Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeff Borland, Professor of Economics, University of Melbourne

The good news from Victoria’s road map to recovery is the stage 4 restrictions imposed in July are working, albeit more slowly than anyone wants.

The evidence also suggests the Victorian government’s “slow but sure” approach to easing those rules is the right strategy. Unless the risk of COVID-19 is suppressed, relaxing restrictions will not produce the economic recovery we want.

Under the plan announced by Premier Daniel Andrews yesterday, metropolitan Melbourne’s stage 4 restrictions are being extended till at least September 28, with some minor relaxations of curfew and exercise rules.

Read more: Victoria’s path out of COVID-19 lockdown – quick reference guides

Then – if the number of new COVID-19 cases is fewer than 50 a day – there will be further relaxation of public gatherings and home visits. Child care centres will reopen, and about 100,000 workers in construction, delivery, manufacturing and gardening will be allowed to go back to work.

More substantial resumption of businesses activity won’t occur until at least October 26 – and only then if the average number of new cases over the previous two weeks is less than five a day.

If that is achieved, the government will allow most retail shops to open, and cafes and restaurants to serve patrons sitting outdoors. Hairdressers will be back in business, but not other beauty and personal care services.

From November 23, if there have been no new cases for 14 days, all retail will reopen, and hospitality restrictions will relax further.

For regional Victoria, Andrews said, it would likely be just be a matter of weeks before moving to “a very different range of settings compared to metropolitan Melbourne”.

Blaming the lockdown, not the pandemic

Critics of the Victorian government (and lockdowns generally) have argued its containment measures have caused more economic and social damage than would have been caused by the virus itself.

Read more: Melbourne’s second lockdown spells death for small businesses. Here are 3 things government can do to save them

But others argue the short-term economic cost is more than justified by the longer term benefits. They point to evidence suggesting the economy will only recover once COVID-19 is eliminated and the community again feels confident to socialise and shop as before.

University of Chicago economists Austan Goolsbee and Chad Syverson, for example, have analysed consumer behaviour in neighbouring regions with different social distancing restrictions in the US. They found voluntary changes in behaviour to reduce risks of catching COVID-19 were the major driver of lower economic activity. Government-imposed restrictions, they calculated, accounted for less than 12% of the total effect.

Read more: Vital Signs: the cost of lockdowns is nowhere near as big as we have been told

Victoria’s experience may provide more evidence on what is really driving the slowdown in economic activity.

Specifically, we can examine whether decreases in the number jobs appear to correspond more to growth in the COVID-19 caseload or to the timing of imposition of government restrictions.

The chart below displays how Victoria’s employment has tracked compared with the rest of Australia since the initial rise in COVID-19 cases in mid-March. It shows the difference (in percentage terms) between the decline in jobs in Victoria and the rest of Australia.

A number above zero means Victoria has lost a smaller share of its jobs than other states. A number below zero means a larger proportion of jobs have been lost.

As the chart shows, Victoria was following closely with other states till late April, then lost slightly more jobs through to late June.

But once COVID-19 re-emerged in late June, job losses in Victoria accelerated. By early August Victoria had lost about 4% more jobs than other states.

Job losses began before restrictions

The chart below shows how job numbers in accommodation and food services and arts and recreation services have changed in Victoria relative to other states.

These are the two sectors most affected by COVID-19, due to high levels of personal contact between and among customers and staff. The big question is to what extent the effect on employment in those sectors has been due to government rules or consumer behaviour.

The chart shows Victoria’s jobs changes in these two sectors were relatively consistent with the the rest of the country until June. (Arts and recreation did slightly better, food and accommodation slightly worse.)

The situation began to worsen in June with Victoria’s second-wave outbreak. This happened even before the Victorian government imposed stage 3 restriction on July 4.

In the two weeks prior to going back to stage 3, Victoria went from an average of about 16 new cases a day to 72 cases a day. Over the same period, the number of jobs in Victoria in accommodation and food services fell by 3%, and in arts and recreation services by 4.7%, compared with the rest of Australia.

Read more: The costs of the shutdown are overestimated — they’re outweighed by its $1 trillion benefit

As well, after the imposition of stage 3 restrictions the pace of decrease in jobs in Victoria was relatively steady. It matched the rise in COVID-19 cases (to an average of more than 450 a day in early August). Job losses do not seem to have been bunched around the dates restrictions were imposed, as might be expected if those restrictions were the main explanation for job losses.

All of this suggests that while the Victorian government’s path to remove restrictions will undoubtedly influence the level of economic activity in the months ahead, relaxing restrictions immediately would not bring the economy back to where we were in March.

It would only make the road to full recovery much slower and more uncertain.

– ref. Tracking Victoria’s job losses: there’s no road to recovery without containing COVID-19 – https://theconversation.com/tracking-victorias-job-losses-theres-no-road-to-recovery-without-containing-covid-19-145621

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Killoren, Research Fellow, Dianoia Institute of Philosophy, Australian Catholic University

Animal welfare experts warn our pets could suffer during the coronavirus pandemic, including from abuse or abandonment.

When we hear about animals being neglected, we’re often outraged. Consider the revelation of the mistreatment of racehorses at a Queensland abattoir, or the man who decapitated a kookaburra. These stories left many of us shocked and appalled.

But harm to animals is common in our society. Tens of billions of animals are killed in farms and slaughterhouses every year. Their deaths are sometimes truly horrific. Humanity’s relationship with animals is dysfunctional: humans love animals yet simultaneously perpetrate extreme violence against them. This is not only bad for animals. It’s bad for us too.

But humans and animals cannot simply end their relationship and part ways. We have to share a world. So we have to forge a better relationship. The hard question is: what shape should that new relationship take?

Differing standards for humans and for animals?

Here’s an ethics thought experiment. Five humans are dying of organ failure. The only way to save their lives is to kill one healthy person, harvest their organs, and transplant these into the five dying people. Is it morally acceptable to kill the one to save the many?

If you’re like most people, your answer is a firm “no”. Humans have a right to life and can’t be killed in service of the greater good. This is an example of what’s known as a deontological judgment.

Read more: If you don’t eat meat but still wear leather, here are a few facts to chew on

But now let’s change the scenario. Suppose you are the manager of a sanctuary for chickens. An infectious virus is spreading through the sanctuary and you have to decide whether to kill one infected chicken or allow the virus to spread throughout the sanctuary, killing a larger number. Now what?

When confronted with the chicken scenario, many will say it’s acceptable to kill the one to save the many. Your responsibility as manager of the sanctuary is to promote the aggregate health and well-being of all the chickens in your care. If this means you have to kill one chicken to save many more, so be it. This is an example of what’s known as a utilitarian judgment.

When we think about cases where animal lives are at stake, we often tend to think in utilitarian terms. When we think about cases where human lives are at stake, we often tend to think in deontological terms.

Animal activists put to the test

Even animal activists, committed to a view of animals and humans as moral equals, may be inclined to see animals and humans from these differing perspectives.

At an animal activist conference in Melbourne last year (before the pandemic) we divided the audience into small groups and gave them different scenarios featuring different species.

Only 35% of those considering chicken cases said it was wrong to kill one chicken to save the many, whereas fully 85% of those considering human cases decided it was wrong to kill one human to save the many. An informal experiment, but it seems to illustrate a very human tendency to think of animals and humans according to different standards.

That tendency has been observed in many contexts. Robert Nozick influentially discusses a bifurcated view along these lines in his 1974 classic Anarchy, State, and Utopia. But the question of whether such a view can be attributed to ordinary people is only recently being rigorously studied by psychologists such as Lucius Caviola at Harvard University.

Read more: Illegal hunters are a bigger problem on farms than animal activists – so why aren’t we talking about that?

Beyond psychological research, we can look to institutions for evidence that this sort of bifurcated view is widespread, as we have argued elsewhere.

For example, when animals are used in scientific experimentation, researchers are mainly expected to show the benefits outweigh the costs: a utilitarian standard.

But when humans are used, characteristically deontological considerations, such as consent and autonomy, are brought to bear; a cost-benefit analysis isn’t enough.

So we tend to be more utilitarian about animals than about humans. Yet we also don’t see all animals from a purely utilitarian perspective. Think about your family dog. Would your conscience allow you to kill her to save five other dogs?

Three perspectives

The upshot: humans seem to be capable of seeing animals in at least three very different ways.

First, we’re able to regard animals as objects that exist solely for the sake of our use and enjoyment and that don’t matter in themselves. For an example, consider the way the fishing industry treats bycatch as disposable.

Second, we’re able to regard animals as beings who matter in themselves yet who are fundamentally interchangeable with others. That’s a utilitarian perspective. It’s the perspective you occupy when you endorse killing one pig to save five. Such a view is defended by world-renowned Australian philosopher Peter Singer, among many others.

Third, we’re able to see animals as beings who not only matter in themselves, but who also have rights, such as the right to life, or the right to bodily integrity, or even the right to liberty.

Perhaps it’s strange to see farmed animals that way, but it’s not so strange to see non-human family members such as cats and dogs in that way. And famous philosophers such as Tom Regan have argued a vast range of animals ought to be seen in that way.

The future of human-animal relations

Currently, many of us see most animals as mere things, the way fishermen typically see bycatch. And this might continue into the future.

But that’d be a tragedy. Despite their differences from humans, animals are conscious individuals with their own welfare, and so do matter in themselves. Recognising this will be an essential step in reducing the tremendous amount of unnecessary suffering and death that humans inflict on animals.

The simple recognition that animals are not mere things is in itself of massive importance, but it’s also only the beginning of the work we have ahead of us. As a society we must confront deep and difficult questions about whether animals have moral rights and, if so, what those rights might be, and how (if at all) their rights differ from those of human beings. Philosophers have been debating such questions for decades but haven’t reached consensus (yet).

Such questions must be addressed before we can we hope to find a new relationship with animals that fully recognises and respects our obligations to them.

Read more: Not just activists, 9 out of 10 people are concerned about animal welfare in Australian farming

– ref. People hate cruelty to animals, so why do we do it? – https://theconversation.com/people-hate-cruelty-to-animals-so-why-do-we-do-it-127448

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bruce Isaacs, Associate Professor, Film Studies, University of Sydney

How do filmmakers communicate big ideas on screen? In this video series, film scholar Bruce Isaacs analyses pivotal film scenes in detail. (Warning: this video contains violence and may be upsetting for some viewers.)

There is perhaps no better time than now to appreciate the unique and subversive genre of zombie movies. These films have always been great socio-cultural lenses. Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead were two classics of the genre.

World War Z (2013), an adaptation of Max Brook’s 2006 apocalyptic zombie novel continues this tradition. In a pivotal scene set in Jerusalem, director Marc Foster encapsulates the greatest threat posed by zombies: the end of our individuality and loss of uniqueness. The casting of Hollywood star Brad Pitt is crucial, as are the cuts between him as a figure and the invading mass.

See more video analysis of great movie scenes here.

– ref. Close up: World War Z frames the terror of ‘loss of self’ and the threat of a mass pandemic – https://theconversation.com/close-up-world-war-z-frames-the-terror-of-loss-of-self-and-the-threat-of-a-mass-pandemic-145090

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Haskell-Dowland, Associate Dean (Computing and Security), Edith Cowan University

It’s surprising how quickly public opinion can change. Winding the clocks back 12 months, many of us would have looked at a masked individual in public with suspicion.

Now, some countries have enshrined face mask use in law. They’ve also been made compulsory in Victoria and are recommended in several other states.

One consequence of this is that facial recognition systems in place for security and crime prevention may no longer be able to fulfil their purpose. In Australia, most agencies are silent about the use of facial recognition.

But documents leaked earlier this year revealed Australian Federal Police and state police in Queensland, Victoria and South Australia all use Clearview AI, a commercial facial recognition platform. New South Wales police also admitted using a biometrics tool called PhotoTrac.

Read more: Your face is part of Australia’s ‘national security weapon’: should you be concerned?

What is facial recognition?

Facial recognition involves using computing to identify human faces in images or videos, and then measuring specific facial characteristics. This can include the distance between eyes, and the relative positions of the nose, chin and mouth.

This information is combined to create a facial signature, or profile. When used for individual recognition – such as to unlock your phone – an image from the camera is compared to a recorded profile. This process of facial “verification” is relatively simple.

However, when facial recognition is used to identify faces in a crowd, it requires a significant database of profiles against which to compare the main image.

These profiles can be legally collected by enrolling large numbers of users into systems. But they’re sometimes collected through covert means.

The problem with face masks

As facial signatures are based on mathematical models of the relative positions of facial features, anything that reduced the visibility of key characteristics (such as the nose, mouth and chin) interferes with facial recognition.

There are already many ways to evade or interfere with facial recognition technologies. Some of these evolved from techniques designed to evade number plate recognition systems.

Although the coronavirus pandemic has escalated concerns around the evasion of facial recognition systems, leaked US documents show these discussions taking place back in 2018 and 2019, too.

And while the debate on the use and legality of facial recognition continues, the focus has recently shifted to the challenges presented by mask-wearing in public.

On this front, the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) coordinated a major research project to evaluate how masks impacted the performance of various facial recognition systems used across the globe.

Its report, published in July, found some algorithms struggled to correctly identify mask-wearing individuals up to 50% of the time. This was a significant error rate compared to when the same algorithms analysed unmasked faces.

Some algorithms even struggled to locate a face when a mask was covering too much of it.

Finding ways around the problem

There are currently no usable photo data sets of mask-wearing people that can be used to train and evaluate facial recognition systems.

The NIST study addressed this problem by superimposing masks (of various colours, sizes and positions) over images of faces, as seen here:

While this may not be a realistic portrayal of a person wearing a mask, it’s effective enough to study the effects of mask-wearing on facial recognition systems.

It’s possible images of real masked people would allow more details to be extracted to improve recognition systems – perhaps by estimating the nose’s position based on visible protrusions in the mask.

Many facial recognition technology vendors are already preparing for a future where mask use will continue, or even increase. One US company offers masks with customers’ faces printed on them, so they can unlock their smartphones without having to remove it.

Growing incentives for wearing masks

Even before the coronavirus pandemic, masks were a common defence against air pollution and viral infection in countries including China and Japan.

Read more: I’ve always wondered: why many people in Asian countries wear masks, and whether they work

Political activists also wear masks to evade detection on the streets. Both the Hong Kong and Black Lives Matter protests have reinforced protesters’ desire to dodge facial recognition by authorities and government agencies.

As experts forecast a future with more pandemics, rising levels of air pollution, persisting authoritarian regimes and a projected increase in bushfires producing dangerous smoke – it’s likely mask-wearing will become the norm for at least a proportion of us.

Facial recognition systems will need to adapt. Detection will be based on features that remain visible such as the eyes, eyebrows, hairline and general shape of the face.

Such technologies are already under development. Several suppliers are offering upgrades and solutions that claim to deliver reliable results with mask-wearing subjects.

For those who oppose the use of facial recognition and wish to go undetected, a plain mask may suffice for now. But in the future they might have to consider alternatives, such as a mask printed with a fake computer-generated face.

– ref. Face masks and facial recognition will both be common in the future. How will they co-exist? – https://theconversation.com/face-masks-and-facial-recognition-will-both-be-common-in-the-future-how-will-they-co-exist-144417

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Green, Postdoctoral resident adjunct, Griffith Centre for Social and Cultural Research, Griffith University

As we approach the end of a uniquely challenging school year, the class of 2020 look set to miss out on many of the usual highlights of year 12.

Graduation ceremonies, formals, schoolies week and summer music festivals have either been cancelled or restricted.

Meanwhile, those who may have been planning a gap year overseas are not able to leave the country.

Read more: There’s a ban on leaving Australia under COVID-19. Who can get an exemption to go overseas? And how?

So far, public discussion of these cancellations have understandably focused on the risks posed by COVID and the possible mental health impacts on young people.

But young people aren’t just missing out on a chance to wear fancy clothes or party with their mates. Events like schoolies and formals also have a profound social purpose as rites of passage.

What are rites of passage?

Rites of passage are rituals that accompany changes in social status for individuals and groups. Their importance has been recognised by social researchers for more than a century.

In ethnographer Arnold Van Gennep’s original 1909 work, which is still broadly accepted by researchers, rites of passage share three basic phases:

• a symbolic separation from normality, such as by travel or costumes
• an in-between stage, in which social norms and hierarchies are cast off and people embrace a community spirit
• a ceremonial confirmation of the new state of affairs, often with symbols like a ring or crown.

This creates a transformative experience for people. It marks a change as special, by stepping outside ordinary life.

The brief upturn in the social order also allows the community to strengthen its bonds and reaffirm its support for the broader, existing social system.

Traditional rites of passage are in decline

For young people today, ceremonies like school graduations or schoolies trips are even more important than for previous generations.

Declining rates of religious affiliation means religious coming-of-age has also declined in importance. Changing social norms also mean events like debutante balls and weddings are no longer common practice for teenagers and those in their early 20s.

Meanwhile, traditional economic markers of growing up – such as moving out of home, and starting full-time work – are also proving more elusive for young people, thanks to challenging job and housing markets.

Read more: Six graphs that explain Australia’s recession

Schoolies, gap years are even more important

This means other cultural traditions are a critical part of how young people transition to adulthood.

Often when we talk about “muck up” days, schoolies and gap years, debates focus (not always fairly) on the risks involved with young people who are celebrating and testing boundaries.

But research has shown how schoolies and gap year travel act as rituals to mark and manage the otherwise often unremarkable transition to adulthood.

These episodes provide a meaningful break with normal life and past identity. They see young people leave their comfort zone to experience a sense of community with their peers, before moving to the next stage of life.

Similarly, music festivals, while not one-off events, can also provide these experiences. Nightclubs and parties – which have also been significantly curtailed during COVID – are also spaces to escape everyday rules and experience communal energy within the broader period of emerging adulthood.

Lasting impacts?

In addition to the impact on education – which has yet to be fully understood – there are other ways in which the class of 2020 may be roundly disadvantaged.

COVID-19 has changed so many of the cultural experiences young people use to make their way into adulthood.

So, what might be the lasting consequences for this year’s school leavers?

Missing out on rites of passage like schoolies week and festivals could mar the transition into adult society in subtle but palpable ways.

Without such cultural experiences it is harder to know when this change has really happened, to respect its significance and feel a sense of belonging in one’s new social role.

As per Van Gennep’s work, this cohort of young people is also missing chances to bond as a community and to reaffirm their commitment to the social order by temporarily disrupting it.

This is why, in the absence of formal rites of passage, people develop their own replacements, for better or worse. Recent reports of an impromptu rave inside a kebab shop show that young people will find other ways of crossing boundaries together – testing both legal and social norms.

Read more: ‘It really sucks’: how some Year 12 students in Queensland feel about 2020

On a more positive note, our ongoing research with young people about making music during COVID-19 is showing their resilience and creativity in balancing safety with social needs. Online performances are providing some missing ritual and social media also allows a level of community experience.

While we maintain our focus on community health and safety, we must recognise that what might look like frivolous or risky activities can have huge significance for young people as they move into adulthood.

This means they also have huge significance for our society more broadly.

– ref. No festivals, no schoolies: young people are missing out on vital rites of passage during COVID – https://theconversation.com/no-festivals-no-schoolies-young-people-are-missing-out-on-vital-rites-of-passage-during-covid-145097

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Sanger, Research Associate, University of Tasmania

Environmental scientists see flora, fauna and phenomena the rest of us rarely do. In this new series, we’ve invited them to share their unique photos from the field.

Tasmania’s native forests are home to some of the tallest, most beautiful trees in the world. They provide a habitat for many species, from black cockatoos and masked owls to the critically endangered swift parrot.

But these old, giant trees are being logged at alarming rates, despite their enormous ecological and heritage value (and untapped tourism potential). Many were also destroyed in Tasmania’s early 2019 fires.

Read more: Comic explainer: forest giants house thousands of animals (so why do we keep cutting them down?)

Former Greens leader Bob Brown recently launched a legal challenge to Tasmania’s native forest logging. And this year, Forestry Watch, a small group of citizen scientists, found five giant trees measuring more than five metres in diameter inside logging coupes. “Coupes” are areas of forest chopped down in one logging operation.

These trees are too important to be destroyed in the name of the forestry industry. This is why my husband Steve Pearce and I climb, explore and photograph these trees: to raise awareness and foster appreciation for the forests and their magnificent giants.

What makes these trees so special?

Eualypytus regnans, known more commonly as Mountain Ash or Swamp Gum, can grow to 100 metres tall and live for more than 500 years. For a long time this species held the record as the tallest flowering tree. But last year, a 100.8 m tall Yellow Meranti (Shorea faguetiana) in Borneo, claimed the title — surpassing our tallest Eucalypt, named Centrioun, by a mere 30 centimetres.

Centrioun still holds the record as the tallest tree in the southern hemisphere. But five species of Eucalypt also grow above 85 m tall, with many ranking among some of the tallest trees in the world.

It’s not only their height that make these trees special, they’re also the most carbon dense forests in the world, with a single hectare storing more than 1,867 tonnes of carbon.

Read more: Money can’t buy me love, but you can put a price on a tree

Our giant trees and old growth forests provide a myriad of ecological services such as water supply, climate abatement and habitat for threatened species. A 2017 study from the Central Highlands forests in Victoria has shown they’re worth A$310 million for water supply, A$260 million for tourism and A$49 million for carbon storage.

This significantly dwarfs the A$12 million comparison for native forest timber production in the region.

Tasmania’s Big Tree Register

Logging organisation Sustainable Timber Tasmania’s giant tree policy recognises the national and international significance of giant trees. To qualify for protection, trees must be at least 85 m tall or at least an estimated 280 cubic metres in stem volume.

Read more: The Leadbeater’s possum finally had its day in court. It may change the future of logging in Australia

While it’s a good place to start, this policy fails to consider the next generation of big, or truly exceptional trees that don’t quite reach these lofty heights.

That’s why we’ve created Tasmania’s Big Tree Register, an open-source public record of the location and measurements of more than 200 trees to help adventurers and tree-admirers locate and experience these giants for themselves. And, we hope, to protect them.

Last month, three giant trees measuring more than 5 m in diameter were added to the register. But these newly discovered trees are located in coupe TN034G, which is scheduled to be logged this year.

Logging is a very poor economic use for our forests. Native forest logging in Tasmania has struggled to make a profit due to declining demand for non-Forest Stewardship Council certified timber, which Sustainable Timber Tasmania recently failed. In fact, Sustainable Timber Tasmania sustained an eye watering cash loss of A$454 million over 20 years from 1997 to 2017.

Read more: Summer bushfires: how are the plant and animal survivors 6 months on? We mapped their recovery

The following photos can help show why these trees, as one of the great wonders of the world, should be embraced as an important part of our environmental heritage, not turned to wood chips.

It’s not often you get to see the entirety of a tree in a single photo. This tree above is named Gandalf’s Staff and is a Eucalyptus regnans, measuring 84 m tall.

While Mountain Ash is the tallest species, others in Tasmania’s forests are also breathtakingly huge, such as the Tasmanian blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) at 92 m, Manna gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) at 91 m, Alpine ash (Eucalyptus delegatensis) at 88 m and the Messmate Stringybark (Eucalyptus obliqua) at 86 m.

This giant tree, pictured above, was a Messmate Stringybark that was felled in coupe, but was left behind for unknown reasons. Its diameter is 4.4 metres. Other giant trees like this were cut down in this coupe, many of which provided excellent nesting habitat for the critically endangered swift parrot.

Old-growth forests dominated by giant trees are excellent at storing large amounts of carbon. Large trees continue to grow over their lifetime and absorb more carbon than younger trees.

The tree in the photo above is called Obolus, from Greek mythology, with a diameter of 5.1 m. Names are generally given to trees by the person who first records them, and usually reflect the characteristics of the tree or tie in with certain themes.

For example, several trees in a valley are all named after Lord of the Rings characters, such as Gandalf’s Staff (pictured above), Fangorn and Morannon.

Giant trees are typically associated with Californian Redwoods or the Giant Sequoias in the US, where tall tree tourism is huge industry. The estimated revenue in 2012 from just four Coastal Redwood reserves is A$58 million dollars per year, providing more than 500 jobs to the local communities.

Few Australians are aware of our own impressive trees. We could easily boost tourism to regional communities in Tasmania if the money was invested into tall tree infrastructure.

– ref. Photos from the field: capturing the grandeur and heartbreak of Tasmania’s giant trees – https://theconversation.com/photos-from-the-field-capturing-the-grandeur-and-heartbreak-of-tasmanias-giant-trees-144743

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yannick Thoraval, Lecturer, RMIT University

Some of my students have been assaulted. Others have been homeless, jobless or broke, some suffer from depression, anxiety or grief. Some fight addiction, cancer or for custody. Many are in pain and they want to write about it.

Opening wounds in the classroom is messy and risky. Boundaries and intentions can feel blurred in a class where memories and feelings also present teachable moments. But if teachers and students work together, opportunities to share difficult personal stories can be constructive.

Writing about trauma

The health benefits of writing about trauma are well documented. Some counselling theories — such as narrative therapy — incorporate writing into their therapeutic techniques.

Research suggests writing about trauma can be beneficial because it helps people re-evaluate their experiences by looking at them from different perspectives.

Studies suggest writing about traumatic events can help ease the emotional pressure of negative experiences. But writing about trauma is not a cure-all and it may be less effective if people are also struggling with ongoing mental health challenges, such as depression or post-traumatic stress disorder.

Internationally acclaimed researcher and clinician Bessel van der Kolk asserts in his book, The Body Keeps the Score, that trauma is more than a stored memory to be expunged. Rather, van der Kolk suggests our whole mind, brain and sense of self can change in response to trauma.

Pain is complicated. And teachers in a classroom are not counsellors in a clinic.

If properly managed, though, sharing stories about personal suffering can be a relevant and valuable educational experience. It’s a strategy my colleagues and I call “lit therapy”.

An empathetic space

Dr Jill Parris is a psychologist who works with refugees and uses lit therapy as an extension of trauma counselling. Parris and I also worked together on the project Home Truths: An Anthology of Refugee and Migrant Writing, which paired refugee authors with a writing mentor to develop personal stories about challenging migrant journeys to Australia.

Read more: Note to self: a pandemic is a great time to keep a diary, plus 4 tips for success

Parris says writing about trauma is helpful in most cases, as long as teachers and their students monitor stress levels and offer an empathetic space where storytellers are given the time and tools to manage the complex feelings that may surface.

“It is important that people feel absolutely free to avoid focusing on traumatic events and this should be made clear from the start,” says Parris.

Teachers should therefore be wary of implying traumatic personal stories are inherently worthy subjects, that divulgence alone is more likely to receive a higher grade or publication. It isn’t. In fact, sharing a story may be detrimental. It may be unfair to the author’s future self, the other people involved in their experience, or to the piece’s intention for its readers.

Helping individual students identify their own readiness to share personal experiences is an important first step. Parris recommends asking students how they know they are ready to share their story. What has changed to make them ready? Answering these questions helps people sit outside themselves.

As teachers, we also need to be mindful that sharing painful memories presents a risk for those hearing them.

Vicarious trauma

Vicarious trauma is a real threat. To help mitigate the risk of emotional contagion, teachers should check in with students at the beginning and end of class to monitor feelings, reminding people they are in the present, that the trauma they recounted or heard was survived.

If people feel stressed, Parris recommends looking around and forcing ourselves to name what we see, hear, feel, taste and smell as a way of returning to the present. Discussing what people will do outside class to care for themselves is also useful.

As teachers, it is important to help our students organise their thoughts and feelings in relation to the craft of professional writing, which is writing intended for consumption by an anonymous reader.

Students are likely to write what they’re passionate about — the good, the bad and the ugly. Their best writing comes out of what’s meaningful to them. Teachers can help guide their students’ search for authenticity.

Read more: What my students taught me about reading: old books hold new insights for the digital generation

Feelings and experiences matter, but writers and readers also want to know what they mean. Revealing how masters of personal storytelling bridge the personal and the universal is useful in demonstrating the broader purpose of sharing stories.

Story craft is part of how author Joan Didion’s The Year of Magical Thinking is both a personal reflection and a forensic investigation of grief. Part of a writing teacher’s job is exploring how personal stories can contribute to the archive of collective human experience.

While I work with adult students, there is also evidence narrative writing exercises can help children and teenagers process thoughts and emotions related to challenging personal events.

This work is emotionally demanding. Scenes of horrible things people have told me occasionally invade my mind, as if another person’s lived experience orbits my own memories. It’s unsettling. It’s also why stories matter. Because hearing them can help us better understand the people who share them. Stories help us glimpse the humanity in the hardship, showing us while pain is universal, compassion is too.

If you are struggling with mental health, it may be helpful to consult your doctor or contact Lifeline 13 11 14 or Beyond Blue 1300 22 4636.

– ref. ‘Lit therapy’ in the classroom: writing about trauma can be valuable, if done right – https://theconversation.com/lit-therapy-in-the-classroom-writing-about-trauma-can-be-valuable-if-done-right-145379

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Felton, Honorary Senior Lecturer, Creative Industries Faculty, Queensland University of Technology

The reopening of cafes has been one of the highlights of relaxed COVID-19 restrictions for many Australians. During lockdowns, long queues for takeaway coffee were testimony to caffeine’s relevance to our lives.

Yet the precarious employment of so many hospitality workers meant hundreds of thousands of casual café workers and café owners lost work. Rents and mortgages were suspended or lost, upturning countless lives. At the other end of the coffee supply chain, many coffee farmers in poorer countries, who were already struggling to make a living, are doing it even tougher.

Read more: A tale of two coffee farmers: how they are surviving the pandemic in Honduras

The pandemic has exposed the widening wealth gap in our global economy, and nowhere is this better illustrated than by our daily coffee fix. The multi-billion-dollar global coffee industry relies on vulnerable workers at both ends of the supply chain: the café worker serving your coffee and the struggling farmer who grew your coffee beans.

It’s an industry steeped in its colonial past, whose massive profits were built on the back of African slave labour.

An unequal business

Coffee is big business, mostly for coffee merchants in affluent countries. It’s among the world’s most-traded commodities and we consume nearly 10 million tons of coffee a year. That’s about 2.25 billion cups a day worldwide. Since 2000 global consumption has increased by 38%.

Over 80% of the world’s coffee comes from 25 million small-scale farmers and 60% is produced by farmers on less than 5 hectares. Many of them struggle to make a decent living.

Read more: Sustainable shopping: here’s how to find coffee that doesn’t cost the Earth

Coffee’s production and consumption echo its 18th-century origins as a global industry. It’s mostly consumed by people in affluent countries and produced by agricultural workers in the poorer global south.

The coffee industry’s business model is based on a type of neo-colonialism, dominated by a handful of transnational coffee merchants whose profits are bountiful. Plantation economies in developing countries were established by colonial empires whose use of slavery spearheaded the rapid growth of the industry.

The Spanish introduced the use of slaves from Africa in the Caribbean and Latin America. They were quickly followed by the Portuguese in Brazil, then British and French colonialists in the West Indies. African slaves were considered “robust, disease resistant and productive” – physically superior to the local indigenous populations of the Americas, many of whom died from diseases such as cholera and smallpox.

Producers live with poverty and hunger

While the type of slavery that launched the coffee industry no longer exists, other inequities remain. Coffee producers are among the most vulnerable members of the supply chain. When we buy our coffee, most of us are unaware of the bean’s provenance and the arduous labour of workers in small-scale plantations.

It’s estimated almost half of the world’s smallholder coffee producers live in poverty. Most of them are in East Africa, but others are in Latin America and Asia.

Many coffee farmers suffer chronic seasonal hunger. Unlike famine, this occurs between harvest seasons, when the previous year’s food stocks have dwindled, food prices are high and income is scarce.

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the scarcity of food supplies that were already sporadic. The closure of national borders has further reduced access.

Trying to make the coffee trade fairer

In response to the industry’s inequities, many initiatives are seeking fairer and sustainable outcomes for coffee farmers and for the environment. Some have been in place for decades. Of the programs established by NGOs, governments, multinational companies and other organisations, Fair Trade and Direct Trade are among the better-known ones.

More recently, the 2007 International Coffee Agreement is designed to promote a more equitable coffee trade to support smallholder farmers throughout the world. To overcome problems such as very low wages, poor housing and gender inequality, to name a few, these schemes are by necessity site-specific. Despite some success stories, the complexity of the industry and the wide variety of contexts presents barriers to consistent equitable outcomes and results are mixed.

Read more: Nine myths about Indonesian specialty coffee farmers and development

Another approach in the growing speciality coffee sector – independent cafes serving high-quality coffee – is upending traditional business models. An increasing number of entrepreneurs in affluent countries are forming direct partnerships with coffee farmers. The aim here is both ethical and business-focused: to ensure consistent bean quality and provide a fairer income for coffee producers through direct trade.

The supply chain of coffee and cafes is a complex network of producers, distributors and services. Like all industries affected by the pandemic, some operators will survive and others will go to the wall.

While the pandemic’s impact is an unfolding story, it has brought into sharper focus inequalities in a thriving industry. Fault lines are evident across both producing and consuming nations, with many of those who work in the plantations and in our cafes on the wrong side of the divide.

It might give us something to think about as we enjoy our next coffee from our local café.

– ref. A dark brew: coffee, COVID and colonialism have left millions struggling to make a living – https://theconversation.com/a-dark-brew-coffee-covid-and-colonialism-have-left-millions-struggling-to-make-a-living-143274

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Wood, Chief executive officer, Grattan Institute

The prime minister wants the states to open their wallets. Although he has warned them not to “make whoopee”, his message is blunt: “The Commonwealth cannot do all the fiscal heavy lifting on its own”.

The Reserve Bank governor is more circumspect, but also says the states have an “important” role in the fiscal response to the COVID recession and “can do more over time”.

Have the states been slacking off? At first glance, it appears so. The Commonwealth’s stimulus contribution so far is more than A$170 billion, compared to less than A$30 billion from all of the state and territory governments.

To date, it’s the Feds more than the states

The Commonwealth has spent almost 9% of national output on stimulus, whereas no state except Tasmania has spent more than 2% of its own output.

The two biggest states, NSW and Victoria, have each spent little more than 1%.

But these measures tell only part of the story. The Commonwealth has greater spending power because it has more revenue to draw from, and the states get about half their revenue from the Commonwealth.

These disparities account for some of the unbalanced effort, but not all of it.

Excluding what it passes on to the states, the Commonwealth’s revenue as a share of gross domestic product is about twice that of most states as a share of gross state product.

Yet its COVID response has been almost six times as big.

Read more: The big stimulus spending has just begun. Here’s how to get it right, quickly

Although the Commonwealth is the main funder for several of the traditional stimulus levers – including the welfare and personal income tax systems – the states also spend money in areas that can be used to stimulate the economy.

The most important include social housing, health, education, and industry support.

There’s also plenty of “room to move” on state government balance sheets – all six states entered this crisis with net debt below 15% of gross state product and with interest and depreciation costs less than 2% of gross state product. All were projecting operating surpluses.

Their borrowing costs, though higher than the Commonwealth’s, are still exceptionally low.

NSW and Victoria can borrow for 10 years at an interest rate just over 1%, far below the Reserve Bank’s inflation target band, making the money free in real terms.

More is needed from both

All of this suggests our states can and should do more to support the recovery.

But the Commonwealth will also need to do more. Like the states, it has room to spend more, and it should.

The Reserve Bank expects unemployment to peak at 10% in the December quarter and still be as high as 7% in December 2022.

That’s too high for too long.

Read more: Cutting unemployment will require an extra $70 to $90 billion in stimulus. Here’s why

To avoid this scenario, the Grattan Institute recommended in June that governments of both kinds plan for $70-to-$90 billion in extra stimulus over the next two years to bring unemployment down to 5% and get wages growing again.

The renewed economic fallout from State 4 restrictions in Melbourne means that the response will now need to be even larger.

There are many things governments can do beyond the extensions of JobKeeper and JobSeeker already announced.

A banquet of options

The Commonwealth could introduce a wage subsidy for new employees beyond March. And it should boost the childcare subsidy to help parents who have lost jobs or hours during the downturn to re-enter work.

It could also amplify state investments in infrastructure and services that create jobs and serve social needs: social housing and mental health services are obvious candidates. The tutoring program to help disadvantaged students that Grattan proposed in June also fits this bill.

Well-targeted personal income tax cuts or better, a tax bonus, targeted at low and middle income earners, can also help boost demand, including in worst-hit sectors such as hospitality, tourism, and the arts.

Read more: No snapback: Reserve Bank no longer confident of quick bounce out of recession

But tax cuts generally don’t provide as much economic kicker as others forms of government stimulus because more of the money “leaks” to savings.

Announcing a permanent boost to JobSeeker beyond December would put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it.

Other ideas such as a temporary GST holiday or electronic vouchers to spend in certain sectors – an idea being adopted in Britain – have the advantage of being temporary and targeted.

There is a banquet of worthwhile options governments should be considering – and they shouldn’t fight over who picks up the tab.

If governments of both kinds don’t do more, the recession will last longer.

Maybe it wouldn’t hurt to make a little whoopee. The downside of doing too little way exceeds the potential downside of doing too much.

– ref. Morrison is right. All governments will need to spend more to get us out of the crisis – https://theconversation.com/morrison-is-right-all-governments-will-need-to-spend-more-to-get-us-out-of-the-crisis-145449

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

The federal government has nailed down two possible vaccine sources with supply and production agreements with pharmaceutical companies worth $1.7 billion.

The agreements mean the University of Oxford/AstraZeneca and the University of Queensland/CSL would provide more than 84.8 million vaccine doses, almost entirely manufactured in Melbourne.

The success of either vaccine still has to be demonstrated, but trials are encouraging.

If all goes well, there would be access to 3.8 million doses of the University of Oxford vaccine in January and February.

Read more: The Oxford deal is welcome, but remember the vaccine hasn’t been proven to work yet

The government promises a vaccine would be made available free.

Earlier it announced it had signed a letter of intent for the Oxford vaccine.

Scott Morrison said there were “no guarantees” these vaccines would prove successful. “However the agreement puts Australia at the top of the queue, if our medical experts give the vaccines the green light.”

“By securing the production and supply agreements, Australians will be among the first in the world to receive a safe and effective vaccine, should it pass late stage testing,” he said.

The government is also exploring other promising vaccines which are being developed and it may invest further.

If successful, the Oxford vaccines would be available from the start of next year, and the UQ ones from mid year. There would be 33.8 million doses of the Oxford vaccine and 51 million of the UQ one.

More than 95% of doses would be manufactured in Australia.

Each person would have a dose of one vaccine followed by a second dose of the same one within a few weeks. First to get the vaccine would be people most at risk of COVID and health workers.

The government said the agreements it had secured allowed for more orders to be negotiated and for doses to be donated or on-sold, without mark-ups, to other countries or international organisations. Morrison has stressed Australia wants to help Pacific countries and other regional neighbours get early access.

Late stage phase 3 trials are underway for the Oxford vaccine. Phase 1 clinical trials for the UQ vaccine began in mid-July in Brisbane. If this is successful, CSL will take responsibility for the Phase 2b/3 clinical trial, expected to begin late this year.

The government would run a strong campaign to encourage people to be vaccinated, but this would not be compulsory.

Read more: Grattan on Friday: Scott Morrison hypes vaccine hopes but there is a long road ahead

– ref. Morrison government secures two possible vaccine supplies with agreements worth $1.7 billion – https://theconversation.com/morrison-government-secures-two-possible-vaccine-supplies-with-agreements-worth-1-7-billion-145678

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

Victoria’s ultra-cautious roadmap out of its lockdown, outlined by Daniel Andrews on Sunday, reinforced the strong message that came from Friday’s national cabinet.

Premiers are in the driving seat of exiting COVID restrictions, and they are imposing the strictest speed limits – much slower than Scott Morrison would like – and ignoring federal government pressure.

Western Australia’s Mark McGowan defied Morrison’s plan on Friday. Queensland’s Annastacia Palaszczuk made it clear she won’t open her state’s border with NSW until she’s good and ready.

Now, unsurprisingly, Andrews has indicated he will not be hurried, despite the cries from business and the sound of Canberra’s grinding teeth.

Andrews stressed his timetable “is not what many people want to hear – but it is the only option”. He warned “you can’t run” out of lockdown – or there would be a third wave.

The Morrison government doesn’t think it is the only option, and didn’t mince words in a statement quickly issued from the PM, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Health Minister Greg Hunt (the latter two are Victorians).

“To extend lockdown arrangements will be hard and crushing news for the people of Victoria,” they said.

Just in case anyone doubted where to sheet blame, this was “a further reminder of the impact and costs that result from not being able to contain the outbreaks of COVID 19”.

The statement stressed the roadmap was “a Victorian government plan”, distancing the feds from any ownership.

The tone was very different from Morrison’s words to parliament last Tuesday, when he said “Victoria has turned the corner and we, together with the Victorian government, are planning to reopen Melbourne and reopen Victoria”.

Sunday’s federal statement declared “the proposed roadmap will come at a further economic cost.”

“While this needs to be weighed up against mitigating the risk of further community outbreak, it is also true that the continued restrictions will have further impact on the Victorian and national economy, in further job losses and loss of livelihoods, as well as impacting on mental health.”

The federal government will talk to business in Victoria “to understand their concerns and seek to ensure they are addressed”.

Morrison and his ministers also had fresh praise for the NSW government, which has its economy running despite a continuing low levels of cases. They highlighted the Berejiklian government’s successful contact tracing.

Federal help is being offered to strengthen Victorian contact tracing, in the (probably vain) hope that could put the Victorian foot on the accelerator.

Andrews has used elaborate modelling in reaching his strategy. But his critics argue the benchmarks, particularly at the back end of the timetable, are unrealistic.

For example, the last step in Melbourne’s easing, dated from November 23, is contingent on “no new cases for 14 days (state-wide)”.

It was quickly pointed out if the Andrews’ road map were in place in NSW, that state would have a curfew now.

NSW’s tally announced on Sunday was 10 new cases to 8pm Saturday. The Melbourne curfew is to be lifted from October 26 if there is a statewide daily average over the previous fortnight of less than five new cases and a statewide total of less than five cases with unknown sources over that period.

For the immediate future, in Melbourne there will be an additional fortnight – beyond next weekend – of the hard lockdown, with some minimal tweaking.

The overnight curfew will start an hour later (at 9pm), exercise can be up to two hours, and singles will be able to form a bubble with someone else.

From September 28, if the cases have come down (latest tally on Sunday was 63) to 30-50 daily average over the previous fortnight, there will be gradual relaxations including the re-opening of childcare. The state government says step two would see about 100,000 people return to work across a number of sectors, including construction and manufacturing.

But Melbourne businesses in retail and hospitality will not be able to start to getting back to reasonable activity until the end of October, and hospitality will be strictly limited.

The restrictions in regional Victoria will be eased from their already lighter base.

Business is up in arms. The Australian Industry Group predicted “catastrophic economic, health and social damage caused by the continued lockdown and [the] prospect of more months of sharply diminished activity”.

Frydenberg said a week ago that on Treasury estimates, in the December and March quarters more Victorians were expected to be on JobKeeper than in every other state combined. The roadmap could see the numbers even higher than anticipated.

The Andrews timetable will put pressure on the Victorian government but also on Morrison.

Andrews’ hard line is stretching the tolerance of Victorians. Not only will many local businesses believe they can’t survive the longer restrictions, but some voters will be reaching levels of deep stress.

The pressure points on the federal government come from various directions.

There have been calls for it to just “do something”, to intervene to override what are being seen as recalcitrant states. However it is not obvious it would have viable power to do so.

Even if it could intervene, it would be high risk – on health, economic and political grounds – to do so.

The extended Victorian lockdown will increase demands for the government to provide more stimulus for the economy, and bolster the calls of those who say JobKeeper and the Coronavirus supplement should not be phased down.

The Victorian roadmap won’t just feed into the budget numbers, but affect the public climate in which the October budget is brought down.

In that budget, the government will be talking up hope. But on October 6, Victorians hearing that budget will be still under curfew, confined to takeaways, unable to see extended family.

“I want all of us to stay the course so that we can all have something approaching a normal Christmas,” Andrews said on Sunday. It will require quite a feat to deliver that, on the terms of this strict roadmap.

– ref. View from The Hill: Daniel Andrews frustrates Scott Morrison with a slow-pace lockdown exit – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-daniel-andrews-frustrates-scott-morrison-with-a-slow-pace-lockdown-exit-145676

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laxman Bablani, Research Fellow, Population Interventions Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne

The Victorian government today announced the eagerly anticipated roadmap out of COVID-19 lockdown. It features several steps that reflect a much slower relaxing of restrictions than last time around.

While the government has provided a provisional time frame for the various steps, it is data, not dates, that will determine when restrictions are actually eased.

We applaud this strategy. The virus does not obey a timeline. Rather, we have to beat it down to a level at which easing of restrictions is safer.

What was announced?

Metropolitan Melbourne’s current stage 4 restrictions will be extended for two weeks, to September 27. But from 11:59pm on September 13, there will be a few key changes.

The nightly curfew will be shortened by one hour, and will be in place from 9pm to 5am. Also, two people or a single household can meet outdoors for two hours maximum, up from the previous one hour, for exercise or recreation.

For people living alone, and single parents with children under 18, there will be a “single person bubble” policy that allows them to designate one other person who can visit their home.

Regional Victoria is already faring better than Melbourne, and will have a faster timeline.

Premier Daniel Andrews wants to maximise the chance of getting to Christmas in something like stage 1, while minimising the chance of a third wave of infection that sends the state back into lockdown. This means staying in strict restrictions for longer, and easing out more gradually.

How did data influence the decision?

The Victorian government’s decision was based in part on the output of a model developed by researchers at the University of Melbourne and the University of New England. It simulates population movements in a simplified world, based on parameters that describe the spread of COVID-19 and people’s interactions with each other.

In the real world, these patterns are highly random. So the researchers ran the model 1,000 times, with thresholds for relaxing (or tightening) restrictions set at an average of 25, 10, and 5 cases per day on a fortnightly basis. The model could then report the probability, under a given set of policy settings, of having to lock Victoria down again before Christmas.

Read more: Victoria’s path out of COVID-19 lockdown – quick reference guides

Opening up too soon is likely to cause a third wave. In simulations in which restrictions were eased once average daily cases dipped below 25 per day, there was a 62% likelihood of new lockdowns. But with restrictions retained until daily cases dropped below 5 daily cases, the lockdown likelihood was just 3%.

Viewed in that light, it is easy to see why the Andrews government opted to set strict criteria for lifting restrictions, knowing that short-term pain is better than the economic ravages of another lockdown in the long term.

What might hold Victoria back?

First, there’s the elephant in the room — the quality of Victorian contact tracing (especially in comparison to New South Wales). Living with the virus requires high-quality contact tracing. There’s no doubt contact tracing in Victoria has improved since June when our second wave started. There is therefore a real possibility that we may get the case numbers down faster, and hold off resurgences of case numbers more effectively or for longer than the modelling suggests.

Second, infection disease control in health care and aged care has not been up to scratch in Victoria (compared with, dare we say it again, New South Wales). These represent particularly dangerous settings. Older adults are much more likely to become severely ill with COVID-19, whereas health-care workers who become infected with the coronavirus risk infecting the most vulnerable and reduce health capacity when it is most needed.

And of course, health and aged care workers live in the community too, and if community restrictions are relaxed the virus will leak back out through family members and surge again. The Victorian government decided to deal with both community and health-care transmission simultaneously. We think that it is the right approach.

Is elimination still possible?

There were strong arguments for an explicit elimination strategy back in early July, requiring “going hard” for a six-week lockdown. Unfortunately, Victoria didn’t go hard early enough. The government waited three weeks, numbers got out of control, and then we went into stage 4. With the benefit of hindsight, it was a huge missed opportunity.

The Grattan Institute is also arguing strongly for an explicit elimination strategy and much longer hard lockdowns. It argues this will result in better economic outcomes in the long run. An impressive modelling paper by Australian National University researchers also supports the theory that elimination is better for both health and the economy in the long run (although this paper has not yet been peer-reviewed).

However, things have changed in the past two months. First, we are now closer to a vaccine, so in theory the long-term payoff for short-term pain will arrive sooner. Second, New Zealand (and Queensland) have taught us that elimination can be lost. Third, NSW has taught us you can live with the virus at low levels (so far). Fourth, the imminent border openings and hotspot strategy are not really consistent with the hard border controls needed to defend elimination in places that achieve it.

Andrews aptly termed the state’s strategy “aggressive suppression”. It may even achieve elimination, as the first wave effort so nearly did. We hope it does – but do not bank on it.

It’s in our hands now, both the government and citizens. With some good luck – and few would begrudge Victorians a little of that – the roadmap will pan out as planned.

– ref. ‘Slow and steady’ exit from lockdown as Victorian government sets sights on ‘COVID-normal’ Christmas – https://theconversation.com/slow-and-steady-exit-from-lockdown-as-victorian-government-sets-sights-on-covid-normal-christmas-145558

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Hopkin, Editor, Science + Technology, Health + Medicine, The Conversation

Victorian Premier Dan Andrews and Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton on Sunday announced steps to slowly ease COVID-19 restrictions in metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria.

There are four steps before Victoria totally opens up – a goal Andrews refers to as “COVID-normal”. Melburnians will have to wait a bit longer than regional Victorians before an easing of curfews and restrictions on leaving the house.

But there is now a clear set of thresholds and restrictions for what a COVID “safe” Victoria should look like over the coming months:

The easing of restrictions for regional Victoria starts at Step 2, and involves some thresholds that are independent of metropolitan Melbourne.

– ref. Victoria’s path out of COVID-19 lockdown – quick reference guides – https://theconversation.com/victorias-path-out-of-covid-19-lockdown-quick-reference-guides-145674

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

The national cabinet, created to impose maximum unity on Australia’s response to COVID, has formally fractured. It hasn’t broken altogether, but the rubber band holding it together has been stretched too far and has now dramatically slackened.

Scott Morrison, who created the body to maximise his authority in a situation where the federal government did not have constitutional power, finally came up against the limits of his construct.

Morrison announced after Friday’s meeting that from now on, national cabinet will no longer operate on a consensus model; it will acknowledge differences rather than striving for unanimity.

Of course, previously there wasn’t unanimity on some critical issues – schools, borders. They were pushed off and states simply went their own ways.

On Friday, seven of the eight states and territories agreed to aim to open things up by Christmas, using some “hotspot” approach as a basis.

Western Australia was the one jurisdiction that opted out. With an election next year and sky-high popularity based on the success of a hard border, WA premier Mark McGowan was never going to limit his options.

The other major rebel, Queensland’s Annastacia Palaszczuk, has signed up to the December aim, but she has left herself the wriggle room she needs.

She hasn’t agreed to a particular definition of a hot spot. The Queensland election will be over by the end of October, and you can be confident she’ll run her own race until then.

Morrison likened the situation to getting people onto a bus. “Not everyone has to get on the bus for the bus to leave the station”, he said. “But it is important the bus leaves the station, and we all agree on that. […] Even when, on occasions, some might not want to get on, they know we need to keep moving forward.”

Morrison originally had hoped to have the health advisers settle on a hotspot definition, on the basis of which he could pressure states to bring down borders.

But it became clear that hope would fall at two hurdles. The federal and state health officials, who come together in the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, did not all embrace a definition. And the outlier states would not cede their autonomy.

Like the national cabinet, the illusion of unity in the AHPPC – which operated on a “consensus” basis – has ended. The federal government has produced its own definition, but what will be more generally accepted as defining a hotspot remains a work-in-progress.

The federal government has been for weeks trying to arm-twist Queensland in particular. But the power over borders resides with the states, and they will use it when it’s in their interests to do so.

McGowan was blunt. At a news conference after the meeting, he described WA as an “island within an island” (shades of that old WA secessionist feeling), and boasted how well it was doing economically.

“We’re very, very proud West Australians but we’re also loyal Australians. States rights mean that premiers and state governments can do what they have to, in my view, to protect our citizens and protect our jobs. But we’re still part of the commonwealth, we’re still part of the nation. We still serve in the defence forces. We’re still Anzacs.”

He hoped the east of Australia would come to an “even greater appreciation” of what WA did for the country. “We carry the nation’s economy.”

McGowan spoke positively about Morrison; earlier Morrison had stressed special circumstances applied to WA. Their mutual public amiability reflected there had been a test of strength, and McGowan had won. It wasn’t for the first time. Some weeks ago, the federal government pulled out of Clive Palmer’s case against WA, under the weight of WA public opinion.

It’s part of Morrison’s pragmatic style to pivot when he is rebuffed. He seeks another route to his objective. An assertive stance is replaced by a conciliatory one. When you don’t have the power to coerce, you have to cajole.

Morrison wants to encourage Victoria to ease its restrictions as fast as the health imperatives allow; he wants Queensland welcoming tourists. But Dan Andrews’ Sunday roadmap will be cautious. As for Queensland, Morrison will have to wait until after the state election, when Palaszczuk might be more amenable – she did get on the Friday “bus” – or will have been replaced by a compliant new government.

On Thursday, Morrison told parliament the leaders should aim to make Australia “whole” again by Christmas. That deadline is looking very arbitrary.

“Wholeness” will eventually come, but certain conditions will have to be met. The Victorian outbreak must be conquered. The situation in NSW must be further stabilised.

Morrison talks of twin health and economic crises, but the polls suggest the health issue has the dominant grip on the public psyche. Until community transmission is stopped or minimal in Victoria and NSW the public mindset will impede the economic recovery.

Above all, that recovery requires public confidence – and that in turn needs the removal, or near removal, of fear of infection. Even where that fear may be excessive, it has become a roadblock to a return to normality.

What does the recalibration of the national cabinet’s dynamic mean for that institution, much praised when it started?

In the context of the pandemic national cabinet remains useful, despite having taken a bruising this week. It is a clearing house for information; it forces leaders to communicate regularly; it encourages them to seek constructive solutions (even though we have seen that has its limits); it helps cut through bureaucracy.

For the longer term, this week’s experience indicates the national cabinet does not promise a new nirvana of co-operative federalism. But that was always hype.

When a constitution divides power between a central government and state governments, there will inevitably be a mix of conflict and co-operation. What has stood out in the border wars is just how “federalist” the Australian federation can on occasion become.

The definition of “COVID-19 hotspot” as provided by Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly can be found here

– ref. The wild west channels those old secessionist dreams by refusing to get on Scott Morrison’s COVID bus – https://theconversation.com/the-wild-west-channels-those-old-secessionist-dreams-by-refusing-to-get-on-scott-morrisons-covid-bus-145630

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richelle Mychasiuk, Associate Professor (Research), Department of Neuroscience, Monash University

News emerged this week former AFL footballer Danny Frawley was suffering from a brain disease called CTE when he died last year, according to reports received by the Victorian Coroner.

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE, refers to changes in the brain that have been linked to repeated blows to the head, sometimes seen in former players of sports such as rugby and Australian and American football codes. It’s believed these changes relate to an abnormal buildup of a protein called “tau” in the brain, which can damage brain cells.

Frawley’s is the second confirmed case of CTE in a former AFL player, while two former NRL players are also thought to have had the condition.

CTE has prompted concern among the media and public, and researchers still don’t fully understand the condition. It is not yet clear whether CTE is directly caused by repeated hits to the head, as the condition has also been found in people with no known history of repetitive brain trauma.

There’s been a big increase in research on the topic over the past decade, which will hopefully teach us more about the condition and its possible treatments. But this will only happen if more funding is given to scientists to study it.

What are the symptoms?

The prevalence of CTE is unknown. Although it’s believed to be more common in athletes who suffer repeated head injuries, there has been no rigorous epidemiological study to confirm this claim. This may be because there’s no consensus on how to diagnose it while someone is alive – CTE can currently only be diagnosed retrospectively via an autopsy of brain tissue.

What’s more, the symptoms attributed to CTE are common in the general population, and are not specific to the condition. They range from mental health issues such as depression and anxiety, to substance abuse, suicidal behaviour, and even marital problems.

Proponents of CTE argue it’s a distinct neurodegenerative disease, separate from conditions such as Alzheimer’s. But other researchers say the brain changes in CTE are not unique, not necessarily progressive, and not specific to people exposed to repeated brain injury.

Where is the research up to?

Significant strides have been made in developing tools that may help diagnose or predict CTE in living people. These include brain imaging methods that might allow for the early detection of the specific tau changes believed to occur in the condition. Other research has focused on identifying genetic factors that may make some individuals more susceptible to CTE.

Scientists have also been investigating potential treatments, both for the symptoms and the underlying biological causes of CTE. For example, our laboratory at Monash University’s Department of Neuroscience has found a drug called sodium selenate can reduce the amount of abnormal forms of tau. This drug is currently in clinical trials for Alzheimer’s and another condition called frontotemporal dementia. It has also been shown to reduce the extent of cognitive deficits in rodents with repeated mild brain trauma.

Concussions can be devastating, even without CTE

While Frawley’s tragic death has renewed the focus on CTE, it’s important to recognise there are other devastating neurological complications that may be more likely to result from repetitive head injury. In particular, the risk of suffering from persistent post-concussion symptoms such headache, dizziness, and fatigue appears to be significantly greater in people with a history of multiple concussions.

Risk of these symptoms persisting after a concussion appears to be particularly high if repeat concussions happen in short succession. Some researchers think the recently concussed brain may have a “window of increased vulnerability” to repeated concussion. However, the length of time, and the underlying biological causes, of this vulnerable period are not yet well understood.

Read more: For an unlucky 10% of people with concussion, the symptoms may be long-lasting

In sport, this creates a lot of uncertainty around when it’s OK for a previously concussed athlete to resume playing. Caution around allowing players to get back on the field is increasingly appreciated in some sporting codes, conveyed in the widely touted “when in doubt, sit them out” message.

But what we don’t know yet is, for how long? In attempt to shed some light on this, our laboratory is investigating how new blood and MRI tests may be able to objectively indicate when the brain has recovered from concussion and is no longer in a vulnerable state, thereby allowing previously concussed athletes to resume playing.

In the meantime, we must use the current knowledge available to manage the risks from blows to the head. Many sports have implemented rule changes in an attempt to decrease the risk of brain injury, which is welcome. Some people have gone further, advocating for participation in collision or contact sports to be banned to prevent CTE.

Read more: Sports coaches need to be educated about concussion to keep players safe on the field

But when considering this option, it’s important to emphasise evidence of CTE in people with no known history of repetitive brain trauma or collision sport participation. Further, there are many health benefits to participating in sport. In fact, exercise is considered a promising treatment strategy for both concussion and neurodegenerative disorders.

While we wait for further discoveries about CTE, it’s important to carefully weigh the known negatives and positives of sport participation. The interaction between physical activity and brain health is complex; we cannot ignore the problem of repeated brain trauma in sports, but stopping participation in all contact sports will also not lead to optimal brain health.

Making informed, evidence-based decisions about risk and benefit needs to rely on objective data (of which we need much more) rather than media hype.

– ref. Here’s what we know about CTE, the brain condition that affected Danny Frawley – https://theconversation.com/heres-what-we-know-about-cte-the-brain-condition-that-affected-danny-frawley-145395

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Bloomer, Associate Professor, Nursing, Deakin University

While the number of new COVID-19 cases in Victoria continues to trend downwards, we’re still seeing a significant number of deaths from the disease.

The ongoing outbreaks in aged care, and the fact community transmission is continuing to occur, mean it’s likely there will be many more deaths to come.

As a result of strict infection control measures restricting hospital visitors, tragically, many people who have died from COVID-19 have died alone. Family members have missed out on the opportunity to provide comfort to the dying person, to sit with them at their bedside, and to say goodbye.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. We have cause to consider whether perhaps we could do more to preserve the patient-family connection at the end of life.

Who can visit?

There’s some variation between Victorian health-care facilities in how visitor restrictions are applied. Some allow visitors to enter hospitals for compassionate reasons, such as when a person is dying. But visitors are not permitted for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The latest figures show 20 Victorians are in an intensive care unit (ICU) with 13 on a ventilator. This indicates their situation is critical.

Read more: Only 25% of older Australians have an advance care plan. Coronavirus makes it even more important

Despite hospitals, and particularly ICUs, being adequately prepared and resourced to provide high-level care for people diagnosed with COVID-19, patients will still die.

Family-centred care at the end of life in intensive care is a core feature of nursing care. So in the face of this unprecedented global pandemic, we realised we needed to navigate the rules and restrictions associated with infection prevention and control and find a way to allow families to say goodbye.

Our recommendations

We’ve published a set of practice recommendations to guide critical care nurses in facilitating next-of-kin visits to patients dying from COVID-19 in ICUs. The Australian College of Critical Care Nurses and the Australasian College for Infection Prevention and Control have jointly endorsed this position statement.

The recommendations are evidence-based, reflecting current infection prevention and control directives, and provide step-by-step instructions for facilitating a family visit.

Read more: A coronavirus spike may put ICU beds in short supply. But that doesn’t mean the elderly shouldn’t get them

Some of the key recommendations include:

• family visits should be limited to one person — the next-of-kin — and that person should be well

• the visitor must be able to drive directly to and from the hospital to limit exposure to others

• they should dress in single-layer clothing suitable for hot machine wash after the visit, remove jewellery, and carry as few valuables as possible

• on arrival, staff should prepare the visitor for what they will see when they enter, what they may do, and what they may not do (for example, it would be OK to touch your loved one with a gloved hand)

• a staff member trained in the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) should assist the visitor to put on PPE (a gown, surgical mask, goggles and gloves) and after the visit, to take it off, dispose of it safely and wash their hands

• where possible, the visitor should be given time alone with their loved one, with instructions on how to seek staff assistance if necessary.

We also highlight the importance of intensive care staff ensuring emotional support is provided to the family member during and immediately after the visit.

Tailoring the guidance

It’s too early to know the full impact a loved one’s isolated death during COVID-19 may have on next-of-kin and extended family. But the effect is likely to be profound, extending beyond the immediate grief and complicating the bereavement process.

These recommendations are not meant to be prescriptive, nor can they be applied in every circumstance or intensive care setting.

We encourage intensive care teams to consider what will work for their unit and team. This may include considerations such as:

• whether there are adequate facilities in which the visitor can be briefed and don PPE

• whether social distancing is possible with current unit occupancy and staffing

• whether an appropriately skilled clinician is available to coordinate and manage the family visit

• each patient’s unique clinical and social situation.

Rather than just using a risk-minimisation approach to managing COVID-19, there’s scope for some flexibility and creativity in addressing family needs at the end of life.

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

– ref. Patients with COVID-19 shouldn’t have to die alone. Here’s how a loved one could be there at the end – https://theconversation.com/patients-with-covid-19-shouldnt-have-to-die-alone-heres-how-a-loved-one-could-be-there-at-the-end-145324

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

University of Canberra Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan and University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor and President Professor Paddy Nixon discuss the week in politics.

This week Michelle and Paddy discuss the first recession in Australia since the early 90’s, Scott Morrison’s continued pressure on the state premiers for a more open Australia, Melbourne’s improving coronavirus situation, and a fortnight of “COVID parliament”.

– ref. VIDEO: Michelle Grattan on Australia’s recession, state borders, and ‘COVID parliament’ – https://theconversation.com/video-michelle-grattan-on-australias-recession-state-borders-and-covid-parliament-145625

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Quentin Grafton, Director of the Centre for Water Economics, Environment and Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

The Morrison government today declared it will axe buybacks of water entitlements from irrigators, placating farmers who say the system has damaged their livelihood and communities.

Instead, Water Minister Keith Pitt says the government will scale up efforts to save water by upgrading infrastructure for farming irrigators in the Murray Darling Basin.

The move will anger environmentalists, who say water buybacks are vital to restoring flows to Australia’s most important river system. It also contradicts findings from the government’s own experts this week who said farm upgrades increase water prices more than buyback water recovery.

The government has chosen a route not backed by evidence, and which will deliver a bad deal to taxpayers and the environment.

A brief history of water buybacks

Farmers along the Murray Darling are entitled to a certain amount of river water which they can use or sell. In 2008, the federal Labor government began buying some of these entitlements in an open-tender process known as “buybacks”. The purchased water was returned to the parched river system to boost the environment.

In 2012, the Murray Darling Basin Plan was struck. It stipulated that 2,750 billion litres of water would be bought back from irrigators and delivered to the environment every year. The buyback system was not universally supported – critics claim buybacks increase water prices, and hurt farmers by reducing the water available for irrigation.

The Coalition government came to office in 2013 and adopted a “strategic” approach to water buybacks. These purchases were made behind closed doors with chosen irrigators.

Read more: Restoring a gem in the Murray-Darling Basin: the success story of the Winton Wetlands

In a review of these buybacks released last month, the Australian National Audit Office found many of these taxpayer-funded deals were not good value for money.

The federal government ordered the review after controversy involving the 2017 purchase of water from two Queensland properties owned by Eastern Australia Agriculture. The government paid A$80 million for the entitlements – an amount critics said was well over market value. The deal was also contentious because government frontbencher Angus Taylor was, before the purchase, a non-financial director of the company. The company also had links to the Cayman Islands tax haven.

Infrastructure subsidies: a flawed approach

The Coalition government is taking a different approach to recover water for the environment: subsidising water infrastructure on farms and elsewhere. This infrastructure includes lining ponds and possibly levees to trap and store water.

The subsidies have cost many billions of dollars yet recover water at a very much higher cost than reverse tenders. This approach also reduces the water that returns to streams and groundwater.

Read more: Australia, it’s time to talk about our water emergency

The justification for water infrastructure subsidies is that they are supposedly less damaging to irrigation communities. But the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) concluded in a report published on Monday that on-farm water infrastructure subsidies, while beneficial for their participants, “push water prices higher, placing pressure on the wider irrigation sector”. This is the very sector the subsidies purport to help.

So why would the government expand the use of water infrastructure when it costs more and isn’t good value for money? The answer may lie in this finding from the ABARES report:

Irrigators who hold large volumes of entitlement relative to their water use (and are frequently net sellers of water allocations) may benefit from higher water prices, as this increases the value of their entitlements.

Farmers with limited entitlement holdings however may be adversely affected, as higher water prices increase their costs and lowers their profitability.

In other words, the “big end of town” benefits – at taxpayers’ expense – while the small-scale irrigators lose out.

Missing water

Adding insult to injury, the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists released a detailed report this week showing the basin plan is failing to deliver the water expected, even after accounting for dry weather. Some two trillion litres of water is not in the rivers and streams of the basin and appears to have been consumed – a volume that could be more than four times the water in Sydney Harbour.

The Wentworth group says stream flows may be less than expected because environmental water recovery has been undermined by ‘water-saving’ infrastructure that reduces water that would otherwise return to rivers and groundwater.

Yet this infrastructure, on which taxpayers have spent over A$4 billion, has not had the desired effect. Research has found those who receive infrastructure subsidies increased water extractions by more than those who did not receive subsidies. That’s because farmers who were using water more efficiently often planted thirstier crops.

We deserve better

It’s clear taxpayer dollars are much better spent buying back water entitlements, through open tenders, rather than subsidising water infrastructure. We can, and must, do much better with water policy.

Today, the federal government has doubled down on wasteful spending at taxpayer expense – in a time of a COVID-induced recession.

So what is on offer from the Morrison government? Continuing to ignore its own experts’ advice and deliver yet more ineffective subsidies for water infrastructure. Our rivers, our communities, and all Australians deserve much better.

Read more: While towns run dry, cotton extracts 5 Sydney Harbours’ worth of Murray Darling water a year. It’s time to reset the balance

– ref. Morrison government plan to scrap water buybacks will hurt taxpayers and the environment – https://theconversation.com/morrison-government-plan-to-scrap-water-buybacks-will-hurt-taxpayers-and-the-environment-145613

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew McLachlan, Head of School and Dean of Pharmacy, University of Sydney

Readily available drugs, which dampen the runaway inflammatory response in patients severely ill with COVID-19, save lives, according to evidence released this week.

An analysis by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which drew together results from several studies, confirms the benefit of this group of anti-inflammatory steroid drugs, known as corticosteroids.

While earlier studies showed the apparent benefit of one of these drugs, dexamethasone, this latest evidence goes further.

It shows other cheap and readily available corticosteroid drugs, including hydrocortisone, could benefit patients at the life-threatening stages of coronavirus infection.

Remind me again, what are corticosteroids?

Corticosteroids have been used for decades to treat a variety of inflammatory conditions. These include severe forms of lung inflammation, such as pneumonia, shock due to infection, and severe respiratory syndromes. They are also used to treat more common conditions, including asthma and eczema.

These medicines are on the WHO list of essential medicines, meaning they are widely available (usually at low cost).

Read more: What medicines would we pack for a trip to Mars?

What do we already know about corticosteroids for COVID-19?

In June, early release of results from the RECOVERY trial showed dexamethasone reduced the risk of death by up to a third in people hospitalised with COVID-19 who needed a ventilator to help them breathe.

Despite the early release of the trial results, and limited details at the time, the findings were compelling and clinical practice changed.

Several other trials were stopped. All patients switched to receive active treatment with a corticosteroid.

The results of the RECOVERY trial have since been formally peer reviewed and published.

Read more: Dexamethasone: the cheap, old and boring drug that’s a potential coronavirus treatment

What does the latest evidence say?

The WHO drew together results from seven randomised clinical trials, including data from 1,703 critically ill patients with COVID-19.

This is a powerful and compelling way to combine information and truly address the question of whether these medicines benefit people in hospital critically unwell with COVID-19.

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

The study, which included patients from Australia and New Zealand, found almost 33% of people treated with corticosteroids died within 28 days of treatment. This was compared with 41% of patients who received supportive care (or placebo). Corticosteroid treatment helped patients whether or not they needed ventilation or oxygen.

Importantly, the analysis also concluded the benefits were not specific to one corticosteroid drug but were the same for dexamethasone and hydrocortisone.

Corticosteroids can also have an impact on the immune system. So the researchers looked at the risk of infection from other causes, for example bacterial pneumonia, and found it was not a major concern.

What does this mean for patients?

The weight of evidence has led WHO guidelines this week to strongly recommend using corticosteroids to treat people with severe or critical COVID-19.

This aligns with current Australian guidelines for treating hospitalised patients with COVID-19 needing oxygen support.

Corticosteroids are not for everyone and are not a cure

It is important to remember these findings only apply to using corticosteroids in critically ill people hospitalised with COVID-19. There is currently limited information to suggest these medicines are appropriate for people with mild COVID-19.

While corticosteroids help treat the body’s response to the coronavirus infection, they are not antiviral drugs. They do not inhibit the virus itself, so they are not a cure.

Read more: In the fight against coronavirus, antivirals are as important as a vaccine. Here’s where the science is up to

A new way of doing research

Usually, several clinical trials on a common theme are published over a series of years. Then a meta-analysis draws together their results, publishing these combined results much later.

But the amazing thing about this latest evidence is the meta-analysis included data from clinical trials published at the same time. This shows a degree of co-operation and collaboration between researchers to share data to urgently address important research questions that guide clinical care.

Evidence to guide the best treatments and management for people with COVID-19 continues to emerge. You can follow the evidence and how it’s applied in Australia here.

Read more: Ivermectin is still not a miracle cure for COVID-19, despite what you may have read

– ref. The evidence is in. WHO says corticosteroids really do save lives of people critically ill with COVID-19 – https://theconversation.com/the-evidence-is-in-who-says-corticosteroids-really-do-save-lives-of-people-critically-ill-with-covid-19-145536

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Quigley, Associate Professor of Earthquake Science, University of Melbourne

Many of us may remember the magnitude 6.2 earthquake that hit Christchurch, New Zealand, on February 22 2011. The quake caused 185 deaths, thousands of injuries and billions of dollars in damage and economic loss.

But six months before that earthquake an interconnected maze of previously unidentified active faults ruptured beneath the alluvial plains some 20km to 80km west of Christchurch.

This multi-fault rupture produced a magnitude 7.1 earthquake that released 13 times more energy than the Christchurch earthquake. It was named the Darfield earthquake, after the nearest town, and violently shook us from our beds at 4.35am on September 4 2010.

No deaths occurred, but the significant damage to land and infrastructure stimulated numerous scientific investigations.

Read more: New Zealand sits on top of the remains of a giant ancient volcanic plume

Ten years on and it is useful to summarise some of the lessons learned in its aftermath.

Early discoveries

Within hours of the Darfield earthquake, scientists rushed to the scene. They located evidence for a major ground surface rupture at Highfield Road (pictured above).

This site quickly became a geological tourist destination for the public, news media and politicians alike.

Many scientific experiments were done there, including the excavation of large trenches and age-dating of faulted sediments. This revealed an earthquake had occurred at this location, with similar characteristics, some 22,000 to 28,000 years ago.

Evidence for this ancient quake was eroded and buried beneath the gravels of the Canterbury Plains, so the fault system evaded discovery until its rupture in 2010.

But its emergence supported prior assertions that this sparsely studied region was populated with hidden active faults that could generate earthquakes with maximum magnitudes of 7.0 to 7.2.

The existence of planning guidelines at or near active faults before the Darfield earthquake also allowed scientists to rapidly place their preliminary observations into a decision-making context.

Specifically, decisions to allow residents to rebuild in the area after the Darfield earthquake were able to be made before all scientific evidence was acquired.

From this perspective, even though the Darfield earthquake was commonly described as a surprise, it was a scenario that seismic hazard models, building codes and land-use planning guidelines had considered before it occurred.

This reaffirms some important lessons in science: uncertainty and risk are everywhere, but we can create systems and guidelines to allow us to cope with this.

And to best contribute to decision-making, scientists need to be prepared, collaborative, diverse, strategic and very efficient in how we collect and communicate scientific information to decision-makers. This can be quite demanding in the time-compressed environment of a crisis.

Complex earthquakes

By combining a range of data New Zealand scientists were the first to recognise the Darfield earthquake began on a very steep, unfavourably oriented fault that theory suggests was too inclined to rupture.

But it did rupture and cascaded from this fault (the Charing Cross Fault) on to its neighbour (the Greendale Fault) and across the fault network.

We remain intrigued by this aspect, and have hypothesised that unfavourably oriented faults like Charing Cross may act as keystones that regulate the rupture behaviours of complex fault networks like those responsible for the Darfield earthquake.

Our modelling also shows complex multi-fault ruptures like the Darfield earthquake (and the Kaikoura earthquake in 2016) may be more common than single-fault earthquakes in these types of geologically complex regions.

This requires more careful consideration of how we variably distinguish or amalgamate them into seismic hazard models.

Earthquake hazards as harbingers

Earthquake hazards experienced in the Darfield earthquake such as falling rocks and liquefaction were harbingers of future hazards.

For example, the backyard of my house in eastern Christchurch first liquefied in the Darfield earthquake. The ground recurrently liquefied in at least nine more earthquakes over the next 16 months.

Subsequent studies revealed that liquefaction of similar severity is expected to recur on timescales of 100 to 300 years. And geological evidence for all of these hazards existed in our landscape before the earthquake sequence even began.

At the time of the Darfield earthquake, we had yet to understand the origins and significance of many of these hazards. Thus they did not inform land-use planning decisions.

Major programs in earthquake hazards operating across New Zealand continue to help improve our understanding of them and can support future decision-making.

Similarly complex fault systems are found throughout the Canterbury Plains and provide similar sources of hazard. Complex multi-fault earthquakes may be the norm, rather than the exception.

Read more: Satellites reveal melting of rocks under volcanic zone, deep in Earth’s mantle

Major rockfall events analogous to those experienced in the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes have average return periods of 3,000 to 5,000 years. This does not mean future events cannot occur again within a significantly shorter time.

The Darfield earthquake stimulated an intense interest in using multiple geological sources to understand earthquakes. This knowledge is still influencing the trajectory of earthquake science more broadly.

Together with advances in engineering and other disciplines, this work shifts the narrative away from predicting the exact times and locations of earthquakes, which may never be possible, towards reducing the risks and enhancing our resilience to future events.

– ref. 10 years since the Darfield earthquake rocked New Zealand: what have we learned? – https://theconversation.com/10-years-since-the-darfield-earthquake-rocked-new-zealand-what-have-we-learned-145539

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isabella Alexander, Professor of Law, University of Technology Sydney

There is growing disquiet and anger about restrictions on how the Aboriginal flag can be used, particularly after it was absent from the AFL’s recent Indigenous round.

On Thursday, the Senate set up a parliamentary inquiry to look at options to “enable the flag to be freely used by the Australian community”.

So, what are the options to try and secure wider use of a flag that up until now has been a “uniting symbol for all Aboriginal people”?

What is the problem?

Unlike most other flags around the world, the Aboriginal flag is still protected by copyright.

That copyright is owned by Luritja man Harold Thomas, who created the flag for the National Aboriginal Day march in July 1971.

When the flag was proclaimed as an official flag of Australia in 1995, Thomas’ authorship of the artistic work (that constitutes the flag) was contested. But in 1997, the Federal Court declared him the author and owner of the copyright.

Read more: Explainer: our copyright laws and the Australian Aboriginal flag

Thomas has since granted commercial licensing rights for use of the flag on clothing to WAM Clothing. There is also a licence to Gifts Mate for the right to reproduce the flag on merchandise and to Flagworld for the right to produce the Aboriginal flag as a flag.

Anyone wishing to do any of these activities must get permission from one of these companies.

Importantly, copyright covers not just commercial reproductions of the flag but also non-commercial and private ones. This means it is fine to fly the flag, but anyone wishing to make their own copy or even get it as a tattoo needs Thomas’ permission.

#Freetheflag

There has been growing anger over the licensing arrangements after the AFL, NRL and Indigenous community groups have been asked to pay for using the flag and, in some cases, threatened with legal action.

An online petition, started by Indigenous social enterprise Spark Health, to change the licensing agreement around the flag, has so far collected more than 140,000 signatures. AFL clubs have also backed the #freetheflag campaign.

What does Labor want?

Labor says it plans to draft a private members’ bill to free up use of the flag. It also pushed for the Senate inquiry this week, which will report in October.

As the party’s Indigenous Affairs spokesperson Linda Burney explained,

this is a national flag and the government has to make sure that it is freely available to all Australians. The government has the power and the resources to fix this.

For its part, the federal government says Labor’s plan is a “stunt” and it is working to “resolve” the issue.

What could a bill do?

It is true the federal government has the power to change the law, but whether it can easily “fix” the situation is more doubtful.

One option would be to pass a law that specifically takes the copyright away from Thomas and gives it to the government. However, such a law could run afoul of the Constitution, which provides that the Commonwealth can acquire property from a person, but must compensate them on “just terms”.

Alternatively, legislation could be passed so that copyright in the flag ceases entirely and the work becomes part of the public domain. This would be radical and unprecedented approach in copyright law.

Read more: Australians’ favourites show Aboriginal art can transcend social divisions and art boundaries

A less drastic solution could be to introduce a law that restricted Thomas’ ability to grant licences of his copyright.

While these two options are likely to avoid constitutional issues (following the 2012 tobacco plain packaging case), they could be politically and culturally controversial – as they would involve either taking away property from an Indigenous man, or severely restricting his autonomy around it.

Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt has also signalled his reluctance to do anything extreme.

I don’t want to go down a pathway where we legislate to take away the copyright of an individual.

Or, there could be a ‘fair use’ provision

Another option might be for legislation to draw inspiration from the Australian Law Reform Commission’s 2014 “fair use” proposal, which the Productivity Commission backed in 2016.

This would need legislation to stipulate Thomas’ copyright would not be infringed by anyone making “fair use” of the flag. This could include applying the flag to clothing for charitable purposes, private uses such as tattoos, as well as the production of images that incorporate the flag for cultural, social or political events.

At the same time, this would not deprive Thomas of the ability to license the flag for purely commercial uses.

What else can the government do?

This week, a spokesperson for Wyatt described the flag issue as “delicate and sensitive” and the government is “working to resolve the matter”.

The government could enter into an agreement with Thomas to buy the copyright, or acquire the licences. This option could respect Thomas’ rights as copyright owner, although would likely come with a hefty price tag .

It also may not meet the concerns of others in the Indigenous community, as this would depend on any conditions the government might set for use of the flag.

Another approach would be for copyright to be assigned to an Indigenous-controlled body, as is the case with the Torres Strait Islander flag. Copyright in that flag is owned by the Torres Strait Island Regional Council, and requests to reproduce it must go to that body.

Our copyright law needs to do better

The flag debate also demonstrates how inadequate our law is when copyrighted works end up as cultural symbols or icons.

In the absence of a fair use exception, the law does not account for the fact that flags might be “artistic works” according to copyright, but the ways they are used and the emotions they inspire go well beyond the law’s concern with remunerating authors.

As Gunditjmara woman and owner of Spark Health, Laura Thomson, recently observed,

In many ways, it was the people that gave the flag value, not Harold.

– ref. How easy would it be to ‘free’ the Aboriginal flag? – https://theconversation.com/how-easy-would-it-be-to-free-the-aboriginal-flag-145446

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kristy Campion, Lecturer in Terrorism Studies, Charles Sturt University

As violent clashes have escalated between right- and left-wing protesters in the US city of Portland, President Donald Trump has sharpened his rhetoric against what he calls the “left-wing violent extremism” engulfing American cities.

In an interview this week, Trump alluded to “thugs wearing […] black uniforms with gear” flying around the country, which Vice President Mike Pence later attempted to clarify by saying

there’s something going on here, where the radical left, these anarchists and Antifa are moving people around the country.

This comes after US Attorney General William Barr claimed the left-wing, anti-fascist movement Antifa was engaged in domestic terrorism and “will be treated accordingly”. Trump has also vowed to deem Antifa a terrorist organisation.

Last week, a right-wing protester was fatally shot in Portland and police are now investigating whether a self-described anti-fascist allegedly motivated by Antifa principles was involved.

But research shows the threat posed by far-right extremist groups far exceeds that of other groups, including left-wing networks and attackers inspired by Islamist extremism.

Far-right extremists were behind two-thirds of the attacks and plots in the US in 2019 and more than 90% in the first half of this year.

Left-wing ideology has also inspired terrorism in the past, and indeed, left-wing terrorism remains a real contemporary threat.

But Antifa does not yet represent a terror threat by virtue of its organisation and activities. As it stands, it falls below the conventional thresholds for terrorism.

What is Antifa?

Antifa (short for “anti-fascist”) is a highly decentralised, oppositional social movement. It encompasses many autonomous groups, networks and individuals. What binds them together is a rejection of fascism and fascist ideas, including white supremacy.

Antifa is not a homogeneous entity, and has no identifiable command structure, leadership apparatus or radicalised membership. To designate Antifa as an “organisation” is to misconstrue the present reality of the movement.

Antifa engages in a wide variety of political activism, including doxxing (releasing people’s personal details online) and protests like those seen in Portland.

Not all Antifa activists are opposed to violence, as historian Mark Bray details in his book, Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook. Activists have been known to use noxious gases, projectiles and other forms of violence at protests. However, they have traditionally stopped short of lethal acts.

Read more: What – or who – is antifa?

The past can help us understand the present

To understand the roots of Antifa’s activism, we must first compare it to left-wing terrorism more broadly.

The heyday of left-wing extremism was during the “New Left” wave of terror from the 1960-80s. These terrorists opposed the Vietnam War and western imperialism, and stood in solidarity with left-wing revolutionaries like Võ Nguyên Giáp, Mao Zedong, Che Guevara and Carlos Marighella.

“New Left” terrorism was international by nature. In West Germany, the Red Army Faction group assassinated 11 prominent business and government representatives and bombed 30 business and military establishments.

In the US, the Weather Underground Organisation claimed credit for 25 bombings, some targeting the Pentagon, the New York Police Department and the US Capitol. The Symbionese Liberation Army famously kidnapped the actress Patty Hearst, while the female-led May 19th Communist Organization bombed an FBI office and the US Capitol.

What united these actors was the belief they were retaliating against oppression and injustice. Terrorism became a tactic essential to that mission.

In recent years, left-wing terrorism has been limited. In the US, left-wing attacks peaked in the early 2000s when eco-terrorists like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front targeted research centres and other businesses, but have been in decline since then.

Since 2009, left-wing terrorists were responsible for just 2% of attacks in Europe, paling in comparison to jihadists (69.3%) and right-wing extremists (21.8%).

Read more: The ‘domestic terrorist’ designation won’t stop extremism

Why Antifa is not a terrorist movement

So far, the Antifa movement has simply not met the conventional threshold for terrorism.

Terrorists use politically motivated violence to achieve two main goals: to gain support and coerce their targets. Terrorists typically use lethal violence and intimidation to exert power, which compensates for their perceived political weakness.

According to experts, the types of actions that typically qualify as terrorism are bombings, shootings, assassinations, kidnappings and hijackings. Terrorism does not necessarily need to be spectacular violence that draws attention; it can also be smaller acts of violence committed for ideological reasons.

By contrast, protest movements achieve power and seek to persuade decision-makers through popular support. Protesters largely act within the constraints of democratic, albeit contentious, politics. While violence is not uncommon at protests, it tends to be sporadic and reactive.

While Antifa has previously engaged in low-level violence, such as street skirmishes and obstructing right-wing demonstrators, it lacks organisational coherence and a meaningful command structure. This limits the likelihood of organised and sophisticated violence akin to terrorism.

However, this does not stop lone actors inspired by Antifa principles from engaging in unsophisticated, individual attacks. These attacks generally occur on the fringes of the greater movement.

Most terrorism researchers have also rejected the idea that Antifa constitutes a terrorist threat, instead comparing them to gangs, militants or activists.

The danger of conflating protests with terrorism

Conflating protest movements with terrorism or violent extremism poses numerous risks to a democratic society.

For one, it undermines a central pillar of any functional, democratic system: the right to protest.

It also suppresses or manipulates legitimate dissent to serve an secondary agenda — in the case of Trump, to paint Democrat-controlled cities as out of control.

When the Trump administration threatens to designate Antifa a terrorist organisation or send federal forces to cities to quell violent protests, it also diverts resources away from other high-priority threats.

This includes right-wing extremism, which has claimed dozens of lives in the past year in places like Christchurch, El Paso and elsewhere.

Read more: Christchurch’s legacy of fighting violent extremism online must go further – deep into the dark web

This is not an “either/or” situation — the threats from both right- and left-wing groups must be countered. But governments must allocate resources based on the actual threat they represent, rather than political rhetoric.

The political appeal of labelling oppositional protesters as terrorists must not outweigh the risks it poses to democratic principles.

In the current international security environment, there are many threats to democracy, but in order to truly safeguard it, we need to fiercely defend the rights of citizens to protest and voice dissent.

– ref. Trump claims ‘left-wing extremism’ is engulfing the US. Conflating protests with terrorism is the real danger – https://theconversation.com/trump-claims-left-wing-extremism-is-engulfing-the-us-conflating-protests-with-terrorism-is-the-real-danger-142649

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

Cybersecurity is like a game of whack-a-mole. As soon as the good guys put a stop to one type of attack, another pops up.

Usernames and passwords were once good enough to keep an account secure. But before long, cybercriminals figured out how to get around this.

Often they’ll use “brute force attacks”, bombarding a user’s account with various password and login combinations in a bid to guess the correct one.

To deal with such attacks, a second layer of security was added in an approach known as two-factor authentication, or 2FA. It’s widespread now, but does 2FA also leave room for loopholes cybercriminals can exploit?

2FA via text message

There are various types of 2FA. The most common method is to be sent a single-use code as an SMS message to your phone, which you then enter following a prompt from the website or service you’re trying to access.

Most of us are familiar with this method as it’s favoured by major social media platforms. However, while it may seem safe enough, it isn’t necessarily.

Hackers have been known to trick mobile phone carriers (such as Telstra or Optus) into transferring a victim’s phone number to their own phone.

Read more: $2.5 billion lost over a decade: ‘Nigerian princes’ lose their sheen, but scams are on the rise

Pretending to be the intended victim, the hacker contacts the carrier with a story about losing their phone, requesting a new SIM with the victim’s number to be sent to them. Any authentication code sent to that number then goes directly to the hacker, granting them access to the victim’s accounts.
This method is called SIM swapping. It’s probably the easiest of several types of scams that can circumvent 2FA.

And while carriers’ verification processes for SIM requests are improving, a competent trickster can talk their way around them.

Authenticator apps

The authenticator method is more secure than 2FA via text message. It works on a principle known as TOTP, or “time-based one-time password”.

TOTP is more secure than SMS because a code is generated on your device rather than being sent across the network, where it might be intercepted.

The authenticator method uses apps such as Google Authenticator, LastPass, 1Password, Microsoft Authenticator, Authy and Yubico.

However, while it’s safer than 2FA via SMS, there have been reports of hackers stealing authentication codes from Android smartphones. They do this by tricking the user into installing malware (software designed to cause harm) that copies and sends the codes to the hacker.

The Android operating system is easier to hack than the iPhone iOS. Apple’s iOS is proprietary, while Android is open-source, making it easier to install malware on.

2FA using details unique to you

Biometric methods are another form of 2FA. These include fingerprint login, face recognition, retinal or iris scans, and voice recognition. Biometric identification is becoming popular for its ease of use.

Most smartphones today can be unlocked by placing a finger on the scanner or letting the camera scan your face – much quicker than entering a password or passcode.

However, biometric data can be hacked, too, either from the servers where they are stored or from the software that processes the data.

One case in point is last year’s Biostar 2 data breach in which nearly 28 million biometric records were hacked. BioStar 2 is a security system that uses facial recognition and fingerprinting technology to help organisations secure access to buildings.

There can also be false negatives and false positives in biometric recognition. Dirt on the fingerprint reader or on the person’s finger can lead to false negatives. Also, faces can sometimes be similar enough to fool facial recognition systems.

Another type of 2FA comes in the form of personal security questions such as “what city did your parents meet in?” or “what was your first pet’s name?”

Read more: Don’t be phish food! Tips to avoid sharing your personal information online

Only the most determined and resourceful hacker will be able to find answers to these questions. It’s unlikely, but still possible, especially as more of us adopt public online profiles.

2FA remains best practice

Despite all of the above, the biggest vulnerability to being hacked is still the human factor. Successful hackers have a bewildering array of psychological tricks in their arsenal.

A cyber attack could come as a polite request, a scary warning, a message ostensibly from a friend or colleague, or an intriguing “clickbait” link in an email.

The best way to protect yourself from hackers is to develop a healthy amount of scepticism. If you carefully check websites and links before clicking through and also use 2FA, the chances of being hacked become vanishingly small.

The bottom line is that 2FA is effective at keeping your accounts safe. However, try to avoid the less secure SMS method when given the option.

Just as burglars in the real world focus on houses with poor security, hackers on the internet look for weaknesses.

And while any security measure can be overcome with enough effort, a hacker won’t make that investment unless they stand to gain something of greater value.

– ref. Can I still be hacked with 2FA enabled? – https://theconversation.com/can-i-still-be-hacked-with-2fa-enabled-144682

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

The risk of dying from COVID-19 is at least 50% higher for Māori than New Zealanders from European backgrounds, according to our study published today.

Māori and Pacific populations are historically at greater risk of hospitalisation and death from pandemics. During the 2009 influenza pandemic, the rate of infection for Māori was twice that of Pākehā (European New Zealanders). Māori were three times more likely to be hospitalised and almost three times more likely to die.

Our results show that if COVID-19 were allowed to become more widespread in New Zealand, it would have a devastating impact on Māori and Pacific communities.

Higher risks for Māori and Pacific people

Evidence from overseas shows ethnic minority communities are at greater risk of serious health problems from COVID-19. In some parts of the US, Pacific islanders are being hospitalised at up to ten times the rate of other ethnicities. In the UK, Black and minority ethnic groups are suffering death rates twice those of White people.

Read more: Why are black and Asian people at greater risk of coronavirus? Here’s what we found

Our study was based on international data on risk factors for COVID-19 fatality, including heart disease, diabetes and asthma. We combined these with data on the prevalence of these conditions in different ethnic and age groups in New Zealand.

We also accounted for the fact that Māori and Pacific people have lower life expectancy and higher unmet health-care needs than European New Zealanders.

We found the risk of death from COVID-19 was at least 50% higher for Māori. It could be more than double the rate for European New Zealanders if the level of unmet healthcare need is actually greater than official data can capture. The risk for Pacific people could also be up to double that for European New Zealanders.

One of the immediate reasons for the higher risk Māori and Pacific people face is that they have higher rates of existing health conditions. These are strongly associated with more severe outcomes from COVID-19.

Māori and Pacific populations are younger, on average, than Pākehā. But they have lower life expectancy and tend to experience health issues at a younger age. They also experience greater rates of unmet healthcare need and greater levels of poverty, which have been shown to have a significant effect on fatality rates.

For these reasons, Māori and Pacific people are also at higher risk of becoming severely ill and needing to go to hospital as a result of COVID-19. Unfortunately we are now starting to see this happen. COVID-19 cases among Māori and Pacific people have been around twice as likely as other ethnic groups to require hospitalisation.

Read more: Two inquiries find unfair treatment and healthcare for Māori. This is how we fix it

Substandard housing contributes to higher risk

Our study looked at the risk of death only once someone has become infected with COVID-19. But there are other factors that increase the risk of getting infected for Māori and Pacific people.

A recent study from the UK showed infection rates were much higher for people living in a large household or in poorer areas, while the epidemic in China indicated that around 80% of community transmission resulted from households.

About 25% of Māori and 45% of Pacific people live in crowded housing. They are also more likely to work in jobs or workplaces with higher health risks, including infection.

COVID-19 would therefore be a double whammy for these communities: a higher rate of infection and a higher risk of severe illness or death following infection.

Implications for COVID-19 response

These findings show the potentially devastating impact COVID-19 could have on Māori and Pacific communities in New Zealand. The pandemic has potential to intensify existing social inequities that result from colonisation and systemic racism.

Our health-care system was under resource pressure prior to COVID-19 and was already being challenged for its inequitable care. The results of our study reinforce the importance of controlling the virus and preventing it from spreading into at-risk communities. It also highlights the need for measures that work well for affected communities to protect at-risk groups.

A “one size fits all” approach will result in higher rates of avoidable illness and death for Māori and Pacific communities. Te Rōpū Whakakaupapa Urutā, the National Māori Pandemic Group, has clearly argued that if New Zealand wants to prevent these outcomes, the pandemic response must focus on equity.

Routine monitoring and reporting of the impact of the pandemic needs to explicitly address equity. That will require an approach that supports communities to design and deliver interventions that are effective for them.

– ref. Research shows Māori are more likely to die from COVID-19 than other New Zealanders – https://theconversation.com/research-shows-maori-are-more-likely-to-die-from-covid-19-than-other-new-zealanders-145453

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Euan Ritchie, Associate Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University

Humans have long been inspired and transfixed by the Moon, and as we’re discovering, moonlight can also change the behaviour of Australian wildlife.

A collection of recently published research has illuminated how certain behaviours of animals – including potoroos, wallabies and quolls – change with variation in ambient light, phases of the Moon and cloud cover.

Read more: How big is the Moon? Let me compare …

One study found small mammals were more active on cloudy nights. Another found variation in moonlight led to differing amounts of species captured in non-lethal traps. And a study on willie wagtails found males just love singing on a full moon.

These findings are interesting from a natural history perspective. But they’ll also help ecologists and conservation scientists better locate and study nocturnal animals, and learn how artificial light pollution is likely changing where animals can live and how they behave.

Moonlit predator-prey games of hide and seek

Most of Australia’s mammals are nocturnal, and some smaller species are thought to use the cover of darkness to avoid the attention of hungry predators. However, there’s much we don’t know about such relationships, especially because it can be difficult to study these interactions in the wild.

In the relatively diverse mammal community at Mt Rothwell, Victoria, we examined how variation in ambient light affected species’ activity, and how this might influence species interactions. Mt Rothwell is a fenced conservation reserve free of feral cats and foxes, and with minimal light pollution.

Over two years, we surveyed the responses of predator and prey species to different light levels from full, half and new moon phases.

Read more: One little bandicoot can dig up an elephant’s worth of soil a year – and our ecosystem loves it

Potential prey species in our study included eastern barred and southern brown bandicoots, long-nosed potoroos, brushtailed rock-wallabies, and brushtail and common ringtail possums. Eastern and spotted-tailed quolls are their potential predators.

Just as we predicted, we found that while there does appear to be relationships between cloud cover, Moon phase and mammal activity, these interactions depend on the sizes and types of mammals involved.

Both predators and prey generally increased their activity in darker conditions. Smaller, prey species increased their activity when cloud cover was higher, and predators increased their activity during the half and new moon phases.

This suggests their deadly game of hide and seek might intensify on darker nights. And prey might have to trade off foraging time to reduce their chances of becoming the evening meal.

What happens in the wild?

It’s important to acknowledge that studies in sanctuaries such as Mt Rothwell might not always reflect well what goes on in the wild, including in areas where introduced predators, such as feral cats and red foxes, are found.

Another recent study, this time of small mammals in the wilds of Victoria’s Mallee region, sheds further light on the situation. The authors tested if variation in weather and Moon phase affected the numbers of five small mammal species – Bolam’s mouse, common dunnart, house mouse, southern ningaui, and western pygmy possum – captured in pitfall traps.

Pitfall traps are long fences small animals can’t climb over or through, so follow along the side until they fall into a bucket dug in the ground. Ecologists typically use these traps to capture and measure animals and then return them to the wild, unharmed.

Read more: Eastern quolls edge closer to extinction – but it’s not too late to save them

At more than 260 sites and over more than 50,000 trap nights, they found wind speed, temperature and moonlight influenced which species were caught and in what numbers.

For example, captures of a small native rodent, Bolam’s mouse, and carnivorous marsupial, southern ningaui, decreased with more moonlight, whereas captures of pygmy possums were higher with more moonlight.

Moonlight songbird serenades

Research from last month has shown even species normally active by day may change their behaviour and activity by night.

It’s not uncommon to hear bird song by night, including the quintessentially Aussie warbling of magpies. Using bioacoustic recorders and song detection software, these researchers show the willie wagtail – another of Australia’s most recogisable and loved birds – is also a nighttime singer, particularly during the breeding season.

While both male and female wagtails sing by day, it is the males that are most vocal by night. And it seems the males aren’t afraid of a little stage-lighting either, singing more with increasing moonlight, with performances peaking during full moons.

This work provides insight into the importance and potential role of nocturnal song for birds, such as mate attraction or territory defence, and helps us to better understand these behaviours more generally.

Moonlight affects wildlife conservation

These studies, and others, can help inform wildlife conservation, as practically speaking, ecological surveys must consider the relative brightness of nights during which work occurred.

Depending on when and where we venture out to collect information about species, and what methods we use (camera traps, spotlighting, and non-lethal trapping) we might have higher or lower chances of detecting certain species. And this might affect our insights into species and ecosystems, and how we manage them.

As dark skies become rarer in many places around the world, it also begs a big question. To what extent is all the artificial light pollution in our cities and peri-urban areas affecting wildlife and ecosystems?

Read more: Turn off the porch light: 6 easy ways to stop light pollution from harming our wildlife

Pipistrelle bats, for example, will be roughly half as active around well-lit bridges than unlit bridges. They’ll also keep further away from well-lit bridges, and fly faster when near them.

This means artificial light might reduce the amount and connectivity of habitat available to some bat species in urban areas. This, in turn could affect their populations.

Research is underway around the world, examining the conservation significance of such issues in more detail, but it’s another timely reminder of the profound ways in which we influence the environments we share with other species.

We would like to acknowledge Yvette Pauligk, who contributed to our published work at Mt Rothwell, and that the traditional custodians of this land are the Wathaurong people of the Kulin nation.

– ref. Predators, prey and moonlight singing: how phases of the Moon affect native wildlife – https://theconversation.com/predators-prey-and-moonlight-singing-how-phases-of-the-moon-affect-native-wildlife-140556