiding information leads to distrust in government and the media. This can contribute to mistrust in COVID-19 responses and lead to non-compliance.

A lack of information and exposure to misinformation can also increase distress, and leave people vulnerable to conspiracists who target marginalised groups most at risk.

Rebuilding trust in an emergency may not be possible, but this is where trusted community partners become invaluable mediators and sources of truth for communities.

Read more:
Vaccinations need to reach 90% of First Nations adults and teens to protect vulnerable communities

5. Cultural safety and responsiveness

Public health approaches and messaging needs to be appropriate and sensitive to local contexts.

Communities need health messaging that draws on cultural strengths to increase trust and access to services, such as the way Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled health organisations quickly mobilised to take control of the local response to COVID-19.

6. Commitment to equity and human rights

COVID-19 has not had the same impact on everyone.
Many people, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and refugee communities, are affected by historical and intergenerational trauma, racism, and ongoing socio-economic deprivation.

These things can be exacerbated in this current crisis. We must address the socio-cultural determinants that can impact people’s health, such as insecure work and housing, and focus on equity.

7. Good communication

Crisis communication principles say messages are most likely to be effective when they are clear, credible and interactive, shared consistently, and targeted to community groups.

The public may feel the need to seek information to manage their anxiety, but distressing content can also increase their feelings of stress, confusion, and a lack of control, impacting their ability to take action.

The media play a critical role here. Accessing trustworthy, reliable information through these channels is important so people know what action to take and where they can go for help.

8. Positive leadership

Good governance helps us feel safe.
It’s important for the government to be highly visible, provide regular updates and practical support, and help people understand and manage feelings of stress.

But we don’t just need leadership from politicians and officials. Local leaders also need to support their communities to process fear, grief and loss, and to help people understand the crisis will pass and there is hope.

This was on show when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled organisations took quick action to protect their communities from COVID-19.

9. Empowerment

Individual and community empowerment comes from having choice, voice, and control. This promotes the confidence to respond to an emergency, as well as resilience, hope and the ability to cope.

Communities that are empowered to play an active role in disaster response actually recover better, with lower rates of post-traumatic stress. However, communities must be adequately resourced to do this.

10. Holistic support

We need big responses that address health and safety, social and emotional well-being, community connectivity and cultural responsiveness to improve quality of life, relationships and social functioning.

However, effective emergency responses must be embedded in well-functioning social systems, including emergency social and economic support and high-quality healthcare services everyone can access when needed.

Our next step will be to discuss these 10 principles with community members and public health experts in an October workshop, to develop a culturally responsive, trauma-informed, public health emergency framework for First Nations communities.

This pandemic is far from over and there is now a race to vaccinate communities that have been left behind as states open up. A trauma-informed public health emergency response is possible. And with cases due to rise just as the next bushfire and cyclone seasons arrive, we need one now.

Christina Heris worked with the Healing the Past by Nurturing the Future study on the sub-project “Developing a culturally responsive trauma-informed public health emergency response framework for First Nations families and communities during COVID-19”, funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council Centre for Research Excellence Australian Partnership for Preparedness Research on Infectious Disease Emergencies and Paul Ramsay Foundation: APPRISE Targeted responses to empower First Nations-led research on COVID-19.

Catherine Chamberlain receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (Career Development Fellowship). This research is funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council Centre for Research Excellence Australian Partnership for Preparedness Research on Infectious Disease Emergencies.

Cindy Woods worked with the Healing the Past by Nurturing the Future study and on the sub-project “Developing a culturally responsive trauma-informed public health emergency response framework for First Nations families and communities during COVID-19”, funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council Centre for Research Excellence Australian Partnership for Preparedness Research on Infectious Disease Emergencies and Paul Ramsay Foundation: APPRISE Targeted responses to empower First Nations-led research on COVID-19.

Helen Herrman has received funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council

Janine Mohamed receives funding from the Department of Health

Michelle Kennedy receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (Early Career Research Fellowship). She is affiliated with the Public Health Association Australia.

Shannon Bennetts has worked with the Healing the Past by Nurturing the Future study and is an investigator on the sub-project “Developing a culturally responsive trauma-informed public health emergency response framework for First Nations families and communities during COVID-19”, funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council Centre for Research Excellence Australian Partnership for Preparedness Research on Infectious Disease Emergencies and Paul Ramsay Foundation: APPRISE Targeted responses to empower First Nations-led research on COVID-19.

Simon Graham receives funding from the National Health & Medical Research Council (early career fellowship). The Centre for Research Excellence Australian Partnership for Preparedness Research on Infectious Disease Emergencies (APPRISE) is managed by the Peter Doherty Institute.

– ref. 10 ways we can better respond to the pandemic in a trauma-informed way – https://theconversation.com/10-ways-we-can-better-respond-to-the-pandemic-in-a-trauma-informed-way-168486

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kathryn MacCallum, Associate Professor of Digital Education Futures, University of Canterbury

The pandemic has fundamentally altered every part of our lives, not least the time we spend on digital devices. For young people in particular, the blurred line between recreational and educational screen time presents new challenges we are only beginning to appreciate.

Even before COVID, there were concerns about screen time for children. A 2019-20 survey found four in five children were exceeding the current Ministry of Health recommendation of two hours’ recreational screen time a day. This was on top of screen time linked to learning.

With lockdowns and social restrictions now a new normal, it is increasingly difficult to disengage from screens. Children are growing up in a digital society, surrounded by a multitude of devices used for everything from social connection to learning and entertainment.

The boundaries between recreation, communication and learning are becoming less distinct. Screen time that may seem on the surface to be purely recreational can in reality be important for learning, supporting mental health and driving awareness of important issues.

YouTube, for example, can be both entertaining and educational. It is increasingly used in classes to supplement teaching. But it is also used in other ways, including to drive social change, as German star Rezo demonstrated with a viral climate change video that prompted sweeping public reforms.

Likewise the popular online game Minecraft has been shown to provide rich educational and social benefits. Even games like Roblox or Fortnite, where those benefits may be less apparent, still provide opportunities for rich social engagement and spaces for problem solving and experiential learning.

Are official guidelines outdated?

This all presents an interesting dilemma: can we really fit screen time into discrete categories, and should we apply limits to some but not others?

This blurring of boundaries has led researchers from the University of Auckland’s Centre for Informed Futures – Koi Tū – to call for clearer and more detailed official screen time recommendations.

Read more:
Minecraft can increase problem solving, collaboration and learning – yes, at school

Specifically, they felt the current recommended limits failed to represent the variety of screen time students experience. This was supported by a review of the academic literature covering the impacts of screen time.

While research indicates a broad association between excessive screen time and a range of behavioural, learning and other problems, the results are far from conclusive and can generally be attributed to other factors.

The review also found the type of screen time is important: in many cases, negative effects were driven by passive screen use, whereas interactive use didn’t have the same impacts. In fact, the latter can have positive influences, such as better learning achievement and enhanced cognitive skills.

Getting the balance right

This suggests we need to reorient our views of screen time away from a blunt measure of time spent on screens and towards better understanding what children are really doing on those screens.

While balancing passive and interactive screen time is clearly important, so is finding ways to encourage and prioritise more socially and educationally productive online behaviour.

Read more:
Stop worrying about screen ‘time’. It’s your child’s screen experience that matters

This should also guide the adoption of technology in schools. Rather than wholesale integration within every aspect of learning, devices should clearly add value or improve teaching and learning, not simply replace traditional practices.

The role of screen devices in classrooms is particularly relevant in light of New Zealand’s 2018 PISA results, which indicated children using devices in subjects like mathematics and science achieved lower scores than those who didn’t.

In August this year, the Ministry of Education responded by saying:

Digital devices have the potential to enhance learning, but there are few situations where this happens currently and many in which learning may be hindered.

Active versus passive time

It’s true there is considerable scepticism about the validity of the PISA tests, and wider research into the influence of screens in classrooms has shown mixed results.

Generally, however, we cannot claim a causal, linear relationship between use of devices and academic outcomes. Rather than assuming the PISA results indicate screen time is detrimental to learning, we need to consider how screens are actually being used in classes.

We need to focus on integrating technology that makes a difference and enhances learning. Students learn best when they are actively engaged and create and drive their own learning.

Read more:
Problems with PISA: Why Canadians should be skeptical of the global test

The same principles can apply to the use of digital devices – limiting passive consumption in favour of students being actively creative. This will open up new learning opportunities and provide students with authentic experiences.

For example, rather than students simply watching a YouTube clip to learn about the solar system, they might create their own augmented reality simulation, requiring them to apply their knowledge to correctly place, size and animate digital objects.

Rebalancing screen time in this way will help avoid the more negative consequences of these ubiquitous devices and highlight some of their unique advantages.

But this will require deeper and more critical thinking about what might be gained or lost in a world where engaging with digital technology is increasingly unavoidable.

Cheryl Brown receives funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

Kathryn MacCallum 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. Children live online more than ever – we need better definitions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ screen time – https://theconversation.com/children-live-online-more-than-ever-we-need-better-definitions-of-good-and-bad-screen-time-168650

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vasso Apostolopoulos, Professor of Immunology and Associate Provost, Research Partnerships, Victoria University

As Australia strives to reach its national COVID vaccination targets, there’s unprecedented focus on the biological effects of vaccines.

While there’s an enormous amount of information available online, it’s increasingly difficult to discern truth from falsehood or even conspiracy.

A common myth of vaccines that has appeared in recent months is the accusation they remain active in the body for extended periods of time – a claim which has increased vaccine hesitancy in some people.

However, vaccines are cleared from your body in mere days or weeks. It’s the immune response against the SARS-CoV-2 virus that appears to last for a long time.

This isn’t due to the vaccines themselves remaining in the body. Instead, the vaccines stimulate our immune system and teach it how to respond if we’re ever exposed to the coronavirus.

Let’s explain.

How do vaccines work?

All vaccines, no matter the technology, have the same fundamental goal – to introduce the immune system to an infectious agent, without the risk that comes from disease.

The vaccine needs to follow a similar pathway a virus would have taken to produce an adequate immune response. Viruses enter our cells and use them to replicate themselves. So, the vaccines also need to be delivered in cells where proteins are produced, which mimics a component of the virus itself.

The COVID vaccines all do this by delivering information into our muscle cells, usually in our upper arm. They do this in different ways, such as using mRNA, like Pfizer’s and Moderna’s, or viral vectors, like AstraZeneca’s.

Regardless of the technology, the effect is similar. Our cells use the genetic template in the vaccine to produce the coronavirus’ spike protein, which is a part of the virus that helps it enter our cells. The spike protein is transported to the surface of the cell where it’s detected by the immune cells nearby.

There are also other specialised immune cells nearby, which take up the spike proteins and use them to inform more immune cells – targeting them specifically against COVID.

These immune cells include B cells, which produce antibodies, and T cells, which kill virus-infected cells. They then become long-lasting memory cells, which wait and monitor for the next time it sees a spike protein.

If you’re exposed to the virus, these memory B and T cells allow a faster and larger immune response, destroying the virus before it can cause disease.

Read more:
Revealed: the protein ‘spike’ that lets the 2019-nCoV coronavirus pierce and invade human cells

So what happens to the vaccine?

Once they’ve initiated the immune response, the vaccines themselves are rapidly broken down and cleared from the body.

The mRNA vaccines consist of a fatty shell, which encapsulates a group of mRNA particles – the genetic recipe for the spike protein. Once this enters a cell, the shell is degraded to harmless fats, and the mRNA is used by the cells to produce spike proteins.

Once the mRNA has been used to produce proteins, it’s broken down and cleared from the cell along with the rest of the mRNAs produced by the normal function of the cell.

In fact, mRNA is very fragile, with the most long lasting only able to survive for a few days. This is why the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have to be so carefully preserved at ultra-low temperatures.

The vector vaccines (AstraZeneca and Johnson and Johnson) use an adenovirus, which is harmless in humans, as a vector to deliver a genetic template for the spike protein to the cells.

The vector virus has all of its infectious components removed, so it’s unable to multiply or cause disease. Then a genetic template for the spike protein is inserted into the vector.

Once the vaccine is injected, the vector virus binds to your cells and inserts its genetic components, before the shell breaks down and is removed.

Read more:
How long does immunity last after COVID vaccination? Do we need booster shots? 2 immunology experts explain

The viral machinery gets the genetic template into the control room of the cell, the nucleus, where it takes advantage of our normal protein building activity. The vaccine doesn’t cause any alteration to our DNA.

Normally, this would cause the cell to start producing more copies of the virus, but since this was all removed, all that’s produced is the spike protein.

Again, after making a large amount of the spike, the genetic templates are broken down in a matter of days or weeks.

What about the spike protein?

While the vaccines themselves are rapidly removed, what then happens to all the spike proteins that are produced as a result?

They’re identified as foreign by the immune system and destroyed – teaching the cells to recognise the coronavirus in the process.

The spike proteins are fully cleared from the body after a few weeks. In this time, they don’t appear to leave the vaccination site (most often your upper arm).

But antibodies specifically targeting the spike protein produced by your immune system remain in the body for many months after vaccination.

The vaccines also stimulate your immune system to produce memory immune cells. This means even once antibody levels diminish, your immune system is ready to produce more antibodies and other immune cells to tackle the virus if you’re ever exposed to it.

Read more:
How long does immunity last after COVID vaccination? Do we need booster shots? 2 immunology experts explain

Vasso Apostolopoulos COVID-19 research has received internal funding from Victoria University place-based Planetary Health research grant and from philanthropic donations.

Jack Feehan and Maja Husaric 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. No, COVID vaccines don’t stay in your body for years – https://theconversation.com/no-covid-vaccines-dont-stay-in-your-body-for-years-169247

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tatsuya Amano, Australian Research Council Future Fellow, The University of Queensland

English is considered the language of international science. But our new research reveals how important scientific knowledge in other languages is going untapped. This oversight squanders opportunities to help improve the plight of the one million species facing extinction.

We reviewed almost 420,000 peer-reviewed papers on biodiversity conservation, published in 16 languages other than English. Many non-English-language papers provided evidence on the effectiveness of conservation measures, but they are often not disseminated to the wider scientific community.

History shows many valuable scientific breakthroughs were originally published in a language other than English. The structure of a Nobel Prize–winning antimalarial drug was first published in 1977 in simplified Chinese, as were many of the earliest papers on COVID-19.

Evidence-based conservation is crucial for tackling the Earth’s biodiversity crisis. Our research shows more effort is needed to transcend language barriers in science, maximising scientific contributions to conservation and helping save life on this planet.

Conservation game-changer

Most scientists speak English as a first or second language. And many academic reward programs are skewed towards getting published in international English-language journals.

But important evidence in biodiversity conservation is routinely generated by field conservationists and scientists who are less fluent in English. They often prefer publishing work in their first language – which for many, is not English.

More than one-third of scientific documents on biodiversity conservation are published in languages other than English. However, such knowledge is rarely used at the international level.

Take, for example, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Analysis of the IPBES biodiversity assessment reports has found 96% of references cited are written in English.

Clearly, tackling any global challenge, including the biodiversity crisis, hinges on tapping into the best available knowledge, whichever language it’s produced in. Our translatE project aims to overcome the language barriers to improve this information flow.

As part of the project, we screened 419,679 peer-reviewed papers published in 16 non-English languages between 1888 and 2020 across a wide range of fields. These spanned biodiversity, ecology, conservation biology, forestry and agricultural science, to name a few.

We found 1,234 papers across the 16 non-English languages that provided evidence on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation interventions. To put this in perspective, the Conservation Evidence database, which documents global research into the effectiveness of conservation actions, holds 4,412 English-language papers.

The rate of publication of relevant studies is increasing over years in six non-English languages: French, German, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian and simplified Chinese.

Among the non-English-language studies we found were a Spanish study on alleviating conflicts between livestock farmers and endangered Andean mountain cats in northern Patagonia, and a Japanese study on the relocation of endangered Blakiston’s fish owls.

Such findings might have valuable insights for human-nature conflicts and threatened bird management in other parts of the world.

Most English-language evidence on what works in conservation relates to Europe and North America. In some highly biodiverse regions where conservation is needed most, such as Latin America, evidence is desperately lacking.

Research in languages other than English is especially common in regions where English-language studies are scarce, such as Latin America, Russia and East Asia (see figure below).

Many non-English studies also involve species for which studies in English are few or non-existent. Incorporating non-English studies would expand scientific knowledge into 12-25% more geographic areas and 5-32% more species.

Read more:
Human progress is no excuse to destroy nature. A push to make ‘ecocide’ a global crime must recognise this fundamental truth

Tapping global knowledge

Making the best use of non-English-language science can be a quick, cost-effective way to fill gaps in English-language science.

Our research recommends more effort to synthesise non-English-language studies, and making this knowledge available in English so it can be disseminated to a global audience.

And research projects should seek to involve native speakers of different languages. For our research, we worked with 62 collaborators who, collectively, are native speakers of 17 languages.

To have the best chance of halting Earth’s extinction crisis, we must harness the skills, experience and knowledge of people from around the world.

We also urge wider disciplines to reassess the untapped potential of non-English science to address other global challenges.

Read more:
‘The pigs can smell man’: how decimation of Borneo’s ancient rainforests threatens hunters and the hunted

Tatsuya Amano receives funding from the Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT180100354) and the University of Queensland strategic funding.

– ref. The English language dominates global conservation science – which leaves 1 in 3 research papers virtually ignored – https://theconversation.com/the-english-language-dominates-global-conservation-science-which-leaves-1-in-3-research-papers-virtually-ignored-168951

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Don Driscoll, Professor in Terrestrial Ecology, Deakin University

The New South Wales government has released a draft plan to deal with feral horses roaming the fragile Kosciuszko National Park. While the plan offers some improvements, it remains seriously inadequate.

Feral horses trample endangered plant communities, destroy threatened species’ habitat and damage Aboriginal cultural heritage — all the while increasing in numbers. The draft plan would keep many horses in the national park, locking in ongoing environmental and cultural degradation.

The number of horses has grown dramatically in recent years under the Wild Horse Heritage Protection Act, which became law in 2018 and was championed by then NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro. He and others argued the horses were important to Australia’s history of pioneering, pastoralism and horse trapping, and were related to rural legends and literary works.

But the cultural heritage of an introduced species should not override the needs of a highly vulnerable alpine environment. Barilaro quit politics this week – and with the driving political force behind feral horse protection now gone, we have an 11th-hour chance to safeguard this significant national park.

What’s in the draft plan?

On the positive side, the draft plan aims to:

• remove feral horses from 21% of the park

• reduce feral horse numbers to 3,000 by 2027

• prevent feral horses from invading new areas.

These are critical measures. As the draft plan notes, achieving them will need a set of carefully considered control methods, including ground shooting and putting down trapped horses.

Contrary to recent counter-productive management, reproductive-age females will no longer be released back into the park after being trapped.

But on the flip side, the plan will also:

• allocate one third (32%) of the national park to feral horses

• maintain 3,000 horses within the protected area in perpetuity

• attempt to control horse numbers without using the most humane and cost-effective method: aerial shooting.

Aerial shooting is ruled out because of fears around losing social licence to remove horses from the park. But this may make it impossible to achieve effective horse control across rocky, difficult-to-access terrain.

It also means feral horse control will drag out over years. This will result in larger numbers of horses being culled, compared with completing a cull within one year. Maintaining 3,000 feral horses in this reserve means accepting the removal of at least 1,000 animals every two years in perpetuity, based on a conservative rate of population growth.

Over 14,000 horses, and rising

To understand the challenge, it’s important to understand the numbers. The chart below – using population data collected by ecologist Don Fletcher for a Reclaim Kosciuszko report – compares the number of feral horses in Kosciuszko National Park since 2000, with the number removed by trapping.

The number of horses in Kosciuszko was last measured in November 2020 at just over 14,000.

With an the ongoing rate of increase of 18% per year and two years of population growth, numbers will have increased by 5,500. This means there’ll likely be almost 20,000 feral horses before control can start in 2022, under this plan.

Compare this with the 3,350 horses trapping has removed between 2008 and 2020, and it’s clear culling, including via aerial shooting, is urgently needed.

The huge, growing number of horses roaming Kosciuszko combined with the likelihood of immigration from outside the park, is also the main reason fertility control cannot work. The draft report is therefore right to reject fertility control as a workable solution.

33 threatened species in greater peril

We are most concerned about the draft plan’s allocation of one third of the park to at least 3,000 feral horses, and likely many more given the limitations on control methods. These areas harbour important ecosystems and threatened species.

Using publicly accessible data from NSW Bionet and Atlas of Living Australia, we estimate at least 33 threatened species live within the horse retention zone. About half of these are either already known to be impacted by feral horses or we suggest will likely be impacted because they’re vulnerable to trampling, grazing or habitat damage.

For example, the only place the critically endangered stocky galaxias – Australia’s most alpine-adapted fish – occurs is within the horse-retention area.

This hardy fish was recently rescued from bushfires and faces grave risks associated with the Snowy 2.0 scheme. It’s currently protected from feral horses thanks to a stock-exclusion fence, and the draft plan notes fencing is only a short-term solution.

Read more:
Double trouble: this plucky little fish survived Black Summer, but there’s worse to come

The endangered Riek’s crayfish also has a restricted range within Kosciuszko. If horses are removed in the southern part of the park, as the draft plan outlines, then damage to their habitat will decline by 2027. But horses remain a threat to their habitats in the north.

Alpine sphagnum bogs and associated fens are a nationally threatened plant community with a stronghold in Kosciuszko. It is particularly vulnerable to impacts from feral horses, and we calculate 28% of its distribution in Kosciuszko will be inside the horse-retention zone.

Horses heritage value a non-sequitur

The draft plan’s main reason for keeping feral horses in the national park is to protect heritage values. However, the plan does not explain why heritage must be celebrated by keeping 3,000 feral horses in a national park.

In our view, while the horses have cultural heritage value to some, letting them continue to damage a fragile national park is an unacceptable trade-off.

Read more:
The ethical and cultural case for culling Australia’s mountain horses

Consider the recent Aboriginal cultural values report. It noted Indigenous Australians share similar heritage associations as skilled horse riders on farms since early colonial times. However, the report recommends acknowledging this heritage with information in a visitor centre.

Preservation of huts and interpretive signs are another way of acknowledging the heritage values of pastoralists past.

A social license

Research released this month surveyed 2,430 Australians and found 71% accept that feral animals can be culled to protect threatened species. As the researchers write, this sentiment is not fully reflected in existing policy and legislation.

Barilaro’s exit may be an opportunity for NSW politicians to capitalise on this social licence.

This draft plan is one step towards protecting our native species, natural places and Indigenous heritage, and will be open for submissions until November 2.

But if aerial culling was also on the table, those goals could be achieved with fewer horses culled and at lower cost.

Read more:
Let there be no doubt: blame for our failing environment laws lies squarely at the feet of government

Don Driscoll receives funding from the Herman Slade Foundation, OEH NSW Environmental Grants program, DELWP Vic, National Geographic, Rufford Foundation, WWF and Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC, Australian Government Bushfire Recovery program. He is Director of the Centre of Integrative Ecology and Director of the TechnEcology Research Network at Deakin University. Don is a member of the Ecological Society of Australia and Society for Conservation Biology.

David M Watson receives funding from The Australian Research Council, the Hermon Slade Foundation and philanthropic support from Chris and Gina Grubb. His research is supported by The Australian Research and Data Commons, Charles Sturt University, Bush Heritage Australia, and collaborates with staff from Parks Victoria, Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions and NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. Professor of Ecology at Charles Sturt University, he is a member of the Ecology Society of Australia, Birdlife Australia and a founding member of the Slopes to Summit hub of the Great Eastern Ranges Initiative.

Desley Whisson receives funding from WWF, The Australian Government Bushfire Recovery Program, NSW Natural Resources Commission, and CSIRO. She is a member of the Society for Conservation Biology.

Maggie J Watson receives funding from the Institute of Land Water and Society, Charles Sturt University. She is a member of the Ecological Society of Australia and the Australian Society for Fish Biology.

– ref. Feral horses will rule one third of the fragile Kosciuszko National Park under a proposed NSW government plan – https://theconversation.com/feral-horses-will-rule-one-third-of-the-fragile-kosciuszko-national-park-under-a-proposed-nsw-government-plan-169248

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pema Düddul, Associate Professor in Writing and Publishing, University of Southern Queensland

If you’ve watched the Netflix sitcom The Chair you’ll remember the scene in which Professor Joan Hambling burns her student evaluations, after admitting she hadn’t read any of them since the 1980s. Many of us in academia whooped in delight when Professor Hambling lit that match.

We know exactly how she feels. For LGBTIQ+ people in particular, student experience or satisfaction surveys can be a source of distress as they provide students with an anonymous means to discriminate against and harass queer academics. At times, these surveys are little better than university-facilitated hate speech.

Read more:
Our uni teachers were already among the world’s most stressed. COVID and student feedback have just made things worse

An unreliable guide to teaching quality

Adding salt to the wound is that universities then use these surveys to assess academics’ teaching performance, despite growing evidence they are not fit for this purpose. The University of New South Wales has even proposed to publish these survey results.

Research shows student evaluations of teaching are not accurate measures of teaching effectiveness. Other research shows these surveys do not lead to higher teaching quality or better learning outcomes and are not trusted by students as a means of giving them a voice. In contrast, such surveys are linked to poorer teaching, grade inflation and to racism, sexism and homophobia.

A number of studies have shown grade satisfaction is a major factor in survey results – the higher the student’s grades the better the feedback they give. Students at prestigious universities are also more likely to positively rate their lecturers because the university and its courses are seen as “world class”. Most damningly, student evaluations are often little more than veiled bias about their lecturer’s personal traits, especially gender, race and sexuality.

Sharing the best and worst feedback

I recently asked a dozen academics from universities across Australia to share their worst and best student feedback stories. A common thread in these stories was students using the surveys to voice homophobic and transphobic sentiment. These are real student responses to questions about teaching quality:

I couldn’t concentrate because I couldn’t tell if the teacher was a man or woman.

I found it extremely frustrating that a lot of examples and theories all revolved around sexuality/gender/identification and how it affects him. Speaking to a number of students in this topic, a lot of us felt like it was over the top.

This lecturer has no empathy for students not supporting the LGBTQ ideology.

She looks like a man professor not a woman one.

He made me uncomfortable because gays and lesbianism are against my religion.

There are only two genders, men and women!

Some other comments were so offensive they were unpublishable.

There was also a strong thread of sexism. Research shows women receive lower ratings than male academics for doing the same thing. Women academics were judged harshly for being feminist or not conforming to stereotypical gender norms. One academic copped abuse for both in a single comment:

Question: Do you have any other comments to add about this teacher in this unit? Answer: You look like 13 year old boy but the brain of a woman power bullshit and your (sic) a germ.

The academic in question had a short, Pixie-style haircut at the time. Here we have the student’s perception of her gender non-conformity negatively impacting the academic’s teaching quality score.

Read more:
Male teachers are most likely to rate highly in university student feedback

These surveys provide two forms of so-called data, a numeric score and qualitative data in the form of student comments. To assess teaching performance, or to decide if an academic will be appointed or promoted, the numeric score alone is normally used. This means an academic given a poor score accompanied by a discriminatory comment is being evaluated without proper context.

That being said, neither the numeric score nor the comments necessarily reveal the student’s true motivation for the feedback. Students are discouraged from openly venting their racism, homophobia and sexism but this does not mean their attitudes change. They are just cleverer about how they express it. Anonymous surveys enable them to rate an academic harshly without having to justify the rating or say why.

Many responses have nothing to do with teaching

Research also shows students are often not even answering the question they are asked, as the comments above show. They often base their scores and comments – both positive and negative – on things outside the classroom and beyond the academic’s control. Here are some examples:

It would’ve been nice not to have to miss so many classes due to public holidays due to the classes being on a Monday.

Library access sometimes confusing – not everything available online.

IT help at this university is terrible, nothing ever works how it should and they never fix it.

One academic I contacted received a positive score and comment because of her wardrobe:

Question: What was good about the course?
Student comment: I like your shirts ?

Another academic received a low teaching quality score because the classroom did not have a nice view and the student found that depressing.

Although academics generally value and respect their students, it would be foolish to pretend that as a group they will give objective feedback with the sole aim of improving teaching. About one in ten students routinely cheats on their assessments. Half of British university students experience assault and harassment on campus from other students. Another UK study showed close to a quarter of LGBTIQ students had been a victim of homophobic harassment or discrimination, including threats of physical violence, at university.

Most students are good people, but enough harbour sexist, racist and homophobic views to distort survey outcomes.

Read more:
Sexual abuse, harassment and discrimination ‘rife’ among Australian academics

What are the impacts on academics?

Having positions of relative authority in the university system does not make LGBTIQ academics immune to homophobia on campus. If anything, they may feel like they have targets on their backs that force some back into the closet. Giving students an anonymous means to vent their bias and purposely harm academics’ careers and well-being just makes things worse.

Foregrounding student evaluations of teaching over other ways of assessing teaching performance — such as peer review and actual student learning outcomes — also leads some academics from vulnerable communities to self-censor in classes. Some queer academics, especially those on precarious casual contracts, try to be “less queer”. One non-binary academic adopted a “cisgender-friendly way of dressing” for the classroom after student comments. Having to wear more normative clothing made the academic feel they were “in a form of prison, wearing an inmate’s uniform”.

Obviously, having to hide who we are is not conducive to a productive teaching environment nor to our well-being.

Furthermore, for surveys to be statistically relevant and represent the majority attitudes of any given class the response rates need to be at 60% or higher – a benchmark routinely expected of survey data. Often students participate in these surveys at much lower rates. These low rates give a louder voice to those who wish to use the surveys to punish academics for their non-conformity to hetero-patriarchal values.

We already have better ways of assessing teaching quality and student learning, and ensuring those processes are authentic and fair. They’re called assessment outcomes.

In contrast, student evaluations of teaching are not fit for purpose and commonly discriminate against LGBTIQ+ and women academics. Perhaps Professor Hambling had valid reasons for burning her student feedback evaluations.

Pema Düddul 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. Read the student survey responses shared by academics and you’ll see why Professor Hambling is justified in burning hers – https://theconversation.com/read-the-student-survey-responses-shared-by-academics-and-youll-see-why-professor-hambling-is-justified-in-burning-hers-167897

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Nemchin, Associate Professor, Applied Geology, Curtin University

Volcanic rocks collected from the Moon last year are about two billion years old — a billion years younger than the samples returned by previous missions. This new discovery means the Moon was volcanically active much more recently than experts had previously thought.

Remote images taken over the past few years had already suggested the Moon is home to much younger rocks than those previously brought back to Earth for direct study. Our research, published today in Science, confirms this fact for the first time.

The rock samples were collected by the Chinese National Space Agency during its Chang’e-5 mission in December 2020 — the first time anyone had collected rocks from the Moon since 1976.

During remote sessions with colleagues in China, our team at Curtin University helped determine the age of the lunar rock samples. The results, although long-expected, were exciting.

Previously, the youngest Moon rocks studied on Earth were samples collected by the Apollo and Luna missions in the 1960s and ‘70s, as well as lunar meteorites. All were at least three billion years old, leading geologists to surmise the Moon has not been volcanically active since then.

But after estimating the age of the new Moon rocks based on the rate of decay of radioactive elements in these samples, we determined these latest samples to be about two billion years old. This makes them the youngest volcanic rocks identified on the Moon so far.

Not only is this the first direct confirmation rocks of this age exist on the Moon, it also confirms that our remote observation techniques work. That’s great news for experts studying other planets, especially Mars.

With China planning another Moon landing in 2024 as part of its Chang’e-6 mission, this research also puts Australia at the heart of the international collaboration to analyse the resulting samples.

Read more:
Five reasons India, China and other nations plan to travel to the Moon

Hot history

The fact the Moon has younger volcanic rocks than we thought also means it must have had a relatively recent bout of internal heating that would have driven this volcanic activity. The challenge now is to explain how it happened.

In general, volcanic rocks (or “basalts”) are similar on various rocky planets and moons. But there are some key differences that make them unique. Lunar basalts probably form under hotter conditions, because water is more scarce on the Moon than here on Earth. The presence of water can change the temperature at which the rocks melt or solidify, and the hotter formation on the Moon can create subtle but crucial variations in the rocks’ chemical composition, relative to similar types of rocks on Earth.

Many Moon rocks are very high in titanium, for example, which is never seen on Earth, although the rocks collected by Chang’e-5 have intermediate titanium levels.

Our focus will now turn to analysing more fragments to establish how much they vary in chemical composition. This will hopefully teach us more about the specific conditions under which these rocks formed, initially as volcanic magmas.

We still need to explain what heat source is responsible for the comparatively recent melting of the interior on the Moon, which formed the internal “lake” of magma associated with the volcanic activity, and why it has become cool and inert today.

Ultimately, this will help us improve age dating of the entire Solar system, unlocking more secrets from our cosmic neighbourhood.

Read more:
Why the Moon is such a cratered place

Gretchen Benedix receives funding from The Australian Research Council.

Alexander Nemchin 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. We shaved a billion years off the age of the youngest known Moon rocks, and rewrote lunar geological history – https://theconversation.com/we-shaved-a-billion-years-off-the-age-of-the-youngest-known-moon-rocks-and-rewrote-lunar-geological-history-169453

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Holden, Professor of Economics, UNSW

The United States government is scheduled to hit its “debt ceiling” of US$28.4 billion on or around October 18.

The US debt ceiling isn’t like the limit on a credit card, which is imposed by the lender worried about the borrower’s ability to make payments.

Instead, it’s a form of self-delusion: a limit imposed by the borrower itself — the US government in the form of the Congress — in order to limit borrowing largely necessitated by decisions of the Congress.

This statement endorsed by a panel of leading US economists surveyed by the Chicago Booth school in 2013 sums up the absurdity of the requirement

because all federal spending and taxes must be approved by both houses of Congress and the executive branch, a separate debt ceiling that has to be increased periodically creates unneeded uncertainty and can potentially lead to worse fiscal outcomes

No-one knows what would happen if the Congress didn’t approve the regular increases in the debt ceiling made necessary by the programs it legislates. What does happen is that each increase gets approved at the last moment in a largely symbolic high stakes game of chicken.

If each increase wasn’t approved, the US might be unable to borrow to meet the payments on its debt and would default.

Read more:
Why America has a debt ceiling: 5 questions answered

Or, and this was the basis of a contingency plan drawn up in 2011, it would delay payments for other things, such as contractors, staff, social security recipients and Medicare providers, in order to meet free up enough cash to ensure it continued to make payments on debts.

Either would scare the heck out of financial markets, as does the fact that both are evoked each time Congress goes through the charade of deciding whether or not to do what it has so far always done.

In an episode of Aaron Sorkin’s brilliant TV show The West Wing, staffer Annabeth Schott asks: “so this debt ceiling thing is routine, or the end of the world?”

White House press secretary Toby Ziegler replies: “Both.”

What would happen if the US breached the debt ceiling? Credit ratings agency Moody’s says if the government defaulted GDP could fall by close to 4%, six million jobs could be lost, mortgage and business interest rates would spike, and US$15 trillion would be wiped off the value of assets markets.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen described the sequence as “catastrophic”.

Will the US end up raising the debt ceiling once again? Almost certainly. But even a small probability of a catastrophe is an unnecessary risk.

The politics of the matter are that the Republicans seem to want Democrats to raise the debt ceiling without Republican votes, preserving it as a campaign issue.

Since Democrats only have 50 of the 60 votes in the Senate required to force a vote, it requires a workaround. It’ll probably happen, but it’s a dangerous game.

Down under, Australia flirted with this stupidity, then escaped it.

Australia’s brief debt ceiling

During the financial crisis of 2008-09, Labor introduced a debt ceiling as a way of signalling its seriousness about economic management.

I would have thought its success in saving Australia from a recession did the trick, but I’m just an economist.

In its wisdom Labor set the ceiling at A$75 billion.

Since deficits kept happening and flirting with a debt ceiling was bad news, Labor increased the ceiling to A$200 billion, then to A$250 billion, then A$300 billion.

Read more:
Debt ceiling is a belt when we already have braces

And, just like the reckless Republicans in the United States, an opportunistic Coalition in Australia opposed each increase.

Then, shortly after the Coalition took office in 2013, newly minted Treasurer Joe Hockey proposed a really big increase, from A$300 billion to A$500 billion, to end the recurring charade.

Labor took the high road, said it wouldn’t oppose the sort of thing it would also have to do in government, and refused to play politics. The debt ceiling was abolished, and everyone lived happily ever after.

Actually, no. I made that up.

What Labor did was start making noises about opposing the increase. “I don’t believe he’s come anywhere near yet justifying that extraordinary increase to the debt limit,” said Labor’s (otherwise generally sensible) treasury spokesman Chris Bowen.

It was a journalist’s rather bold suggestion that provided the cut through. Peter Martin suggested Hockey bypass Labor and do a deal with the Greens to abolish the ceiling altogether.

A fortnight later, Hockey did just that.

Labor, realising its mistake, said it supported the deal and promised to treat sovereign default in the same bipartisan way that the two major parties deal with national security issues.

“Politics must stop at the door of sovereign default” the opposition leader said.

Actually, no. That didn’t happen either. Labor described the deal as “bizarre”.

The broader lesson

One takeaway is that Australia was right to remove a silly constraint that risked blowing up the economy for no good reason.
We should say no to debt ceilings.

But there’s a broader lesson. Politicians in this country should stop playing politics with issues on which they agree.

Labor should stop complaining about “debt and deficits”, given that if it had been in government it would have done much the same.

Read more:
Don’t worry about the debt: we need stimulus to avoid a recession

And the Coalition should knock off the hypocrisy on a range of issues including climate change where it is likely to end up endorsing the sort of policies it ridiculed when they came from Labor.

Electric cars were never going to end the weekend. The targets Australia puts forward at the Glasgow climate talks are likely to implicitly endorse the switch.

Our politics can be better, but only if our politicians are.

Richard Holden is President-elect of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia.

– ref. Vital Signs. Laugh at the US if you will, but Australia narrowly escaped a debt ceiling – https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-laugh-at-the-us-if-you-will-but-australia-narrowly-escaped-a-debt-ceiling-169250

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gillian Arrighi, Associate professor, University of Newcastle

Australia’s performing arts sector has long been recognised as an ecosystem. It is a community of artists, arts organisations and institutions, all affected by factors such as education and training, audiences, policy and revenues.

It comprises commercial organisations; not-for-profit, government subsidised companies; independent grassroots ventures and amateur groups making and touring creative works for audiences locally, nationally and internationally.

Every species in this ecology has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
As we transit from crisis to recovery, and the dust settles on a post-COVID terrain, it’s likely we’ll see a mass exodus of despairing freelance workers leaving the sector for good.

The demise of small companies lacking the infrastructure to survive is also on the cards. A decimation of university theatre departments has already happened. Taken together, this paints a bleak future.

The sector has called for extra support for over a year. Theatre Network Australia proposes additional funding of $100 million over four years for the Australia Council and a targeted wage subsidy for workers in the performing arts who continue to suffer due to COVID-19.

For the top tier, hope is to hand. With swiftly rising vaccination rates, theatres in Sydney have been given the green light to open at 75% capacity. Big stage musicals Hamilton and Come from Away will reopen this month. Sydney Theatre Company will return in November with Julius Caesar, and plans to mount an international tour of The Picture of Dorian Gray, starring Eryn Jean Norvill, with commercial producers Michael Cassel Group.

Melbourne theatres remain closed until a “pathway” beyond the peak of the pandemic is settled, but there is clear hope theatres will open in the coming months. Melbourne Theatre Company has just announced its 2022 season to start in January.

These companies were able to weather the storms of 2020 and 2021. Many smaller companies and independent artists may not be so fortunate. With state borders still closed and lower vaccination rates in regional areas, the resumption of touring remains a long way off.

COVID-related funding losses have seen drama departments at seven universities either cut completely, or drastically pruned. The loss of these programs will have a devastating impact on future generations of artists and arts educators..

The end of the pandemic may be in sight. The pain for Australia’s theatre sector is only just beginning.

‘Caught in a rip’

The COVID-19 Arts Sustainability Fund was established by the federal government in June 2020, three months after COVID closed theatres and venues and halted touring, triggering unemployment – or significantly reduced employment – for the sector’s large base of freelance workers.

The $50 million fund remains open until May 2022 to provide “last resort” assistance to “significant” arts organisations at “imminent risk” of insolvency due to the pandemic.

A $5 million cash grant to the Melbourne Theatre Company is the latest lifeline from the fund to rescue one of our leading cultural organisations from going under. As the company’s executive director, Virgina Lovett, described it, the pandemic has been “like being caught in a rip”.

The term “imminent risk” evokes urgency: a clear and present danger.

Yet this language of pending disaster is a curious metaphor for the government to use, given the changes to Australia’s subsidised performing arts industry across the last seven years.

Federal government funding for the arts is less now than 2013 when the Labor government departed office. Australia lags in the OECD league table for spending on culture per percentage of GDP. In 2019, Australia ranked 25th in a field of 34 countries, spending just 0.9% of GDP on culture.

Read more:
Has the government rescued the arts in this budget? There are some winners but not much has changed

The reality is that COVID-19 just is another deadly blow to an arts ecology that has been endangered for a long time.

The bulk of the government’s COVID-19 response for the arts sector is its project-based, $200 million competitive grant fund, Restart Investment to Sustain and Expand (RISE).
So far, $160 million has been allocated to a mix of regional and metropolitan organisations; commercial and not-for-profit; touring, events, festivals and exhibitions. It is a much broader church of recipients than the typical roll call of Australia Council funding.

A devil in the detail is support for touring projects and initiatives in the regions: touring funding is of little use if it can’t quickly leverage return through buoyant ticket sales, and vaccination rates in regional areas will remain low for some time to come.

Read more:
Too little, too late, too confusing? The funding criteria for the arts COVID package is a mess

The crisis in drama departments

There will be an unmeasured – and perhaps immeasurable impact – on emerging and independent artists. In many cases, COVID has broken trajectories of creative development begun in childhood, developed through teenage years and honed in higher education.

Young emerging artists provide generational renewal to theatre: bringing ideas and energy into the rehearsal room as they find their voices as creators and collaborators.

But pathways for them to hone their craft have been drastically reduced. According to reporting by Julian Meyrick in The Monthly, Monash, Murdoch, La Trobe, Charles Sturt and Newcastle universities have “effectively closed their standalone drama programs”; the drama departments at Flinders and Wollongong have seen cuts to teaching hours and staffing respectively, while Queensland University of Technology and Federation University have seen class sizes increased.

A snapshot from drama at Flinders University
demonstrates the flow of graduates into theatre, TV, and film as writers, presenters, comics, directors, designers, and actors, but importantly, also as founders of new performance groups across the genres of circus, music, youth theatre and more.

Graduates forge diverse paths. Take the careers of Marion Potts, or Rachel Swain,
both graduates of theatre and performance studies at the University of Sydney. Potts is currently CEO at Performing Lines, producing contemporary works by independent artists. Her executive producer role follows a stellar directing career with long stints at STC (1995-99), Bell Shakespeare (2005-2010), and Malthouse Theatre (2010-2015) and as director of theatre at the Australia Council.

By contrast, Swain’s unique career traverses multimedia and intercultural dance theatre. She co-founded innovative physical theatre company Stalker and is now co-artistic director of contemporary dance company Marrugeku .

From our experience, if you teach a student physical theatre they may end up making puppets, starting a theatre company, or acting in television. Teach community cultural development and they are equipped to apply “design thinking” to theatre making or social innovation.

University theatre departments have traditionally been a pathway to the professional schools of acting, directing, and design – VCA, NIDA, WAAPA – but graduates infiltrate all areas of the creative industries because of the broad skills and theory our contemporary departments teach. Importantly, they are also the future generation of teachers.

Vital young and emerging artists will suffer from cuts to these courses, and an increasingly dire funding situation when they do graduate. This will lead to a fracturing of the generational rejuvenation of the theatre.

Read more:
Friday essay: amid a war on culture, are Australia’s art schools an endangered species?

Dire warnings for the future

In July, the Australia Institute’s Creativity in Crisis report estimated over 90% “of artists, creators and businesses” do not receive public funding and so were unable to access arts relief measures.

Many of these artists are freelancers: in theatre this may mean they move between jobs at the major state theatre companies, smaller funded shows, and independent, self-produced productions. Support for these artists is not only crucial for independent theatre, but extends all the way up the food chain.

Shadow arts minister Tony Burke estimated when JobKeeper ended, just one in five arts workers were receiving the payment

Read more:
The government says artists should be able to access JobKeeper payments. It’s not that simple

A backstop for this pool of skilled workers, the Coronavirus Supplement Income, ended in April when the sector was rebooting. But renewed hard lockdown measures, first in NSW and then Victoria, have left these workers caught in a perfect storm.

For many freelance arts workers, prolonged interruption to their careers since March 2020 means a long absence from rehearsing, practising, collaborating and performing.

To avoid prolonged insecurity and precarity, many artists are establishing alternate income streams – often unconnected to their creative skills.
It is likely many will exit the sector for good.

Touring in a new world

Touring – within Australia and internationally – greatly increases the number of people a work can reach, providing ongoing employment for artists and creative workers.

A national survey in late 2020 found, the touring sector’s capacity was “stretched thin”.

Chris Bendall, the CEO of Critical Stages, a company that tours Australian productions, reports that during July and August,
performances were deferred or cancelled “on a near-daily basis”. The expense was compounded by “uncertainty and anxiety as borders closed mid-flight”, lockdowns occurred while touring parties were finishing bump-ins just hours before showtime, and “travel plans were re-routed … to avoid artists being locked out of their own states or forced into 14 days quarantine”. Most cancelled shows were in regional areas.

This is just one report – small or large, urban festival centre or regional venue –
it’s heartbreaking for everyone involved when the show can’t go on.

The long-term impacts of COVID-19 mean the same level of touring activity that happened before the pandemic cannot and will not resume. Future touring may well need to adopt new models such as hybrid live/digital delivery to increase audiences.

As part of this year’s Adelaide Fringe, for instance, performer Joanne Hartstone
live-streamed her show The Reichstag is Burning to 38 countries via the new digital theatre platform, Black Box Live, she co-developed. In August, Hartstone again streamed her show live to the Hollywood Fringe and the Edinburgh Fringe festivals.

The COVID-induced pivot to live streaming by theatre companies and solo performers is at least, giving rise to new skills development and the capacity for shows to be viewed live or on demand. Other post-COVID touring models include “slow touring”, where artists stay longer in a community to develop exchanges; and multiple casts to avoid border crossings. Both options are likely to incur higher expenses.

Julian Lewis, the artistic director and CEO of NORPA, a theatre company in Lismore, has called on all levels of government – local, state and federal – to develop policy supporting the complex, interconnected ecosystem of touring: those who produce, present, support and experience.

Read more:
A litany of losses: a new project maps our abandoned arts events of 2020

A broken ecosystem

In nature, as in the arts, biodiversity is a critical factor in maintaining a healthy ecosystem. Biodiversity is crucial to resilience. It helps ecosystems cope with stressors.

Entrenched neglect of the national performing arts ecology for nearly a decade has merely been compounded by the pandemic and inadequate emergency “lifelines”.

A raft of cultural policy recommendations from the Australia Institute
includes: expanding funding to community art organisations and artists; rebuilding arts education in primary and secondary schools; reversing Commonwealth funding cuts to university creative arts, media and humanities courses; and greatly expanding the number of three-year creative fellowships on offer from around 10 per annum to 300 per annum – mirroring the Australian Research Council’s annual fellowships for researchers.

For theatre this could mean a reset of once-in-a-lifetime magnitude. Improving working conditions for artists, strengthening the flow of new and emerging artists, and taking more theatre to regional and diverse communities.

It shouldn’t be a wishlist. It’s an opportunity to protect and grow our unique theatre culture.

Clare Irvine is currently affiliated with Catapult Choreographic Hub. She has worked for the Australia Council for the Arts and has been employed by a number of small-to-medium arts organisations in New South Wales.

Gillian Arrighi 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. Friday essay: a world of pain – Australian theatre in crisis – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-a-world-of-pain-australian-theatre-in-crisis-168663