Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nigel William Crawford, Associate Professor, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute

It emerged today that two aged-care residents in Brisbane were given an incorrect dose of the Pfizer vaccine — more than the amount recommended.

The 88-year-old man and 94-year-old woman were receiving their vaccinations yesterday as part of the first phase of Australia’s vaccine rollout, which began this week.

Both residents are being monitored, but haven’t shown any signs of adverse reactions so far.

Health Minister Greg Hunt has revealed the doctor who administered the vaccines had not completed the proper training. The doctor has been stood down from his position while the error is investigated.

But how did this mistake happen, and how can we aim to minimise the risk of it happening again?

The challenge of a multi-dose vial

We don’t yet know exactly what happened, as the incident is still under investigation. But it’s likely the doctor gave the patients either the whole or a larger part of the multi-dose vial than indicated.

COVID vaccines come in vials containing several doses. A vial of the Pfizer vaccine contains five or potentially six doses, and health-care staff need to extract individual doses from the vial. This is different to most other vaccines, which come in single-dose vials.

Multi-dose vials are useful in a pandemic situation. They allow manufacturers to distribute more vaccine, more easily and rapidly around the world.

We’ve actually seen this kind of mistake before — we call it a multi-dose vial error. It can happen if clinicians are not careful with the extraction, or haven’t fully understood the education and training with regards to multi-dose vials.

Other countries, such as Israel and Germany, have reported these kinds of incidents during their COVID vaccine rollouts. But similarly, there haven’t been serious adverse effects reported to date for the patients involved.

We (SAEFVIC — the Victorian vaccine safety service) reported on a similar case in Melbourne with the H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine in 2010, which came in a vial containing ten doses of vaccine. A person was accidentally given the whole vial (5 millilitres, ten times the recommended 0.5ml). They were monitored and experienced a small local reaction, but no other side-effects.

Read more: How the Pfizer COVID vaccine gets from the freezer into your arm

Safety isn’t a significant concern here

In the early phase 1 and 2 vaccine clinical trials, scientists test a variety of dose sizes to determine what dose delivers the best immune response, while also not using more vaccine than necessary. This helps determine what dose is then used in the phase 3 efficacy trials.

In clinical trials for BNT162b2 (Pfizer’s COVID vaccine), some participants received more than three times the dose the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has provisionally approved (30 micrograms). These participants didn’t experience adverse reactions much more so than those who received the smaller doses, apart from one participant who had local pain at the injection site.

Although you can overdose on medications, vaccines are a bit different. I often say “you can’t have too much of a good thing” when it comes to vaccines. Really large amounts might produce challenges, but we are reassured by the phase 1 and 2 clinical trial data.

Even if these aged-care residents received up to five or six times the recommended dose (if they did in fact receive a whole 1.8ml vial), this is still a relatively small amount and not likely to be harmful. Of course, it’s still important to monitor them closely.

It’s possible any local side-effects, such as pain at the injection site or fever, may be slightly heightened with a larger dose. But the information we have from clinical trials, and the reports from other countries, tells us we have no reason to be concerned about anything more serious in the short or long term.

What happens now?

Even if these “overdoses” are not likely to be harmful, it’s always safest to stick to the recommended dose. We don’t want to see an incident like this repeated. It may also undermine confidence in the vaccine rollout, and where COVID vaccines are a precious resource, it’s important we try not to waste a single dose.

In such a large-scale vaccine program, human errors are bound to happen occasionally. It’s very positive that a nurse reportedly stepped in on noticing this mistake, and that we’ve seen open disclosure around the incident.

Read more: Open disclosure: why doctors should be honest about errors

The key now is what action we’re going to take to minimise the risk of this happening again.

Clinicians in Australia are not accustomed in their usual practice to delivering vaccines from multi-dose vials, meaning there’s a greater risk of error. This incident should be the impetus to make sure everyone administering vaccines has completed the required training, including the multi-dose vial component. This should be documented via their Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) registration number (where applicable).

This event should also prompt us to look at how we capture and report these sorts of errors in Australia. The focus on vaccine safety surveillance is, for the most part, on patients who have had an adverse event following immunisation — these are summarised nationally by the TGA.

Not all vaccine errors will lead to an adverse reaction, but we need to ensure we also have a systematic way to capture any errors in administering the vaccines. The newly established Vaccine Operation Centre, a federal government initiative, is in a good place to capture and collate this information.

Read more: How do we know the COVID vaccine won’t have long-term side-effects?

In the context of global vaccinations against COVID-19, multi-dose vials are the only way forward. The AstraZeneca vaccine will also come in multi-dose vials. So this is something we must do the best we can to get right.

– ref. When vaccinating 26 million Australians, expect a mistake or two. But we can minimise the risk of repeating Queensland’s overdose incident – https://theconversation.com/when-vaccinating-26-million-australians-expect-a-mistake-or-two-but-we-can-minimise-the-risk-of-repeating-queenslands-overdose-incident-155945

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Corey Martin, PhD Candidate, Swinburne University of Technology

Paris Hilton — model, reality TV star, actor, pop singer and DJ — gained worldwide notoriety in 2003 because of a leaked sex tape. Over the years she has been viciously parodied and lampooned, famously on South Park and in World of Warcraft.

But she has endured — and this week launched a new podcast, This Is Paris.

In the first episode, Hilton and her co-host, US television personality Hunter March, discuss love, commitment and hard work. Hilton’s fiance, Carter Reum also appears — apparently as a favour to her “because you know I hate this stuff”. The episode ends with a modern advice column in which Hilton responds to fan voicemail questions, including “how do I look hot on Zoom?”

In her recent tell-all documentary of the same name Hilton opened up about her difficult experiences growing up in the spotlight and alleged she had endured traumatic abuse at boarding school as a teenager.

The treatment of female celebrities

As with Framing Britney Spears (2021), the documentary prompted timely discussion of the treatment of women celebrities and their struggle to maintain agency within the structures of Hollywood and the media.

Born in 1981, Hilton was first known as an heiress to the Hilton hotels empire, founded by her great-grandfather. She began modelling as a child, and by the age of 18 was a socialite regularly photographed in the A-list New York party scene.

The 1990s has been dubbed “the tabloid decade”, and along with celebrity compatriots such as Lindsay Lohan and Tara Reid, Hilton was ruthlessly torn down for her perceived moral failings. Notably, it was young women who bore the brunt of this criticism — not men who behaved “badly”.

When she was 22, in 2003, internet pornography company Marvad Corp leaked a sex tape of Hilton and her then-boyfriend Richard Salomon (released as One Night in Paris in 2004).

Hilton sued the internet company she claimed illegally distributed the video (the case was later dismissed). In her documentary, she spoke about its release:

That was a private moment with a teenage girl not in her right headspace. But everyone was watching it and laughing, like it’s something funny. If that happened today it would not be the same story at all. But they made me the bad person. Like I did something bad.

It was my first real relationship. Eighteen. I was so in love with him and I wanted to make him happy. And I just remember him pulling out the camera. And he was kind of pressuring me into it.

But it was this leaked sex tape that ultimately helped solidify her status as a celebrity. In 2003, Hilton and fellow socialite Nicole Richie began filming The Simple Life (2003–2007), right when reality TV’s popularity was soaring.

The show, following Hilton and Richie as they attempted working-class jobs such as farming and fast food service, drew 13 million viewers the night it premiered. This humiliation of the privileged Hilton gave audiences an opportunity to recognise her for more than her tabloid presence.

She became a celebrity who was famous for being famous.

Changing with the times

Over the years, Hilton morphed into a legitimate celebrity through her sheer deftness at embodying — and doing the work of — celebrity itself.

She released her first fragrance in 2004, and her debut single in 2006. If bitterly, she even received some critical praise for her titular debut album: “it’s really not all that bad,” said one critic.

She forayed into acting, with bit parts on The O.C. and Veronica Mars, reaching a peak when she starred in the schlocky horror film House of Wax (2005). Like her pop album, her performance in this film was received with a combination of ridicule and begrudging appreciation.

In 2012, the year electronic dance music (EDM) was named the fastest growing mainstream music genre in the US, Hilton began her lucrative EDM DJ endeavours earning up to US$1 million per 90 minute set. She continues to DJ, including at the reputable Tomorrowland festival in Belgium in 2019.

Up close and personal

In the current digital media epoch, “authenticity” is required of celebrities. Generating a persona that allows her fans a seemingly real connection, Hilton is once again making savvy use of the zeitgeist.

With a tone that feels self-aware and bold, Hilton’s new podcast is reflective not only of her experiences as a celebrity, but also her resilience.

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

The overtly constructed nature of many of Hilton’s former pursuits might attract little admiration in today’s social media spaces — and as an heiress, she is undoubtedly from a privileged background.

Yet her current intimate mode of celebrity is likely to lengthen her celebrity shelf life. As she strives for “authenticity”, Hilton is again rewriting her own celebrity script.

– ref. Podcast host, DJ …. how the much lampooned Paris Hilton has rewritten the celebrity script – https://theconversation.com/podcast-host-dj-how-the-much-lampooned-paris-hilton-has-rewritten-the-celebrity-script-155304

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Hall, Senior Researcher in Politics, Auckland University of Technology

In every crisis there is opportunity. Even during New Zealand’s strictest COVID-19 lockdown last year, many people felt the pandemic offered a chance to tackle other global crises, especially climate change.

The government responded to the pandemic with an extraordinary package of monetary and fiscal stimulus, most notably a NZ$50 billion allocation to the COVID-19 response and recovery fund.

But did the government embrace the call to “build back better” by directing that stimulus toward the low-emission economy or have these financial flows favoured carbon-intensive incumbents, locking us into an economic system implicated in making pandemics and other disasters more probable?

We partnered with international research network Energy Policy Tracker (EPT) to compare New Zealand’s response against other major countries.

We found New Zealand sits in the middle of the pack, with room to improve for future policy.

The good and bad of energy policy

The Energy Policy Tracker focuses on energy policy but excludes other sectors, such as land use or adaptation. It classifies COVID-19-related funding according to energy type, and it uses three buckets:

• policy that supports the fossil fuel economy
• policy that supports clean energy
• and policy that supports other energy, such as nuclear and biofuels.

The overall balance for Aotearoa New Zealand was 44.6% fossil fuel-related, 54.5% clean energy, and less than 1% other energy. By global standards, that is a fairly middling performance.

Among the countries the Energy Policy Tracker has analysed, the global average sees nearly one-half of economic stimulus going to fossil fuels, over one-third to clean energy, and one-sixth to other energy.

New Zealand’s performance looks increasingly ambivalent when we drop down to the next level of analysis.

Read more: Rich and poor don’t recover equally from epidemics. Rebuilding fairly will be a global challenge

The Energy Policy Tracker also analyses the environmental conditions placed on energy policy. On the one hand, it asks whether clean-energy policy involves major environmental trade-offs, such as fuel mixes that include oil or gas, or large hydropower projects that create emissions through construction and ecological disruption.

On the other hand, it asks whether fossil fuel-related policy comes with “green strings attached” that steer recipients toward cleaner long-term outcomes.

One example is the French government’s rescue package for Air France, which involved €7 billion in loans. It also requires Air France to renew its fleet with more fuel-efficient planes to reduce emissions, and to cease a few domestic routes that have transport alternatives like rail. Through policy innovations like this, about two-thirds of France’s fossil fuel-related stimulus is conditional.

Contrast this with New Zealand where one-twelfth of fossil fuel-related spending is conditional, such as road upgrades that incorporate cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. Meanwhile, 12 times as much, more than $1.4 billion, supports fossil fuel infrastructure unconditionally, much of it committed to Air New Zealand’s $900 million standby loan facility.

This is a lost opportunity to lock in the transition to a low-emissions economy.

Read more: New Zealand’s COVID-19 budget delivers on one crisis, but largely leaves climate change for another day

This is also mirrored on the other side of the ledger. Nearly $2 billion was spent on clean energy, but only one-quarter of this was unconditional. Big ticket items like wind farms are absent.

The majority went to clean conditional spending, such as investment in rail, ferry and bus infrastructure. Although these forms of public transport are more energy efficient, if they rely on fossil fuels they also emit carbon dioxide.

Compare that with the UK where relative support for unconditional clean energy policy was twice as high, including big commitments to energy efficiency, and walking and cycling infrastructure.

Takeaways for the next crisis

Given New Zealand will face further shocks in future, what lessons should we learn to improve our response?

Firstly, New Zealand is missing a trick on policy innovation. Some other countries are doing better, even in the midst of an emergency, to take an integrated approach that aligns crisis measures with long-term objectives.

Policy makers should be less reactive and more anticipatory. They should be working to create a climate-aligned investment pipeline, which is unambiguously weighted toward clean energy, with “green strings attached” wherever appropriate.

Secondly, the government should adopt a responsible investment framework, which prioritises low-emissions projects and screens out climate-misaligned investments.

In an emergency, decision making is often suboptimal because there is little time for due diligence. Some “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects ought to have been excluded on climate change grounds, including the Muggeridge Pump Station.

Thirdly, there is cause to be positive about New Zealand’s overall direction. Our strong baseline of renewable electricity means that untargeted economic stimulus is soaked up by a relatively clean energy system. Also, there are substantial commitments to non-energy climate policy, most notably the $1.245 billion Jobs for Nature programme.

The rudiments of a project pipeline have emerged through initiatives like the Provincial Growth Fund and various energy-related strategies, which were accelerated when the pandemic struck.

Consider, for example, the $18 million commitment to the Whale Trail, a 194km cycling and walking trail from Picton to Kaikōura, which enables travellers to explore their own backyard by climate-friendly means. If this is what climate-aligned infrastructure looks like, it is an investment we’re unlikely to regret.

– ref. New Zealand’s COVID-19 stimulus is a ‘lost opportunity’ to move towards a low-emissions economy – https://theconversation.com/new-zealands-covid-19-stimulus-is-a-lost-opportunity-to-move-towards-a-low-emissions-economy-155838

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rob Nicholls, Associate professor in regulation and governance, UNSW

After almost a year of heated discussion about the News Media Bargaining Code, there will shortly be a new law of the land – one that’s unlikely to be applied to the platforms it was intended to reign in. But that’s not to say it hasn’t done its job.

With some final tweaks expected to the draft legislation, Facebook on Tuesday announced it would restore news for Australian users and strike up commercial agreements with local publishers. It signed its first deal with Seven West media yesterday.

Google has already done deals with News Corp, Nine Fairfax, Seven West Media, The Guardian and regional news company ACM, turning back on its initial threat to pull Google Search from Australia.

Meanwhile, Facebook threatened to stop providing Australians access to news — and did (while also blocking domestic violence helplines, children’s cancer charities and the Royal Australian College of Physicians).

In return, the federal government said it would stop all advertising campaigns on the platform. Interestingly, it’s this move which most likely “assisted” the recent negotiated outcome with Facebook.

The amendments

The changes made to the code — other than the opportunity to sell advertising to the Commonwealth again — were small, but important. It’s worth remembering the code’s aim was to balance out the bargaining imbalance between big tech platforms and news media businesses.

Essentially, it provides a mechanism to force a deal when a commercial outcome can’t be reached voluntarily. The code is mandatory, since the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) took the view the platforms would not otherwise get to a commercial offer, let alone a commercial settlement.

As set out by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, there were four changes made that have met Facebook’s needs:

1. before a digital platform is made subject to the code by being “designated”, the minister must first take into account whether it has reached commercial agreements with news media businesses

2. the government must give at least one month’s notice of designation to any platform it intends to make subject to the code

3. the non-discrimination provisions (crafted as an anti-avoidance mechanism) will not be triggered in respect to remuneration amounts or commercial outcomes that arise in the course of usual business practice

4. final offer arbitration will be a last resort and should be preceded by good faith mediation, provided this lasts no longer than two months.

Read more: Feel like breaking up with Facebook? Maybe it’s time for a social media spring clean

A major change?

The above amendments made by the government are not major, in terms of changing the scope of the News Media Bargaining Code. However, they do include some important clarifications regarding how the code will operate.

Both Google and Facebook were very concerned the approach of “final offer arbitration” would adversely affect them. In this, if a deal couldn’t be struck, both the platform and media business would have to present their offers and defer to an arbitrator to choose one.

Google and Facebook initially argued for “commercial arbitration”, where the arbitrator acts with more discretion. Commercial arbitration tends to favour the party with the most information or bargaining power.

The compromise of requiring good faith mediation before any compulsory arbitration (whether commercial or final offer arbitration) is a classic dispute resolution approach.

Win some, lose some

The News Media Bargaining Code has changed in a way that is a compromise, but hasn’t lost its original intention. The process of negotiating changes to the code has revealed the private values of Facebook, Google and any similar parties that could be impacted by the code.

The exposure draft, the introduction of the Bill, the Senate committee and Facebook’s petulant actions: all have acted to identify a financial outcome for each of Google, Facebook and the Australian news publishers.

The process has been a classic, but painful, exchange of information that would otherwise have been held close to the players’ respective chests.

For Google, it has shown Google Search must remain untouched, even if this means forking out millions in a matter of days. For Facebook, it has demonstrated that rapidly changing social media offerings (such as trying to remove news in Australia) can’t be done without major complications.

It may be too soon to judge whether Facebook’s approach of taking its lobbying to the brink worked in its favour, or to its detriment. The platform’s first interactions with the new UK Digital Markets Unit (a regulatory regime targeted at big tech firms) will likely shed some light.

And finally, the ACCC can claim it was right in its initial recommendation; after a long drought, there will soon be money flowing to public interest journalism.

Read more: Why Google is now funnelling millions into media outlets, as Facebook pulls news for Australia

Who pays?

The intention of the News Media Bargaining Code was to create an environment where commercial deals would be struck between the platforms and news media businesses in Australia.

Now, under several deals, Google and Facebook will pay Australian news media businesses tens of millions of dollars each year for locally created content.

There’s also a reasonable expectation regional news businesses will receive funds in exchange for regional news — although a clear standard offer is yet to be made by the platforms.

This development will not change the inevitable shift of the news business model to a largely digital environment. But it does balance the value proposition between news creation and news curation.

It has also made clear to Facebook, Google and news media businesses that they exist and operate in a symbiosis. The status of this relationship? Well, it’s complicated.

Read more: Google’s and Facebook’s loud appeal to users over the news media bargaining code shows a lack of political power

– ref. This week’s changes are a win for Facebook, Google and the government — but what was lost along the way? – https://theconversation.com/this-weeks-changes-are-a-win-for-facebook-google-and-the-government-but-what-was-lost-along-the-way-155865

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rob Nicholls, Associate professor in regulation and governance, UNSW

After almost a year of heated discussion about the News Media Bargaining Code, there will shortly be a new law of the land – one that’s unlikely to be applied to the platforms it was intended to reign in. But that’s not to say it hasn’t done its job.

With some final tweaks expected to the draft legislation, Facebook on Tuesday announced it would restore news for Australian users and strike up commercial agreements with local publishers. It signed its first deal with Seven West media yesterday.

Google has already done deals with News Corp, Nine Fairfax, Seven West Media, The Guardian and regional news company ACM, turning back on its initial threat to pull Google Search from Australia.

Meanwhile, Facebook threatened to stop providing Australians access to news — and did (while also blocking domestic violence helplines, children’s cancer charities and the Royal Australian College of Physicians).

In return, the federal government said it would stop all advertising campaigns on the platform. Interestingly, it’s this move which most likely “assisted” the recent negotiated outcome with Facebook.

The amendments

The changes made to the code — other than the opportunity to sell advertising to the Commonwealth again — were small, but important. It’s worth remembering the code’s aim was to balance out the bargaining imbalance between big tech platforms and news media businesses.

Essentially, it provides a mechanism to force a deal when a commercial outcome can’t be reached voluntarily. The code is mandatory, since the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) took the view the platforms would not otherwise get to a commercial offer, let alone a commercial settlement.

As set out by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, there were four changes made that have met Facebook’s needs:

1. before a digital platform is made subject to the code by being “designated”, the minister must first take into account whether it has reached commercial agreements with news media businesses

2. the government must give at least one month’s notice of designation to any platform it intends to make subject to the code

3. the non-discrimination provisions (crafted as an anti-avoidance mechanism) will not be triggered in respect to remuneration amounts or commercial outcomes that arise in the course of usual business practice

4. final offer arbitration will be a last resort and should be preceded by good faith mediation, provided this lasts no longer than two months.

Read more: Feel like breaking up with Facebook? Maybe it’s time for a social media spring clean

A major change?

The above amendments made by the government are not major, in terms of changing the scope of the News Media Bargaining Code. However, they do include some important clarifications regarding how the code will operate.

Both Google and Facebook were very concerned the approach of “final offer arbitration” would adversely affect them. In this, if a deal couldn’t be struck, both the platform and media business would have to present their offers and defer to an arbitrator to choose one.

Google and Facebook initially argued for “commercial arbitration”, where the arbitrator acts with more discretion. Commercial arbitration tends to favour the party with the most information or bargaining power.

The compromise of requiring good faith mediation before any compulsory arbitration (whether commercial or final offer arbitration) is a classic dispute resolution approach.

Win some, lose some

The News Media Bargaining Code has changed in a way that is a compromise, but hasn’t lost its original intention. The process of negotiating changes to the code has revealed the private values of Facebook, Google and any similar parties that could be impacted by the code.

The exposure draft, the introduction of the Bill, the Senate committee and Facebook’s petulant actions: all have acted to identify a financial outcome for each of Google, Facebook and the Australian news publishers.

The process has been a classic, but painful, exchange of information that would otherwise have been held close to the players’ respective chests.

For Google, it has shown Google Search must remain untouched, even if this means forking out millions in a matter of days. For Facebook, it has demonstrated that rapidly changing social media offerings (such as trying to remove news in Australia) can’t be done without major complications.

It may be too soon to judge whether Facebook’s approach of taking its lobbying to the brink worked in its favour, or to its detriment. The platform’s first interactions with the new UK Digital Markets Unit (a regulatory regime targeted at big tech firms) will likely shed some light.

And finally, the ACCC can claim it was right in its initial recommendation; after a long drought, there will soon be money flowing to public interest journalism.

Read more: Why Google is now funnelling millions into media outlets, as Facebook pulls news for Australia

Who pays?

The intention of the News Media Bargaining Code was to create an environment where commercial deals would be struck between the platforms and news media businesses in Australia.

Now, under several deals, Google and Facebook will pay Australian news media businesses tens of millions of dollars each year for locally created content.

There’s also a reasonable expectation regional news businesses will receive funds in exchange for regional news — although a clear standard offer is yet to be made by the platforms.

This development will not change the inevitable shift of the news business model to a largely digital environment. But it does balance the value proposition between news creation and news curation.

It has also made clear to Facebook, Google and news media businesses that they exist and operate in a symbiosis. The status of this relationship? Well, it’s complicated.

Read more: Google’s and Facebook’s loud appeal to users over the news media bargaining code shows a lack of political power

– ref. This week’s changes are a win for Facebook, Google and the government — but here’s what was lost along the way – https://theconversation.com/this-weeks-changes-are-a-win-for-facebook-google-and-the-government-but-heres-what-was-lost-along-the-way-155865

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bethan Greener, Associate Professor of Politics, Massey University

National Party justice spokesperson Simon Bridges has accused New Zealand Police Commissioner Andrew Coster of being a “wokester” whose commitment to “policing by consent” is out of step with the law.

The claims were in response to Coster’s avowed belief that police need to engage with the community in a nuanced manner, which includes the wider principle of policing by consent. Coster has also recently said the police “can’t arrest our way out of the gang problem”.

But Bridges should know consent is a fundamental requirement for democratic policing. In the absence of public consent, we would have an occupying force, not a police force.

Modern police forces in liberal democratic states are a recent creation. Unlike the standing armies that formed alongside the sovereign state in the 1600s, policing (at least in the way we understand it in Western democracies) came late to the fray.

Policing by consent

As European monarchs struggled to imbue diverse regional groups with a sense of nationalism and national loyalty, countries such as France, Spain and Italy created a more militarised and mobile “continental” model of policing. These utilised “gens d’armes” — armed people — to establish constabulary forces.

In the UK, however, a different model of policing evolved. In the early 1800s, citing disorder and rising crime, British Home Secretary Robert Peel argued for the creation of a unified policing force that would seek to use minimum force to maintain law and order.

A nine-point summary of Peel’s 1829 instructions captures his core principles, including an emphasis on the need to prevent crime and disorder.

Seven of the principles emphasise, in different ways, the need for the public to approve of and co-operate with the police for them to successfully carry out their mission.

This is the heart of the concept of policing by consent: the public as a whole gives consent to the idea that some members of the community are trusted to have and exercise the powers required to keep the peace on behalf of the community.

Robert Peel’s legacy

These ideas were taken further by the UK’s first police commissioners, Charles Rowan and Richard Mayne, who were charged with developing a metropolitan police force for London.

England was a constitutional monarchy, with a representative assembly, which meant attempts to build a police force had to secure the passage of the requisite bills through parliament, as well as overcome any public scepticism.

Rowan and Mayne therefore made concerted attempts to secure the legitimacy of their nascent police force in the eyes of the populace. In time, this process led to the ideal of the English police officer – the “British Bobby” who lives in, protects and serves their community.

This idea of consent remains fundamental to policing in the UK as well as the countries that adopted this Peelian model, including New Zealand.

Read more: Black Lives Matter outrage must drive police reform in Aotearoa-New Zealand too

So the police have, at least in theory, always been based on a philosophy of policing by consent. This is not new or “woke”. It is nonetheless interesting that the New Zealand police have recently reiterated the centrality of these principles to their work and ethos.

As well as Commissioner Coster, Police Association president Chris Cahill has directly referenced Peelian principles in emphasising the importance of consent:

Of Peel’s nine principles, I believe the second to be the most important and the foundation of a fair and accepted police service – “to recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and the ability to secure and maintain public respect”.

Approval and consent

Yet while the police in New Zealand have typically enjoyed strong approval ratings, it is also clear this has differed across various communities.

The New Zealand Police is the descendant of the Armed Constabulary that played a role fighting against certain iwi in the 19th-century colonial wars rather than providing them with a citizen-based consensual police system.

Contemporary statistics still show an imbalance in policing of and for Māori. Prominent Māori activists have long called for and continue to call for reform of the justice system as a whole.

Read more: Trust, risk and routine arming: the killing of a frontline officer challenges New Zealand police practice

Coster’s emphasis on thoughtfully engaging with different communities appears to be an attempt to ensure all parts of New Zealand society approve of the police, and consent to be policed by them.

Moreover, recent research into justice and policing suggests that heavily punitive approaches, except in very select cases, are expensive and counter-productive. Research also increasingly demonstrates that incarceration does not significantly affect crime and disorder statistics.

An agency that is, to quote Bridges, “much less about arrest, much less about catching gangs and criminals”, but which is more about preventing criminality in the first place, is therefore entirely in step with the fundamental ethos of democratic policing.

– ref. Policing by consent is not ‘woke’ — it is fundamental to a democratic society – https://theconversation.com/policing-by-consent-is-not-woke-it-is-fundamental-to-a-democratic-society-155866

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bhiamie Williamson, Research Associate & PhD Candidate, Australian National University

Disaster resilience and recovery conversations are filled with mentions of “community”, but collapsing various groups together this way fails to acknowledge that people experience disasters differently.

For Indigenous peoples — whose experiences are shaped by vastly different historical and cultural contexts to non-Indigenous Australians — the lack of understanding or cultural safety demonstrated by government agencies and non-government organisations created additional trauma during the Black Summer bushfires.

The final report of the NSW bushfire inquiry found:

In some communities Aboriginal people felt unwelcome at evacuation centres and in some cases support services were reluctant to provide immediate relief… These experiences compounded the trauma they had already experienced as a result of the bush fires.

The Victorian government’s After the Flames report also found:

For Aboriginal people, relationships to Country, culture and community are not only interconnected, they are intrinsically linked to one’s identity. This means that when one of these foundations is impacted by a disaster, Aboriginal Victorians experience unique pain and loss.

In response to these findings, Bushfire Recovery Victoria has identified a number of unique issues faced by Indigenous peoples, including inappropriate funding models and reluctance to engage with support services due to experiences of racism.

Equally significant, Bushfire Recovery Victoria has identified the need to embed Aboriginal culture and healing in its programs.

Acknowledging the trauma associated with encounters between Indigenous people and culturally unsafe recovery agencies during Black Summer — and the long-overdue recognition of the place of culture and healing in disaster recovery — is a positive step.

This signifies the sector’s increasing willingness to address the systemic neglect of the needs of Indigenous peoples.

Read more: 1 in 10 children affected by bushfires is Indigenous. We’ve been ignoring them for too long

Indigenous healing and disaster recovery

In recent times, Indigenous healing frameworks have been called upon to respond to the forced removal of Indigenous children from their families and communities. But it also has broader significance and is now applied in areas such as family violence, justice reinvestment and more.

We suggest healing as a process and practice can also be applied in disaster affected Indigenous communities.

Indigenous healing can be thought of as a cultural and spiritual process and inherently tied to Country.

As I (Bhiamie Williamson) outlined in a submission to the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements, Indigenous healing literature foregrounds the importance of culture and cultural specificity.

Indigenous approaches recognise that healing:

• is a holistic process that seeks to identify imbalance in a person’s life and rectify these imbalances
• is a social rather than an individual journey
• compels people to identify the root source of trauma and take actions to rectify this.

Healing resources also include activities such as storytelling, yarning circles, and land-based activities, to provide practical tools so professionals can support people and communities on their healing journey.

Although the field of Indigenous disaster recovery is in its infancy, it’s clear culturally-informed approaches to healing help support Indigenous communities recovering from disaster.

But these lessons have larger relevance to (non-Indigenous) community recovery more generally.

As governments, non-government organisations and researchers embark upon this long overdue work, it is important to reflect on how we frame these issues.

Non-Indigenous peoples learning from Indigenous peoples

Too often, the rebuilding of infrastructure and economies are considered separate to and above social, cultural and environmental elements of recovery.

By contrast, Indigenous culture and healing approaches emphasise the interconnectedness of all aspects of life.

But for positive and meaningful collaboration — and for others to learn from Indigenous healing approaches — non-Indigenous peoples and institutions must hear what Indigenous people are really saying, and examine their own practices.

This requires more just and equitable approaches to disaster recovery and resilience.

More research in Indigenous disaster recovery is needed, of course, but it’s also important to think carefully about how such research is done.

For Indigenous and non-Indigenous collaborations, it’s appropriate to ask: will the approach address power imbalances between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples?

A more productive collaborative approach can begin with reframing Indigenous communities to illuminate the sources of strength rather than vulnerability. It starts with focusing on systems – rather than people – as problems to be fixed.

Beyond ‘vulnerable’

The language of “vulnerable populations” is used to describe groups of people whose needs are distinct from mainstream populations, such as people with a disability, migrants, children and Indigenous peoples.

But viewing Indigenous peoples as vulnerable masks the inequitable power relationships that produce these same vulnerabilities. It typecasts Indigenous peoples as a problem to be solved and non-Indigenous peoples as benevolent helpers.

The language of vulnerabilities often overlooks or ignores the entrenched marginalisation of Indigenous peoples in areas such as local, state and federal governments, universities and business communities among others.

Vulnerabilities do exist, but they are not inherent characteristics of Indigenous peoples — instead they stem from systems of inequity.

Equally, the many strengths that exist in Indigenous communities are too often overlooked.

Many Indigenous communities can be characterised as possessing close social bonds, shared understandings of history and the ability to withstand extreme events and adjust to new norms.

These characteristics have been identified by community recovery researchers as enabling effective and timely recovery post-disaster.

Much can be learnt from Indigenous healing approaches to incorporate the pursuit of systemic change as an empowering — and necessary — complement to personal and community recovery.

Read more: Strength from perpetual grief: how Aboriginal people experience the bushfire crisis

This article is part of a series The Conversation is running on the nexus between disaster, disadvantage and resilience. You can read the rest of the series here.

– ref. Unwelcoming and reluctant to help: bushfire recovery hasn’t considered Aboriginal culture — but things are finally starting to change – https://theconversation.com/unwelcoming-and-reluctant-to-help-bushfire-recovery-hasnt-considered-aboriginal-culture-but-things-are-finally-starting-to-change-154954

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

Fifty dollars sounds like a lot. But the increase in the JobSeeker unemployment benefit announced by Prime Minister Morrison on Tuesday is $50 per fortnight, which is just $25 per week, and it will replace the present temporary Coronavirus Supplement of $75 per week which is itself well down on the $275 per week it began at in March last year.

It’s hard to see the increase as other than a cut, especially when coupled with another of the changes which will allow recipients to earn other income of only $75 per week before JobSeeker gets cut, down from the present $150 per week.

It is, as the prime minister said, better than it would have been if things had reverted to back where they were before special Coronavirus provisions, when recipients could earn only $53 per week before having their payment cut.

But it’s not particularly generous. The Age and Sydney Morning Herald are quoting senior government sources as saying the $50 per fortnight increase in the rate was the lowest figure the party believed would be palatable to the public.

Morrison justified the increase of $50 per fortnight rather than $150 (which would have left what’s left of the Coronavirus boost in place) or $100 or any other figure by saying it will bring the payment to

41.2% of the national minimum wage, which puts us back in the realm of where we had been previously

Taking account of taxes paid and superannuation received by minimum wage workers, gives a slightly higher replacement rate of 42.3%, taking it back to roughly where it was at the end of the Howard Government in 2007.

However, there’s no readily-apparent reason why that should be a benchmark. During the life of the Howard government the level of the single payment fell from around 50% of the minimum wage to 42%, meaning what’s proposed will return it to its lowest point relative to other benefits under Howard.

JobSeeker and age pension as a proportion of the minimum wage 1990-2021

Morrison also said the increase was the largest permanent increase in the unemployment benefit since 1986. It’s an increase of 9.7%.

During the Hawke and Keating administrations the payment increased 23% in real terms, during the Whitlam administration it increased 50%. This means that while what’s offered is substantial by the standards of recent decades, it’s less so in the longer run.

But what about the supplements?

Morrison also argued in his press conference that JobSeeker is more adequate than the base rate would suggest because

on top of that, if they’re receiving Commonwealth Rent Assistance, that payment would increase to $760.40; and on top of that, the average value of stand-alone supplements, the energy supplement and so on, is an additional $13.03. So the suggestion that anyone who was on JobSeeker is simply on that payment alone and there aren’t additional supports that are provided is not correct.

It is true that all people on income support receive the energy supplement, but for a single person on JobSeeker the supplement is only $8.80 per fortnight or less than 65 cents a day.

Many people do indeed get rent assistance, but after paying rent they become worse-off rather than better-off.

This is because to get the maximum rate of rent assistance for a single person of $140 per fortnight, that person has to be paying around $310 per fortnight in rent, and if that person is paying more they get no extra help.

Private sector renters are amongst the worst-off recipients of income support.

Read more: Top economists want JobSeeker boosted $100+ per week, tied to wages

Other supplements such as the remote area allowance are indeed available, but are of no help to people who do not live in remote areas and may be inadequate to cover the higher costs involved. Supplements for help with language and literacy and are only paid to people in special educational programmes.

To calculate an average for supplementary payments when different groups receive very different supplements is inherently misleading.

How Australia compares

Net replacement rates measure the proportion of previous in-work income that is maintained after several months of unemployment. They are the benchmark used by the the prime minister to compare benefits to the minimum wage.

Using two months in unemployment as the measuring point (and using the most-recently published 2019 rankings) before the pandemic Australia’s replacement rate was the lowest in the OECD, even after rental assistance was added in.

Unemployment benefit, share of previous income after two months

When the maximum rate of Coronavirus Supplement was briefly in force in 2020, Australia moved to around the OECD average.

The new rate from April 2021 will move Australia from the lowest to the second lowest, ahead of Greece only.

Unemployment benefit, share of previous income, after Australian increase

It should be acknowledged that Australia’s system is based on different principles to many other OECD countries in which workers and their employers make contributions to and withdrawals from unemployment insurance. lso uses replacement rates.

Read more: $50 a fortnight rise in JobSeeker comes with tougher job search requirements

But the difference in the philosophy does not change the brutal reality that when Australian workers lose their job, their incomes fall more than in almost any other high-income country.

Even after what the government has trumpeted as a historic increase, there will be few developed countries in which people will be as worse off after losing work. Any permanent increase is welcome, but there is a long way to go.

– ref. The $50 boost to JobSeeker will take Australia’s payment from the lowest in the OECD to the second-lowest after Greece – https://theconversation.com/the-50-boost-to-jobseeker-will-take-australias-payment-from-the-lowest-in-the-oecd-to-the-second-lowest-after-greece-155739

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Niamh Kinchin, Senior Lecturer, School of Law, University of Wollongong

Developments in global border control technologies are providing innovative ways to address issues relating to migration, asylum-seeking and the introduction of illegal goods into countries.

But while governments and national security can benefit from this, advanced surveillance technology creates risks for the misuse of personal data and the violation of human rights.

Technology at the border

One of US President Joe Biden’s first actions was to introduce a bill that prioritises “smart border controls”, as part of a commitment to “restore humanity and American values to our immigration system”.

These controls will supplement existing resources at the border with Mexico. They will include technology and infrastructure developed to enhance the screening of incoming asylum seekers and prevent the arrival of narcotics.

According to Biden, “cameras, sensors, large-scale x-ray machines and fixed towers” will all be used. This likely entails the use of infrared cameras, motion sensors, facial recognition, biometric data, aerial drones and radar.

Under the Trump administration, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) partnered with controversial data analytics firm Palantir to link tip-offs from police and citizens with other databases, in a bid to arrest undocumented people.

Similarly, from 2016 to 2019, Hungary, Latvia and Greece piloted an automated lie-detection test funded by the European Union’s research and innovation funding program, Horizon 2020.

The iBorderCtrl test analysed the facial micro-gestures of travellers crossing international borders at three undisclosed airports, with the aim of determining whether travellers were lying about the purpose of their trip.

Avatars questioned travellers about themselves and their trip while webcams scanned face and eye movements.

Europe’s border and coastguard agency Frontex has also been investing in border control technology for several years. Since last year, Frontex has operated unmanned drones to detect asylum-seekers attempting to enter various European states.

While Australia has been slower to implement enhanced surveillance at maritime borders, in 2018 the federal government announced it would spend A$7 billion on six long-range unmanned drones to monitor Australian waters. These aren’t expected to be operational until at least 2023.

Automated border control systems, however, have been used since 2007. SmartGates at many international airports use facial recognition to verify travellers’ identities against data stored in biometric passports.

Last year, the Department of Human Services implemented the Enterprise Biometric Identification Services. The system was reportedly rolled out to meet an expected surge in demand for visa applications and citizenship.

It combines authentication technology with biometrics to match the faces and fingerprints of people who wish to travel to Australia.

Misuse of data

Governments may promise, as the Biden administration does, that technology will only serve “legitimate agency purposes”. But data misuse by governments is well documented.

Between 2014 and 2017 in the US, ICE used facial recognition to mine state drivers licence databases to detect “illegal immigrants”.

Refugees in various countries, including Kenya and Ethiopia, have had their biometric data collected for years.

In 2017, Bangladeshi Industry Minister Amir Hossain Amu said the government was collecting biometric data from Rohingya people in the country to “keep record” of them and send them “back to their own place”.

Data misuse can also happen when questionable “science” is involved. For instance, emotion recognition algorithms used in unproven lie-detection tests are highly problematic.

The way people communicate varies widely across cultures and situations. Someone’s ability to answer a question at a border could be affected by trauma, their personality, the way the question is framed or the perceived intentions of the interviewer.

Technologies such as iBorderCtrl undermine the rights of migrants, asylum-seekers and all international travellers. They could be used to refuse entry or detain travellers based on race or ethnicity.

Racial profiling at borders isn’t uncommon. It came to light again when New South Wales MP Mehreen Faruqi experienced it at a US airport in 2016.

The Pakistani-born Greens member told The Guardian she was detained at an airport for more than an hour, after immigration staff took her fingerprint, asked her where she was “originally from” and how she got an Australian passport.

Facial recognition technology has already been found to be capable of bias against people of colour. Enlisting this at airports and maritime borders — where human rights have historically been undermined on the basis of race — could be disastrous.

Fighting back

The good news is many people are now speaking out against how border control technologies can impact migrants, refugees and other travellers.

In February, the European Court of Justice heard a case brought by digital rights activist and German politician Patrick Breyer.

Breyer is seeking the release of documents on the ethical evaluation, legal admissibility, marketing and test results of iBorderCtrl. He is concerned the EU is being secretive about a “scientifically highly controversial project” funded by taxpayer money.

In Australia, the Digital Rights Watch is the main organisation that scrutinises surveillance practices.

Of particular concern is the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018. This gives the Australian Border Force extensive powers to search devices carried by people travelling internationally.

Last year the government recommended the legislation be amended so agencies can’t authorise the detention of travellers whose devices are searched by the border force.

However, without an Australia bill of rights, which would prevent laws that infringed privacy rights, the potential for data misuse will persist.

– ref. AI facial analysis is scientifically questionable. Should we be using it for border control? – https://theconversation.com/ai-facial-analysis-is-scientifically-questionable-should-we-be-using-it-for-border-control-155474

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anne Tiernan, Professor of Politics. Dean (Engagement) Griffith Business School, Griffith University

Since news broke last week of Brittany Higgins’ alleged rape in a ministerial office in 2019, three other women have come forward, alleging sexual assault by the same Morrison government ministerial staffer. Higgins is expected to make a formal complaint to police this week.

Each allegation sheds light on a system that privileges political considerations above everything, and enables and emboldens systematic and highly gendered abuses of power.

By Friday, four separate inquiries had been launched. These include

• a review of culture in Coalition MPs’ offices

• a review of the formal links between the Department of Finance (which administers ministerial and parliamentary services) and parliamentary offices

• a review of correspondence to determine when and who within the prime minister’s office had been informed of Higgins’ allegations

• a cross-party review of workplace culture in Parliament House.

This fourth review seem to be the most substantive, and has drawn qualified support from Labor, the Greens and independents.

Two of these reviews seem designed to address the Coalition’s lingering “woman problem”. The other two focus on the toxic workplace culture of Parliament House.

Read more: Morrison invokes Chinese walls defence on why staffer didn’t tell him of Higgins’ rape allegation

While it is understandable in the context of these deeply disturbing allegations, the focus on toxic workplace culture risks obscuring more fundamental, structural issues at play. That is, the the ambiguous position that ministerial staff occupy within Australia’s political system, and the recurrent controversies it produces.

The governance framework that applies to ministerial staff is inadequate to a public institution of its size, cost, complexity and importance. There is simply no accountability built into it, and no independent complaints mechanism, however cleverly designed, can help to resolve that.

How ministerial staffing became out of control

My 2007 book Power Without Responsibility traces the growth and evolution of the ministerial staffing system. It highlights how, over time, the system outgrew the conventions and understandings that had underpinned its development. This happened as staff assumed more active roles in policy and political management, and particularly following the move to the new Parliament House in 1988.

Ministerial offices comprise a mix of political, policy and media advisers, administrative and support staff. They all serve and support their minister. The cohort is explicitly partisan, and is employed under specific legislation.

This means ministerial staff are significantly different in career and outlook from the independent, non-partisan public servants in government departments. However, despite the important work they do to advise and support ministers, there are remarkably few rules, conventions, supports or infrastructure to govern staffing arrangements or the operations of ministerial offices.

Each government – indeed each minister – structures their own offices according to their own or the prime minister’s requirements or perceived needs. Political staffers have little training and few underlying systems. There is also little in the way of formalised processes, which accounts for a lack of continuity and institutional memory given high rates of turnover among ministerial staff.

It has been clear for a long time that the model that has evolved to support ministers – and which they have driven – is not serving them well.

We’ve been here before

This is not the first time the system has come under scrutiny and been found wanting. The “children overboard” scandal in 2011 exposed systemic problems of ministerial staff conduct and behaviour. It showed its incongruity with Australia’s Westminster-style system, which is premised on a close, cooperative relationship between ministers and their public service advisers.

Reviews and inquiries into the affair sparked debate about the role of ministerial staff, their relative lack of accountability and concerns they could be used to provide “plausible deniability” for prime ministers and ministers unwilling to accept responsibility for the actions of their staff.

Because ministerial staffers are not elected, they are not subject to the same constitutional responsibilities as MPs, or public servants. So the convention is staff are an extension of their minister, and have no independent constitutional identity. They exercise “delegated authority”, not executive power, on their minister’s behalf. This means they are never called before an inquiry or, in contrast to counterparts in state jurisdictions, subject to other oversight or accountability mechanisms.

Under the convention of ministerial responsibility, it follows that staff act with the knowledge and authority of their minister. So in principle, advising the staff of a matter is the same as advising the minister. This has proved problematic in practice as staff numbers have grown, and senior staff in the prime minister’s office have assumed managerial responsibility for other staff.

This circular logic, particularly in the absence of an independent integrity and corruption authority, explains calls to clarify staff roles and responsibilities.

A 2003 Senate inquiry recommended a suite of reforms. These included that chiefs of staff could be called before parliamentary committees if ministers refused to accept responsibility for the actions of their staff. This was adopted as policy by the Australian Labor Party in 2004, but has never been tested. The political parties continue to observe the “McMullan principle” – that staff should not be called to appear.

The view that something is awry with ministerial staffing arrangements is widely shared among analysts and practitioners alike. But reform has limited support among ministers themselves. The issue was absent from the Independent Review of the Australian Public Service in 2010 and limited to ministers’ relationship with public service departments in the recent Thodey Review.

Despite growing evidence of its shortcomings, successive governments have stubbornly resisted calls to reform ministerial staffing arrangements. Maintaining the notion there may be “a few bad eggs” is an effective means of stone-walling demands for more accountability and closer management of ministerial staff.

Read more: View from The Hill: Linda Reynolds feels the lash after Scott Morrison says he was blindsided by rape allegation

Why reform needs to go beyond culture

What accounts for politicians’ lack of interest in issues that have been at the heart of political scandals that have cost them political capital and undermined trust in politics and political processes?

My research identifies four explanations.

First, ministers value the support they receive from their ministerial staff. They believe they are best served by flexible arrangements, determined by incumbent governments to reflect their own needs and preferences.

Second, they fear reforms will limit their ability to cope with the pressures of contemporary politics. Acutely sensitive to constraints on their capacity to achieve their objectives, they are sceptical of proposals advanced by those they suspect want to limit their discretion.

Third, because of their immersion in partisan politics, and because they are driven by concerns about power rather than institutions, ministers are unable to perceive the organisational dimensions of the ministerial staffing problem. They are careerists not managers, and often have limited experience of working in organisations. This can lead them to be more focused on individual rather than systemic issues.

A final explanation is that arrangements as they stand serve ministers well, providing them with personal insurance in the face of political problems. They can then use this set-up as a shield to deflect responsibility, in the knowledge it will be the prime minister who will determine the final outcome, based on judgments about the political damage being sustained.

There has never been a substantive review of the governance framework that supports ministerial staff, examining the basis on which they are employed and managed, their relationship to the parliament or the community. Unless and until we address this fundamental gap at the heart of Australian governance, the potential for abuses of power will continue. With the shocking allegations made by Brittany Higgins, such a review is more urgent than ever.

– ref. Yes, the culture in Parliament House is appalling. But there are systemic problems that also need urgent reform – https://theconversation.com/yes-the-culture-in-parliament-house-is-appalling-but-there-are-systemic-problems-that-also-need-urgent-reform-155755

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samantha Carlson, Post Doctoral Research Officer, Telethon Kids Institute

As Australia’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout begins this week, many people still have questions about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, both in the short and long term.

As vaccine experts, we hear these concerns all the time, and it’s normal to have questions about a vaccine.

The good news is that scientists have already been testing COVID-19 vaccines for months. For starters, serious side-effects are very, very rare. And, together with what we know about previous vaccines, if side-effects are going to occur, they usually happen within a few months after getting a vaccine. This is why international medical regulators, including Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), require the first few months of safety data before approving new vaccines. This, plus information coming from vaccine recipients in the northern hemisphere, gives us confidence that COVID-19 vaccines are safe.

In fact, most side-effects occur within the first one or two days. And most of these are minor, such as pain at the injection site, fatigue or fever — which are signs your immune system is building a response against the thing you’ve been vaccinated against.

What do we know about long-term side effects?

Since December, more than 200 million people have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine worldwide — more than the total number of people who have been infected with the virus (112 million).

Given the sheer number of vaccines administered to date, common, uncommon and rare side-effects would have been detected by now. What’s more, we’ve been testing these vaccines in clinical trials since mid-2020, and both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines have shown excellent safety results.

This gives us confidence the vaccines that’ll be used around Australia are safe.

We’ve also seen some people raise concerns online about mRNA vaccines, such as the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, being a “new” technology. mRNA (or “messenger” RNA) is found in all living cells. mRNA is a message that tells cells how to make proteins that trigger the immune response inside the body. That immune response is what protects against infection if an individual is exposed to the virus. mRNA is not the same as DNA (your genes), and it cannot combine with our DNA to change our genetic code. mRNA vaccines do not affect or interact with DNA in any way. So we can be assured there’ll be no long-term DNA-altering effects from these vaccines.

What’s more, checking the safety of the vaccines doesn’t just stop after they’ve been registered for use. Once a vaccine has been introduced, ongoing monitoring of its safety is a crucial part of the vaccine development process.

Australia has a robust system for this ongoing monitoring. The system was established to detect any unexpected side-effects from vaccines (if they occur) and ensure they’re investigated promptly. This type of monitoring is standard practise in Australia for vaccines. The data about COVID-19 vaccination collected in these surveillance systems will be published weekly on the TGA website. This should reassure Australians that if there’s a new serious side-effect, we will know about it, communicate it, and act on it quickly.

Read more: COVID vaccines have been developed in record time. But how will we know they’re safe?

Withdrawal of vaccines after introduction to the general population is a very rare event. In the United States, a rotavirus vaccine called Rotashield led to a small increase in the number of small intestinal blockages. This prompted its withdrawal in the late 1990s. In Australia, an increased risk of febrile seizures in young children following a specific influenza vaccine was identified in 2010. It was subsequently withdrawn from use in that age group, and we now vaccinate with a different, safer flu vaccine. This vaccine is no longer available in Australia, and has been subsequently reformulated.

Both of these side-effects were observed within weeks of vaccination.

We now have improved monitoring systems in Australia to detect such serious side-effects even sooner, in the general population after clinical trials, than we did a decade ago.

But what about short-term side-effects?

Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine

The expected side-effects of the Pfizer vaccine have been reported from trials involving roughly 43,000 participants aged 16 years and older from the US, Argentina, Brazil and South Africa. Half of the participants received the Pfizer vaccine and half received a placebo. And as part of COVID-19 vaccine rollouts around the world, millions of people have already been given this vaccine since December, meaning we have safety data now from both clinical trials and two months of “real world” vaccination.

For those receiving this vaccine in the large clinical trials which started in July 2020, about 80% have reported pain at the injection site. Other common side-effects included fatigue, headache, muscle pain, chills, joint pain and fever.

These were most often reported one or two days after the day of vaccination, and typically only lasted about one day. While some vaccine recipients may need a day off work due to some of these side-effects, this does not indicate the vaccine is unsafe.

In trials, no difference was seen in the rate of severe side-effects between the Pfizer vaccine and placebo. Early in the US program, 21 cases of anaphylaxis were reported. It’s estimated anaphylaxis occurs at a rate of 11 in every one million recipients (0.0011%) of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. Most occurred within 15 minutes, and all patients recovered. This is why it’s a good idea though to remain at the vaccine clinic for up to 15 minutes after vaccination so that treatment and care can be provided if necessary.

A further concern was raised in January, after the death of 30 very frail elderly patients in Norway after receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. But investigation by the European regulator concluded these weren’t related to the vaccine, but rather to underlying conditions present before vaccination.

Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine

This vaccine has been tested in ongoing trials with around 55,000 participants from the United Kingdom, Brazil, South Africa and the US. About half received the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and half a placebo. Millions of doses have been already been administered among the general population, particularly in the UK.

Data from four clinical trials which commenced in April 2020 in the UK, Brazil and South Africa, show the most common side-effects were pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache and muscle pain. Similar to the Pfizer vaccine, there was no difference in the rate of reported severe side-effects for the vaccine compared with the placebo.

Just 0.7% of participants (79 people) from the four clinical trials who received the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine reported a serious side-effect after receiving at least one dose, compared with 0.8% (89 people) of those in the placebo group. No additional safety concerns have been identified since the vaccination program began in the UK.

Read more: Should I get a COVID vaccine while I’m pregnant or breastfeeding? Is it safe for me and my baby?

If recommended a COVID-19 vaccine, take it

With countries continuing to monitor those who have received vaccines, we should be reassured there are no major safety concerns detected for serious side-effects so far. With millions of people vaccinated already, our confidence about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines is very high.

In Australia, and internationally, we have robust systems in place to continually monitor vaccine safety, ensuring Australians can be safely afforded the protection that COVID-19 vaccines are designed to provide.

– ref. How do we know the COVID vaccine won’t have long-term side-effects? – https://theconversation.com/how-do-we-know-the-covid-vaccine-wont-have-long-term-side-effects-155714

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian G. Fisher, Lecturer in Remote Sensing, UNSW

As one of the longest structures in the world, the dingo fence is an icon of Australia. It stretches more than 5,600 kilometres across three states, including 150 kilometres that traverses the red sand dunes of the Strzelecki Desert.

Since it was established in the early 20th century, the fence has had one job: to keep dingoes out. The effect of this on the environment has been enormous — in fact, you can see it from outer space.

Our research has, for the first time, used satellite imagery to show the effects of predators on vegetation at a vast scale.

Dingoes eat kangaroos, and kangaroos eat grass. So on the side of the fence where dingoes are rare, there are more kangaroos, and less grass cover between sand dunes. This has important flow-on effects for the ecosystem in the region.

Similar changes to vegetation may have occurred throughout the world, where other large predators, such as wolves or big cats, have been removed. But these aren’t visible without the stark contrast boundaries like the dingo fence provide.

Reshaping the landscape

The fence was built to stop dingoes moving into sheep grazing land in southeastern Australia. As Australia’s largest terrestrial predator, dingoes pose a big threat to livestock.

Today, dingoes “inside” the fence continue to be killed by various means (not all of them humane), including poison baits, trapping and shooting.

It has long been understood that removing large predators can drive changes in ecosystems across large areas. A well-known example is the removal of wolves in Yellowstone National Park in the 1920s, which saw an elk grazing increase, limiting the growth of tree and shrub seedlings.

Where dingoes are removed, increasing populations of kangaroos can lead to overgrazing. This, in turn, damages the quality of the soil, making the landscape more vulnerable to erosion.

Less vegetation can also leave small animals, such as the vulnerable dusky hopping mouse, exposed to other threats like cat predation. Indeed, 2019 research showed dingoes “outside” the fence keep cat and fox populations down in the Strzelecki Desert.

Read more: Like cats and dogs: dingoes can keep feral cats in check

And research from 2018 showed dingo removal could even reshape the desert landscape, as changes to vegetation alter wind flow and sand movement.

Changes this large can’t be seen from the ground

Often, however, the effects of removing predators have gone unnoticed. There are two main reasons why.

First, many large predators were removed before scientists monitored ecosystems. For example, wolves were hunted to extinction in Britain during the 17th or 18th century (although there are now proposals to reintroduce them).

Second, changes occur over such large areas, so it’s difficult to spot any differences when researching from the ground.

So to gauge the impact of the fence, we used images captured by sensors on the NASA Landsat satellites, which have been regularly observing the Earth since 1972.

We looked at a section of the fence that follows the state border of New South Wales through the Strzelecki Desert, and used this to analyse the effects of removing a top predator.

Capturing the impact

We used images processed for Australia by the Joint Remote Sensing Research Program, which are publicly available.

Using thousands of field measurements, each satellite image was converted into an image of “fractional cover”. This splits the landscape into three core components: bare soil, green vegetation and dead or dry vegetation.

Read more: Kangaroos (and other herbivores) are eating away at national parks across Australia

The dead vegetation fraction, which includes all non-photosynthetic material such as dry leaves and twigs, is particularly useful in the desert. It’s a more reliable indicator of vegetation cover, as green vegetation only sticks around for three months or so after rain.

Viewing “natural colour” satellite images of the Strzelecki Desert, as our eyes see the world, doesn’t show the differences across the dingo fence very well. But when we view images of dead vegetation cover a few months after rainfall, we can see the stark effect kangaroo grazing has on the landscape, where dingoes are rare.

You can see these effects in the images below.

When we analysed dead vegetation cover images for each season between 1988 and 2020, we found obvious differences between the maximum dead vegetation cover and the variability of dead vegetation cover through time, as the images below show.

The results from satellite images were supported by ground surveys. This included repeated nighttime counts of kangaroos and dingoes seen with powerful spotlights.

We also fenced off plots and observed how the vegetation changed. After five years, the kangaroo-free plots in the dingo-free areas looked like islands of grass in an otherwise bare desert.

What do we do about dingoes?

So, should we tear down the fence to reintroduce dingoes back into landscapes for the biodiversity benefits, like wolves in Yellowstone?

There are no simple answers to this question. Allowing dingoes to return to the landscape inside the fence will reduce kangaroo numbers and increase grass growth — but will also devastate sheep farming.

Conservationists, farmers and other land managers need to start discussing where and how we can safely return dingoes to landscapes, finding a balance between restoring ecosystems and protecting farms.

Read more: Living blanket, water diviner, wild pet: a cultural history of the dingo

– ref. The dingo fence from space: satellite images show how these top predators alter the desert – https://theconversation.com/the-dingo-fence-from-space-satellite-images-show-how-these-top-predators-alter-the-desert-155642

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Spyros Schismenos, PhD Fellow / Research Assistant, Western Sydney University

In March 2019, a powerful storm hit southern Nepal. Residents in the Bara and Parsa districts had little warning. They sheltered in huts made from mud and brick which collapsed in the wind and rain. At least 28 people died and more than 600 were injured.

The disaster shows how small, remote communities are extremely vulnerable to flash floods, storms and other water disasters. In particular, like many disadvantaged communities, people in these districts had no or limited access to electricity, and no flood alert systems were in place.

We are experts in “humanitarian engineering”, an emerging research field that seeks engineering solutions for populations in great need.

Our recent research identifies the types of communities at most risk of damage from water disasters, including in Australia. It also suggests how local renewable energy generators can electrify disadvantaged communities and help power vital early warning systems.

A global problem

According to the World Bank, 1.47 billion people are directly exposed to the risk of intense flooding, and more than a third of them are poor and face grave, long-term consequences. What’s more, climate change is making such disasters worse.

The impacts of water disasters are greatest in remote, low-income communities where inadequate infrastructure, poor governance and lack of emergency services is common.

Many of these communities have no access to electricity. Aside from leading to poor health, productivity and living standards, a lack of electricity means few effective early warning systems.

When a flash flood hits a remote riverside village at 2am, with no alerts in place, the results can be devastating. For example in Afghanistan in August last year, a flash flood at night flattened homes and killed more than 100 people, including children.

Closer to home

In Australia, natural hazard statistics showed that between 1900 and 2015, floods were the second-biggest killer, second only to heatwaves.

We should note here that flood-affected communities in Australia differ in significant ways to poor, remote communities overseas. First, many flood death victims in Australia were aware of the flood, and many died when attempting to cross a bridge or flooded road. And most communities in Australia have far better resources to withstand and build back after floods.

However in Australia, as overseas, the public is not always fully aware of the potential magnitude of a flood. For example, in 2011 the Bureau of Meteorology reportedly predicted a flash flood in Toowoomba about an hour before the torrent hit, but did not include the information in its public warning.

And the same year, an official review found Victoria’s flood warning system needed improving. Flood risk assessment too often fell to under-resourced local governments, and should be “better tailored to meet local requirements”, the report said.

In Australia as elsewhere, a lack of electricity supplies can also pose problems after a flood. For example in 2017, Tropical Cyclone Debbie left thousands of people in Mackay and the Whitsundays with no electricity or clean water.

Read more: I lived through Hurricane Katrina and helped design the rebuild – floods will always come, but we can build better to prepare

A win-win solution?

Our research has examined engineering interventions to both improve the social and economic well-being of vulnerable populations, and improve their ability to withstand disaster.

In particular, we’re developing small, low-cost solar or hydropower units, combined with flood warning systems. These hybrid units have the potential to meet both everyday power needs and emergency needs such as sirens and evacuation lights.

Here’s how it would work. Small hydropower units in a river, or solar panels nearby, would generate constant electricity. Sensors detecting water level and flow would be attached to the units. When critical conditions were identified, an alert system such as sirens or lights would go off, warning residents of the danger.

Such systems would function as off-grid renewable energy generators for communities without regular access to electricity, including in Australia. They would also serve as a backup to Australia’s main energy and flood response systems.

We are working with the Sunkoshi Rural Municipality in Nepal to test the feasibility of a hybrid system. We’ve also begun discussions with communities in Brazil, Guatemala and Greece on integrating community solar panels with warning systems to cover both daily and disaster response needs.

Read more: Underinsurance is entrenching poverty as the vulnerable are hit hardest by disasters

A word of caution

Small renewable energy systems could be a game-changer for some disadvantaged populations, but they are not a silver bullet.

Vulnerable communities require resources to keep the systems running. For example, renewable energy projects in Sub-Saharan Africa have been found to fail, or not perform well in the long-term, due to bad management and planning, poor maintenance and a failure to involve local stakeholders.

And energy systems that are expensive, foreign to local know-how or complex are unlikely to attract long-term involvement from residents.

It’s important that such solutions are community-led and put local needs at the core of decision-making. And such interventions can only be successful alongside strong climate action and sustainable socio-economic development, to help mitigate the effects of disasters.

This article is part of a series The Conversation is running on the nexus between disaster, disadvantage and resilience. You can read the rest of the series here.

Read more: Water injustice runs deep in Australia. Fixing it means handing control to First Nations

– ref. It’s 2am, you’re sleeping, and a flash flood hits your home. Without a warning system, what do you do? – https://theconversation.com/its-2am-youre-sleeping-and-a-flash-flood-hits-your-home-without-a-warning-system-what-do-you-do-154805

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

One of the boldest recommendations in the review of the New South Wales curriculum was to introduce “untimed syllabuses”. According to the review’s report – delivered in June 2020 — these

do not specify when every student must commence, or how long they have to learn, each syllabus. Students progress to the next syllabus once they have mastered the prior syllabus. Students who require more time have it; students ready to advance are able to do so.

The idea of letting kids work at their own pace is at first glance appealing. The NSW government said recently it would trial the concept on a small-scale basis in the coming years.

But while some similar strategies have been researched, there is no evidence on how an “untimed syllabus” would work in schools. Such a proposal also presents serious disruptions to schooling and a range of risks.

What available research shows

Changing the delivery of the curriculum so students can progress at different rates is part of what’s known as a differentiated curriculum approach.

A 2018 review analysed 20 good quality studies since 1995 on how differentiation affects language and math performance in primary schools.

They found where it was applied to and between classes, it had a small negative effect on low-ability students, and no effect on others. But when differentiation occurred as part of broader school reform, with teacher professional development and technology implementation for example, there was a small to moderate positive effect on students’ performance.

Another study published in 2019, of 14 quality studies on the effects of differentiated instruction in secondary schools, said the majority of the studies found small to moderate positive effects on student achievement. But the authors also noted:

… there are still severe knowledge gaps. More research is needed before drawing convincing conclusions regarding the effectiveness and value of different approaches to differentiated instruction for secondary school classes.

But the NSW curriculum review’s proposal for “untimed syllabuses” is a very different reform to what the reviews above looked at. These explored differentiated learning across specific classes, or lessons – not a whole education system.

Read more: Why the curriculum should be based on students’ readiness, not their age

One recent review examined 71 studies of implementation of personalised learning approaches in kindergarten through to year 12. Only two studies evaluated school-wide implementation and none evaluated a system-wide approach.

No studies examined the impact of an individualised curriculum alone, without other initiatives (such as teacher training), and there were no studies relevant to the “untimed syllabus” proposal.

Wordwide, there hasn’t been one education system to try such an approach.

Such an approach is experimental and does not have sufficient preliminary evidence to ethically support it.

It’s not only about academic outcomes

While there is at least some evidence differentiated approaches can positively affect academic scores, there is a lack of rigorous research on how they might affect social or emotional outcomes, or change the nature of teaching.

Schools are complex ecosystems and they serve purposes beyond academic learning. Educational philosopher Gert Biesta outlined three major purposes of schooling: qualification, socialisation and subjectification. Subjectification is about individuation and can be understood as the opposite of the socialisation function.

A good education works towards all three goals and finds an agreeable balance between them. Educational progress in each of these also affects the other two. This means a policy changing the social interactions of a classroom can have wide-reaching repercussions.

Read more: What’s the point of education? It’s no longer just about getting a job

Shifting to an individualised or differentiated, untimed curriculum risks losing some important aspects of socialisation as a key driver of academic learning, as well as important social developmental outcomes.

Consider, for example, the peer-to-peer learning that occurs, in both directions, when a high achieving child is seated next to a low achiever and both work together on class activities.

Also consider the potential for “untimed syllabuses” to leave some students working alone on aspects of the curriculum that are either way behind or way ahead of their peers, and you start to see the magnitude of disruption to the social fabric of classrooms.

A tech-heavy reform

Practical implementation of a personalised curriculum requires online services like the learning management systems, and integrated curriculum and assessment platforms.

If a curriculum system is to be truly “untimed” that requires personalised learning accounts. Many are currently in development. But a recent independent review from Germany acknowledges “hardly any evaluation studies have been done to prove the effectiveness of technology-enhanced personalised learning”.

Read more: Gonski’s vision of ‘personalised learning’ will stifle creativity and lead to a generation of automatons

It may be possible to create sensitive ways of implementing individualised approaches to curriculum, using technology while preserving a focus on social relationships. But developing these may take many years.

Until we have research documenting and evaluating such approaches, at scale across whole schools and systems, the risks far outweigh the potential benefits.

– ref. A school system tailored to individual ability rather than age sounds good, but there’s no evidence it works – https://theconversation.com/a-school-system-tailored-to-individual-ability-rather-than-age-sounds-good-but-theres-no-evidence-it-works-155358

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Barbara Norman, Chair of Urban & Regional Planning and Director of Canberra Urban & Regional Futures, University of Canberra

As we were still recovering from last summer’s fires in southeast Australia, the southwest fires brought in 2021. Both were far more intense fires than seen before, driven by deep drying, extreme heat and powerful winds. It’s a harsh reminder that climate change is going to bounce us up and down with increased frequency.

We have published a new research paper in the journal Nature, titled Apocalypse Now: Australian Bushfires and the Future of Urban Settlements. It was put together as the fires were raging in the east, and comes out as Perth residents are still reeling from the devastating fires in the west this month.

Both sides of Australia have now learnt hard lessons.

Read more: As Perth’s suburbs burn, the rest of Australia watches and learns

What have we learned?

1. Bushfires have become more frequent and more intense

The 2019-2020 Black Summer bushfires were unprecedented in their scale and were fuelled by unprecedented climatic conditions.

The fires burned about 21% of eastern Australia’s temperate broad-leafed (mainly eucalypt) forests. That’s more than ten times the annual average of about 2%, even in extreme fire seasons.

Individual fires were also massive in size. For example, the Gospers Mountain fire near Sydney burned more than 500,000 hectares. This made it the largest individual fire ever recorded in Australia.

Read more: Asking people to prepare for fire is pointless if they can’t afford to do it. It’s time we subsidised fire prevention

2. Climate change is creating unprecedented conditions

The preceding climatic conditions were also unprecedented. 2019 was Australia’s hottest year on record. The average maximum temperature was 2.09°C above the baseline and 0.5°C higher than the previous record.

Australia also experienced its driest year on record in 2019. Rainfall was about 40% below average across the continent.

Climate change played a strong role in driving these weather records.

Read more: Cities could get more than 4°C hotter by 2100. To keep cool in Australia, we urgently need a national planning policy

3. It’s a global problem

Modelling by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows if the world goes past the 2°C rise on average and moves towards 3°C, the world is likely to lose most of the forests in dry climate areas like ours.

The southwestern region of Australia has been drying for 40 years, linked to climate change. In recent years, the Perth region has depended on desalinating seawater for about half of the water supply to more than 2 million residents.

Read more: Cities turn to desalination for water security, but at what cost?

The bushfires have become more intense over the past decade. Similar patterns are found in California and other areas with a Mediterranean climate.

4. The global community is watching

State and federal governments must commit to net-zero emissions targets. These would signal to industry and communities that there is a diminishing future for fossil fuels and encourage investment in a renewable future.

The fires strikingly remind people that we remain a global climate laggard. This will soon spread to our trade discussions and ability to raise finance for nation-building infrastructure and major projects.

Read more: All eyes on Australia as World Urban Forum urges climate action

5. Our settlements will need to change

The most vulnerable parts of our cities are in the urban fringes where there is substantial scattered development set in bush. Such homes are going to be increasingly vulnerable. As a result, owners will find insurance harder to secure.

Consolidating the city will need to start by reviewing such lifestyle zonings to reduce risk to communities. Rural areas and coastal settlements also will need a new model based on new green technology infrastructure, new building materials and new ways of living together rather than living in forest hideaways.

Read more: Disaster season is here — do you have a Resilience Action Plan? Here’s how the small town of Tarnagulla built theirs

6. Indigenous fire management needs to be applied to all bush

Indigenous fire techniques are beginning to be developed and adapted with local communities after the fires last summer. These are needed around our cities and in urban bushland, as well as in forests and rangelands across our country.

If we don’t begin to adopt such “cool burn” approaches, then we face the prospect of losing our forests, even those in and around our cities.

Read more: Australia, you have unfinished business. It’s time to let our ‘fire people’ care for this land

What must we do to make this happen?

Key elements include:

• regional urban centres make the transition to renewable energy

• urban design becomes responsive to climate through retrofitting programs and consolidating settlements

• settlements retreat from areas of high climate risk, working with affected communities to identify options

• community climate action plans get funded, including climate change adaption, climate-sensitive urban design and heat reduction though urban green spaces

• embed action on climate change (mitigation and adaptation) through a national investment program, in partnership with the states, to review urban planning processes.

This is a crisis that needs strong leadership of the type shown in the COVID response. That means working together, fostering innovation and investing in creating and building more climate-adapted communities.

This article is part of a series The Conversation is running on the nexus between disaster, disadvantage and resilience. You can read the rest of the series here.

– ref. Fires bring home climate-driven urgency of rethinking where we live – and how – https://theconversation.com/fires-bring-home-climate-driven-urgency-of-rethinking-where-we-live-and-how-155044

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cecily Niumeitolu, PhD Candidate, University of Sydney

Book review: The Performance by Claire Thomas.

Theatre and its constant recreation, allows for the possibility of the political. Sometimes this is manufactured by directors as they place a loaded question on stage. Sometimes it occurs as an unexpected interruption to the usual flow of a performance.

Claire Thomas explores the possibility of both in her new novel The Performance.

Historically, Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot (1953) has been a rallying point for theatre practitioners and audiences living through a state of crisis: waiting through incarceration, dispossession, racial segregation, or the wake of environmental disaster.

But what if our waiting for tomorrow succumbs to an earth that waits for no one?

At the centre of The Performance is another Beckett drama, Happy Days (1961).

Winnie’s tangential recollections and gestures on stage reverberate into the perspectives and memories of three complex women stuck in the auditorium, watching the play: Margot, the world-weary professor with a theatre subscription; Ivy, the philanthropist lured to donate more money through the offer of free tickets; and Summer, the usher working under duress.

The audience watches Winnie as the earth increasingly swallows her, and her terminal happiness. Happy Days is a play adequate to contemporary times: the sixth mass extinction.

The Performance is set against Australia’s bushfire season. Just as Winnie’s parasol catches alight in Happy Days, there is the latent hazard the cool theatre could go up flames. As Ivy watches the play, she thinks: “Climate change is the key moral question of the age”.

And yet, as Thomas explores through her characters, what about those who are not scientists, engineers, policy makers, experts, activists and politicians directly involved in the challenge of global warming?

“The world is a swarm of need, and Ivy knows she cannot save it,” writes Thomas.

Margot, Ivy and Summer do not truly choose to watch Happy Days. It is more so their place in the theatre that night happens through their financial entanglements.

The bodily functions and reactions — ranging from disdain to intimacy — are conducted through Winnie’s words and her pace. Inseparable from this shared performance is the site and its time:

Summer is feeling worried, so worried, but she cannot work out if she’s worried about Winnie, or herself, or the blazing world outside, and where the blood is pooling or spilling at this moment, inside a certain body or beyond it.

Breathe, Summer. Remember to breathe.

Phrasing the musical

Actors and directors who collaborated with Beckett have recounted how he directed his plays for stage, television and radio in musical terms.

The voice he wrote for demanded a certain colour, accent, tone, rhythm. The cast were his instruments and elements.

Billie Whitelaw, Beckett’s favourite female actor, said Beckett “conducts me, something like a metronome”.

Of Happy Days, she mused how “terribly courageous” Winnie was.

Every day, an institutional bell rings, and life demands of Winnie one more day. One more day to apply her lipstick, play her music box, kiss her revolver, to speak in “the old style”: meagre defences in a life barely witnessed, barely there.

And when these props fail Winnie — and when her companion Willie exists only as a possibility out of sight — she sings in hope of an ear in the darkness. She holds on.

The Performance echoes Beckett’s musicality. Thomas tends to the base, cloying, funny, fragile disturbances that make theatre an imperative act. She gives breadth to her characters’ thoughts in tension to the daily performances they play in the role of mother, grandmother, friend, wife, lover, daughter.

Read more: Billie Whitelaw was one of Beckett’s greatest actors – she suffered for her art

She opens up the care it takes for these characters to not leap into easy connection, to allow space for their own and a stranger’s difference. She teases out how ideals and identities fall short of life’s ambiguity.

She gently holds the inescapable paradoxes of wanting, needing and enduring in these strange-becoming-stranger times.

Dissonances of life and art

The Performance is a poetics of the political, without preaching or judgement: it triggers burning questions. This is achieved through the novel’s clever structure. Chapters are a compilation of different points of view with no character’s point winning out over the others.

These perspectives converge in the middle of the book — an interval — which then affects the chapters after.

This book itches at sore points of neoliberalism, class, privilege (and lack thereof), race and Australia’s violent colonial history, gender, sexuality, and the bruises and yearnings that join, alter, or wear away the crossing paths of strangers, friends, and family.

For the treasure hunter, motifs and fragments of visual art, drama, and fiction weave through the plot. There are gestures towards the theatre novel like Virginia Woolf’s Between the Acts (1941).

And for those interested in Beckett’s biography, there are snippets of his life, body of work and Happy Days itself threaded throughout — both pointedly and hidden.

Written with passion, The Performance is a brave book: unafraid of confronting the dissonances of living in a modern Australia.

The Performance is out now through Hachette.

– ref. Book review: Claire Thomas’s The Performance triggers burning questions – https://theconversation.com/book-review-claire-thomass-the-performance-triggers-burning-questions-155043

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

Craig Kelly’s jump to the crossbench leaves Scott Morrison’s government looking like the man who suddenly finds his jacket feels a little thin in the wind.

It still has a majority, but not a comfortable one.

The Coalition’s block of 76 in a House of Representatives of 151 members means it does not possess a working majority on the floor. A vote would be tied if Labor and all crossbenchers opposed it.

Its majority of one includes the Speaker, Tony Smith. He has a casting vote in the event of a tie – one that he would exercise in a procedurally conservative manner, to preserve the status quo.

The Coalition’s position is not like that of late 2018, when it fell into minority government as things unravelled after the overthrow of Malcolm Turnbull.

But losing a number makes descent into minority more of a possibility – if some unforeseen event took out another government MP. That would put it at greater risk of losing votes.

Kelly has said that, beyond supporting the government on confidence and supply, he will back it on the program it took to the election.

This gives him room to play up on a few measures, if he feels inclined, for example on any legislation relating to climate.

On the other hand, he would be unlikely to find parliamentary bedfellows on his pet issues.

Given the makeup of the crossbench, the government can be confident of its numbers, even if they’ve become a little more precarious.

Rebel Nationals would love to recruit Kelly to their party, to get an extra vote in the cause of removing Michael McCormack from the leadership. But Kelly sees himself as an “independent Liberal”; anyway, he’d have nothing to gain by joining the Nationals (which of course would restore the Coalition numbers).

The government is determined to portray Kelly’s departure in the most positive light it can find. “Good riddance”, is the official informal line.

With his passion for spruiking ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, unproven treatments for COVID, Kelly has been deeply irritating for Morrison. The Prime Minister recently called him into his office for a dressing down, after Kelly’s spectacular corridor clash with Tanya Plibersek.

He wanted Kelly to shut up. Instead Kelly, the zealot with the contrarian cause, is now more than ever on a mission to promote those controversial drugs,

This is the second defector to catch Morrison on the hop.

In 2018 word came of Julia Banks’ desertion when she was on her feet in the House of Representatives. Morrison was giving a news conference at the time.

Kelly on Tuesday only showed his hand in the party room. He said he wanted to tell his colleagues first. But perhaps there was a touch of tit for tat after that bawling out.

For Kelly’s part, he had the choice of an attention-grabbing exit from the Liberal party, or being dispatched from his seat by the preselectors, who would have ensured he’d not be the Liberal candidate at the election.

What harm can Kelly do the government do now?

He can cast an anti government vote now and then.

He can shout his views on COVID treatments and climate change. But he’s done that often enough. Arguably, at least in the mainstream outlets, when he is not talking as a rebel Liberal, what he says on COVID will get less attention. He’ll just be a crossbench voice.

He is signalling he is likely to run as an independent at the election. If he does, he wouldn’t poll well and it’s doubtful his presence would do much harm to the Liberals in the seat.

In what’s a painful fortnight for the government, an element of the Kelly story fed into its problems with handling allegations of rape and sexual misconduct.

A staffer in Kelly’s office, Frank Zumbo, is being investigated over claims of sexual harassment in the workplace (which he denies).

When this matter was raised with Morrison’s office last year by a local reporter via email, it did not answer her.

Morrison on Tuesday said he had spoken to Kelly about both this matter and the staffer’s performance. But Kelly has kept the man on.

The government had a significant win on Tuesday when Facebook agreed, in a deal involving the Coalition making some changes to its legislation, to lift its ban on republishing news on its Australian site.

Any other time, that would have made it a very good day.

– ref. View from The Hill: Craig Kelly’s defection leaves government with razor thin majority – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-craig-kellys-defection-leaves-government-with-razor-thin-majority-155897

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charles Livingstone, Associate Professor, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

The Victorian government has announced a Royal Commission into Crown Melbourne, following the damning findings of the Bergin inquiry into Crown’s Sydney casino licence earlier this month.

The inquiry found Crown Sydney Gaming was “not a suitable person” to operate the Sydney casino.

It also found Crown Resorts was “not suitable to be a close associate of the licensee,” pointing to the infiltration and exploitation of Crown’s Melbourne and Perth operations by “criminal elements, probably including international criminal organisations”.

Read more: ‘Not suitable’: where to now for James Packer and Crown’s other casinos?

Last week, the Western Australian government announced an inquiry into the operations of the Perth casino. Now, it is Victoria’s turn.

The Victorian royal commission will look specifically at the suitability of Crown Resorts Ltd (the parent company) to be the operator of the Melbourne Casino. The terms of reference are narrowly oriented towards Crown’s compliance with Victorian law and regulation, rather than focusing on regulation more broadly.

What about existing regulation?

The royal commission appears to be a vote of little confidence in the Victorian gambling regulator. The Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation has at least three inquiries already underway into Crown. These include a review of the Bergin findings and a review announced after 2019 media revelations about links to organised crime. These is also a regular review of the casino licensee, brought forward from 2023.

Then again, in her report, Commissioner Patricia Bergin recommended regulation of casinos should be undertaken by an independent casino commission. She also said this body should be armed with the powers of a standing royal commission.

The logic here is conventional regulators lack the power to properly inquire into, and demand evidence of, the workings of a business that is a magnet for criminal involvement and money laundering.

Don’t forget pokies

Of course, any proper investigation into gambling regulation needs to look far beyond what happens in casinos.

Poker machines in Australia’s clubs and pubs take about $A13 billion) from punters every year, more than twice the $A5 billion lost at casinos. Much of what is lost at casinos goes into poker machines. Harm and money laundering are also endemic in suburban pubs and clubs.

Crown, perhaps more than other gambling venues, is a locus of gambling harm. It has more than 2,600 poker machines, each making about $A170,000 per year, or $A462.7 million in total, as Crown’s annual report reveals. The “high rollers” are the cream on top of the profitable “grind” of the main floor — the term casino operators apply to their regular customers.

Across Australia, there are nearly 200,000 poker machines operating in other casinos and suburban clubs and pubs. These are also magnets for money laundering and tax evasion. This might be at a smaller scale individually, but in the aggregate, is it as big a problem as those identified at Crown.

This is easiest in NSW, where poker machines have a “load-up limit” of $A7,500. Laundering drug profits, or some cash-in-hand payments, is as easy as a quick visit to the local club.

So, any scrutiny of Crown’s suitability surely needs to consider how the casino addresses its legal obligation to provide gambling responsibly.

There is certainly evidence this is a significant issue for Crown. It has previously been fined for tampering with poker machines and reprimanded by the Victorian regulator for not taking harm minimisation seriously.

Too big to fail?

Crown is touted as a large employer, a contributor to tax revenue, and a major entertainment and tourism venue.

It may be all of these things, but as far as employment goes, the Australian Bureau of Statistics tells us gambling activities across Australia employed 26,000 people in November 2020, while the creative and performing arts employed 50,000.

As a contributor to tax revenue, the Bureau of Statistics also says Crown contributed less than 1.0% of Victoria’s state tax revenue in 2018-19, or about $A228 million. Lotteries contributed more than twice that, and poker machines in clubs and pubs nearly five times as much.

Read more: ‘Not suitable’: where to now for James Packer and Crown’s other casinos?

It’s entirely possible the net value of the operation to Victoria may be overstated, to put it mildly.

First steps

On Monday, the Victorian government said it would “legislate” later this year to “give effect to any findings of the royal commission”. It also said it had started work to set up an independent casino regulator.

This would be a solid step, but it also needs to encompass the regulation of all forms of gambling. There is no doubt Crown’s malfeasance in Melbourne and Perth went apparently undetected for so long because regulation was under-powered, under-resourced, and frequently undermined by political parties of both major persuasions.

There is also no doubt legislative and regulatory breaches by suburban pokie pubs and clubs are going undetected. There is ample evidence the requirements to protect people harmful gambling habits are not being met, including by Australia’s largest operators.

What happens next?

Melbourne’s Crown royal commission needs to report back by August. This is an ambitious timeline.

In the meantime, it will be fascinating to observe how Crown remakes itself, as has been promised by chair, Helen Coonan, who is now also CEO.

Read more: Australia has a long way to go on responsible gambling

Even more fascinating will be whether the other inquiries, reviews, and assessments also now underway actually produce any real change.

Only when the regulator, the system of regulation, and the legislation that underpins it all are robust, suitably powered, and properly resourced, will there be real change.

Until then, we can expect periodic scandals to engulf gambling operators, and the machinery of gambling harm production to grind on.

– ref. Melbourne finally has a Crown royal commission — is this going to stop crime and gambling harm? – https://theconversation.com/melbourne-finally-has-a-crown-royal-commission-is-this-going-to-stop-crime-and-gambling-harm-155759

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nenad Naumovski, Associate Professor in Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Canberra

Sleep is essential for good health. Poor sleep quality, or not enough sleep, can negatively affect our mood, cognitive function, and immune system.

Stress can impact our sleep, and stress and anxiety associated with the COVID pandemic have meant many of us are not sleeping as well as we used to. A survey of 2,555 people across 63 countries found 47% of people were experiencing poorer sleep than usual during the pandemic, compared with 25% before COVID hit.

We also know stress is associated with poor dietary habits. People who are feeling stressed and tired may be more likely to reach for energy drinks and caffeinated beverages. But a high intake of caffeine as well as sugar-sweetened and energy drinks can keep us awake. So it’s something of a vicious cycle.

Similarly, people who are feeling stressed may be more likely to drink alcohol. Alcohol before bed, especially in excess, can also disrupt our sleep.

So what can you drink to improve your sleep?

Chamomile

Chamomile tea has been used in traditional medicine for centuries to treat a range of sleep ailments, such as insomnia.

The plant extract contains apigenin, a chemical compound that binds to the same receptors in the brain as benzodiazepines (drugs used to treat anxiety and insomnia), producing a sedative effect.

Read more: Can’t sleep and feeling anxious about coronavirus? You’re not alone

Studies have shown chamomile (consumed in the form of an extract or a tea) leads to significant improvement in sleep quality.

However, although the evidence is positive, these studies were relatively small and we need larger, well-designed clinical trials to reinforce these observations.

Milk

A warm cup of cow’s milk is a popular bedtime beverage in Western cultures, particularly for children.

Milk is a source of the essential amino acid tryptophan, which our bodies need to produce compounds including serotonin and melatonin in the brain. These compounds are involved in the sleep-wake cycle, which could explain why milk helps us sleep better — if indeed it does.

Scientists have studied the effects of milk and milk products (such as yogurt and cheese) on sleep quality for decades, but the evidence is still inconclusive.

It may simply be the ritual of drinking warm milk before bedtime that relaxes the brain and body, rather than the effects of compounds present in the milk itself. We’ll need more research evidence before we can be confident one way or the other.

Read more: Get headaches? Here’s five things to eat or avoid

Cocoa

Hot cocoa (commonly dissolved in milk) is also regarded as a sleep-promoting drink. The cocoa bean is a rich source of many beneficial chemicals, including compounds called flavonoids.

Flavonoids have a range of potential health benefits, and may be used to treat some neurodegenerative disorders.

There’s limited research on the effects of cocoa on sleep quality. But a study in mice suggested natural cocoa may improve stress-induced insomnia.

In humans, consuming cocoa is associated with a reduction in blood pressure (in healthy people and those with high blood pressure). This lowering of blood pressure, which relaxes the smooth muscles that line our arteries, could produce a calming effect, making it easier to go to sleep.

While these sleep remedies are unlikely to be harmful, the overall evidence on improvement in quality of sleep is weak. You may like to try them, but you shouldn’t see any of them as a quick fix.

At the end of the day, several lifestyle factors can influence our sleep quality, including screen time, physical activity, stress and diet.

If you are consistently struggling to sleep, it’s best to consult with your general practitioner.

Read more: Why our brain needs sleep, and what happens if we don’t get enough of it

– ref. Having trouble sleeping? Here’s the science on 3 traditional bedtime remedies – https://theconversation.com/having-trouble-sleeping-heres-the-science-on-3-traditional-bedtime-remedies-150360

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

The base level of JobSeeker and related payments will increase by $50 a fortnight from April 1 under changes that will also toughen the obligations on people seeking work.

The boost will take the payment to $307 a week. It will go to 1.95 million people, including those on parenting payments, Austudy and Youth Allowance.

But those on unemployment and related payments will be worse off than they are now, because they will lose the temporary coronavirus supplement, which is currently worth $150 a fortnight. This expires at the end of March.

The amount of money a person on JobSeeker and related payments can earn before their payment is affected will also be raised, to $150 a fortnight.

From early April, job seekers will have to search for a minimum of 15 jobs a month, rising to 20 jobs a month from July 1.

The Australian Council of Social Service strongly attacked the decision, saying it was a cut to people’s current income and is “a measly $3.57 a day more than the brutal old Newstart rate.”

ACOSS CEO Cassandra Goldie said: “Already, at $51 a day with the temporary coronavirus supplement, people on JobSeeker are currently being forced to make impossible decisions.

“Now, come the end of next month, they are expected to struggle on even less – just $44 a day to cover the essentials of life, including rent, as well as the cost of job searching.”

The cost of the changes is $9 billion over the forward estimates. The government said this was the largest-ever budget measure for working age payments, and the single biggest year-on-year increase to the rate of unemployment benefits since 1986.

Announcing the changes, Prime Minister Scott Morrison had an eye on those on his own side who might be critical of the rise.

He said it was true this was the single largest increase in the JobSeeker payment since the mid-1980s. He added, “but I think the more relevant feature to focus on is what it is as a percentage of the minimum wage. And this brings [that] up from 37.5% up to 41.2”. That is commensurate with where it sat during the period of the Howard government.“

Among the other changes the government announced:

• temporarily extending the waiver of the ordinary waiting period for certain payments for a further three months to June 30

• temporarily extending the expanded eligibility criteria for JobSeeker and Youth Allowance for those required to self-isolate or care for others as a result of COVID to June 30.

The stringent mutual obligation requirements will include an employer reporting line that will be established to refer job seekers who are not genuine about their job search or decline the offer of a job.

Some job seekers will have to take part in “work for the dole” after six months. They will have the alternative of taking an approved, intense, short course instead.

Job seekers will also have to return to compulsory face-to-face services with Jobactive providers, and there will be increased auditing of job applications to make sure they are genuine.

Morrison said: “Welfare is a safety net, not a wage supplement. We want to get the balance right between providing support for people and incentives to work.”

Speaking before the announcement, Nationals backbencher Matt Canavan expressed doubt. He told Sky: “Before the coronavirus I thought it was fair to look at increasing the unemployment assistance, it is very low.

“That was all before we racked $1 trillion up on the nation’s credit card.

“I just think we’re borrowing too much from overseas, we’re borrowing too much from the Chinese government.”

– ref. $50 a fortnight rise in JobSeeker comes with tougher job search requirements – https://theconversation.com/50-a-fortnight-rise-in-jobseeker-comes-with-tougher-job-search-requirements-155858

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caroline Shaw, Senior Lecturer in Public Health, University of Otago

New Zealand has the highest per capita car ownership in the OECD, and reducing emissions from the transport sector is seen as a wicked problem.

As part of its recently released advice for the government’s first emissions reduction plan, the Climate Change Commission is calling for a public education campaign similar to anti-smoking ads to create a social movement away from cars.

Transport accounts for 21% of New Zealand’s annual greenhouse gas emissions and is the fastest growing source of emissions. We clearly need to reduce transport emissions dramatically.

And the commission is right that tobacco control has lessons to offer for transport decarbonisation.

Changing the system

Decades of investment in a car-based transport system has baked car dependency into New Zealanders’ expectations of how we live and travel.

Once people are used to a particular system, it is hard to see the extent of change needed and mechanisms to make it happen.

The decades-long tobacco control programme offers an exemplar in creating social (and behaviour) change on the scale the commission wants to see. But the lessons are broader than a public education campaign.

Read more: Thank you for not driving: Climate change requires anti-smoking tactics

One of the key lessons from tobacco control is the need to intervene in multiple levels to reshape the entire system. This includes:

• interventions at the policy level (taxation on tobacco products, advertising and sponsorship bans)
• creating environments that support being smoke-free (no smoking in public places such as bars, playgrounds, workplaces; plain packaging)
• community action (community-based tobacco control programmes such as Aukati Kaipaipa)
• helping individual smokers to quit
• reorienting health services to promote tobacco control by requiring health providers to collect and report on smoking status.

Combined, these interventions have reduced smoking rates from 36% in 1976 to 13% in 2020. We moved from a society where smoking was ubiquitous (remember smoking in planes, bars, restaurants and workplaces?) to one where smoking is no longer seen as a “normal” activity.

Importantly, tobacco control interventions now enjoy a high level of support, including often from smokers. These wide-ranging environmental interventions created behavioural change and support for further interventions.

Making it easier for people to change

Evidence from public health shows policy interventions that go hand in hand with supportive environments are likely to make the biggest difference in behaviour changes.

These interventions include taxation, advertising restrictions and changes to product availability. They can shift the behaviour of the entire population.

Mass media campaigns need to be treated with caution as some evidence suggests they may increase inequities. Education campaigns are largely futile if there is no accompanying environment to support the promoted behaviour change.

For example, the health sector has a long history of telling people to exercise more and eat a better diet to reduce obesity. But it has achieved little in the way of environmental changes compared with tobacco control.

This sub-optimal approach is reflected in the lack of change in obesity rates since 2012/13. The prevalence of obesity among adults remained stable at 30.9% (an estimated 1.24 million adults), and even increased in the age groups of 45–54 years and 55–64 years.

Read more: What can obesity control learn from tobacco control’s success?

The Genless campaign run by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (ECCA) is also a good example of an education campaign asking people to make individual choices to reduce emissions in an environment that doesn’t support them.

Equity concerns

International evidence shows that disadvantaged groups experience fewer of the benefits (access to healthcare) and more of the harms (injury, noise and exposure to air pollution) of the transport system. Disadvantaged groups also contribute least to transport emissions. Local New Zealand evidence is patchy but suggests similar patterns.

How do we reduce existing transport inequalities and emissions at the same time? Firstly, we need to recognise that a low-carbon transport system with more walking, cycling and public transport options is likely to be a fairer transport system for the whole population. It also makes our cities nicer places for us all.

Secondly, the types of interventions we select to transform the system are important. Interventions that rely on a large amount of individual effort (material, time, cognitive or psychological) are likely to be less effective and increase inequalities.

For example, if the goal is to improve the efficiency of the vehicle fleet, providing information on fuel efficiency is likely to be far less effective than regulating for minimum standards.

But we also need to acknowledge that even well designed interventions that benefit everyone have nevertheless been taken up more by already advantaged populations and therefore increased inequalities. While smoking has reduced in all groups, it has reduced most in advantaged groups and large differences between groups remain.

We need to do better in transport. We need a comprehensive plan (at multiple levels) aimed at equitably opening up our streets and cities to low-carbon travel.

The uptake of cycling in Vancouver is an international example of a comprehensive approach which achieved changes relatively rapidly. The lessons from tobacco control, and public health more generally, can help us chose the types of interventions that will make the most difference and design them to minimise inequalities.

– ref. NZ’s smoking rates dropped dramatically thanks to a hard-hitting campaign. Could we do the same to bring emissions down? – https://theconversation.com/nzs-smoking-rates-dropped-dramatically-thanks-to-a-hard-hitting-campaign-could-we-do-the-same-to-bring-emissions-down-153081

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

Liberal maverick Craig Kelly has defected to the crossbench, giving Prime Minister Scott Morrison no warning before his surprise announcement to Tuesday’s Coalition parties meeting.

Kelly, who strongly promotes alternative, unproven treatments for COVID said: “If I’m to speak out and to use my voice the best I can, this is the best decision for myself and for the people that I represent.”

Morrison recently dressed down Kelly in an attempt to stop him making comments that could harm the government’s campaign to get maximum take-up of the COVID vaccines.

His move takes away the Coalition working majority on the floor of the House of Representatives – it reduces the government to a one-seat majority, including the speaker’s casting vote. But Kelly said he would support the government on supply and confidence and indicated he did not see anything on its agenda that “I’m going to be objecting to strenuously”.

The member for the Sydney seat of Hughes since 2010, Kelly was considered almost certain to lose Liberal preselection, with a grassroots movement mobilising against him. He was saved from preselection challenges by interventions from Malcolm Turnbull before the 2016 election, and Morrison in the run up to the 2019 election.

Kelly told Sky: “I believe one of the greatest mistakes that’s been made in this country and also the world was prohibiting doctors from prescribing ivermectin and also hydroxychloroquine.

“I believe this was a terrible error.”

He denied he was an anti-vaxxer, which he said was just a “slanderous smear”.

“I support the vaccine program, but in concert, to use the words of our highest credential immunologist, these other treatments should be used in concert with the vaccine.”

He said he had an “obligation” to act on his conscience.

Morrison told a news conference he had learned of Kelly’s action “at the same time he announced it to the party room”.

“We had a discussion a couple of weeks ago.

“I set out some very clear standards and he made some commitments that I expected to be followed through on,” Morrison said.

“He no longer felt that he could meet those commitments and, as a result, he’s made his decision today.

“By his own explanation [in the party room], he has said that his actions were slowing the government down and he believed the best way for him to proceed was to remove himself from the party room and provide the otherwise support to the government so it could continue to function as it so successfully has, which he says is something he remains committed to. So I would expect him to conduct himself in that way.”

– ref. Maverick Liberal Craig Kelly defects to crossbench, vowing to continue to ‘use my voice’ on controversial COVID treatments – https://theconversation.com/maverick-liberal-craig-kelly-defects-to-crossbench-vowing-to-continue-to-use-my-voice-on-controversial-covid-treatments-155857

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Greenberg, Dean of Arts, University of Auckland

The world was excited by the news last week that NASA’s Perseverance rover had successfully landed in a Martian crater. The rover will now set about collecting samples from what scientists say was an ancient lake fed by a river. The name of this exotic Martian crater is Jezero.

As a South Slavic linguist, the name was immediately recognisable to me. In several former Yugoslav countries, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia, “jezero” (pronounced “yeh-zeh-ro”, with the stress on the first syllable) means lake. Fair enough — but why a Balkan lake on Mars?

The task of providing names for places of interest on Mars falls to the International Astronomical Union (IAU). They apparently named the Martian crater Jezero in 2007, well before earthlings had paid any attention.

I later discovered the name was not, in fact, intended simply as a generic “lake”, but refers to a specific village called Jezero. With a population around 500, it is located in western Republika Srpska, the Serb-dominated part of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is very near a river-fed lake called Veliko Plivsko Jezero, or Great Plivsko Lake.

Famous on Mars

According to the Balkan Insight news service, the mayor of Jezero first learned of NASA’s plans in a letter from the US ambassador in Bosnia and Herzegovina, informing her the village and its name were to be honoured by the spacecraft landing in the Jezero crater.

The villagers apparently first dismissed this as fake news. But, to their later amazement, people all over the world have now been learning to pronounce Jezero properly.

The landing was broadcast live at the village’s only school, with the Balkan Insight reporter describing the villagers as “star-struck” and justifiably proud of their connection to the mission.

There was also cautious optimism about the prosperity that might flow from tourists discovering their sleepy hamlet (at least after the pandemic). Famous on Mars, might Jezero be celebrated on Earth as well?

Earthly tensions

The alternative to be avoided, one hopes, is that a minor Balkan conflict breaks out over language and designated names. Every one of the former Yugoslav countries can claim the word “jezero” in their respective dictionaries. And any traveller to the Balkans knows the region is rich with lakes.

But only one village carries this generic word as its name. Was it politically advisable for one village in the Serb-dominated entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina to be singled out? For many, this part of the country is still associated with the nationalism and ethnic cleansing of the Bosnian war in the 1990s.

Read more: ‘7 minutes of terror’: a look at the technology Perseverance will need to survive landing on Mars

How would the members of other communities in the country — Bosniaks (the country’s Muslim population) and Croats — respond? Could they support the Serbs of Jezero receiving such positive media coverage?

As my book about the break-up of the Serbo-Croation language explored, language rifts in the Balkans are endemic and have long been both a symptom of ethnic animosity and a cause for inflaming it.

Will people quibble over whether the crater is named for the village or for its nearby lake, or any lake within the region? Or should all who say “jezero” feel proud the word is now in the global lexicon?

Space and time

During the time of Tito’s rule in Yugoslavia, such matters would not have been as contentious, since many people believed the dominant common language of the country was Serbo-Croatian.

Ethno-nationalism was forbidden and people mostly got along. However, since the violent break-up of Yugoslavia, people in the newly independent states now speak separate languages: Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian.

Read more: Remembering Srebrenica, more than 20 years on

Over the years, speakers of the four languages have slowly drifted apart, but they all agree a lake is called “jezero”. Further complications arise with peoples and governments even further afield. The Slovenes and Czechs also say “jezero”, and the Macedonian and Bulgarian form is the almost identical “ezero”.

Any similarity between the landscape around Jezero in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the crater with the same name on Mars may end with the name. And I doubt the scientists at NASA or the IAU ever considered the potential implications of using a common word shared by so many nations to name an important site on Mars.

But, as we know, words have power. It would be a shame if a distant, silent crater on another planet caused envy and resentment here on Earth. So far, however, the political situation in the Balkans remains almost as calm as that on Mars, and that is cause for hope.

– ref. How did NASA’s Martian rover come to land in a crater named after a tiny Balkan village? – https://theconversation.com/how-did-nasas-martian-rover-come-to-land-in-a-crater-named-after-a-tiny-balkan-village-155740

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jon Pike, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, The Open University

In 2020, World Rugby undertook a painstaking policy process to address the issue of transwomen in rugby. This led to guidelines that exclude transwomen from competing in women’s rugby at the World Cup level — the first international sports federation to do so.

The new guidelines don’t exclude transwomen from rugby completely, of course: they just specify that players must compete in the category of their birth sex, for reasons of safety and fairness.

Though controversial, the guidelines are fair, reasonable and supported by evidence. They offer the best way forward, not just for rugby, but for other sports.

A sports ethics viewpoint

I participated in the global symposium in London where the guidelines were debated, as an expert on sports ethics. I’m a philosopher rather than a sports scientist, and I’ve done work for both the World Anti-Doping Agency and the International Olympic Committee in the past.

Many advocates for trans inclusion in the women’s game believe the right way to address this issue is to balance fairness against safety. But in this recently published paper — drawn from my presentation to the London symposium — I argue such a “balancing” approach is seriously wrong. Instead, organisations like World Rugby should adopt a “lexical priority” approach.

Read more: Better locker rooms: It’s not just a transgender thing

What does that mean? From the possible set of rules that exist, it means first selecting those that are safe, then the safe rules that are also fair, then the safe and fair rules that are maximally inclusive.

This approach — first, do A, then B, then C — is better than an opaque attempt to “balance” all three at the same time.

What about the science?

So much for the method. But what about the science? And how do they fit together?

There’s been a flurry of recent papers on the participation of transwomen in sport. In this one, which also was presented in London, developmental biologist Emma Hilton and sports scientist Tommy Lundberg review a large range of studies, and show the effect of hormone replacement therapy for transwomen is much less than would be needed to ensure a level playing field.

In short, transwomen retain large male advantages in terms of muscle mass, strength, VO2 Max (maximal oxygen uptake) and other relevant metrics.
Another recent study by paediatrics specialist Timothy Roberts and others, looks at US military personnel — trained and fit people subject to monthly physiological tests — and comes to similar conclusions.

And in data presented by World Rugby, biomechanical modelling studies suggest that, in the women’s game, transgender players create head and neck forces 20-30% greater than elite women’s rugby players as a result of mass differences alone. This suggests a potential risk of injury to female players from transwomen players.

How does fairness fit in?

Let’s plug this into a lexical methodology. From the evidence, it doesn’t look as if transwomen competing in women’s rugby is safe. The increased forces generated by transwomen significantly raise the risk of serious and catastrophic injury to female players.

That should be enough, on its own, to make the guidelines appropriate for a collision sport like rugby. But let’s go on, for the sake of other sports, and talk about fairness.

When it comes to fairness, there are two arguments — what I call the “advantage argument” and the “range argument”.

Read more: World Rugby’s ban on trans players has nothing to do with so-called ‘fairness’

The advantage argument says women’s sport is justified by the existence of the physiological advantages that being born male provides to men. Women’s sport necessarily involves the exclusion of those with male advantage. That’s the point of the category.

According to the range argument, however, lots of male-born people, including transwomen, are in the range of females. This means they are not necessarily faster or stronger than the fastest or strongest female athletes just because they were born male.

So, if transwomen are “in the range” of female athletes, then their inclusion in sport is still fair, right?

Wrong. The range argument rests on a misunderstanding of women’s sport. It is not a category for people who are a bit smaller, slower and weaker than the top males. It isn’t justified by performance or body metrics, but by the absence of a particular sort of advantage.

So the range argument is beside the point. If we are to have two classes of sport — male and female — then the division is justified by the existence of male advantage. Those who claim male advantage (including residual male advantage for transwomen) doesn’t matter are actually arguing for unisex sport.

It is crucial to know then if male advantage is retained after a transgender athlete transitions. And the studies by Hilton, Lundberg and Roberts all show, conclusively, that male advantage is still there.

Where to from here for other sports

The evidence from the World Rugby deliberations is now in, and most of it can be read, analysed and subjected to critique by anyone.

While there will be no changes before the Tokyo Olympics, the IOC is currently in consultation with international sport federations over the inclusion of transgender athletes, each with their own particular concerns.

The question is whether the IOC and other international federations respond to the latest research, or if they will continue to keep their heads in the sand.

– ref. Why the World Rugby guidelines banning trans athletes from the women’s game are reasonable – https://theconversation.com/why-the-world-rugby-guidelines-banning-trans-athletes-from-the-womens-game-are-reasonable-152178

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chandra Salgado Kent, Associate Professor, School of Science, Edith Cowan University

Review: Whale Fall, written by Ian Sinclair and directed by Melissa Cantwell for The Kabuki Drop. Commissioned by PICA and co-presented with Perth Festival.

Whale Fall follows the emotional journey of a 12-year-old boy, Caleb (Ashton Brady), and his family grappling with Caleb’s desire to medically affirm his gender: letting go of the daughter they had; accepting and getting to know the son he has become.

We are immersed in an ocean setting. Ian Sinclair’s script carries a strong marine undercurrent from beginning to end: the beachside house, the young boy’s dream of becoming a marine biologist, his excitement in recounting his readings about intriguing sea creatures to his mother, Nadine (Caitlin Beresford-Ord), and the parallel theme of whale fall sewn into the story. This is the new life borne out of a dead whale when it reaches the ocean floor.

The play is as much about a young trans person’s journey as it is about Australians’ strong connection to the ocean and ever-increasing awareness of our ecological responsibility for its preservation.

In death, and life

Sinclair drew inspiration for his play from Rebecca Grigg’s 2015 essay of the same name, which she later developed into the book Fathoms (2020).

Contrary to common belief, most whales’ bodies are slightly higher in density than seawater. Unless their lungs are filled with air, whales will quickly sink to the bottom of the ocean.

Once decomposition of a dead whale sets in, the carcass’ density decreases and gas is produced through putrefaction. In marine environments over 100 meters deep, hydrostatic pressure is sufficiently high to hold carcasses on the seafloor.

On the seabed, the carcass transitions to what is scientifically called a “whale fall ecosystem” – a unique habitat island inhabited by a biodiverse and highly specialised range of marine organisms subsisting on the dead carcass.

Since their discovery in the late 1980s, it has become clear that whale fall ecosystems are abundant in certain regions of the deep sea. They support extraordinarily rich communities of species, which can be supported by one whale fall for decades.

Read more: A theatre project explores collective solutions to saving the ocean

Caleb explores the whale’s journey as a way of both escaping the emotional toll of his situation, and finding his path forward.

He sees the whale — a mammal like himself — living and dying in deep-sea darkness, before emerging and giving life in a new form.

The boy’s account of the whale’s journey into the abyss and transforming into whale fall is a delightful mixture of poetry and accurate scientific detail, conjuring images of what it might be like to undergo such a change.

Ashton smoothly rolls the scientific poetry off his tongue to describe the “buoyancy of the meat” of the sinking whale, “weighed down by bones, with white worms clinging to a parachute of muscle, a macabre marionette”.

He then takes us into the complex ecosystem of isopods, polychaetes, crustaceans and deep-sea fish that eventually scavenge and inhabit the carcass: incredible new life in the abyssal depths of the sea.

Ecological responsibility

Whale Fall brilliantly brings important social issues, and an intriguing and important ecological phenomenon, to a mainstream audience.

Under Melissa Cantwell’s direction, the performers tell the powerful story with tenderness, emotional outbursts and witty humour.

The dynamic tempo (sound design and composition by Rebecca Riggs-Bennett) is sometimes playful, intensifying to a climax and then releasing, only to be followed by a new wave of dynamic emotion, leaving you caught up in the journey.

Whale Fall highlights our internal battles to adapt to life’s challenges, its humanity, and important social issues regarding gender identity — all while communicating a message about ecological responsibility for safeguarding the ocean.

Only by exploring these issues through powerful, emotionally engaging and thought-provoking artistic works such as this one can we create the cultural changes required for a healthy society.

Whale Fall is at PICA Performance Space until 27 February.

– ref. Perth Festival review: Whale Fall is a powerful story about a trans boy, and the life of a whale – https://theconversation.com/perth-festival-review-whale-fall-is-a-powerful-story-about-a-trans-boy-and-the-life-of-a-whale-155733

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

What’s the difference between Google and Facebook?

One difference is that in the past week Google has more-or-less agreed to pay Australian news outlets for their content faced with the threat of government action to force it to.

Facebook most definitely has not, removing Australian news from its feeds.

Another is the reason why.

It’s that Google faces competition, whereas Facebook really doesn’t.

In economists’ language, that’s because Facebook enjoys a rare “network effect”, Google scarcely at all.

If I want to switch from Google to another search engine (something I’ve done) it costs me next to nothing. I might find it hard to move my search history over (although there’s probably an app for that) but otherwise the new search engine will either be better, worse or about the same as the one I left. I’m free to find out.

Google faces competition

It means that Google is forced to defend itself from competition (or the threat of competition) by providing an extraordinarily good service.

Not so Facebook. Although a relatively new concept in economics, the idea of a network effect dates back to at least 1908 when the president of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Theodore Vail, spelled it out in a letter to stockholders.

“A telephone, without a connection at the other end of the line, is not even a toy or a scientific instrument,” he wrote. “It is one of the most useless things in the world. Its value depends on the connection with the other telephone — and increases with the number of connections.”

Facebook faces hardly any

The idea has since been expressed in a mathematical formula, but there’s no need to get into details. The world’s first telephone was indeed useless, the second allowed one household to reach only one other. But by the time there were millions, and almost every household had one, each telephone became incredibly valuable, allowing that household to reach almost every other household.

A startup that tried to compete with the phone system would be offering a very unappealing product. It wouldn’t be able to offer anything like the connections of the existing system until a huge proportion of the population signed up, meaning people would be reluctant to sign up, meaning it would stay unappealing.

Read more: We allowed Facebook to grow big by worrying about the wrong thing

Which is the point Vail was making. When it gets big enough, the telephone service is something close to a natural monopoly. There’s no point in anyone setting up a competing one (and in Australia we haven’t — the competing companies, Telstra, Optus and so on, share the one network).

The ASX stock exchange is another example, as is eBay. You could try to sell something on a different platform, but you wouldn’t reach nearly as many potential customers, so you mightn’t get as good a price.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission puts it this way in its report on Facebook: even if the government made it easier for a user to switch to another network, perhaps by mandating the transfer of data,

if none of the user’s friends or family are moving away from Facebook, that user would be unlikely to switch platforms

The “lock in” that happens when a network gets so big people feel they have to use it means it doesn’t have to treat them particularly well to get them to stay.

Seventeen million Australians use Facebook every four weeks — a huge proportion of the population, and an even bigger proportion of the population aged over 14 (80%).

Without Facebook, it would be hard to know what family and friends and long-lost classmates are up to — whether or not Facebook offers news. It doesn’t need to treat its users particularly well to get them to stay.

Facebook isn’t quite like the phone system. Young people find the fact that so many old people can use it to check up on them a turn-off and go elsewhere. But for the Australians already on it (that’s most Australians) it’s worth staying.

And there’s room for smaller specialised networks.

Linkedin has its own network for people concerned about the jobs market. If that’s the world you’re in, it’s wise to be on it because of the huge number of other such people who are on it. There’s not much point leaving it for something else.

It’s the same for Tinder, which services a different type of market.

Winner take all

It wasn’t always that way for Facebook. Fifteen years ago MySpace was how people connected, but not that many of them — it hadn’t grown to the point where network effects took over. When they did, there could be only one clear winner, and it happened to be Facebook.

Now not even its bad behaviour (Roy Morgan finds it is Australia’s least-trusted brand) can stop most people using it.

In the same way as people who want the lights on generally have to use the electricity company, people who want to catch trains generally have to use the railway and people who want to drive cars generally have to buy petrol, people who want to stay in touch generally have to use Facebook.

Which makes the government’s decision to remove its vaccination advertising campaign from Facebook silly. Facebook reaches 80% of its target audience.

Facebook has become a (trans-national) utility, unconcerned about its image. Attempts by one government, or even a coalition of governments, to force it to do anything are pretty much a lost cause.

No-one wanted it to be like this, and it’s not like this for Google. Facebook has moved beyond our control.

– ref. One of these things is not like the others: why Facebook is beyond our control – https://theconversation.com/one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-others-why-facebook-is-beyond-our-control-155748