Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John McCarthy, ARC DECRA Fellow, Flinders University

The Australian National Maritime Museum has announced a shipwreck found in Newport Harbour, off Rhode Island in the United States, has been confirmed as Captain Cook’s ship, HMB Endeavour.

There have been very similar announcements made over the years but have they finally made a definitive case?

By making its announcement, the Australian National Maritime Museum seems to have decided so, and there does seem to have been significant recent progress, centred on one shipwreck that matches the known details of Endeavour closely.

However, reports soon emerged lead investigator on the Endeavour discovery – Dr Abbas from the Rhode Island Marine Archaeology Project – described the announcement as “premature” and that there “has been no indisputable data found.”

The announcement by the museum includes recognition that there is not, and may never be, definitive proof but they appear satisfied that the case has been made within reasonable doubt.

I wasn’t part of this particular investigation so it’s not for me to say if this ship is indeed Endeavour or not. But I have worked on many shipwreck investigations and have been involved in the discovery of a couple of shipwreck sites of this period.

So I can share a little bit about what’s usually involved in trying to piece together the identity of a ship when a wreck is found.

Read more:
Sunken history: how to study and care for shipwrecks

From the survey site to the lab

The first thing you will need is a detailed survey of the site. The proces is similar to an archaeological survey on land, but for most shipwrecks you will be underwater. That makes it more difficult to take measurements precisely. Nowadays we also use 3D imaging techniques, high-resolution sonar and other specialist equipment to achieve a survey that is objective and highly accuracy.

We focus on identifying “diagnostic features”, things that can identify the site and tie it to a particular period and ship-building tradition.

This could be the way the keel is built and how it is attached, or dimensions of timber frames. Often it is the smallest details that can hint at a certain ship-building tradition. One really useful indicator is the way the wood has been fastened together. Is it done with iron nails? In layers? Or tied with rope in a certain way?

Once your survey is complete, you might undertake some sampling to recover artefacts. We generally try to remove as little as possible of a shipwreck. The gold standard is to leave as much in-situ as possible but it is common to recover some material for analysis in the lab, such as bricks, cannon balls, timber, coins; anything that can help establish a chronology for a shipwreck.

Once you have got your evidence from the site, you can move onto analysis in the lab.

For timber, we often use a technique called dendrochronology, which is analysis of tree growth patterns. If you have enough timber of the right type, you can work out almost to the year when the timber was felled and even where it was grown.

We might x-ray metal materials, trying to work out what the objects originally looked like.

Sifting through historical records

Then we move onto historical research, analysing records of all ships lost in that general area.

We may draw on newspaper reports from the time, salvage records and marine insurance claims. Indeed, marine insurance was the original insurance because shipwreck was once so common and so costly.

We might look for court records to see if there was a dispute about the disposal of shipwreck material in that area at some point.

Historical attempts to salvage valuable material may also leave a paper trail and it was common to try to recover brass cannons (which were extremely valuable).

Shipwreck survivor accounts can be very valuable – these were often published as a popular reading material from the 17th century onward.

One of the best sources can be oral traditions and community memories; the story of a significant shipwreck can survive in local memory for generations. Just talking to local people can provide quite a lot of unique information.

It isn’t easy

Identification of a shipwreck is not easy.

In any given area, there are likely to be multiple records of shipwrecks. The task is usually to eliminate those recorded ship losses that don’t match up with the clues you have collected.

And there are often close similarities between ship types that make it hard to identify an exact ship. The Spanish Armada, for instance, resulted in the loss of many ships from the same area at the same time, so if you find one, it is easy to know it is an Armada ship, but much harder to say which one.

Working in a marine environment complicates matters greatly. Wooden shipwrecks tend to be poorly preserved on the seabed. If they are quite old, what you really get is the survival of the non-wooden parts; cannon balls, cannons, metal objects and glass.

That makes it difficult because shipwrecks are a huge collection of material and some of the material may be much older than the shipwreck itself, which can suggest a wreck is older than it really is.

You can also have shipwrecks that have more recent material on the site that has drifted there from elsewhere in the sea or even from another shipwreck. In Iceland we investigated a 17th century shipwreck which had been partially covered by a later shipwreck.

Identifying ships is a long, arduous and painstaking process that usually takes many years and involves a host of challenges along the way. At all times, it is vital as a maritime archaeologist to remain objective and not fall into the trap of trying to bend evidence to fit a theory you have fallen in love with.

The repeated headlines about Endeavour may have made some of the project team wary about definitive claims, but there will also be sites that we cannot prove the identity of with absolute certainty, and we will be forced to make our best judgement call.

Read more:
What happens now we’ve found the site of the lost Australian freighter SS Iron Crown, sunk in WWII

John McCarthy receives funding from the ARC and the Dutch Embassy in Australia. He is a regional councillor for the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology and assistant editor of their journal.

– ref. Has Captain Cook’s ship Endeavour been found? Debate rages but here’s what’s usually involved in identifying a shipwreck – https://theconversation.com/has-captain-cooks-ship-endeavour-been-found-debate-rages-but-heres-whats-usually-involved-in-identifying-a-shipwreck-176363

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darryl Dymock, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow in Education, Griffith University

Under Labor’s proposed Future Made in Australia Skills Plan, Australians studying in an industry with a skills shortage will be supported through the provision of free TAFE places. This will include 45,000 new places. If Labor does that without expanding the present depleted teaching workforce, we’re likely to see more current teachers bailing out and corners cut in teaching practices.

Our 2021 research for the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) found the shortages of VET teachers and trainers extend to virtually every industry. If these shortages are not overcome, the result will be an inadequately trained vocational workforce. This in turn will have an impact on the country’s skill levels and productivity.

Not that the present federal government has much to be proud of in this regard. Although Vocational Education and Training (VET) significantly underpins the nation’s workforce development, it has limped along under recent national governments.

TAFE, the public provider, has remained a poor relation. Workforce shortages have continued, made worse by retirements from the ageing VET workforce and by the need to expand training to cater for new and emerging industries.

For our research we talked with key members of almost 30 registered training organisations (RTOs) across Australia about the shortage of trainers. We also surveyed over 300 practising teachers and trainers (VET practitioners) about their experiences of moving into VET.

The challenge in overcoming the shortage of VET practitioners is to encourage experienced workers from trades and the professions to move into VET.

What are the key issues?

The difference in salaries between industry and VET is a significant issue. It’s too simplistic an explanation for the lack of applicants, however.

For example, one disincentive is the nature of employment in the sector. Just over half of VET practitioners are employed in ongoing full-time roles. As one said:

“People at the top of their industry don’t leave for a temporary contract.”

Private training organisations reported they sometimes provide permanent employment for trainers simply to keep them “on the books”. One RTO principal told us:

“I can’t afford to put them off because we’ll never get them back.”

A further stumbling block is the inflexibility of the basic educational qualification as a point of entry. Trainers generally need to complete a Certificate IV in Training and Assessment (Cert IV TAE) before they can teach. There is only minimum provision for supervised practice without it.

Training organisations reported prospective trainers are reluctant to acquire the full qualification before they’re allowed to teach. Tradespeople with significant practical experience but no formal education since their apprenticeship were also anxious about “returning to study”.

Paradoxically, there was pushback from university-educated professionals in senior positions against the need for a vocational qualification.

The value of the certificate itself as a training qualification has been an ongoing contentious issue. One ex-tradie wrote:

“They want teachers to have ten years of industry experience […] but expect a six-day course to be enough to be a good teacher.”

It’s understood changes to the qualification are in the wind. Let’s hope these include ones that will make entry to VET teaching more flexible.

Training organisations and trainers alike argued for better recognition of prior learning among those who already have a training or mentoring role.

Even after they make the transition, new practitioners sometimes leave VET because their expectations don’t meet the reality. This is especially true if their employer doesn’t provide appropriate orientation and support. One trainer said:

“Day one I was given a USB with PowerPoint presentations on it and told to go into the classroom and deliver it.”

What can be done to end the shortages?

We identified several strategies to attract more VET practitioners.

1. Exploit career points and individual passion for teaching and training.

A national media campaign could target prospective VET professionals at potential “turning points” in their careers. That might be, for example, when they are looking to move into something different from their everyday job, when family or financial responsibilities have eased, or when they are seeking an alternative work-life balance. Sell these as benefits beyond salary.

2. Smooth the entry path.

Provide more options to “try before you buy”. These might include “bite-size” opportunities to experience teaching in VET before making a commitment. Industry specialists could be allowed to teach short-term with a particular training skill set, rather than the full qualification.

It’s also essential to ensure prospective practitioners understand in advance how expectations in VET are different from those in their former workplaces. When they get there, give them a soft landing, especially those new to training. Show them they’re valued.

3. Involve industry more.

Encourage and enable movement in and out of VET – so-called “boundary crossing”. This will enable practitioners to maintain their links and their industry currency.

There is also scope and reason for industry to be more directly involved in promoting and fostering the VET practitioner career.

4. Enhance the status of VET.

This can be done by promoting the uniqueness of the “dual practitioner”. Arguably even more than at university level, VET employs tradespeople and professionals who have developed expertise in one career and channels them into a second career. As a VET teacher or trainer, their initial expertise is highly valued.

Our research showed many people in VET are passionate about its potential but some despair about its future. Whichever party is in power, expanding and equipping the VET workforce is a vital step forward.

Darryl Dymock received research funding from NCVER.

Mark Tyler received research funding from NCVER.

– ref. Who’ll teach all the students promised extra TAFE places? 4 steps to end staff shortages – https://theconversation.com/wholl-teach-all-the-students-promised-extra-tafe-places-4-steps-to-end-staff-shortages-175523

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wesley Morgan, Research Fellow, Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University

Germany has announced plans for a new climate alliance between the world’s advanced economies – a move that promises to transform international climate action.

This year, Germany is the president of the G7 – a key forum for wealthy democracies to discuss solutions to global challenges.

New German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who replaced long-time leader Angela Merkel in December last year, wants the G7 nations to become founding members of an international “carbon club”. This alliance of countries would coordinate shared climate policy standards and impose costs on countries that don’t meet them.

The proposal should ring alarm bells in Canberra. It is likely to mean economic and diplomatic costs for Australia, and further isolate this nation as a climate laggard on the world stage. To avoid this, Australia should at least match the climate ambition of G7 countries, by pledging to halve greenhouse gas emissions this decade.

What is a climate club?

The “climate club” concept was developed by Nobel-prize winning economist William Nordhaus in 2015, and has since gained ground in international policy circles.

United Nations climate agreements – such as the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the 2015 Paris Agreement – are voluntary. Nordhaus argues this provides an incentive for some nations, overly focused on their own national interests, to seek to minimise their share of the global costs of climate action.

So while responsible nations bear the cost of switching to new, cleaner technologies, the “free-riding” nations benefit from those technologies and a potentially safer climate while failing to make adequate cuts their own domestic emissions.

To address this problem, Nordhaus proposes a “club” model for climate cooperation. Club members – those countries who move first to take climate action – would be both rewarded, and protected from competitive disadvantage.

Members would harmonise their plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and work toward a shared goal. And nations that do not meet their global obligations would incur penalties, such as a levy on exports to club member nations.

Read more:
Japan wants to burn ammonia for clean energy – but it may be a pyrrhic victory for the climate

How the G7 could become a climate club

In addition to Germany, the G7 comprises the United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Japan and Canada.

Just a month after being elected German chancellor, Olaf Scholz announced at the World Economic Forum in January that Germany intends to turn the G7 into the nucleus of an international climate club.

Scholz has been keen on the climate club idea for some time. Last August, as Germany’s finance minister, he proposed an “A-B-C” model that would be:

• ambitious: all members would commit to climate neutrality by 2050 at the latest, and set strong interim targets

• bold: member states would determine a shared minimum carbon price and coordinate measures to prevent production being moved to countries with weaker emissions rules

• cooperative: club membership would be open to all countries that introduce adequate climate action targets and measures.

A G7 climate club could build on the experience of the European Union. The EU already has an internal carbon market and will next year start imposing border levies on imported goods, based on the emissions generated in their production. The highest costs will be borne by exporters from countries that don’t have a carbon price or meaningful climate policy.

Scholz suggests G7 countries could negotiate similar arrangements to those of the EU. The G7 countries will consider Germany’s proposal at ministerial meetings this year.

Climate policy is a key priority for the Biden administration in the US, providing a window of opportunity for positive negotiations.

And there are already moves to set shared standards across the Atlantic. In October last year, the EU and the US announced they were working towards a world-first deal to restrict access to their markets for high-carbon steel.

What this means for Australia

Australia is widely seen as a free-rider in global climate efforts. While G7 member states have promised to cut their emissions by about 50% this decade, Australia has pledged only to cut emissions by 26-28% from 2005 levels.

At last year’s COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, Australia was the only major developed country that refused to set a stronger 2030 emissions target. It’s also the only country in the world to have repealed a carbon price.

What’s more, the Morrison government is promoting a “gas-fired” economic recovery from the COVID pandemic. It continues to promote coal and gas exports, and derides the EU’s carbon border levies as protectionism.

Safe to say, if a G7-led climate club formed in the near future, Australia would not be invited to join.

Australia should take Germany’s climate club proposal seriously, and move quickly to implement climate policies that bring us in line with G7 nations.

Otherwise, Australia faces the prospect of economic harm. This would not just come in the form of potential carbon border levies, but also a loss of both investment capital and the economic gains that come from being a first mover in clean industries.

Read more:
Labor’s 2030 climate target betters the Morrison government, but Australia must go much further, much faster

Staying in the race

The climate club concept is not without its detractors. Some academics and climate negotiators caution that it could undermine multilateral cooperation in UN climate talks, while others warn such agreements can exacerbate equity issues between richer and poorer nations.

For its part, Germany has suggested climate finance could be provided to help developing countries become club members, and club members could make a phased policy transition.

The proposed G7 climate club marks a major shift in global efforts on climate change. Major powers now view climate action as a race for competitive advantage. The first movers in the new industrial revolution will take first, second and third prize.

If Australia wants to stay in the race, much more ambitious federal climate policy is urgently needed.

Read more:
What drove Perth’s record-smashing heatwave – and why it’s a taste of things to come

Wesley Morgan is a researcher with the Climate Council, a non-profit organisation that advocates for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

– ref. New German leader proposes a ‘climate club’ of leading economies that would punish free riders like Australia – https://theconversation.com/new-german-leader-proposes-a-climate-club-of-leading-economies-that-would-punish-free-riders-like-australia-175842

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Harry Hobbs, Senior lecturer, University of Technology Sydney

Late last year, El Salvador’s president Nayib Bukele announced plans to build “Bitcoin City” – a tax-free territory in the country’s east.

The city will use the cryptocurrency and be powered by the nearby Conchuagua volcano. According to Bukele, there will be:

Residential areas, commercial areas, services, museums, entertainment, bars, restaurants, airport, port, rail [..] [but] no income tax, zero property tax, no contract tax, zero city tax and zero CO2 emissions.

Whether or not Bitcoin City eventuates, it joins a long and bizarre history of libertarian-inspired attempts to start independent cities and countries.

Bitcoin City

The generous financial incentives in Bitcoin City are aimed at encouraging foreign investment.

However, the plan has quickly been derided by finance commentators as something “worthy of a Bond villain”. There are doubts construction will ever begin.

As the Australian Financial Review observes, Bitcoin City is likely nothing more than a “splashy distraction from Bukele’s economic woes”.

New libertarian cities

But Bukele is not the only one to be tempted to set up a new territory, with new (or no) rules.

In a 2009 TED Talk, American economist Paul Romer argued developing nations should partner with foreign countries or corporations to create autonomous model cities.

Under his plan, host states would lease large tracts of undeveloped land to developed states, who would administer the territory according to their own legal system. The city’s residents would largely come from the developing state, but the administrators of the city would be appointed by (and accountable to) the developed state. Residents could “vote with their feet” by either migrating to or from the model city.

Read more:
How El Salvador and Nigeria are taking different approaches to digital currencies – plus, are we living in a simulation? The Conversation Weekly podcast transcript

Romer argues such cities would attract significant international investment because their legal architecture would insulate them from any political turmoil present in their host state. Notwithstanding the strong neo-colonial or neo-imperial overtones, several states have considered adopting Romer’s proposition.

The Honduran experiment

In 2011, the Honduran Congress amended its constitution to facilitate the development of Romer’s idea. Cities built within “special development regions” would not be subject to Honduran law or taxation. Instead, they would be self-governing under a unique legal framework.

After legal disputes about whether this breached Honduran national sovereignty, the plan was revived in 2015. Under the new plan, an investor that builds infrastructure in a site designated as a “zone for employment and economic development” (ZEDE) will be granted quasi-sovereign authority. The investor will be permitted to impose and collect income and property taxes, and establish its own education, health, civil service, and social security systems.

Under the ZEDE law, the president appoints a committee to oversee all of the model cities as well as setting the baseline rules and standards investors must follow. Reflecting the ideological backing of the idea, the first committee, announced in 2014, was heavily comprised of libertarians and former advisers to United States President Ronald Reagan. In 2020, the first site was launched, but development does not appear to have commenced.

To the sea

The Honduran plan involves a country leasing (temporarily or perhaps permanently) sovereign rights over its territory. Other projects have sought to build a new country on the sea.

Since 2008, attention has focused on the California-based Sea Steading Institute.

Founded by American libertarian Patri Friedman (grandson of Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman) and initially financed by billionaire Peter Thiel, the institute sought to build habitable structures on the high seas – outside the jurisdiction (and taxation) of any state.

Read more:
Why is Australia ‘micronation central’? And do you still have to pay tax if you secede?

Although their website suggests sea steading could offer significant benefits to humanity globally, making money free of regulatory burden is the primary motivation. Backers are interested in sea steading’s potential to “peacefully test new ideas for governance” so “the most successful can then inspire change in governments around the world”.

No city has yet been built. In 2017 negotiations with French Polynesia for the development of floating cities within their territorial waters stalled when community pressure forced the government to withdraw. Many wondered whether “facilitating the tax evasion of the world’s greatest fortunes” would actually be beneficial for the islands.

The Republic of Minerva

Other proposals have not bothered to ask anyone whether they can get started. In the 1960s, several American businessmen sought to establish independent states upon coral reefs off the coasts of California and Florida. Both fell apart under pressure from the US government.

In the early 1970s, US libertarian Michael Oliver tried to finance the construction of a new country – the Republic of Minerva – on a submerged atoll in the Pacific Ocean between Tonga and Fiji. There would be no tax and no social welfare in his laissez-faire paradise.

Over the second half of 1971, Oliver’s team ferried sand on barges from Fiji to raise the atoll above sea level and commenced basic construction. Oliver envisioned creating 2,500 acres of habitable land elevated around two and a half to three metres above high tide. Floating cities and an ocean resort would also be built.

Progress proved hard going. Only 15 acres of land had been reclaimed by the time Oliver’s funds were exhausted. Nearby countries were also watching with alarm. In June 1972, King Tupou IV declared Tongan sovereignty over the atoll and ejected Oliver’s team.

Oliver abandoned Minerva, but in 1982, another group of American libertarians attempted to reassert and restore the republic. After spending three weeks moored in the lagoon, they were expelled by the Tongan military. Today, Minerva has been “more or less reclaimed by the sea”.

Perhaps they should have invested in Bitcoin.

Harry Hobbs 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. ‘Worthy of a Bond villain’: the bizarre history of libertarian attempts to create independent cities – https://theconversation.com/worthy-of-a-bond-villain-the-bizarre-history-of-libertarian-attempts-to-create-independent-cities-173903

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Edwards, Lecturer, Podiatric Surgery, La Trobe University

Every day, parents around the world are told their child’s flat feet are normal and they will grow out of it.

This isn’t true – they just grow up and out of their paediatricians’ practice.

There’s no evidence children’s flat feet correct themselves with time.

Failure to intervene when problem flat feet are identified is a disservice to the child. Research shows they don’t get better, and usually get worse.

Most flat feet are correctable early in life. But when left untreated, they hinder a child’s development, exert adverse pressure on their feet and the rest of the body, and result in permanent adverse structural change.

This can cause and aggravate life-long issues with their posture.

A child’s flat feet should be treated early, aggressively, and for the appropriate length of time required to achieve correction.

Feet don’t unflatten

Experts agree painful adult flat feet usually arise from pre-existing flat feet in childhood.

Children rarely complain of foot pain because their bones are soft and forgiving and their body weight is low, resulting in minimal degrees of stress. They do, however, complain of leg, knee, and “growing” pains. Some also begin to avoid physical activity. Many parents say their child won’t stand up straight no matter how many times they are reminded.

Once grown up, they may not experience pain until their teens or twenties, or sooner if there are increased stresses, such as participation in sports.

Read more:
Teenage pain often dismissed as ‘growing pains’, but it can impact their lives

The claim children’s flat feet spontaneously resolve isn’t supported by any long-term studies. To the contrary, there’s published data suggesting children’s flat feet get flatter with time and eventually lead to painful adult flat feet.

Why many clinicians claim children’s flat feet get better was originally based on a 1957 study evaluating the heel-to-arch width ratio of two- and ten-year-olds. The authors found the width of the foot reduced by 4% in relation to their age. They concluded this to mean flat feet would resolve by age ten.

But their data didn’t take into account the child’s bone alignment, and the results lacked the significance to conclude that flat feet resolve over time. And it wasn’t a long-term study.

Children with flat feet also have a lower quality of life and a higher body mass index (BMI) compared with their peers.

Research confirms flat feet lead to abnormal stress and compensations in movement, resulting in further issues and pain in the knees and hips as children progress into adulthood.

The benefits of early intervention

Justin Greisberg MD, orthopedic surgeon and chief of the foot and ankle service at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, said

the most important treatment for the adult flatfoot is prevention. If the at-risk foot can be identified, early intervention might prevent the deformity.

Simply occasionally observing a child’s flat feet without intervening (as some doctors and podiatrists do) is a clinical mistake and makes later treatment difficult or impossible.

Early intervention encourages the development of the foot’s correct shape in a way similar to, for example, getting braces for your teeth.

This idea has been used successfully for decades in the correction of other foot posture issues, such as club feet.

This doesn’t mean all flat feet need to be treated, but a skilled clinician must identify those with the potential to become problematic immediately.

Occasionally monitoring a child’s flat feet leaves the condition to develop and fester, making it unresponsive to later treatment.

This approach also contradicts research showing early treatment is key to achieving successful results.

Treatments can include orthotics, strengthening exercises, ballet and surgery.

Read more:
What it means when kids walk on their toes

In the child’s flat foot, we face a complex assortment of loose ligaments, young muscles and nerves, and an immature and poorly aligned skeletal system.

It’s from this framework that children derive their adult foot structure and function.

Failure to intervene is a failure to recognise the long-term consequences of excessive flat-footedness not only on the feet but the entire body.

Steven Edwards works in private practice in Melbourne, Australia.

– ref. No, children don’t magically ‘grow out’ of flat feet. Treatment is key to avoid long-term pain – https://theconversation.com/no-children-dont-magically-grow-out-of-flat-feet-treatment-is-key-to-avoid-long-term-pain-176026

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Griffin, Associate Professor, Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, The University of Queensland

Cases of the SARS-CoV-2 variant Omicron have escalated globally over the past two months, with many countries experiencing peaks higher than previous variants.

Now we’re seeing cases of a sub-variant of Omicron, known as BA.2, emerge in Australia and more than 50 countries.

Rather than a daughter of the Omicron variant BA.1 (or B.1.1.529), it’s more helpful to think of BA.2 as Omicron’s sister.

Remind me, what is a variant?

Viruses, and particularly RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, make lots of mistakes when they reproduce. They can’t correct these mistakes, so they have a relatively high rate of errors, or mutations, and are constantly evolving.

When the genetic code of a virus changes as a result of these mutations, it’s referred to as a variant.

Omicron is a “highly divergent” variant, having accumulated more than 30 mutations in the spike protein. This has reduced the protection of antibodies from both prior infection and vaccination, and increased transmissibility.

When do health authorities worry about a new variant?

If changes in the genetic code are thought to have the potential to impact properties of the virus that make it more harmful, and there’s significant transmission in multiple countries, it will be deemed a “variant of interest”.

If a variant of interest is then shown to be more infectious, evade protection from vaccination or previous infection, and/or impact the performance of tests or treatments, it is labelled a “variant of concern”.

Read more:
What we know now about COVID immunity after infection – including Omicron and Delta variants

The World Health Organization (WHO) classified Omicron a variant of concern on November 26 because of its potential to cause higher reinfection rates, increased transmissibility and reduced vaccine protection.

What is the Omicron lineage?

A lineage, or sub-variant, is a genetically closely related group of virus variants derived from a common ancestor.

The Omicron variant comprises three sub-lineages: B.1.1.529 or BA.1, BA.2 and BA.3.

While the WHO has not given BA.2 a separate classification, the United Kingdom has labelled BA.2 a variant “under investigation”. So not yet a variant of interest or concern, based on WHO definitions, but one that is being watched closely.

This is not the first variant to have sub-lineages. Late last year, Delta “plus” or AY.4.2 was reported widely, then Omicron came along.

What’s different about BA.2?

While the first sequences of BA.2 were submitted from the Philippines – and we have now seen thousands of cases, including in the United States, the UK and some in Australia – its origin is still unknown.

The exact properties of BA.2 are also still being investigated. While there is no evidence so far that it causes more severe disease, scientists do have some specific concerns.

1. It’s harder to differentiate

A marker that helped differentiate Omicron (BA.1) from other SARS-CoV-2 variants on PCR tests is the absence of the the S gene, known as “S gene target failure”. But this is not the case for BA.2.

The inability to detect this lineage in this way has led some to label it the “stealth sub-variant”.

But it doesn’t mean we can’t diagnose BA.2 with PCR tests. It just means when someone tests positive for SARS-CoV-2, it will take us a little longer to know which variant is responsible, through genome sequencing. This was the case with previous variants.

Read more:
Where coronavirus variants emerge, surges follow – new research suggests how genomic surveillance can be an early warning system

2. It may be more infectious

Perhaps most concerning is emerging evidence BA.2 may be more infectious than the original Omicron, BA.1.

A preliminary study from Denmark, where BA.2 has largely replaced BA.1, suggests BA.2 increases unvaccinated people’s susceptibility of infection by just over two times when compared to BA.1.

The researchers suggest fully vaccinated people are 2.5 times more susceptible to BA.2 than BA.1, and those who were booster vaccinated are nearly three times more susceptible.

The study examined more than 2,000 primary household cases of BA.2 to determine the number of cases that arose during a seven-day follow up period.

The researchers also estimated the secondary attack rate (basically, the probability infection occurs) to be 29% for households infected with BA.1 versus 39% for those infected with BA.2.

This Danish study is still a preprint, meaning it’s yet to be checked by independent scientists, so more research is needed to confirm if BA.2 is truly more infectious than BA.1.

We’re likely to see new variants

We should expect new variants, sub-variants and lineages to continue to emerge. With such high levels of transmission, the virus has abundant opportunity to reproduce and for errors or mutations to continue to arise.

The way to address this, of course, is to try to slow transmission and reduce the susceptible pool of hosts in which the virus can freely replicate.

Strategies such as social distancing and mask-wearing, as well as increasing vaccination rates globally, will slow the emergence of new variants and lineages.

Read more:
Are new COVID variants like Omicron linked to low vaccine coverage? Here’s what the science says

Paul Griffin 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. BA.2 is like Omicron’s sister. Here’s what we know about it so far – https://theconversation.com/ba-2-is-like-omicrons-sister-heres-what-we-know-about-it-so-far-176137

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aaron J. Cavosie, Senior research fellow, Curtin University

Are we alone in the Universe? Billions of dollars are being spent trying to answer that simple question. The implications of finding evidence for life beyond Earth are staggering. The “before and after” mark would punctuate human history.

Mars is currently the most popular exploration target to search for evidence of life elsewhere. Yet little is known about its early history. Our research on a Martian meteorite provides new clues about early surface conditions on the red planet.

Windows into the past

Today Mars is cold and inhospitable. But it may have been more Earth-like and habitable in a bygone era. Landforms on Mars record the action of liquid surface water, perhaps as early as 3.9 billion years ago.

Like Earth, early Mars was subject to a global bombardment from chunks of rock and ice floating around the Solar System. Giant impacts both destroy and create favourable environments for life. So to untangle when conditions suitable for life may have arisen on Mars, we have to track the history of both water and impacts.

A flotilla of rovers and orbiting spacecraft have been dispatched to Mars, with two NASA rovers specifically exploring impact craters for evidence of past life. Samples collected by rovers will be returned in future missions.

Read more:
Perseverance Mars rover: how to prove whether there’s life on the red planet

For now, meteorites are the only samples of Mars available to study here on Earth. Martian meteorites are born when an impact on Mars ejects rocky fragments that later intercept Earth’s orbit. Most Martian meteorites are igneous rocks, such as basalt. One meteorite, NWA 7034, is different, as it represents a rare sample of the surface of Mars.

Sending shock waves

The NWA 7034 meteorite, weighing about 320g, was found in the desert of northwest Africa and first reported in 2013. Unique oxygen isotope signatures reveal its origin from Mars. Other meteorites blasted off of Mars during the same event have since been found.

NWA 7034 is a complicated rock made of broken rock and mineral shards called “breccia”. Its various fragments record different snippets of Martian history.

Tiny grains of the mineral zircon occur in NWA 7034. Zircon is a “geochronometer”, meaning it records (and reveals to us) how much time has passed since it crystallised from magma. Prior studies of NWA 7034 found it contains the oldest known zircons from Mars – some up to 4.48 billion years old.

Zircon is quite useful for studying meteorite impacts. It preserves microscopic damage caused by the passage of shock waves, and these “shocked grains” provide a solid record of impact. However, no zircons with definitive shock damage had been identified in previous studies of NWA 7034.

NWA 7034 is similar to a type of sedimentary rock on Earth called conglomerate. In such rocks, every mineral can have a different origin. With that in mind, we set out to survey additional zircon grains in NWA 7034 to see if we could find any that recorded evidence of impact.

We looked at more than 60 zircons, but found only one shocked grain. This means the impact occurred before the grain was mixed into the pile of fragments that became a rock.

Reassessing Mars’s timelines

The type of shock features we found are called “deformation twins”. High pressure shock waves squeeze zircon like an accordion. This process can reorganise atoms within the crystal, to form a duplicated “twin” of zircon, which we can detect.

We determined the zircon crystallised 4.45 billion years ago, making it one of the oldest zircons known from Mars – even older than the oldest known piece of Earth (also a zircon).

We don’t know what kind of rock the shocked zircon originally formed in. The original igneous host rock was ripped apart during impacts on Mars. The zircon is a broken fragment from a larger grain mixed in with the matrix of the meteorite.

We do, however, know where shocked zircons like this are made. On Earth, shocked zircons with deformation twins are only found at impact craters. Moreover, they occur at all of Earth’s largest asteroid strikes.

Zircons with shock features have been found at Vredefort in South Africa, Sudbury in Canada and Chicxulub in Mexico. The Mexican crater formed about 65 million years ago, and has been linked to the extinction of the dinosaurs. In this case, shocked zircons were one product of an impact large enough to cause a mass extinction.

Prior studies cited an absence of shock features in zircon from NWA 7034 to indicate a decline in catastrophic impacts on Mars by 4.48 billion years. It was further proposed that habitable conditions existed as of 4.2 billion years ago.

However, the shocked zircon we found crystallised 4.45 billion years ago. The shock event would have had to have occurred at least 30 million years after Mars had supposedly stopped being bombarded.

When exactly was the impact?

Although determining the precise age of impact is difficult, geochemical studies of NWA 7034 reveal its main components were subject to meteorite impacts before roughly 4.3 billion years ago. In this scenario, the zircon may have been shocked during this time, somewhere between 4.3 and 4.45 billion years ago.

Alternatively, it may have formed more recently, but before a decline in the rate of impacts earlier than 3 billion years ago. Both land forms and water-bearing minerals argue for early surface water on Mars, possibly by 3.9 to 3.7 billion years ago. This may be the best indicator for when habitable conditions existed.

Our findings raise new questions about the early impact history of Mars. Determining the origin of the shocked zircon, and time of impact, will provide better context for interpreting the planet’s history as archived in meteorite NWA 7034 – and potentially a timeframe for when conditions for life may have emerged.

Read more:
As new probes reach Mars, here’s what we know so far from trips to the red planet

Aaron J. Cavosie receives funding from the Australian Research Council

Morgan Cox 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’ve found the first ever ‘shocked’ zircon crystal from Mars. It provides a new view on when conditions for life may have arisen – https://theconversation.com/weve-found-the-first-ever-shocked-zircon-crystal-from-mars-it-provides-a-new-view-on-when-conditions-for-life-may-have-arisen-176139

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Vaux, Medical Researcher, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute

The Swedish government established a national Research Misconduct Board in 2020, after concluding institutions couldn’t be trusted to investigate allegations of serious research misconduct themselves. This followed botched investigations into the conduct of surgeon Paolo Macchiarini, who transplanted experimental artificial tracheas into 20 patients, 17 of whom later died. His employer, the Karolinska Institute, had initially cleared him. Later independent investigations found he had committed misconduct.

Ultimately, both the vice chancellor and dean of research at the institute lost their jobs. The secretary-general of the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska, which issues the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, also resigned. The government dismissed the entire university board. But Macchiarini’s patients paid the heaviest price.

Sweden is just the most recent of more than 20 European nations that have national offices for research integrity. So do the UK, US, Canada, Japan and China. Australia, which still lacks an Office for Research Integrity, is being left behind.

Multiple recent reports of allegations of research fraud in Australia show the urgent need for an independent national regulator.

How does Australia handle research misconduct?

Australia’s system for handling allegations of research misconduct resembles the one Sweden abandoned. We persist with a self-regulation model. Yet royal commission after royal commission has shown self-regulation does not work in the financial sector, with institutions that care for children, or for police forces.

Read more:
‘There is a problem’: Australia’s top scientist Alan Finkel pushes to eradicate bad science

Research in Australia funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) or the Australian Research Council (ARC) must comply with the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research.

The 2007 version of this code required independent, multi-person inquiry panels to handle allegations of serious misconduct. Findings were to be made public. Appeals could be made if new evidence arose.

In 2018 the code was changed. The changes meant:

• a single person from the same institution can now carry out inquiries
• secrecy must be maximised, with no requirement for public reports
• appeals can only be considered based on process and not on evidence, substance or merit.

One stunning change to the code – worthy of the political satire Yes Minister – was to make the term “research misconduct” optional. Institutions can now make up their own definition or dispense with the term entirely – and thus be rendered free of research misconduct in perpetuity!

Scientists are human, and there will be ones who do the wrong thing, just as there are dishonest individuals in all professions. And Australian scientists are no more honest or dishonest than those in other countries. However, we rarely hear of cases of research misconduct, because the reflex action of institutions is to try to protect their reputations by covering things up.

What needs to be done?

What institutions should do instead is enhance their reputations by handling cases rigorously, fairly and openly. At the 2010 World Conference on Research Integrity, a panel member was asked if she would ever consider joining a university that had had a case of research misconduct. The eminent expert said she would never join a university that had not had a case, because that meant they were either ignoring cases, or were not doing enough research.

We need to recognise and applaud the whistle-blowers who report research misconduct and those institutions that do take a rigorous stand. The University of Queensland and QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute have set the example in recent cases. But their tasks would be much easier if they could refer cases to an independent national Office for Research Integrity.

Australia needs an Office for Research Integrity to handle cases in all kinds of scholarly practice, not just in biomedical research, but also in physics, engineering and the humanities. In his comprehensive book Scholarly Misconduct: Law, Regulation and Practice, Ian Freckelton QC concluded:

“What has become clear is that the maladies afflicting scholarship cannot be dealt with wholly internally within universities and research bodies […] What is required is the creation by government of external bodies.

“Assertions that [allegations of research misconduct and conflict of interest] can be dealt with adequately by internal investigations are not credible given what has occurred in the recent past. Legal and health professions are no longer permitted in many countries to self-regulate. External, independent decision-making is necessary for community confidence.”

Read more:
Research fraud: the temptation to lie – and the challenges of regulation

Take the best from overseas

There is no need for Australia to re-invent the wheel. We should take the best from the various offices for research integrity and ombudsmen overseas, and construct the very best office here in Australia. This office would:

• allow whistle-blowers to be heard
• have no conflicts of interest
• be able to draw on the necessary experience and specialist expertise
• be able to act rapidly and transparently.

What is unusual about the call for such a watchdog in Australia is that it is coming from the researchers themselves. They range from whistle-blowers who have direct experience, early career researchers who struggle to get funded, to established scientists such as those in the Australian Academy of Science who are now leading the push.

Sport Integrity Australia manages misconduct in sport. We now need bipartisan support for an Australian Office for Research Integrity to handle the Lance Armstrongs of Australian research.

David Vaux has received grant funding from the NHMRC. He is currently an Honourary Fellow of The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, and a member of the Center for Scientific Integrity (NY), which functions as the board for Retraction Watch.

– ref. Australia needs an Office for Research Integrity to catch up with the rest of the world – https://theconversation.com/australia-needs-an-office-for-research-integrity-to-catch-up-with-the-rest-of-the-world-176019

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

The leaking and use of text messages purportedly between former New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian and a member of federal cabinet, in which Prime Minister Scott Morrison is described as “a horrible, horrible man”, “a complete psycho” and “a fraud” raise several serious ethical issues.

Peter van Onselen, the political editor of Network Ten, was the recipient of the leak, and dramatically made its contents public by reading them out in the form of a question to Morrison at the National Press Club on February 1.

He did not disclose the source of the leak, from which it can be inferred it was made in circumstances of confidentiality – in other words, on condition of anonymity.

This brings us to the first ethical issue. A person who provides information to a journalist on condition of confidentiality is entitled to expect that confidentiality will be honoured by the journalist.

This obligation is enshrined in Australia’s national journalists’ code of ethics, that of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance.

It is reinforced by the existence in all states except Queensland of what are called “shield laws”, which allow journalists to apply for a privilege against disclosing the identity of confidential sources in legal proceedings. Journalists in Australia have gone to jail rather than betray their source in court.

However, the same code requires that journalists should not enter into an obligation of confidentiality without first considering the source’s motives.

Read more:
View from The Hill: Morrison a ‘psycho’ – now who would have said that?

This brings us to the second ethical question: did van Onselen try to establish what the motive of this leaker was? If not, why not?

For instance, why are these texts only coming to light now – two years after they were reportedly sent? It strongly suggests they have been stored up as ammunition for a strike against Morrison at a time when someone or some faction in the Liberal Party thinks it will do the most damage. And who is likely to benefit?

Moreover, was it part of the deal with the source that the material would be published in the way it was: as a question to Morrison in front of the cameras and a roomful of journalists at the National Press Club?

He owes the public an explanation about this, without giving away the identity of the source.

The third ethical issue concerns what steps, if any, van Onselen took to verify the provenance of the texts before making them public. This too is a matter on which he owes the public an explanation.

In the fallout from his disclosures, Berejiklian has said she does not remember sending such a text. But this falls far short of denying that she did.

Had van Onselen at least obtained that much from Berejiklian, he could have included it in his question to the prime minister.

He would have added to the strength of his leak by demonstrating he had taken some steps towards verification.

It also would have equipped van Onselen or any of the other journalists present to tell Morrison that Berejiklian had not denied sending the text, so what did he have to say about that?

This would have undercut Morrison’s strategy of sweeping these epithets aside as mere anonymous sledging.

The fourth ethical issue concerns the extent to which van Onselen informed his editorial superiors at Network Ten about the leak, the circumstances in which he had obtained it and how he proposed to use it.

When journalists who work for a media organisation enter into an obligation of confidentiality, they bind not just themselves but their editor and their organisation.

Whether an editor will ask for the source’s identity is a matter of policy which varies from one organisation to another. Most generally will not, especially in a case like this where the journalist is a senior member of staff.

However, the editor is entitled to ask what steps the journalist has taken to establish motive, what the journalist’s assessment of the motive is, and what steps have been taken to verify the contents.

The objectives here are to be as sure as reasonably possible that the material is genuine, and to be as transparent with the public as possible without revealing the source.

Read more:
Is Morrison gaining a reputation for untrustworthiness? The answer could have serious implications for the election

This is at least a partial antidote to the anonymity problem. Morrison has understandably seized on this, using the anonymous nature of the leak to try to detract from its damaging contents.

There is absolutely no question that the contents of the leak are of very significant public interest. Van Onselen was entirely justified in publishing them on public-interest grounds.

One final ethical question remains: has van Onselen been used as a catspaw by Morrison’s factional enemies and even if he has, does it matter? After all, many leaks of high public interest come from people with axes to grind.

Only the people involved will know whether he has been, and it does matter because journalists should take care not to be used as a catspaw.

That is why the questions of motive, verification and timing are so important in cases like this. It is a further reason why van Onselen and Network Ten owe the public as transparent an explanation for their conduct as possible without betraying the source.

Denis Muller 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. Texts reportedly referring to Scott Morrison as a ‘psycho’ are in the public interest – but ethical questions remain – https://theconversation.com/texts-reportedly-referring-to-scott-morrison-as-a-psycho-are-in-the-public-interest-but-ethical-questions-remain-176243

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

A flurry of categorical denials by senior ministers has followed the report that a current Liberal cabinet minister described Scott Morrison as a “psycho” in a text exchange with then NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian during the summer bushfires of 2019-20.

Two prominent NSW Liberal moderates, Marise Payne and Paul Fletcher (through a spokesman) were among those who said on Wednesday they weren’t the minister. Others included Sussan Ley, Simon Birmingham, Anne Ruston, Linda Reynolds, and Greg Hunt.

Payne said in her statement she had never had such an exchange with Berejiklian, “nor have I ever used such language”, She also rejected the descriptions of the PM “in the purported messages”. She wasn’t the only one raising a question about the authenticity of the messages.

Meanwhile Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce – quick to point out the culprit wasn’t from the Nationals – inadvertently injected confusion when his comments were wrongly reported as suggesting the minister was a woman. He quickly had to clarify he wasn’t saying that at all.

Joyce said he didn’t know the identity of the minister but they should out themselves and give an explanation before they were named.

It was just a “good rump steak with horseradish sauce, vegetables and chips, two bottles of red wine” away from some journalist saying “blah, blah, blah”.

The great guessing game followed Ten’s Peter van Onselen asking Morrison at the National Press Club on Tuesday about the exchange.
Van Onselen quoted the text comments in his Press Club question and on the Ten news.

He said Berejiklian’s comments included describing Morrison as “a horrible, horrible person” who was “just obsessed with petty political point scoring” when lives were at stake.

According to van Onselen, the other person condemned Morrison as “a complete psycho”, “desperate and jealous”, and said: “The mob have worked him out and think he’s a fraud”.

At the Press Club, a startled Morrison replied: “I don’t know who you’re referring to or the basis of what you’ve put to me, but I obviously don’t agree with it, and I don’t think that’s my record.”

Berejiklian immediately issued a statement that she had “no recollection of such messages”, thus falling short of a denial. She reiterated her “very strong support” for Morrison, even though the two are known to have had differences.

Read more:
Newspoll has Labor’s biggest lead since Turnbull’s ousting as Coalition damaged by COVID

NSW treasurer Matt Kean quickly found himself in the frame, as speculation about the leaker gathered momentum. Kean has just had a row with the federal government over Morrison’s refusal to provide money for the state government’s small business package.

He is also close to Berejiklian, and it has been assumed she would only be so frank with someone she trusted.

But Kean, who said he had checked his records, denied being the source. And van Onselen made it clear the minister involved was a federal Liberal (and a current minister, so his friend, former minister Christian Porter, wouldn’t be fingered).

Hunt challenged van Onselen to name his source.

The van Onselen question, together with the PM’s failure to know the price of bread and milk in response to another question, had turned Tuesday’s appearance into something of a train wreck for Morrison.

The mystery of the minister ensured the story dragged on to distract another day.

Morrison tried to play the whole thing down, saying on Wednesday, “I’m not fussed”, though that wasn’t credible. Asked whether he was confident the minister involved wasn’t sitting in his cabinet right now, he said “yes”. No one had come forward to confess.

Morrison might not know who his alleged forthright cabinet critic is but by Wednesday he was able to prattle on about all sorts of breads and milks. As for him, “I’m just normal white bread, white bread toast. That’s me.”

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. View from The Hill: Morrison a ‘psycho’ – now who would have said that? – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-morrison-a-psycho-now-who-would-have-said-that-176259

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thea van de Mortel, Professor, Nursing and Deputy Head (Learning & Teaching), School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University

With the surge in Omicron cases, doctors are finding presentations of croup in children seeking hospital care for COVID in Australia and internationally.

In some cases, children presenting to hospital with croup are infected only with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID.

In other cases, they’re co-infected with SARS-CoV-2 and another virus that typically causes croup.

What is croup and what are the symptoms?

Croup (laryngotracheobronchitis) occurs when there is inflammation and swelling in the upper respiratory tract of young children (usually aged under five years) in response to a viral infection.

The most common cause is the parainfluenza virus. Other culprits include adenoviruses and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

Read more:
Move over flu, there’s more than one respiratory virus around

A typical sign of croup is a barking cough, which sounds like a seal or barking dog.

Croup is more common in boys and typically lasts about three to five days.

Croup often presents initially as a respiratory tract infection, with a runny nose, sore throat, cough and fever.

As the inflammation progresses, the inflammatory chemicals that are produced cause capillaries (small blood vessels) to leak fluid, leading to swelling of air passages in the larynx (voice box), trachea (windpipe) and the bronchi (upper airways of the lungs).

Because young children have narrower airways than older children and adults, this swelling can lead to partial airway obstruction, particularly in younger or smaller children.

This may lead to inspiratory stridor (a high pitched noise when breathing in) and increased work of breathing.

Their respiratory rate (number of breaths per minute) may increase and they may show signs of increased respiratory effort, for example, their nostrils flaring when taking a breath, and the area at the base of the throat sucking inwards when breathing in (tracheal tug).

As it gets more difficult to breath, the child uses their tummy muscles and muscles between their ribs to help them breath. They may also become anxious or distressed.

Why might croup be related to COVID?

Anything that causes inflammation and swelling in the upper airways of small children can lead to croup symptoms.

The Omicron variant, like the typical viruses that cause croup, is also a respiratory virus.

And unlike the Delta variant, Omicron causes causes most of its inflammation in the upper airways rather than the lungs.

Read more:
Got a child with COVID at home? Here’s how to look after them

Croup from illnesses other than COVID is typically more common in autumn and winter.

How is croup treated?

Mild croup – where your child does not have breathing difficulties and is able to eat and drink – can be managed at home.

Fevers and sore throats can be treated with ibuprofen (in children over three months of age) or paracetamol. Your doctor may also prescribe a steroid medication to reduce inflammation.

Make sure your child has plenty of fluids as they will lose fluid through fever.

Keep your child as calm as possible as crying and distress make the condition worse.

If the symptoms become worse, in moderate croup, steroids are used to reduce inflammation and swelling.

In more severe cases, children are given nebulised adrenaline, which works rapidly to reduce airway swelling.

Prevention of croup relies on preventing viral infections, so practice good hand hygiene and respiratory etiquette (coughing into your elbow).

Other measures to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection include vaccination of eligible family members, good ventilation at home (get a good through draft with doors and windows open where possible), and having kids play outdoors.

When to see a doctor or call an ambulance

Seek immediate medical advice if your child is having trouble eating or drinking, showing signs of respiratory distress, is sick for more than four days, or aged less than six months of age. Or if you’re concerned for another reason.

(For a more complete list of when to see a doctor for croup, see the government’s Healthdirect fact sheet).

Call an ambulance if your child is struggling to breathe, becomes pale and drowsy, looks very sick, starts drooling or can’t swallow, or develops cyanosis (blue lips).

Thea van de Mortel teaches into the graduate infection prevention and control program at Griffith University.

– ref. My child has croup. Could it be COVID? What do I need to know? – https://theconversation.com/my-child-has-croup-could-it-be-covid-what-do-i-need-to-know-176141

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

Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe has painted an optimistic view of where the Australian economy is heading after a turbulent 2021.

Just how crazy last year was is highlighted by the differences between the bank’s forecasts at the start of last year and what has actually happened.

Despite the Delta and Omicron waves of COVID, which were unexpected and knocked things around, economic growth has been much higher and unemployment much lower than expected in February 2021.

The bank expected economic growth of 3.5% and might have got 5%. It expected unemployment of 6% and got 4.2%.

It has been a superb economic performance, offset by a higher than expected inflation with a headline rate of 3.5%.

While this looks as if we might be on the road to the high inflation seen in the rest of the developed world (in the US inflation is 7%), at a touch under 2.7% Australia’s so-called underlying rate of inflation is much lower than in the US, UK or New Zealand. It also happens to be in the middle of the bank’s 2-3% target band.

This might be because inflation has been well below the Reserve Bank’s target band for the past half decade.

Underlying inflation

Addressing the National Press Club on Wednesday, Philip Lowe said he expects Australia’s gross domestic product to continue growing at a rapid rate in the year ahead, around 4.5%. He also sees unemployment to continue falling – down to as little as 3.75% by the end of this year.

He expects underlying inflation to peak at just over 3%, before returning to the 2-3% target band.

Better than before

What explains this optimistic outlook? In many ways, the economy of 2022 resembles a return to normality.

Experts expect the Omicron wave to continue to diminish and the rollout of vaccine boosters and new anti-viral drugs to push COVID into Australia’s rear-view mirror.

This means Australia slowly returning to its pre-pandemic state with open borders and no lockdowns and restrictions.

It would also mean returning to the sub-par economic growth of 2-2.5% we had before COVID, were it not for two things.

One is what the crisis did in forcing the government to end its budget surplus fetish and spend to support the economy.

The other is what it did in persuading the Reserve Bank to rekindle its pursuit of full employment.

Before the pandemic, the bank worried excessively about the risks low interest rates posed to financial stability. Today, it rightly prioritises supporting the labour market.

These twin developments mean the 2022 economy is being supported by two coordinated boosters.

Combined, monetary (interest rate) stimulus and fiscal (budget spending) stimulus has pushed the unemployment rate well below 5% and will continue pushing it down over the months to come.

Read more:
Unemployment below 3% is possible for the first time in 50 years – if Australia budgets for it

Dr Lowe finished his speech turning to monetary policy and how it might unfurl over the year to come.

The bank has finished its use of unconventional monetary policies – bond-buying measures such as “yield curve control” and “quantitative easing”. But it remains committed to keeping its cash rate at the current low of 0.1% for a while yet.

So why keep interest rates low?

Why keep interest rates so low if the outlook is so positive? The governor put forward two reasons.

One is that, while the bank has an optimistic outlook for 2022, there is still a great deal of uncertainty around what the year will bring.

The bank wants to make sure these gains are locked in before it takes its foot off the accelerator. The costs of overheating the economy are relatively minor compared to what would happen if it hit the brakes too early and a new variant of COVID tipped the economy back into a recession.

Read more:
Top economists expect RBA to hold rates low in 2022 as real wages fall

The second is that wage growth remains very weak. The economy won’t be on a stable upward trajectory until wage growth picks up from its historic lows.

Although the bank expects wage growth to lift, it believes it will be a while yet before it climbs above the minimum of 3% needed to keep inflation within the target band.

Australia’s economy survived 2021 better than most expected. On Wednesday, Dr Lowe gave us good reasons to believe that this year it will do better still. And he has committed the bank to supporting households and businesses to try and ensure it does. He wants to deliver on his great expectations.

Isaac Gross 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. Building back better: how RBA Governor Philip Lowe sees the year ahead – https://theconversation.com/building-back-better-how-rba-governor-philip-lowe-sees-the-year-ahead-176006

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bruce Mountain, Director, Victoria Energy Policy Centre, Victoria University

Is it possible to have your cake and eat it too? Federal Labor is certainly giving it a go by supporting government plans for a fossil gas/diesel peaking plant in the Hunter Valley currently under construction – as long as the plant switches to green hydrogen by 2030.

This is disappointing for three reasons.

One, we don’t actually need the Kurri Kurri power station. It will be a government-built white elephant.

Two, retrofitting it to burn hydrogen would be so expensive as to be unrealistic.

And three, burning hydrogen for power is about the least useful thing you can do with it.

The gas/diesel plant under construction and Labor’s hydrogen proposal came from the realm of politics. It should have stayed there.

Why did Labor switch its position?

Labor has long been split on the Kurri Kurri power station, which has been touted as a way to augment dispatchable generation. At first, Labor denounced the Morrison government’s plans, with climate change spokesman Chris Bowen describing it as a “cynical attempt to pick a fight on gas and continue the climate wars, or to reward the major Liberal donor who owns the Kurri Kurri site”.

Now they say it will create jobs and help provide reliable and affordable electricity.

Read more:
Government-owned firms like Snowy Hydro can do better than building $600 million gas plants

As a nod to climate change action, Labor leader Anthony Albanese and climate spokesman Chris Bowen announced the switch with the caveat that Kurri Kurri will use green hydrogen to power 30% of its production when the plant enters service in 2023 and 100% by 2030. Labor says it is prepared to spend up to another $700 million on the plant.

It has been widely suggested the proposed plant is the government’s way to take advantage of Labor’s internal divide.

When the plant was first proposed for the small town 35 km inland from Newcastle, Energy Security Board chair Kerry Schott questioned its viability. “Nobody is going to build it from the private sector because it doesn’t stack up,” she said.

She’s right. It didn’t stack up then and doesn’t stack up now, regardless of how it’s powered.

The power plant no one needs

When my colleagues and I took a deep dive into this proposed power station, we found there was no need for it until at least 2030. That’s the best case. But as time goes by it is increasingly unlikely it will ever be needed as much cheaper and more efficient alternatives including batteries come to meet the increasing demand for stored energy.

That’s to say nothing of the fact the initial proposal would only have had enough gas stored to run for six hours and then take a day to recharge. Snowy Hydro has since upped these plans to 10 hours of storage.

And Snowy Hydro’s price tag of $600 million? Fiddlesticks. It will cost vastly more. We estimate well over $1bn when costs of the pipelines, storage and other infrastructure are included, even without hydrogen. As a result, there is no way Kurri Kurri would attract enough income to recover its costs. It’s hardly surprising private investors are steering clear. Why bankroll a dud?

But isn’t it good to make gas plants greener?

You can add up to 10% of hydrogen to conventional gas fired turbines without trouble. And you can use hydrogen as the primary fuel in turbine-based power plants, as South Korea has done using hydrogen produced as a by-product in the process of refining oil.

The problem is the two Kurri Kurri turbines ordered by the government can run on a maximum of 15% hydrogen. Snowy Hydro suggests the turbines could be extended to a maximum 30% hydrogen mix, with changes to the internal equipment and piping. But the gas lateral pipeline/storage system is only being constructed to accommodate a 10% mix, and would need to be completely rebuilt to transmit a higher blend.

In short, converting Kurri Kurri to hydrogen means completely rebuilding the plant and its pipeline and storage infrastructure. These are not minor changes.

Let’s imagine Labor is elected and proves determined to press ahead with these plans. Where, exactly, will they get the green hydrogen from and how will it be stored to run the plant? At present, the world has no large scale source of climate-safe hydrogen produced from water. While there is a great deal of interest in large scale electrolysis – the process where we split water to get hydrogen and oxygen – there is a long road ahead.

Let’s not waste time on distractions

Is that the end of the issues plaguing this plant? Nope. Even if we get to the point where green hydrogen is plentiful, burning it in a combustion turbine is one of the most wasteful ways to use it.

Read more:
International Energy Agency warns against new fossil fuel projects. Guess what Australia did next?

That’s because combustion turbines are very inefficient ways to produce electricity. They waste half the energy they consume in the form of heat vented to the atmosphere. That alone makes the use of hydrogen in turbines uneconomic. In fact, we doubt hydrogen will ever be used in combustion turbines to produce electricity. There is absolutely no need to bother doing so, given much better alternatives already exist. Batteries already dominate the market for new storage in Australia and elsewhere and this will surely continue.

We’d be much better off using green hydrogen to decarbonise more difficult industries, such as the production of fertiliser, in industrial processes and chemical manufacturing, and for long-distance land or sea heavy freight where hydrogen still has a weight advantage over batteries.

There are enormous challenges to be met in the transition towards renewable energy and away from fossil fuels. These kinds of obviously economically and technically infeasible proposals serve only to set us back. We should give these plans short shrift.

Independent engineer Ted Woodley contributed to this article.

Bruce Mountain 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. Labor’s plan to green the Kurri Kurri gas power plant makes no sense – https://theconversation.com/labors-plan-to-green-the-kurri-kurri-gas-power-plant-makes-no-sense-176157

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liz Giuffre, Senior Lecturer in Communication, University of Technology Sydney

Joe Rogan is described on his website as “stand up comic, mixed martial arts fanatic, psychedelic adventurer, host of The Joe Rogan Experience podcast.” It’s the last of these that has really made his name, and for many audiences, made the medium of podcasting too.

An estimated 200 million people download Rogan’s podcast each month, making him the most popular podcaster in the US.

When Spotify signed a US$100 million (A$140 million) deal with Rogan in 2020 for the exclusive rights to his podcast the industry took notice. Before this, podcasts were everywhere, and their “platform agnostic” status was central to their appeal for creators and audiences.

The deal was a gamble, but one based on the numbers. As music journalist Ted Gioia put it in May 2020, “Spotify values Rogan more than any musician in the history of the world”. The reason? “A musician would need to generate 23 billion streams on Spotify to earn what they’re paying Joe Rogan for his podcast rights”.

Spotify can justify the spectacular outlay: there is a ton of advertising dollars to be made in spoken word audio, where podcasting is eating up what was once radio’s domain. Spotify’s other stellar podcast hosts include Barack Obama and Bruce Springsteen, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.

Read more:
Michelle Obama, podcast host: how podcasting became a multi-billion dollar industry

Why is Joe Rogan so popular?

What’s important about Joe Rogan is also the type of listener he attracts. Media Monitors says Rogan’s listenership is “71% male and evenly split between high school and post-secondary graduates. Some 57% of his audience reports earning over $50k per year, with 19% making over $100k”, with an average age of 24.

The Atlantic places gender at the heart of his appeal, suggesting “[Rogan] understands men in America better than most people do. The rest of the country should start paying attention.”

Prior to Rogan signing for Spotify, exclusivity in podcasting was unheard of. In 2001, US “media hacker” Dave Winer made public RSS, the Really Simple Syndication feed that could automatically “drop” a podcast episode online to a subscriber. Winer made the conscious decision to make RSS free and universal, in order to preserve a democratic ethos for podcasting similar to the recently created blogs he loved.

Signing an exclusive deal with Rogan could “make” Spotify as a podcasting platform of choice (and audio empire generally), or it could see Rogan lose fans who couldn’t be bothered to move with him. A study by The Verge showed Rogan gained fans when he first made the exclusive podcasting deal.

Part of Rogan’s appeal is his rawness – with episodes regularly two to three hours long and with minimal (if any) editing. He says what he thinks and feels in the moment, harnessing the compelling emotional power of the voice in a similar way to the great radio broadcasters of any age.

So, what’s the problem?

Rogan often makes pernicious claims. One ironic example occurred when Rogan circulated a fake ad made by Gruen to represent Australia’s pandemic propaganda – made funnier given the ad parodied people who relied on Rogan’s advice rather than medical professionals.

He added a correction, albeit a small one, and these types of mistakes have become memes since then.

Far more seriously, Rogan has peddled egregious conspiracy theories and disinformation. He amplified disgraced radio host Alex Jones’ lie the Sandy Hook massacre did not happen (apparently causing internal conflict at Spotify last year as a result).

According to a report by Media Matters, which studied the Joe Rogan Experience for a year, Rogan regularly trafficks misinformation and bigotry. The author drew particular attention to Rogan’s “right-wing misinformation and bigotry”, “anti-trans rhetoric” and “COVID-19 misinformation”.

A collection of medical professionals have campaigned against misinformation on the platform, and artists including Neil Young and Joni Mitchell have removed their work from Spotify.

Read more:
Neil Young’s ultimatum to Spotify shows streaming platforms are now a battleground where artists can leverage power

In response, Spotify have finally released some “platform rules”, but they are generalised statements that avoid infringing the freedom of creators such as Rogan.

Most important in all of this is the audience. Rogan maintains he is just a comedian having long form conversations. This sounds fine on the surface (and similar to the infamous “not a journalist, but an entertainer” claims made by Australian shock jocks John Laws and Alan Jones), but in practice Rogan’s words are heard by many more people than the average comedian just having a chat.

Podcasting’s wild west

Podcasting is still the relative wild west as an industry and medium. With ties to both the music industry and radio, podcasting remains mostly unregulated and diverse.

In a podsphere that now counts around three million titles, multi-million dollar projects with immaculate audio production and slick scripting co-exist alongside amateurs uploading rambling, barely audible chats. A near-global and cross-platform phenomenon, podcasting often evades the laws of any one jurisdiction.

Dave Winer’s open origin principle for podcasts has been at stake since Joe Rogan sold his name to Spotify. The question now is: where does editorial freedom sit? Should podcasters be regulated? And if so, how?

In response to the recent Spotify controversy Rogan says he is “not interested in only talking to people that have one perspective”. But as a public figure with such a large platform, should he really give equal weight to voices that clearly have unequal evidence to support them?

Read more:
Spotify’s response to Rogan-gate falls short of its ethical and editorial obligations

Siobhan McHugh received funding from the Australian Research Council to produce the podcast Heart of Artness, about crosscultural relationships in the production of Australian Aboriginal art.

Liz Giuffre 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. Who is Joe Rogan, and why does Spotify love him so much? – https://theconversation.com/who-is-joe-rogan-and-why-does-spotify-love-him-so-much-176014

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Holly Thorpe, Professor in Sociology of Sport and Physical Culture, University of Waikato

The mass appeal of creative, youth-oriented events such as snowboarding and freestyle skiing at the Winter Olympics is a virtual case study of how the once radical can go mainstream.

And while audiences have come to love these relatively new sports, the story of snowboarding’s inclusion in the Olympics also reveals the unintended consequences of “success” for the image of the sport itself.

When snowboarding first emerged in the late 1960s and ’70s in North America, most of its early pioneers were young people who rejected competitive, organised sport. Inspired by surfing and skateboarding rather than skiing, they were seeking something that offered fun, self-expression and an alternative identity.

Despite some initial resistance from skiers and resorts, snowboarding’s popularity grew during the 1990s. Television and corporate sponsors identified its huge potential to attract the elusive young male market. Increasingly, transnational media corporations and events likes the X-Games and Gravity Games controlled and defined snowboarding.

While some snowboarders initially resisted “selling out”, many embraced the opportunities to develop the sport and carve out new careers for themselves as “extreme sport” athletes.

Early resistance

Meanwhile, the Winter Olympics (always a more niche event compared with its summer counterpart) recognised snowboarding’s potential to attract younger viewers and international sponsors.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) first included snowboarding in the 1998 Winter Olympics, but under the governance of the International Ski Federation (FIS) rather than the International Snowboard Federation. The loss of autonomy and control infuriated many snowboarders.

The world’s best halfpipe rider at the time, Norwegian Terje Haakonsen, was particularly vocal, refusing to be turned into a “uniform-wearing, flag-bearing, walking logo”. Many other snowboarders echoed his sentiments.

Read more:
How the Winter Olympics expanded – and brought growing pains with them

And while snowboarding’s assimilation continued, the four events that debuted in 1998 – men’s and women’s halfpipe and giant slalom – were largely treated as a sideshow. The athletes were perceived and portrayed as interlopers in the Olympic program. As The Washington Post put it:

Snowboarders are the official curiosity of the Nagano Winter Games. They’re totally new to the Olympics. They look different, they sound different, they are different.

When Canadian Ross Rebagliati tested positive for marijuana after winning the first snowboarding gold medal, the IOC revoked his medal, only to return it a few days later when Rebagliati’s lawyers found a loophole in the IOC/FIS drug policies. The scandal confirmed the view – of snowboarders as well as mainstream commentators – that snowboarding was not ready to become an Olympic sport.

Acceptance and growth

By the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, however, the packaging of snowboarding had evolved and the sport’s second mainstream outing was deemed a resounding success. Nearly 32% of the US population (92 million people) watched the halfpipe competition in which Americans won gold, silver and bronze in the men’s event and gold in the women’s event.

Official broadcaster NBC reported a 23% ratings increase among 18-to-34-year-olds. For the IOC, the inclusion of snowboarding had become a game-changer, showcasing cool new sports celebrities for Olympic audiences, especially in the lucrative US market.

Read more:
Get caught up in the Olympic spirit, but keep your (political) eyes wide open

By the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, snowboarders were front and centre, with Shaun White from the US deemed the most “recognisable athlete”.

When White won his third gold in the halfpipe at the 2018 Olympics in Pyeongchang it attracted a record 22.6 million viewers in the US alone. Having qualified for his fifth Olympics, White will bring his star power to Beijing this year.

Women on board

Women snowboarders have competed in all Olympic events since 1998, expanding opportunities for women in the sport and industry.

Olympic snowboarders such as Kelly Clark, Hannah Tetter, Torah Bright and Chloe Kim build on the efforts of previous generations of female snowboarders, carving out new space for girls and women in the sport.

In the process of wowing audiences, they’ve also inspired the next generation of stars like New Zealand’s Zoi Sadowski-Synnott and Japan’s Ono Mitsuki.

It’s estimated women will make up 45% of the athletes competing in Beijing this year, including in the new mixed team snowboard cross event, added as part of a broader IOC initiative to achieve gender parity.

Victim of its own success?

While the IOC held the line with certain rules and regulations (no stickers on snowboards, no large corporate logos on clothing or equipment), it has been increasingly willing to accommodate snowboarders’ individuality – allowing more clothing choices and athletes to select their own music for halfpipe runs.

Snowboarding’s success has also helped open up the Winter Olympics to other youth-focused sports, particularly free-skiing disciplines, as well as influencing the Summer Olympics’ embrace of BMX, surfing, skateboarding, sport climbing and breaking.

Read more:
Alt goes mainstream: how surfing, skateboarding, BMX and sport climbing became Olympic events

But there’s an irony to snowboarding’s mainstream success, too. While it has become popular with broader audiences, and companies and athletes have done very well from Olympic exposure, it appears to have lost its appeal among younger people.

Participation has been declining steadily in recent years – to the point where former pro snowboarder and action sports agent Circe Wallace has said the sport’s commodification and institutionalisation have been “the death knell of the unique culture and beauty of snowboarding”.

It’s a familiar story – youth-culture cool incorporated by mainstream businesses and organisations for profit. As the IOC continues to search out the latest youth-oriented sports to help it stay relevant, bring back younger viewers and attract corporate sponsors, we would do well to ask who, ultimately, are the real winners and the losers.

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

– ref. How snowboarding became a marquee event at the Winter Olympics – but lost some of its cool factor in the process – https://theconversation.com/how-snowboarding-became-a-marquee-event-at-the-winter-olympics-but-lost-some-of-its-cool-factor-in-the-process-175053

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Tuffley, Senior Lecturer in Applied Ethics & CyberSecurity, Griffith University

Audio streaming giant Spotify is getting a crash course in the tension between free speech and the need to protect the public from harmful misinformation.

The Swedish-founded platform, which has 400 million active users, has faced a hail of criticism over misinformation broadcast on its most popular podcast, the Joe Rogan Experience.

Rogan, a former ultimate fighting commentator and television presenter, has argued healthy young people should not get a COVID vaccination. This is contrary to medical advice from governments all over the world, not to mention the World Health Organization.

A recent episode of his podcast, featuring virologist Robert Malone, drew criticism from public health experts over its various conspiracist claims about COVID vaccination programs.

There were widespread calls for Spotify to deplatform Rogan and his interviewees. Rock legend Neil Young issued an ultimatum that Spotify could broadcast Rogan or Young, but not both.

Spotify made its choice: the Joe Rogan Experience is still on the air, while Young’s music is gone, along with Joni Mitchell and Nils Lofgren, who removed their content in solidarity.

Read more:
Neil Young’s ultimatum to Spotify shows streaming platforms are now a battleground where artists can leverage power

Spotify’s response

Spotify co-founder Daniel Ek has since promised to tag controversial COVID-related content with links to a “hub” containing trustworthy information. But he stopped short of pledging to remove misinformation outright.

In a statement, Ek said:

We know we have a critical role to play in supporting creator expression while balancing it with the safety of our users. In that role, it is important to me that we don’t take on the position of being content censor while also making sure that there are rules in place and consequences for those who violate them.

Does it go far enough?

Freedom of expression is important, but so is prevention of harm. When what is being advocated is likely to cause harm or loss of life, a line has been crossed. Spotify has a moral obligation to restrict speech that damages the public interest.

In response to the controversy, Spotify also publicly shared its rules of engagement. They are comprehensive and proactive in helping to make content creators aware of the lines that must not be crossed, while allowing for freedom of expression within these constraints.  

Has Spotify fulfilled its duty of care to customers? If it applies the rules as stated, provides listeners with links to trustworthy information, and refuses to let controversial yet profitable content creators off the hook, this is certainly a move in the right direction.

Platform or publisher?

At the crux of the problem is the question of whether social media providers are platforms or publishers.

Spotify and other Big Tech players claim they are simply providing a platform for people’s opinions. But regulators are beginning to say no, they are in fact publishers of information, and like any publisher must be accountable for their content.

Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and other platforms have significant power to promote particular views and limit others, thereby influencing millions or even billions of users.

In the United States, these platforms have immunity from civil and criminal liability under a 1996 federal law that shields them from liability as sites that host user-generated content. Being US corporations, their actions are primarily based on US legislation.

It is an ingenious business model that allows Facebook, for example, to turn a steady stream of free user-posted content into US$28 billion in quarterly advertising revenue.

Established newspapers and magazines also sell advertising, but they pay journalists to write content and are legally liable for what they publish. It’s little wonder they are struggling to survive, and little wonder the tech platforms are keen to avoid similar responsibilities.

But the fact is that social media companies do make editorial decisions about what appears on their platforms. So it is not morally defensible to hide behind the legal protections afforded to them as platforms, when they operate as publishers and reap considerable profits by doing so.

How best to combat misinformation?

Misinformation in the form of fake news, intentional disinformation and misinformed opinion has become a crucial issue for democratic systems around the world. How to combat this influence without compromising democratic values and free speech?

One way is to cultivate “news literacy” – an ability to discern misinformation. This can be done by making a practice of sampling news from across the political spectrum, then averaging out the message to the moderate middle. Most of us confine ourselves to the echo chamber of our preferred source, avoiding contrary opinions as we go.

If you are not sampling at least three reputable sources, you’re not getting the full picture. Here are the characteristics of a reputable news source.

Read more:
Merchants of misinformation are all over the internet. But the real problem lies with us

Social media, meanwhile, should invest in artificial intelligence (AI) tools to sift the deluge of real-time content and flag potential fake news. Some progress in this area has been made, but there is room for improvement.

The tide is turning for the big social media companies. Governments around the world are formulating laws that will oblige them to be more responsible for the content they publish. They won’t have long to wait.

David Tuffley 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. Spotify’s response to Rogan-gate falls short of its ethical and editorial obligations – https://theconversation.com/spotifys-response-to-rogan-gate-falls-short-of-its-ethical-and-editorial-obligations-176022

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yan Bennett, Assistant Director for the Paul and Marcia Wythes Center on Contemporary China, Princeton University

Aside from fake snow and COVID-19, the Beijing Winter Games are controversial for many reasons.

They are a potent political symbol of the Chinese state’s ambitions and authority. Held just a year after the triumphalist 100-year anniversary of the Communist Party’s founding, General Secretary Xi Jinping is using the Olympics to showcase to the world that China is powerful and on track to fulfil its Chinese Dream of national rejuvenation.

How will the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) use the games domestically to push this narrative and how will it be viewed by the rest of the world? What does the party hope to gain by the games being perceived as a success?

Competing narratives at home and abroad

Some observers see China’s rise as generating a strategic power conflict and threatening the liberal world order.

Others see China’s rise as more benign, even appropriate for a country possessing 4,000 years of history and having made astonishing economic progress in the past 50 years.

These contrasting interpretations have generated much debate internationally before the Olympics. Several western countries have declared a diplomatic boycott because of concerns over the shocking human rights violations of the Uyghur minority and deep repression in civil society, particularly in Hong Kong.

China’s reputation worsened after the safety of tennis star Peng Shuai, an alleged sexual assault victim, became a matter of international concern.

Domestically, however, the Olympics are portrayed as something that benefits the Chinese people – a way for Chinese athletes to achieve glory and to showcase the Communist Party’s ability to execute a world-class sporting event. The underlying narrative glorifies the regime and legitimises the CCP’s institutions and practices.

The party’s central role in the Chinese Dream

Chinese media have struck back at the international criticism, saying the US is being dumb and mean for criticising China’s highly restrictive zero-COVID policies and the Americans weren’t invited to the Olympics in the first place.

The domestic objective of these aggressive narratives is to reaffirm the primacy of the Communist Party as the best protector of China and its people against provocative elements in the international community.

At the same time, the games represent an opportunity for Xi to reset the global rhetoric on China by welcoming the world to Beijing’s “smart, environmentally friendly” Olympics.

China’s so-called “wolf-warrior diplomacy” has hurt more than helped its interests abroad. As a result, Xi has pleaded with party members, Chinese diplomats and the Chinese media to “set the tone right” by being more modest and humble, to promote a more “credible, lovable and respectable image of China,” a request with which they have grudgingly complied.

For Xi, he needs both the party’s compliance and acceptance. The party is at the core of everything he wants to do – primarily, to deliver his “Chinese Dream” to the people.

Read more:
Xi Jinping’s grip on power is absolute, but there are new threats to his ‘Chinese dream’

While the Chinese Dream has often been compared to the “American Dream”, it is most emphatically not an American Dream with Chinese characteristics.

The American Dream emphasises individual freedoms, social mobility and material success brought about by one’s own efforts. In the Chinese Dream, national well-being supersedes individual desires and achievements. As such, the CCP spins a narrative that only the party can achieve the Chinese Dream for the Chinese people.

So, when someone or something is perceived as a threat to the party’s centrality, the regime launches into self-preservation mode. For example, when some in the west raised the prospect COVID may have been engineered in a Chinese lab, the Chinese Foreign Ministry struck back hard by endorsing a conspiracy theory the US Army introduced the virus to Wuhan.

In Xi’s speech on the 100th annversary of the CCP’s founding last year, party members were reminded the CCP leadership, with Comrade Xi Jinping, at its core is

the foundation and lifeblood of the Party and the country, and the crux upon which the interests and well-being of all Chinese people depend.

Read more:
The Communist Party claims to have brought prosperity and equality to China. Here’s the real impact of its rule

The People’s Games?

The presentation of the Beijing Winter Olympics to the Chinese people is crucial to this overarching narrative that Xi and the party are creating. They need the Chinese people to adhere to the Chinese Dream as their dream.

This need is evident in the language Xi uses in public statements. Xi uses a great deal of imagery to exhort the Chinese people to march together with the party on the same difficult path toward this shared vision of the future.

As China continues to build its economy and burnish its great power status with high-profile events such as these Winter Olympics, it is also attempting to show the world that its model of governance is supreme.

These games are a giant advertisement for the Communist Party, exemplifying the kind of sharp efficiency that high-tech, authoritarian governments can bring to events of this magnitude. It can also demonstrate how successful the government has been in containing COVID, though this has involved blockading people in their own homes and the discriminatory treatment of Africans living in China.

So, when global audiences cheer for their winter heroes, they will also be cheering for the CCP – whether they like that or not.

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. Why the Winter Olympics are so vital to the Chinese Communist Party’s legitimacy – https://theconversation.com/why-the-winter-olympics-are-so-vital-to-the-chinese-communist-partys-legitimacy-176130

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sophie Yates, Research Fellow, UNSW

Australia’s National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) provides individualised funding to nearly 500,000 Australians with disability.

Despite an even male-female split among under-65s with a disability (49% female), only 37% of NDIS participants are women and girls.

To better understand what’s behind the disparity, we interviewed 30 women about their experiences with the NDIS.

Read more:
Women, rural and disadvantaged Australians may be missing out on care in the NDIS

The thing that struck us the most was how many women talked about what hard work it was being on the NDIS, or applying for it. Three women told us it was like “a full time job”.

We already knew the NDIS was very administratively complex, and increasingly people have needed to appeal their budgets to get the right supports.

So we started thinking about “administrative burden”, or load, and how it fits into the story of women’s experiences with the NDIS.

What is administrative burden?

Administrative burden is the work people have to do when they access government programs. This can manifest as:

• learning costs (how hard it is to learn how to apply for and use a program)
• psychological costs (how emotionally draining or confronting it is) and
• compliance costs (how difficult it is to comply with program rules and requirements).

Research has increasingly explored how administrative burden falls unevenly on different groups, finding those with the least resources have the largest administrative burden. This includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, people with disability, people with lower socioeconomic status, and people from non-English speaking backgrounds.

These groups are more likely to be gatekept from government programs because of how difficult it is to access and manage them.

Time consuming and difficult

Some women we interviewed experienced a smooth, supportive NDIS experience. However, this wasn’t the norm.

Women told us being on the NDIS took a lot of time and effort. They said communicating with the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) was difficult, and the application process was challenging and emotionally draining.

Interviewee January said it was impossible to phone or contact any specific person:

The NDIA is like dealing with…you know those octopuses that live a thousand metres down in the ocean, and no one’s ever seen them? So we don’t actually know how they work, just every so often they’ll put a little piece of themselves above the surface and like, wreck a ship. But then you don’t know which animal it’s attached to and you’ve got no way of contacting it, to try and do peace talks. … So it just seems like this faceless monster.

Administrative burden can be gendered

Although all people accessing and applying for the NDIS (and their families and carers) face administrative burden, our results show this can manifest in gendered ways.

While men and women experience disability at similar rates, men are more likely to be diagnosed with disabilities that are more straightforward to gain access to the NDIS for.

Autism, for example, is male-dominated and comprises about a third of the scheme (although this may reflect gender bias in diagnosis rather than true prevalence).

Women are more likely to be diagnosed with disabilities that don’t fit as well within the medicalised model of disability that has taken over the NDIS. One analysis, for example, found “painful and socially disabling disorders” such as arthritis, fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome are more common in women – but it’s difficult to get support for these conditions.

Read more:
Why it is “reasonable and necessary” for the NDIS to support people’s sex lives

Support needs are supposed to be assessed according to the person’s level of functioning, but applicants are required to provide extensive medical evidence. This means it is more administratively burdensome to apply for support for those disabilities, and women may not be willing to expend so much effort for such an uncertain outcome.

A new analysis of the NDIS application form shows it is long and complicated, partly because it makes assumptions about people’s lives being relatively straightforward. Seemingly simple questions like “does the person require assistance with self-management because of their disability?” can be difficult to answer if you have fluctuating support needs, as is often the case with disabilities more common in women.

Women have less time to manage their own disabilities

Another gendered dimension is that balancing administrative labour and family care is often harder for women, who shoulder more of the caring work.

Women represent over 70% of primary carers to people with disability and older people. Of those providing primary care to children with disability, nearly 90% are female. And 35% of female primary carers have a disability themselves.

Women also tend to take on more of the administrative work of family, which includes managing the government-related administration of family members.

This leaves them less time to manage their own disabilities.

Read more:
Planning, stress and worry put the mental load on mothers – will 2022 be the year they share the burden?

Some of the women we talked to said it was sometimes too hard to balance self-care, life responsibilities, and fighting for what they needed on the NDIS.

Peta, a mother of young children, told us:

I called the NDIS the other day and said I just need some more therapy… She listed this litany of things you had to do. I was like, so I’ll just add that to the list of death by admin tasks. And I said, thanks but no thanks, I’ll just pay for it myself. And I just hung up.

While Peta could luckily afford to pay for the support herself, many women on the NDIS are not in a similar position.

Women with disability are less likely to be in paid work than men with disability, and more economically disadvantaged overall, so if they give up on accessing a support because it’s too hard, they are more likely to just go without.

This was not the first work to examine the administrative burden of the NDIS, but it was the first to do so through a gendered lens. We need more evidence on the nature of administrative barriers for women in the NDIS and what can be done to address them.

The NDIA should also develop and implement an NDIS gender strategy, in partnership with women’s disability organisations.

Read more:
NDIS independent assessments are off the table for now. That’s a good thing — the evidence wasn’t there

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. Women make up half the disability population but just over a third of NDIS recipients – https://theconversation.com/women-make-up-half-the-disability-population-but-just-over-a-third-of-ndis-recipients-173747

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Louise Nelson, Associate Professor in Law, The University of Melbourne

Australia has the world’s largest network of privately owned conservation areas that protect a range of rare wildlife, from bilbies to endangered fish.

There are some 6,000 non-government conservation areas across the continent, which are owned by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups, individuals and NGOs. They build a more comprehensive protected area network than public protected areas can achieve alone, ensuring more species have a fighting chance against the changing climate.

These lands cover more area in Queensland than any other state. But our new research finds Queensland’s laws fail to protect them from the hidden impacts of mining on the groundwater sustaining them.

This is because private investments in conservation land aren’t legally protected in the same way as commercial assets or capital, nor like national parks. To safeguard these crucial habitats and ecosystems against the threats of mining, we need legal reform in Queensland and an urgent exploration of these vulnerabilities across Australia.

Beyond national parks

Governments rightly encourage growth in Australia’s privately protected areas. Conservation landholders invest in restoring degraded land, re-introduce ecologically and culturally important species, and carefully design innovative habitat protection measures.

For example, the Olkola Aboriginal Corporation of Cape York has developed a successful carbon abatement project and a long-term plan to save the totemic endangered Alwal (golden-shouldered parrot), and defend it from mining.

Likewise, a non-profit organisation owns the Mount Rothwell reserve. After successfully reintroducing the mainland eastern barred bandicoot in 2004, the reserve now protects over 80% of the species’ population in the largest feral predator-free ecosystem in Victoria.

Read more:
Here’s a good news conservation story: farmers are helping endangered ecosystems

Privately protected areas also safeguard some of Australia’s most threatened and under-protected habitat types. This includes critically endangered grassy box woodlands in New South Wales, and the Fitz Stirling biodiversity hotspot in Western Australia.

Investing in privately protected areas also makes economic sense. A 2020 Ernst & Young report shows investing in privately protected areas can provide significant stimulus to support Australia’s recovery from COVID.

Why private conservation land is vulnerable

But Australia’s environment laws leave privately protected areas exposed to resource development projects, both within and outside the boundaries of the land.

Unlike national parks, mining projects are allowed to be developed within privately owned nature refuges against the land owner’s wishes. This has been a longstanding concern of conservationists worldwide.

Only very small areas of environmentally valuable private land in Queensland are protected from mining under legal arrangements that are very rarely applied. This includes a single declared Special Wildlife Reserve (a recent legal upgrade from nature refuge arrangements), and parts of Queensland’s strategic environmental areas.

Both privately protected land and national parks are also at risk from development projects operating outside their boundaries. One of the biggest threats is the impact of mining on groundwater, the focus of our research.

Read more:
Aren’t we in a drought? The Australian black coal industry uses enough water for over 5 million people

Groundwater is natural life support for arid Australia, with ecosystems and landscapes – such as desert springs, wetlands, rivers and forests – dependent on it. Alongside the potential for water contamination, a major threat mining and gas developments pose on groundwater is over-extraction.

Mines and gas developments can require billions of litres of fresh water each year to operate, competing with water that ecosystems need to survive. These impacts can last for hundreds or even thousands of years, though the details aren’t always fully disclosed.

We untangled the complex web of environmental, mining and water laws regulating mining and gas developments in Queensland, and found three key biases that leave nature refuges vulnerable.

1. Land title boundaries can act like legal blinkers on risk

Even if there are scientific studies predicting long-range impacts, there are no requirements for miners or governments to tell conservation landholders that a mine will likely affect them, unless their land is next door.

If a conservation landholder isn’t aware of an impact to their land, then they can’t object to a project or appeal a decision to approve it, and might make futile ecological investments. They also can’t protect infrastructure like bores, which miners’ assessment processes have overlooked in the past.

2. Policies focus on damage to built and commercial infrastructure

This includes damaged roads and fences, or dead livestock. Laws and policies don’t consider or require compensation for damage to ecological investments in conservation areas. This is despite governments claiming progress in private conservation land towards international conservation targets.

3. Cumulative impacts can be ignored

Queensland’s environmental laws don’t require a government decision-maker deciding on whether to approve a mining project to consider cumulative effects. The damage from one project might seem tolerable on its own, but not when it’s considered alongside others in the region. Some policies briefly mention this, but they aren’t detailed or legally binding.

Queensland’s water laws are better, but still only require companies and governments to predict impacts to springs, and suggest strategies to respond. This means preventing and mitigating impacts – such as shrinking or drying spring-fed wetlands – is legally optional and they can ignore other groundwater-dependent ecosystems and climate change.

What needs to change?

Removing these legal blinkers requires law reform:

• all landholdings scientifically predicted to experience changes due to a mine should be notified

• any protection, mitigation and compensation provisions should recognise investments in conserving and restoring native species and ecosystems, not just houses, fences and livestock

• risks to nature refuges must be understood as cumulative to avoid a death by a thousand cuts.

In the meantime, conservation landholders can take steps to protect themselves. For example, sector leaders could aggregate public information about resource development applications and alert conservation landholders who might miss them.

Landholders should document how they rely on bores and how they invest in conserving and restoring ecological assets. They could apply for licences to use groundwater for ecological or wildlife purposes to better defend their water resources.

Our complex laws haven’t kept up with Australia’s increasing reliance on private investment in wildlife conservation. Securing permanent environmental benefits from private land means protecting it from the compounding, long-term effects of extractive industries.

Rebecca Louise Nelson is a volunteer director of the Board of Bush Heritage Australia. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council (#DE180101154).

Rebecca Spindler receives government and Trust funding for the protection of the natural values mentioned in the article as part of her work with Bush Heritage.

She works with Bush Heritage and collaborates broadly with the conservation sector mentioned throughout the article.

– ref. Queensland has an important network of private conservation areas, but they’re dangerously exposed to mining – https://theconversation.com/queensland-has-an-important-network-of-private-conservation-areas-but-theyre-dangerously-exposed-to-mining-175519

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Francis, Professor of Mathematics, Western Sydney University

On Christmas Eve 2021, the pub-test folly struck again. The two of us found ourselves, angry and heartsore, resigning from the Australian Research Council’s (ARC) highly respected College of Experts in protest at the minister’s rejection of grant funding recommendations.

This was not a comment on the college, a laudable body of experienced research leaders committed to supporting the best and most worthwhile research. Nor on the ARC, whose dedicated, knowledgeable staff operate on a shoestring to maximise how much of the organisation’s limited funding is spent on research.

We were prompted by the acting minister for education and youth disregarding the expertise of Australia’s best by blocking six grants they had recommended for funding. The explanation? Unsupported statements about “value for taxpayers’ money”, and “the national interest”. That is, a pub test: if the imagined average punter can’t immediately spot its value from a potted summary, then it’s not in the national interest.

Read more:
ARC grants: if Australia wants to tackle the biggest issues, politicians need to stop meddling with basic research

You can’t pick good-value research with a pub test

Deciding what research to support is hard. As argued previously, it is difficult, maybe impossible, to predict what lines of inquiry will bear the best fruit – or even what fruit to grow. As is generally attributed to Oren Harari:

“The electric light did not come from the continuous improvement of candles.”

It is only obvious in hindsight that understanding electricity represented “value for money”. Likewise, as Ofer Gal explains, the national interest in understanding history and culture may only become visible after the fact, through the tragic consequences of ignorance.

In an ideal world, we could just do all the research. But research costs money: for equipment, lab space, consumables, travel to collaborate with experts elsewhere, and capacity, typically in the form of postdoctoral researchers. The investment repays itself many times over in future economic activity, but we must live within our means. So we must choose.

And there is much to choose from. How do we fight COVID-19? Research. How can we achieve a carbon-free future? Research. What lifestyle choices maximise health in old age? What factors led to the emergence of the modern state of China? Research, and more research.

Read more:
Latest government bid to dictate research directions builds on a decade of failure

Sometimes only experts can understand even the questions. How can we construct symmetric informationally complete positive operator valued measures in arbitrary dimensions? It sounds abstruse, but this research could enable reliable error correction in quantum computing.

How are grant applications assessed?

Of course, government should be involved in setting strategic research funding directions. It should determine funding parameters and areas of immediate priority, and clear rules, procedures and criteria. For example, the research should be:

• original – don’t re-invent the wheel
• significant – not just minor tweaks to existing understandings
• feasible – anyone can make grandiose claims, but funding requires a reasonable expectation of results
• of benefit – a positive impact on the field or society.

These criteria have been at the core of ARC funding decisions for decades.

But assessing these criteria is wickedly difficult. In particular, assessing value for money requires expertise: the expected benefit of research can be deep and very real, without being superficially visible. The ARC’s College of Experts provides, and facilitates, this expertise.

At least two college members assess each proposal, running to 50-100 pages, in detail. They read every word.

College members also select four subject experts to assess each proposal. The members then meet over multiple days to discuss the applications in detail and make funding recommendations.

By and large this arduous process, though imperfect, works. It taps both the expertise of college members – in assessing grants and in selecting detailed assessors – and of those assessors. The resulting funding recommendations represent the collective best judgment of world-leading minds and experience that Australia has proudly cultivated over generations.

Read more:
‘Disappointment and disbelief’ after Morrison government vetoes research into student climate activism’

Political meddling does lasting damage

The minister spurned this in favour of a pub test. It’s already been argued strongly that ministerial veto compromises academic freedom. But it also betrays ignorance of the complexity of assessing cutting-edge research and shows contempt for the expertise, time and diligent effort embodied in the college’s recommendations.

Read more:
Ministerial interference is an attack on academic freedom and Australia’s literary culture

Further, it compromises our capacity to assess in future. Will international leaders in their fields continue to give their time to assess applications knowing their recommendations may later be overturned on a ministerial whim?

The damage to our international reputation is apparent. The minister’s decision has been condemned by international voices and numerous Australian bodies: the Australian Mathematical Society, members of the ARC College of Experts, Australian Laureate Fellows, the Australian Academy of Arts and Humanities, and more.

Of course researchers must communicate the goals and value of publicly funded research to the public who fund it. The ARC has long published such benefit statements. But these statements, divorced from the nuance and detail in the applications, and from the expertise needed to understand their implications, cannot be the test for funding.

Such meddling is unheard of in comparable democracies (like Canada, New Zealand, the UK, the US). Per Britain’s Haldane Principle, once funding parameters, rules and assessment processes are set, the complex and wickedly hard decision as to which research represents the best mixture of originality, significance, feasibility and, yes, benefit should be left where it belongs: in the hands of experts.

As mathematicians, we are not experts in the areas of the vetoed grants – we are the mythical “pub-goers”. So we trust the expertise of those who assessed them. We resigned from the College of Experts because we could not be complicit in a process that does otherwise.

Andrew Francis served on the Australian Research Council’s College of Experts from January 1 2018 to December 26 2021, during which time he served on several assessment panels for grant schemes. He also served on Research Evaluation Committees for the ARC during the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) exercises in 2015 and 2018. His university was financially compensated for his time performing duties for the ARC, and he received some of that compensation as a salary loading. He has received competitive research funding from the Australian Research Council to support his research projects.

Aidan Sims served on the Australian Research Council’s College of Experts from January 1 2019 to December 29 2021, during which time he served on several assessment panels for grant schemes. His university was financially compensated for his time performing duties for the ARC, and the university made these funds available to him in the form of research-support funding. He has received competitive research funding from the ARC to support his research projects.

– ref. Why we resigned from the ARC College of Experts after minister vetoed research grants – https://theconversation.com/why-we-resigned-from-the-arc-college-of-experts-after-minister-vetoed-research-grants-175925

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Miles Pattenden, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Religion and Critical Inquiry/Gender and Women’s History Research Centre, Australian Catholic University

It’s only February and already 2022 is shaping up badly. A huge volcanic eruption off the coast of Tonga, the prospect of war with Russia, the ongoing pandemic (and its economic disruptions). And that’s even before we touch on Chinese sabre-rattling over Taiwan or Sex and the City’s disastrous reboot.

Welcome to the New Year: as ghastly as the old one.

A history of bad times

I write not to make light of our world’s very real problems, but rather to put them into some perspective. 2020, 2021 and perhaps now 2022, have all been bad.

But they have not been worse years than, say, 1347, when the Black Death began its long march across Eurasia. Or 1816, the “year without a summer”. Or 1914, when the assassination of an obscure Habsburg archduke precipitated not one but two global conflicts – one of which brought about millions of deaths in the world’s most horrific genocide.

There have been plenty of other bad years, and decades, too. In the 1330s, famine set in and ravished Yuan China. In the 1590s a similar famine devastated Europe, and the 1490s saw smallpox and influenza begin to work their way through the indigenous populations of the Americas (reciprocally, syphilis did the same amongst inhabitants of the Old World).

Life has often been “nasty, brutish, and short”, as the political philosopher and cynic Thomas Hobbes observed in his Leviathan in 1651. And yet historians, even now, sometimes point to one particular year as worse than the others.

Yes, there may have been a time within historical memory when it really was the worst hour to be alive.

536: the worst year in history?

536 is the current consensus candidate for worst year in human history. A volcanic eruption, or possibly more than one, somewhere in the northern hemisphere would seem to have been the trigger.

Wherever it was, the eruption precipitated a decade-long “volcanic winter”, in which China suffered summer snows and average temperatures in Europe dropped by 2.5℃. Crops failed. People starved. Then they took up arms against each other.

In 541 bubonic plague arrived in Egypt and went on to kill around a third of the population of the Byzantine empire.

Even in distant Peru, droughts afflicted the hitherto flourishing Moche culture.

Increased ocean ice cover (a feedback effect of volcanic winter) and a deep solar minimum(the regular period featuring the least solar activity in the Sun’s 11-year solar cycle) in the 600s ensured that global cooling continued for more than century.

Many of the societies living in 530 simply could not survive the upheavals of the decades that followed.

The new ‘science’ of climate history

Historians now take a particular interest in subjects such as this because we can collaborate with scientists to reconstruct the past in new and surprising ways.

Only a fraction of what we know, or think we know, about what happened during such murky moments now comes from traditional written sources. We have a few for 536: the Byzantine historian Procopius wrote that year that “a most dread portent has taken place”, and the Roman senator Cassiodorus noted in 538

[…] the sun seems to have lost its wonted light and appears a bluish colour. We marvel to see no shadows of our bodies at noon and to feel the mighty vigour of its heat wasted into feebleness.

Yet the real strides in historical understanding of this “worst ever year” are emerging through application of such advanced techniques as dendroclimatology and analysis of ice cores.

Dendroclimatologist Ulf Büntgen detected evidence of a cluster of volcanic eruptions, in 536, 540 and 547, in patterns of tree-ring growth. Likewise, “ultraprecise” analysis of ice from a Swiss glacier undertaken by archaeologist Michael McCormick and glaciologist Paul Mayewski has been key to understanding just how severe the climate change of 536 was.

Such analyses are now seen as important, even essential, resources in the historian’s methodological toolkit, especially for discussing periods without an abundance of surviving records.

Some historians – including Kyle Harper, Jared Diamond and Geoffrey Parker – use developments in this growing field to construct whole revisionist narratives about the rise and fall of particular societies. For them, conditions on our planet are far more significant in driving our history forward than we ever realised.

Read more:
Natural disasters are affecting some of Australia’s most disadvantaged communities

Coping with adversity

But what was it like living through a climate-changing event such as that which began in 536? It’s a question historians continue to ponder as we sift through our sources.

Most of those alive in 536 probably didn’t know they had it so bad. As historians, we are prone to over-rely on anecdotal doom-laden snippets like the quotations from Procopius and Cassiodorus.

Yet, like the proverbial frog in boiling water, the average person back then may only have realised slowly just how grim conditions in their world were getting. The worst moment would not in fact have been in 536 but some time after – when the full effects of plagues and droughts, chills and famines had truly set in.

Miles Pattenden has previously received research funding from the British Academy, the European Commission, and the Government of Spain.

– ref. Volcanoes, plague, famine and endless winter: Welcome to 536, what historians and scientists believe was the ‘worst year to be alive’ – https://theconversation.com/volcanoes-plague-famine-and-endless-winter-welcome-to-536-what-historians-and-scientists-believe-was-the-worst-year-to-be-alive-175654

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Hobbs, Senior Lecturer in Public Health and Co-Director of the GeoHealth Laboratory, University of Canterbury

Within a month of the first community exposure to Omicron in Aotearoa New Zealand, the variant has already become the dominant strain of COVID-19.

We are yet to see the rapid and steep rise in new Omicron cases that has been predicted. This could be because of asymptomatic transmission, but it is equally likely because public health measures included in the first phase of the “stamp it out strategy” have been effective.

For now, managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) at the border is successfully stopping hundreds of cases from entering the community. While MIQ may soon change in purpose, border restrictions may not lift until the Omicron wave passes.

The country-wide return to red settings under the COVID-19 protection framework has bought New Zealand time to learn from experiences abroad. The most challenging phase is yet to come but New Zealand could be well placed to tackle it.

The best way forward is to limit widespread transmission for as long as possible. This reduces opportunities for the virus to replicate, which is when mutations occur, potentially extending the pandemic.

What we know about Omicron

Omicron is more transmissible than earlier variants. New Zealand can expect a rapid and steep rise in infections, especially as we’ve already had several potential superspreading events.

As shown below, Omicron quickly replaces earlier variants.

Omicron’s transmission advantage is thought to be due to its ability to evade immunity (acquired through infection or vaccination) and quickly infect the upper respiratory tract.

The risk of reinfection also appears higher than for Delta, particularly in the unvaccinated and those with lower viral loads during previous infections.

Read more:
What we know now about COVID immunity after infection – including Omicron and Delta variants

Symptoms to watch out for

Omicron symptoms include a runny nose, headache, fatigue, sneezing and a sore throat.

However, New Zealand’s high vaccination rates mean some people may not have any symptoms at all. The danger here is that they will still be able to pass on the virus to others, unaware they have Omicron.

It is best to assume that any symptoms, especially a sore throat, are COVID-19 until proven otherwise through a test. For Omicron, this may require saliva swab tests as recent evidence suggests they are more sensitive than nasal swabs because the viral load peaks earlier in saliva than nasal mucus.

By testing and isolating, we can avoid spreading it to others who may be at higher risk of severe illness.

Compared to Delta, Omicron has caused lower hospitalisation and death rates in many countries. This may be because it reproduces in the upper respiratory tract instead of the lungs.

Omicron is also meeting populations with immunity acquired through previous infection or vaccination.

In New Zealand, 67% of eligible people have now received their booster, which offers high levels of protection from hospitalisation and death. Boosted individuals are up to 92% less likely to be hospitalised with Omicron, compared with unvaccinated people.

Vaccination is especially important in New Zealand as we have had minimal prior exposure to COVID-19 in the community.

Where to from here

Omicron is a “double-edged sword”. It is vastly more transmissible but less severe. However, it is not a mild infection and there is no guarantee the next variant will be less severe.

In a poorly controlled outbreak, a small percentage of a large number of cases risks overwhelming healthcare systems, increasing inequities and disrupting essential services.

Healthcare workers are already over-burdened and exhausted from previous outbreaks, which have distracted from other services and exacerbated entrenched inequities.

There are several things each of us can do:

• Anybody eligible should prioritise getting boosted

• we should all continue using the COVID-19 tracer app

• we should keep indoor spaces well ventilated by opening windows and doors

• mask wearing remains important, especially where physical distancing is difficult.

• and anybody who feels unwell, should get tested and isolate.

Vaccinating children

As children return to school, we need equitable vaccinations and ventilation.

Data out of Australia indicate children aged five to 11 tolerated the vaccine well, with fewer side effects than adults.

Unfortunately, our analysis, along with other evidence, documents a concerning trend with lower childhood vaccination rates for Māori and Pasifika, as well as large variation between regions.

This is concerning as some countries, including the US, have seen increases in childhood hospitalisation rates for COVID-19. In the UK, one in eight pupils have missed school as COVID-related absences rise.

Read more:
Despite Omicron arriving, keeping schools open as safely as possible should be the goal

The success story of the Delta outbreak

Unfortunately, there’s been little time to celebrate the rather remarkable demise of Delta. Even as Auckland opened up, hospitalisations and case numbers dropped.

Summer will have helped as people spent more time outdoors. However, public health measures such as border closures, managed isolation and quarantine and contact tracing have no doubt helped stamp out much of Delta, allowing a relatively normal summer holiday period for many.

Continuing to keep Delta low also means we should not have to deal with a “double epidemic”.

This success may also fill us with some hope that, just perhaps, we might be able to avoid the worst of Omicron during this next phase of the pandemic response, with robust and continually refined public health measures in place.

Dr Matthew Hobbs receives funding from New Zealand Health Research Council, Cure Kids, A Better Start National Science Challenge and IStar. He was previously funded as a postdoctoral researcher by the New Zealand Ministry of Health.

Dr Anna Howe receives funding from the Health Research Council. While not the principal investigator she has been involved in research projects funded by GSK and was the first KPS Research Fellow. She is affiliated with the Immunisation Advisory Centre.

Dr Lukas Marek has previously received funding from the Ministry of Health, New Zealand Health Research Council, Cure Kids and National Science Challenges.

– ref. The most challenging phase of the Omicron outbreak is yet to come, but New Zealand may be better prepared than other countries – https://theconversation.com/the-most-challenging-phase-of-the-omicron-outbreak-is-yet-to-come-but-new-zealand-may-be-better-prepared-than-other-countries-175819

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

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

This week Michelle and Amanda Dunn discuss Scott Morrison’s Press Club performance, when he spoke about “resilence” and faced some difficult questioning.

Knowing how hostile many voters have become towards him, Morrison admitted that in retrospect he would have done some things differently. But the list was limited and, unsurprisingly, there was no “apology”.

He conceded that talking up too optimistically the prospect of a great summer had heightened people’s disappointment when it turned out to be anything but. He also regretted not putting the vaccine rollout under the military from the start – an admission the health bureaucracy hadn’t been up to the job.

Michelle and Amanda also canvass Morrison’s economic pitch, in which he held out the prospect of the unemployment rate having a “3” in front of it in the second half of this year.

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. Word from The Hill: On Scott Morrison admitting some regrets – https://theconversation.com/word-from-the-hill-on-scott-morrison-admitting-some-regrets-176158

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

Defence Minister Peter Dutton says he would like to see more American combat capability based in Australia.

Speaking on the “Politics with Michelle Grattan” podcast, Dutton says: “I’d be very open to it. I would be very, very happy to have that discussion with the US if they saw a strategic advantage in doing so.”

He says there is significant visiting by US airforce, navy and army forces (together with the current marine rotation). “And if that is accompanied by, or there’s a subsequent decision to base further numbers, we’d be very happy to have that discussion with the US – or with the UK, for that matter.”

Last September’s AUSMIN talks committed “to significantly advance Australia-United States force posture cooperation”.

Dutton also reiterates he’s working on the acceleration of the timetable for the nuclear-powered submarines, a centrepiece of last year’s AUKUS agreement between Australia, the US and Britain. “I can assure you, the 20 year timeline is nonsense. I believe that we will be able to acquire well before that”.

Discussions with the US and UK have been “very productive” and “I’ll have more to say on that in due course once the discussions continue”.

“Everything [is] on the table with the US and the UK at the moment, and we will achieve capability well ahead of what the critics are pointing out at the moment.”

“I’ve been driving the process, receiving weekly updates, engaging with our counterparts. And this has momentum. It has buy-in from the US and the UK. It has an urgency because of the way in which the Chinese government is positioning in the Indo-Pacific”.

Asked about criticism that his language on China is too belligerent, Dutton says, “I do believe that China is on a pathway of aggression, particularly toward Taiwan, and I want to be part of what I think is a majority view around the world to stop that from taking place.

“I want China to continue to grow economically. I want to see people lifted out of poverty, but I don’t want to see a clash, particularly between great powers. And I think again, we’re better off to be frank in our assessments and to argue from a position of strength, not weakness, because otherwise, we will find ourselves in conflict in the Indo-Pacific, and that’s not what anybody wants.”

Dutton doesn’t step back from his description of Russian President Vladimir Putin as an ageing dictator who is becoming more and more irrational.

“People only need to look at his track record and concerning human rights abuses in Russia. There’s no sense when we’re dealing with a bully of any nature, believing that if we just close our ears and our mouth, that somehow the bully will become a good person.”

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. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Peter Dutton on US combat assets in Australia, China, and Vladimir Putin – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-peter-dutton-on-us-combat-assets-in-australia-china-and-vladimir-putin-176150

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

The federal government’s promise of up to A$800 between now and May for aged care workers is a short-term political “fix” designed to cover over a long-term policy failure.

Numerous reports have pointed out Australia’s more than 260,000 aged care workers are poorly paid and under-valued.

Women make up more than 80% of the aged care workforce. About a fifth of the workers have culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Their work is often devalued as “women’s work”, with expectations they will work unpaid additional time, split shifts and highly variable hours.

Personal care workers and nurses in aged care are paid 10–15% less than those in health care. Pay rates start at A$22 an hour for personal care workers.

Read more:
Paid on par with cleaners: the broader issue affecting the quality of aged care

The Commonwealth’s market model for aged care has also led to high and increasing casualisation and job insecurity, particularly in home care.

Not surprisingly, it’s increasingly difficult to attract and retain staff. Most staffing categories in aged care now have vacancy rates above 10% and staff turnover of between a quarter and a third each year.

Mismanagement of the COVID crisis in aged care has made the problem worse. COVID infections in aged care facilities are now widespread, leading to severe workforce shortages and risks to the quality of care. Basic preventive measures such as the use of boosters for residents, rapid antigen tests and the delivery of proper masks remain problematic.

Read more:
1,100 Australian aged care homes are locked down due to COVID. What have we learnt from deaths in care?

So what needs to change?

The need to improve pay and conditions, training and career paths for aged care workers has been recognised for years. A workforce strategy was prepared in 2018 and a work value case for aged care workers was lodged with the Fair Work Commission in 2020. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety reinforced the importance of addressing these issues.

But in practice, little has been done. Pay rates have not been increased. Personal care workers are not required to have formal aged care qualifications or to be registered. Career paths have not been reformed. And employment standards to prevent casualisation and job insecurity have not been introduced.

In the short term, emergency measures are needed to manage the COVID crisis in aged care. Rapid antigen tests, personal protective equipment, and visits by partners, family and volunteers urgently need to be supported. All residents and the workforce need to be fully (three dose) vaccinated. A quick drive-by, vaccinating only whoever is around, is not good enough.

In the medium term, demand for aged care workers will increase dramatically, particularly in home care where an additional 58,000 workers are likely to be needed to meet planned expansion. Most of these staff will provide personal and domestic care services, and such workers are already hard to find.

The federal government’s one-off A$800 pre-election commitment is unlikely to be enough to fix the problems. What’s needed is better pay and conditions for aged care staff on an on-going basis. A one-off payment doesn’t even scratch the surface.

Read more:
Morrison announces bonus of up to $800 to encourage workers to stay in highly stretched aged care system

When will aged care workers get a pay rise?

The Fair Work Commission is still considering a 25% pay increase, after aged care worker unions put their case for a pay rise forward in November 2020.

The federal government should explicitly state it will fund whatever the independent umpire determines is a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s aged care work. Not to do so would reduce the availability of aged care services.

A new Aged Care Act is due to be introduced shortly. The Aged Care Workforce Industry Council should implement a workforce plan as part of the new Act. The plan should adjust staff roles and workforce organisation to reflect the much greater emphasis on older people’s rights and the delivery of support at home and in the community, rather than in residential facilities.

A more secure, better trained and properly paid aged care workforce will cost the taxpayer more. But without a high-quality, well-supported workforce it will be impossible to deal with the aged care crisis.

Read more:
Our ailing aged care system shows you can’t skimp on nursing care

Hal Swerissen is a non executive director of the Murray PHN and the Bendigo Kangan Institute.

Stephen Duckett is a member of the board of directors of the Brotherhood of St Laurence which, among other services, is a provider of aged care. He is also chair of the board of directors of the Eastern Melbourne Primary Health Network. Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute’s activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities, as disclosed on its website.

– ref. When aged care workers earn just $22 an hour, a one-off payment won’t fix the wage problem – https://theconversation.com/when-aged-care-workers-earn-just-22-an-hour-a-one-off-payment-wont-fix-the-wage-problem-176136

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

What’s the boldest thing the Morrison government could do in next month’s budget?

It would be to forecast an unemployment rate below 4% (a rate of three-point-something), then to pledge to go further, to two-point-something.

Neither have happened for half a century; not since the long Coalition reign of Robert Menzies and his successors from the 1950s to the early 1970s, when unemployment was between 2 and 3%.

Astoundingly, both are now within Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s reach in a way they weren’t mere weeks ago.

This time last year, the official budget strategy (its formal title is fiscal strategy) pledged to maintain economic support until the unemployment rate was “comfortably below 6%”.

Frydenberg ditched that target on the ground it was unambitious in the May budget, replacing it with a commitment to spend until the recovery was “secure and the unemployment rate is back to pre-crisis levels or lower”.

But – even projecting forward all the way out to 2025 – Frydenberg couldn’t promise an unemployment rate below 4%. There wasn’t the demand for workers to support it.

Suddenly, below 4% is possible

Even as late as December last year in the mid-year budget update, the best the treasury could forecast was an unemployment rate of 4.25%, which wouldn’t be reached until mid-2023 and wouldn’t be bettered in forecasts stretching out to mid-2025.

Then in January, we learnt that in December itself the unemployment rate had dipped below the forecast to 4.2% a year and a half early.

And it was the real thing. The unemployment rate hadn’t been cut artificially by people withdrawing from the search for work because of lockdowns (as had happened temporarily earlier in the year). Unemployment fell by 62,200 in December because an extra 64,800 people found work.

Unemployment touching 4%

The proportion of the population aged 15 and over in work is the truest measure of employment, because it’s unaffected by whether or not someone calls themselves unemployed. In December last year, that had climbed to 63.3% – a record high.

Several countries, including Singapore, South Korea and New Zealand, do even better, suggesting we can push employment higher still.

And the jobs have come with hours. All but a few of the extra jobs created over the past year have been full-time. In December the total number of hours worked hit an all-time high. The proportion of workers underemployed (not getting the hours they want) sank to a record low.

The 50-year low is closer than it seems

The unemployment rate was better than it looked. Calculated to several decimal places rather than the usual single place, the December rate was 4.157% – within a hairsbreadth of the historic low of 3.981% achieved in February 2008 at the height of the mining boom; the only time in the modern era the rate slipped below 4%.

To get below 4% from here on, and to get below the previous long-term low, would only require an extra 25,000 people in jobs.

That’s what makes a budget forecast of an unemployment rate beginning with a “3” – the first since the 1970s – suddenly plausible. On Tuesday the prime minister said he expected it this year.

More vacancies than ever

Making something much better plausible – what until recently was a barely imaginable unemployment rate beginning with “2” – is the number of vacant jobs on offer.

In November, the Bureau of Statistics survey found a record 396,100 jobs on offer, so many as to mean one job for every 1.7 people looking. The more usual ratio, back in the days before COVID, was one vacancy for every three unemployed people looking.

More vacancies than ever

If half of those vacancies (198,000) were filled by someone presently unemployed, the unemployment rate would fall to 2.7%.

Which is another way of saying an unemployment rate lower than 3% – an unemployment rate beginning with “2” – is within reach.

Read more:
An unemployment rate below 4% is possible. But for how long?

A budget that forecast a rate lower than 4%, but adopted as a target or stretch forecast an unemployment rate lower than 3%, would make history.

It would have to set out the means to achieve it, one of which would be to adopt a new fiscal strategy that committed the government to “invest in a stronger economy” (the words in the existing fiscal strategy) until unemployment is between 2% and 3%.

What’s missing? A target and more help for job-seekers

The existing strategy commits the government to invest in a stronger economy until unemployment is down to “where it was prior to the pandemic or lower”.

The commitment would delay budget repair by only a few years, and it would make that repair quicker when it started because hundreds of thousands more Australians would be paying tax and no longer claiming JobSeeker.

And it would lock in an expectation of permanently lower unemployment, in the same way as the Reserve Bank’s success in crushing inflation in the 1990s locked in an expectation of permanently low inflation.

Read more:
Top economists expect RBA to hold rates low in 2022 as real wages fall

If the government articulated the target, the Reserve Bank would be likely to assist. Full employment is the second of the three goals spelled out in its charter.

The government would also have to do much more of what it started in its last budget, which is to set up programs to make unemployed workers more job-ready and make employers more likely to hire them.

Some of that is already happening as the large number of vacancies and low number of unemployed forces employers to take on people they wouldn’t have before. Many will be glad.

It’s within reach for Labor, or the Coalition

Often the only thing that’s “wrong” about a worker who has been out of work for a long time is that they have been out of work for a long time. As employers discover that, they are likely to find it is easier to fill vacancies than they thought.

An unemployment target of 2-3% would be game-changing, and it’s within reach. The last side of politics to preside over ultra-low unemployment was the Coalition, making it natural that Morrison and Frydenberg should take up the mantle of Robert Menzies and his treasurer Harold Holt.

If they won’t, it’s an opening for Labor. There’s a chance to all but eliminate unnecessary unemployment in Australia. Not in 50 years have we been this close.

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

– ref. Unemployment below 3% is possible for the first time in 50 years – if Australia budgets for it – https://theconversation.com/unemployment-below-3-is-possible-for-the-first-time-in-50-years-if-australia-budgets-for-it-176025

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Murat Ungor, Senior Lecturer, Department of Economics, University of Otago

There is no doubt life is becoming much more expensive in New Zealand as inflation hits a three-decade high, influenced by both domestic and international factors such as increased food, energy and housing costs, pent-up demand for consumer goods, and ongoing supply-chain disruptions.

In the 12 months to December 2021, Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation
surged to 5.9%, compared with 4.9% in September, 3.3% in June, and just 1.5% in March.

Price increases have been led by the essential goods and services — food, housing and transport. Annual food prices were 4.5% higher in December 2021 than they were a year previously, rents increased 3.8% and petrol prices leapt 30%.

But as Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has rightly said, “we are not alone in experiencing high rates of inflation”.

Australia’s CPI rose 3.5% over the 12 months to the December 2021 quarter, and the UK’s CPI rose by 5.4%. Inflation has reached 5% in the Eurozone and 7% in the US.

The question will be: how do we support those lower-income households most disadvantaged by these trends?

Same problem, many causes

This global inflation has many causes, including the effects of trillions of dollars of fiscal and monetary stimulus, pent-up demand, increases in shipping costs, ongoing supply-chain disruptions, and rising energy prices.

According to the Freightos Baltic Index, which reports daily prices of containers shipped by ocean and air, shipping costs in May 2021 were more than 200% higher than in May 2020.

Read more:
Inflation inequality: Poorest Americans are hit hardest by soaring prices on necessities

A 20-foot container from Shanghai to New Zealand, which cost around US$500 prior to the pandemic, was costing businesses around US$5,000 in September 2021.

Energy prices in the OECD soared by 27.7% in the year to November, the highest rate since June 1980.

Interest rates will keep rising

Generally, when inflation rises, central banks intervene and raise interest rates to slow the economy and reduce inflation. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) implements monetary policy by setting the official cash rate (OCR), which is reviewed seven times a year.

In October last year it raised the OCR by 25 basis points (a quarter of a percentage point) to 0.50% – significantly, the first OCR rise in seven years, followed soon after in November with another hike to 0.75%.

This was expected, and I anticipate a follow-up hike of the same magnitude in February.

In fact, the most likely scenario is that the RBNZ will continue to raise the OCR in measured steps of 25 basis points, with the cash rate reaching 2% following its August 2022 policy decision.

That said, if economic risks increase at the domestic and global levels, we can expect to see increases of 50 basis points from some of the policy decision meetings.

Read more:
Omicron will only add to looming workforce shortages already faced by key New Zealand industries

Inflation affects rich and poor differently

Recent research suggests American households in different income groups did not experience the 7% inflation rate the same way: it felt like 7.2% for the lowest-income households and 6.6% for the highest-income families. The main cause of this gap is the increase in grocery and gas prices.

I think we have a similar situation in New Zealand, where price increases for food, transport and housing are particularly harmful for low-income households.

On top of that, real wages are shrinking for those same households.

Wages are measured in dollars – known as the nominal wage – but what matters when you go to a supermarket is your real wage, measured in terms of the goods you can afford to buy.

The real wage is calculated by dividing the nominal wage by a price index such as the CPI. A concern with inflation is that real wages can fall even if nominal wages don’t. And this is happening in New Zealand.

While wages have increased, they haven’t come close to keeping pace with inflation.

Raise the minimum wage?

How should the government address the impact on low-income households? Already there have been calls for an increase to the minimum wage. But would this work?

An earlier survey of the effects of the minimum wage on prices reviewed several US studies and summarised that a 10% minimum wage increase raises food prices by no more than 4%.

This sounds promising: minimum wage increases may not cause real wages to decline. However, it’s only one side of the story.

As has been discussed elsewhere, the short-run gains of higher minimum wages can be completely offset by the harmful long-term effects: increasing costs for firms, higher unemployment in the post-COVID era.

Read more:
Inflation: why it could surge after the pandemic

Targeted relief for low-income households

An alternative is directly targeting relief funds for short-term support. An example of this has been the University of Otago’s Pūtea Tautoko Student Relief Fund, helping with rent and food for students experiencing financial hardship due to the pandemic. I expect many students will apply again in 2022.

Such schemes could be applied more widely, with local government agencies working with local businesses to identify households that need urgent relief. I would support this as a short-run relief option.

But while it’s true inflation and declining household purchasing power will be pressing concerns in 2022 (and possibly into 2023), we should not forget the future well-being of New Zealanders will be determined by sustainable long-run economic growth.

Many of the same headwinds we faced before COVID-19, such as low productivity growth, demographic challenges (including population ageing) and the lack of investment options, will still be with us in the years ahead – even if the Reserve Bank can control the pace of price increases in the short term.

Murat Ungor 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. Inflation is raising prices and reducing real wages – what should be done to support NZ’s low-income households? – https://theconversation.com/inflation-is-raising-prices-and-reducing-real-wages-what-should-be-done-to-support-nzs-low-income-households-175915

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Griffiths, Deputy Program Director, Grattan Institute

The Australian Electoral Commission has updated its database of financial disclosure information for 2020-21.

This happens once a year and is keenly watched by political observers because it includes information about who is donating what to whom.

And yet, despite Australia’s political parties collectively reporting A$177 million in income, only a tiny fraction of this is identifiable. So the public is left with a woefully inadequate picture of what is actually going on with political funding in Australia.

What does the data tell us?

State elections attracted the big bucks

Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory all went to the polls last year. So it is perhaps no surprise that most of the donations in Tuesday’s data release were made to political party branches in these states.

The Queensland election in particular attracted some very large donations, including almost $4 million from entities directly associated with the Labor Party. These associated entities are controlled by the party and their income is opaque, but usually includes money from fundraising functions and investments.

Typically, the party in power receives slightly more income than the opposition, but donations last year were particularly skewed towards the incumbents – at both state and federal levels.

Who are the major donors?

The biggest donor for the Coalition was Pratt Holdings, with more than $1.2 million in donations to the Liberal Party.

Other significant donations to the Coalition were received from fundraising vehicles and investment bodies (for example, the National Policy Forum and Cormack Foundation). Liberal candidate Scott Edwardes also made a large donation ($224,000), presumably to support his own (ultimately unsuccessful) campaign in the WA election.

Labor’s biggest support came from its associated entities and several unions, including the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association, United Workers Union, and the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union.

Some companies such as ANZ bank and Wesfarmers regularly contribute more than $100,000 to both major parties and did so again this year. Village Roadshow cinemas is also a regular donor in election years. Indeed, despite cinemas suffering substantial losses during the pandemic, Village managed to stump up $25,000 for both sides in the Queensland state election.

Donations open powerful doors. Australia’s political parties typically rely on just a handful of major donors, and these donors can achieve significant access and influence. In 2020-21, the top five donors represented 39% of the Coalition’s declared donations and 57% of Labor’s.

Beyond the political parties, two major grassroots political movements declared substantial funding: the right-wing movement Advance Australia raised $1.3 million, mainly from companies with no public presence, and left-wing movement GetUp! raised $553,000, all from individuals.

War chests

Political donations help parties campaign and spread their message at election time. Four of the past five federal elections have been won by the major party with the bigger war chest.

Read more:
How big money influenced the 2019 federal election – and what we can do to fix the system

The Coalition was the big winner in 2020-21 with 23% more income than Labor, despite declaring fewer donations. The Coalition has raised more in both financial years since the last federal election, with about 20% more than Labor in 2019-20 too.

Is this the full picture?

The two major parties declared income totalling more than $150 million to the AEC in 2020-21. But the data released on Tuesday shows declared donations make up just 9% of this.

Most political party income is undeclared or falls into a messy bucket called “other receipts”. This includes money contributed by individuals and corporates at fundraising functions – money clearly intended to support the party and buy access. Parties declare their “other receipts” but it is impossible for the public to distinguish between money raised at fundraising events and income associated with party investments or services.

Another major problem is donations received below the threshold of $14,300 do not need to be declared by the party. This enables large donors to split their donations into several below-threshold payments to avoid scrutiny.

Together, these loopholes mean major donors can hide, and Australian voters cannot be sure who is really backing our political parties.

Election to shine spotlight on integrity

Australia’s major parties will be scrambling right now to bring in funds for this year’s federal election campaign.

Yet this 2020-21 data release does not tell us who is donating now in the lead up to the federal election. Nor who is likely to get priority access to the next government. Unless the rules are changed, voters won’t know the answers to these questions until it’s too late.

Read more:
More than half of funding for the major parties remains secret — and this is how they want it

Despite consistent calls for donations reform from many minor parties and independents over more than a decade, the major parties continue to resist greater transparency.

The federal Coalition has a terrible track record on transparency. Meanwhile, Labor may have proposed lowering the donations disclosure threshold, but it has failed to put any pressure on the government to close loopholes and make the data more timely.

However, there is some hope for reform. Many independents and minor parties will be campaigning on integrity issues in the 2022 election, and this could force pre-election commitments from the major parties. If crossbenchers end up with the balance of power after the election, they are likely to demand much greater transparency from the next government.

The Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute’s activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website.

Owain Emslie 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. $177 million flowed to Australian political parties last year, but major donors can easily hide – https://theconversation.com/177-million-flowed-to-australian-political-parties-last-year-but-major-donors-can-easily-hide-176129

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brian Oliver, Research Leader in Respiratory cellular and molecular biology at the Woolcock Institute of Medical Research and Professor, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney

It’s summer in a pandemic. So as Australia opens its borders and COVID case numbers rise, we’ll likely see the interplay of COVID and bushfires.

Our bodies react to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, and bushfires in similar ways.

Both affect the lungs. Both can have serious health consequences in vulnerable populations, such as elderly people. Both can have long-term health consequences.

Read more:
How does bushfire smoke affect our health? 6 things you need to know

What we know so far

From a simple health perspective, if you have been seriously ill with COVID your response to bushfire smoke is likely to be more serious, and vice versa.

However, because COVID is still a new disease, the evidence for these effects is still sparse.

So far, the best evidence for the impact of COVID on people affected by smoke is from studies in communities that burn biomass (such as plant material or animal dung) as an energy source. In this scenario, a person is exposed to smoke constantly rather than the intermittent smoke that occurs during bushfire seasons.

How about for someone who is exposed to a one-off bushfire? Or who has COVID for the first time? Here are three ways one affects the other.

1. Bushfires and risk

Bushfire smoke causes respiratory symptoms. In people with existing respiratory or heart disease this increase in symptoms can be life-threatening. The same is true for COVID.

However, if a person was to be infected with the virus that causes COVID and exposed to bushfire smoke at the same time it would be quite difficult to work out if the symptoms were the result of one or the other or both.

What studies have looked at so far is if bushfire smoke increases the likelihood of catching COVID.

A study based on the 2020 bushfire season in New South Wales found an association between living in a bushfire-burned area and the incidence of COVID. In other words, it was more likely for bushfire-burned areas to have more COVID cases than unburnt areas. But there was no link between exposure to particulate matter from all forms of pollution and COVID.

Studies in the United States have also found associations between short-term exposure to smoke from bushfires and COVID cases and deaths.

The reasons for these patterns might be as simple as bushfire smoke causing what would have been asymptomatic COVID to become symptomatic.

Alternatively, the link could be related to the virus “hitching a ride” on pollution particles. Or air pollution may increase the numbers of ACE2 receptors (or special enzymes) in the body, which SARS-CoV-2 uses to infect cells.

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

2. COVID spread

During a bushfire, if people stay inside at home to avoid smoke exposure, it can decrease the spread of the virus.

However, if people move from house to house to check on other people, it could increase transmission.

In catastrophic bushfires, evacuation often occurs. Again, this could increase transmission by bringing big groups together.

We know outdoor transmission of COVID is very rare. So taking people who normally would be outdoors and placing them indoors (with an infected person) could increase transmission rates.

Another consideration is vaccination rates, which are lower outside cities in Australia. So in areas with bushfires, the population is more vulnerable to COVID. In these areas, people are more likely to have underlying health conditions that make them more vulnerable to COVID, such as heart or lung disease.

Read more:
Pregnant women should take extra care to minimise their exposure to bushfire smoke

3. Testing rates rise

If we accept people are getting tested for COVID because they have symptoms, then we also have to accept people are more likely to have tests during a bushfire. That’s because smoke makes people cough and irritates their nose (both are COVID symptoms) and people with heart problems are often breathless, another COVID symptom.

It would also be reasonable to expect volunteers from different regions and first responders from different regions would have surveillance COVID testing. If you do more testing, you find more COVID. Once again, COVID numbers would increase.

In a nutshell

The link between COVID and bushfires is complex. Symptoms may overlap and our behaviour in response to one emergency affects the other. Then there’s the complex biology of how our body reacts to particulate air pollution released during bushfires.

The best advice to avoid the adverse health effects of COVID and bushfires is to avoid exposure to both. Wearing a N95/P2 mask is a good way to safeguard yourself from bushfire smoke and COVID.

Brian Oliver receives funding from The NHMRC and the ARC.

– ref. It’s summer, so bushfires and COVID collide. 3 ways one affects the other – https://theconversation.com/its-summer-so-bushfires-and-covid-collide-3-ways-one-affects-the-other-169833

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Claire Fench, Postdoctoral Research Fellow of multilingual theatre and performance, University of the Witwatersrand

At this year’s Fringe World festival in Perth, the “theatre of the real” is everywhere: theatre, comedy and drag all speak directly to our reality, played against a background of survival.

Real stories provide moments of honesty, introspection and clarity. In bringing true stories to the stage, artists are creating an intense connection between audience and performer.

In a normal year, the festival would play host to artists from across Australia and around the world. With borders closed indefinitely, 42 shows have been cancelled.

The result is a decidedly local festival.

For those of us locked in, it is an opportunity to see ourselves mirrored from the stage, to learn about our neighbours and to delve into how they have navigated their lives.

The real makes up for where the news fails

British theatre director Nicolas Kent has said theatre has taken over the role of the news. While this is contentious, theatre audiences grapple with information differently: we want to suspend our disbelief, believe in the hero and hear the full story.

Joe White draws on his own stories as master of ceremonies for stand-up show Best of Africa, presenting gags awash with admiration for his family and community.

White’s open door to his past invites us into the living rooms of communities a few suburbs over, something the news often does with undulating fear.

My mates in Melbourne were saying to me “You have to isolate for 14 days by yourself in a four-star hotel – you are going to hate it!” And I responded with “as an ex-Ethiopian refugee, I’m pretty sure I’m gonna love it!”

White reflects honestly and with humility, pausing comfortably to make his audience feel seen. Vulnerability is at the heart of his performance, and feels like a measure of courage.

Ella Randle’s play 28 Grams draws from a similar place of vulnerability. The one-hander covering her battle with anorexia walks us from healthy child to dying adolescent to counter the romanticisation of the illness in the media.

Actor Georgia Condon tells Randle’s story like it was her own.

It wasn’t the first time I’d been called ugly. The first time was by a girl who told me that her mum thought I was ugly.

The toxicity of this culture is all the harder to digest because of how it rests in Randle’s reality. Although the words are spoken by Condon, our knowledge this story is based on Randle’s life motivates us to listen with open ears. We feel the weight of responsibility for parents in our community who should know better.

Justin Sider’s Dickless similarly blurs the boundaries between artist and character. Sider is trans, and he explores this identity through the story of a man who has lost his penis. Performed in an elevated drag king aesthetic, Dickless is an exploration of trans validity and a rejection of the heteronormative hero’s journey.

While drag performers have traditionally lip synced, Sider sings and raps live, seducing us with resonance and range. By using his real voice, we are brought closer to his body, celebrating his queer and trans identity.

Read more:
‘RuPaul’s Drag Race’ and lip-syncing: A once controversial practice is no longer taboo

The real helps us see ourselves in others

Michelle Hall’s play The Dirty Mother tells her birth story to reframe how childbirth trauma can be dismissed.

When Hall’s son was born, his heart stopped for three minutes. We are held captive by the harsh metal scream of a flatline. We feel the anxiety of waiting for her baby’s heart to start beating again … before it does.

Hall is left in pieces, vomiting uncontrollably into a kidney dish.

Hall’s visceral narrative is performed with imaginative physicality. As she stands on her head, rotating her ankles and flexing her toes, she forms an image of a womb. She transforms into a mooing and chewing cow to the rhythm of Land of Hope and Glory and surrenders her body to the British medical system.

Through Hall’s use of her own body to create these images, she encourages the audience to respect the autonomy of the body found in the act of childbirth.

Marie-Muriel Hillion Toulcanon’s musical theatre show Island Vibrations: from Maloya to Séga travels through the colonised timeline experienced by the people of Réunion Island.

The concert of percussion, dance and story celebrates hybridisation as a cultural strength. As the narrator, Vishwa Hewage tells us:

There is no need to find a meaning to our music and dance: it simply expresses a form of freedom that no one can take away from us.

Throughout the show, the audience steps in to dance with the ensemble. Through conflict and celebration, we experience ways to find happiness through adversity.

A-call-and-response with the audience brings me to tears as I am reminded of the performers who have guided me in South Africa. The command of Toulcanon’s voice brings to mind all those I have missed while being separated during the pandemic.

Time and time again at this year’s festival, artists are stripping down to reveal their vulnerability. In the audience, we lean in to offer our understanding.

Unlike the news, theatre of the real tells the stories of yesterday. Next year’s Fringe World will tell of the trials of today.

Claire Fench 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. ‘Theatre of the real’: how artists at Perth Fringe World are stripping down to reveal their vulnerabilities – https://theconversation.com/theatre-of-the-real-how-artists-at-perth-fringe-world-are-stripping-down-to-reveal-their-vulnerabilities-175652