Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gary Sturgess, Professor of Public Service Delivery, Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG)

Gary Sturgess was director-general of NSW Premier Nick Greiner’s cabinet office in 1988 and the “architect” of ICAC.

There has been a great deal of commentary about the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in recent days, in light of Gladys Berejiklian’s resignation as premier of New South Wales. Much of this has been ill-informed, and some correction is required as the debate over a federal ICAC rolls on.

The NSW ICAC, the first anti-corruption agency in Australia, established in 1988, is an extraordinarily powerful organisation. This should never be taken for granted. It usually conducts its hearings in public. This results in considerable capacity to do harm to the reputations of innocent people, by a counsel assisting who ignores legal conventions or by headline-seeking journalists.

Those powers are not without precedent in this country. The NSW ICAC is simply a standing royal commission, albeit one that, for reasons of independence, sets its own terms of reference.

Other than in the fields of corruption prevention and education, it did not borrow from the Hong Kong agency that bears the same name. The HK ICAC operates with a great deal of secrecy, as has been pointed out, but it exercises extraordinary powers in secret, including detention without warrant. The NSW government did not want to follow this precedent.

And contrary to what one member of the Greiner cabinet has recently claimed, it was not cobbled together from precedents around the world. It was directly modelled on the royal commission, an institution that Australians know well, where there was an existing body of law and practice on which commissioners and courts could draw.

Read more:
ICAC is not a curse, and probity in government matters. The Australian media would do well to remember that

For the most part, royal commissions conduct their hearings in public and they publish reports that damage the reputations of named individuals. That is an onerous responsibility and mistakes are sometimes made. One could well understand the Australian public taking the view that the risks are too great and royal commissions should not be used in that way.

But we must be consistent. There were few complaints when Frank Costigan identified certain painters and dockers and their associates as criminals, or the more recent Hayne royal commission into banking and superannuation named and shamed company executives, shattering their careers.

Given this history, why would politicians and public servants be singled out for different treatment? If there were to be a change to the NSW legislation, there would need to be commensurate change to the legislation governing royal commissions.

Some commentators seem to think the NSW ICAC makes findings of criminal guilt or innocence. Others have claimed the legislation creates an offence of corrupt conduct, with the NSW premier having “breached the ICAC Act”. Neither statement is correct. Nor is the ministerial code of conduct “a regulation that sits under the ICAC Act”.

ICAC is simply a commission of inquiry that investigates and reports. If it encounters potential breaches of the criminal law, it has an obligation to hand those matters over to the director of public prosecutions. But it is primarily charged with delivering a report, as other royal commissions do.

Sections 8 and 9 of the NSW act, which provide the meaning of “corrupt conduct”, were designed to define the scope of its powers. It would be unacceptable for the executive government to provide ICAC with terms of reference on a specific allegation. There used to be an old saying in NSW politics – you don’t establish a royal commission if you don’t already know the answer – reflecting the ability of governments to limit political damage by drafting narrow terms of reference.

Section 8 is very wide – it covers a long list of corruption offences, both statutory and common law. But section 9, as originally framed, limited the scope of ICAC’s powers to matters that were already a criminal offence, a disciplinary offence or reasonable grounds for dismissal. The reason for these limitations was to avoid ICAC becoming a morals tribunal, making up standards of its own, or imposing standards retrospectively after a process of scandalisation had resulted in the emergence of new values.

Read more:
As a NSW premier falls and SA guts its anti-corruption commission, what are the lessons for integrity bodies in Australia?

That changed with the addition of section 9d in 1994, following the Supreme Court’s decision in the Greiner case. Parliament extended the scope of corrupt conduct, and so ICAC’s powers, to a substantial breach of a ministerial code of conduct.

Ministerial codes are not primarily about restating the criminal law. They are standards designed to ensure collective responsibility prevails for as long as possible, and that ministerial colleagues believe they can trust one another.

This amendment, initiated by the Liberal-National government of the day, substantially changed the role and function of ICAC. It shifted the focus away from criminal breaches of public trust to incorporate much less serious lapses. The result is that a body charged with exposing corruption, bearing a title that announces that it is charged with exposing corruption, is also responsible for investigating lapses in integrity that fall well short of criminality.

This is directly relevant to the current debate over a federal integrity commission. Senator Helen Haines’s bill borrows the wording of the relevant section from the NSW Act, although it extends the definition to include “a civil liability”. It’s a strange addition that would give this body powers to investigate matters that have nothing at all to do with integrity. This is guaranteed to result in confusion in the minds of the general public, and some journalists and commentators, who will confuse civil litigation, an unintended conflict of interest or a mere breach of convention with criminality.

There is a need for an ongoing anti-corruption body in NSW, to deal with those public officials like Eddie Obeid who flout the law. There is also a need for an integrity commissioner or a committee on standards in public life, utterly distinct from ICAC, to deal with less serious integrity issues, where conventions can be agreed on in a bipartisan way, and grown-up conversations can be had about the ethics that should apply in public life.

Confuse the two and treat all politicians as crooks, and there is the danger that we will end up with less integrity in public office, not more.

Gary Sturgess is employed by ANZSOG which is funded by the national and state governments of Australia and New Zealand. He has conducted numerous government inquiries and served on government committees over the years.

He holds the NSW Premier’s Chair in Public Service Delivery at ANZSOG, which is funded by the NSW government, but is otherwise independent of government.

– ref. A federal ICAC must end the confusion between integrity questions and corruption – https://theconversation.com/a-federal-icac-must-end-the-confusion-between-integrity-questions-and-corruption-169360

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Warren Hogan, Industry Professor, University of Technology Sydney

On Wednesday the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority wrote to each of Australia’s home lenders asking them to make it just a little bit harder for Australians to get mortgage.

The letter, addressed to so-called authorised deposit-taking institutions, asked them to adopt a serviceability buffer “at least 3.0 percentage points over the loan interest rate”.

What that means is they’ll have to grant loans only where they believe the borrowers can afford to keep making payments should their mortgage rates climb three percentage points.

At the moment new variable loans are typically offered something close to 2.8%. The new requirement will prevent lenders from offering such a loan unless the borrower can cope with an increase to 5.8%.

The previous buffer, in place for some years, was 2.5%.

APRA believes the change will cut the maximum amount available to a typical borrower by about 5%.

But it says given that many borrowers borrow much less than the maximum, the overall impact on housing credit growth should be “fairly modest”.

Aimed at debt rather than home prices

APRA says it is not trying to target the level of housing prices, and it looks as if it isn’t (yet) concerned that lending standards are lax, but it wants to ensure “borrowers are well-equipped to service their debts under a range of scenarios”.

Its announcement says increases in the share of heavily indebted borrowers mean “medium-term risks to financial stability are building”.

More than one in five new loans approved in the June quarter were at more than six times the borrowers’ income. As prices have surged, borrowers have pushed themselves deeper into debt in order to get a foothold in the market.

À lire aussi :
Reserve Bank not for turning. No rate hike until unemployment near 4.5%

The reasonable benchmark for lending was once considered to be between three and four times the borrower’s income. But as interest rates have fallen and prices have climbed, borrowers have been increasingly prepared to extend themselves.

APRA says with the economy expected to bounce back as lockdowns end, the balance of risks meant “stronger serviceability standards are warranted”.

The boosted serviceability requirement will also increase the resilience of borrowers to higher interest rates, should they come. Not that the Reserve Bank says they will come for some years; as it tells it, most probably not until 2024.

APRA is taking out insurance.

With global inflation pressures building, there is a risk not only that rates climb go earlier than the Reserve Bank is signalling, but that the increases will be substantial, given how far rates are below normal.

The small adjustment to serviceability buffers has been described as a tap on the brakes of the housing market.

While this might be part of the impact, APRA’s objective is to reduce the vulnerability of individual borrowers and banks themselves to an increase in interest rates down the track.

The biggest impact on the most leveraged borrowers.

The most leveraged borrowers tend to be first home buyers and investors. APRA believes investors will be affected the most because first home buyers tend to be “more constrained by the size of their deposit”.

Investors are more leveraged and often have multiple loans to which the new requirement will be applied.

Insurance, for 2022

So far, investors have been less prominent than usual in the market upturn.

APRA seems to think this is about to change. Investors stayed away when home prices began climbing late last year, but returned to the market this year and have been increasingly active.

À lire aussi :
Home prices are climbing alright, but not for the reason you might think

Unchecked, low interest rates combined with Australia’s favourable taxation treatment of property investment could drive a new wave of investor-driven demand well into 2022.

Low interest rates are making low-yielding real estate extremely attractive.

APRA may be preparing itself for twin threats it sees around the corner – a new wave of investor-driven home price inflation, and the first increase in official interest in more than a decade.

Warren Hogan ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Thanks to APRA, it’s about to become harder to get a mortgage. Here’s why – https://theconversation.com/thanks-to-apra-its-about-to-become-harder-to-get-a-mortgage-heres-why-169346

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nial Wheate, Associate Professor of the Sydney Pharmacy School, University of Sydney

The Australian government has pre-purchased 300,000 courses of an experimental antiviral oral drug called molnupiravir.

Interim results announced by the company, US pharmaceutical Merck, show the drug halved the number of patients who ended up in hospital due to COVID. No patient who took the drug died from the virus.

But the drug isn’t yet available for dispensing from pharmacies because it hasn’t received approval from Australia’s drug regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

If approved it can be used in the community to prevent patients with mild symptoms from developing more severe disease.

Until then, there will be no legal, effective and safe treatments that people with COVID can take at home to keep them out of hospital. As such, we need to continue our push to get maximum vaccination coverage within the community.

Read more:
Stopping, blocking and dampening – how Aussie drugs in the pipeline could treat COVID-19

What is molnupiravir?

Molnupiravir is an experimental antiviral drug that acts against a range of respiratory viruses, including the virus that causes COVID.

For COVID, the instructions for creating more virus are contained in the virus’ RNA. This RNA needs to be read and copied to make new virus particles.

Molnupiravir works by disrupting the replication of the virus. It does this by mimicking two natural compounds called cytidine and uridine that are needed to make RNA. When the body tries to replicate the virus it incorporates molnupiravir into the RNA structure instead of versions of cytidine and uridine. The result is the accumulation of mutations in the virus RNA which then prevent it from causing illness.

This type of technology isn’t new. In fact, we have been using chemotherapy drugs that mimic RNA and DNA ingredients for over 50 years. One drug, called fluorouracil works by preventing DNA production inside cancer cells by mimicking the DNA ingredient thymine.

Results of the clinical trial

Last week Merck announced interim results of a phase 3 clinical trial of molnupiravir.

The company found the drug significantly reduced the risk of hospitalisation or death in patients who took the drug when compared with patients who took a placebo treatment. In fact, the results were so good, an independent data monitoring committee recommended the trial be stopped early.

Overall, the drug reduced hospitalisations and deaths by around 50%. While 14.1% of patients who took placebo ended up in hospital, only 7.3% of molnupiravir patients had the same outcome.

Read more:
What is sotrovimab, the COVID drug the government has bought before being approved for use in Australia?

The results were even better with regard to the death rates. No patient who took molnupiravir died, while eight patients in the placebo group did die.

Importantly, while the clinical trial demonstrated efficacy of the drug, it was also able to show molnupiravir is safe. The rate of side effects was nearly the same in both the molnupiravir and placebo groups. Earlier clinical trials found there are no serious side effects with the drug. The most common, mild effects were headache and diarrhea.

We have to wait for the full data to be released and checked in order to be fully confident in the drug. But the results seem to indicate molnupiravir may be useful for the early treatment of COVID to prevent the development of serious disease and hospitalisation.

How it will be used

Molnupiravir will be able to be taken orally by patients at home after they receive a prescription from their doctor.

A course of treatment will be eight 200 milligram capsules a day for five days; four capsules in the morning and four capsules in the afternoon. A patient can choose whether they want to take the medicine with or without food, as it doesn’t appear to affect the medicine in the body.

It’s unclear whether a positive COVID test will be required before a prescription can be issued. This is something that will be decided by the TGA.

Health Minister Greg Hunt said he encourages Merck to apply for registration of the drug, and the TGA has stated it’s willing to receive an application for provisional registration at which time they can evaluate the data themselves.

Read more:
Could a simple pill beat COVID-19? Pfizer is giving it a go

Associate Professor Wheate in the past has received funding from the ACT Cancer Council, Tenovus Scotland, Medical Research Scotland, Scottish Crucible, and the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance. He is Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute and a member of the Australasian Pharmaceutical Science Association. Nial is science director of the medicinal cannabis company Canngea Pty Ltd, a board member of the Australian Medicinal Cannabis Association, and a Standards Australia committee member for sunscreen agents.

– ref. Take-at-home COVID drug molnupiravir may be on its way — but vaccination is still our first line of defence – https://theconversation.com/take-at-home-covid-drug-molnupiravir-may-be-on-its-way-but-vaccination-is-still-our-first-line-of-defence-169246

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Roman Lanis, Associate Professor, Accounting, University of Technology Sydney

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) is in the process of working through another mountain of documents showing how the rich and powerful use the global financial system to hide their wealth and avoid taxes.

Those 11.9 million records, dubbed the Pandora Papers, follows similar leaks in 2017 (the Paradise Papers), in 2016 (the Panama Papers) and in 2014 (the Luxembourg Leaks, or LuxLeaks).

Commenting on the 13 million financial and tax documents comprising the Paradise Papers in 2017, we wrote that “governments have not learnt their lesson and taken action”.

Four years later here we are again. Some progress has been made on the critical reforms needed – in particular, eliminating the secrecy that shrouds tax havens – but there’s still more to do.

Systemic issues

In sorting through these new documents, journalists have quite reasonably tended to focus on the “easy connections” and “known individuals”. This work has identified at least 956 companies with more than 336 beneficiaries who are “high-level politicians and public officials”.

This includes Vladimir Putin’s mistress allegedly having assets worth US$100 million, Jordan’s King Abdullah II using offshore companies to buy three Malibu mansions for US$70 million, and the 11-year-old son of Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev owning nine waterfront mansions in Dubai worth US$44 million.

Also on the list of 35 current and former national leaders, including Czech prime minister Andrej Babiš, Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and former British prime minister Tony Blair.

But as juicy as these stories are, we should not be distracted from the systemic issues that lead to the wealthy using offshore legal entities and accounts. It’s not always nefarious or illicit.

Read more:
Pandora papers: ‘it’s time to pursue lawyers and accountants who enable tax evasion’ – offshore tax expert Q&A

Protecting assets

In the Pandora Papers are arrangements that, with incomplete information, may appear suspect but may be quite legitimate.

An example might be the 81 trust structures established in the US state of South Dakota and at least 100 more in various other US states where trust disclosures, especially about beneficial ownership, are not mandatory. To properly assess these transactions we really need more information.

Read more:
What’s in the Pandora Papers? And why does South Dakota feature so heavily?

The use of complex business structures, involving countries with high levels of secrecy, may be done to facilitate tax avoidance. But it might also be “asset protection”.

Weak property rights

In countries with weak property rights and unreliable judicial systems, even those who accrue wealth legitimately can fear losing it.

Consider, for example, the case of China’s billionaire actress and singer Zhao Wei, who in August was “erased from history”, or Jack Ma, China’s richest man until he criticised financial regulators last year.

This creates a demand for assets held in other countries (preferably secretly) and a legal system that protects ownership of those assets. It also likely explains why 3.3 million of the 6.9 million documents in this latest leak relate to offices located in Hong Kong.

An analysis of these documents recognising the relative strength of property rights in the countries where individuals, or their businesses, are based would be interesting — and not just as an “academic” exercise.

In many countries, particularly developing countries, weak property rights contribute to lack of capital for economic development by creating incentives for the legitimately wealthy to use offshore accounts and assets.

This suggests a critical need to enhance property rights in these countries.

Weak legal systems also facilitate wealth accumulation through corruption or exploitation.

Unfinished business

Five years ago when discussing the revelations from the Panama Papers, we suggested the first thing the global community needed to do was require the public disclosure of country-by-country reporting of company tax affairs by all tax authorities. This idea (known as CbCR) emerged from OECD and G20 recommendations made about the time of the Luxembourg Leaks in 2014.

Read more:
Three strategies to fight the tax avoidance revealed by the Paradise Papers

About 100 countries have adopted the CbCR policy, at least in part. The problem is that in too many cases – such as Australia and the US – the disclosures are only to the tax authority, not to the public.

In 2017 we also recommended all countries have public registers of beneficial ownership of all entities.

There has also been some progress on this. Significant pressure has been applied to tax havens or secrecy jurisdictions such as the Bahamas and Switzerland. But more is needed.

In Australia, for example, the Paradise Papers led to the government floating the idea of a public register of beneficial ownership, but this was shut down soon after. In the US, states such Delaware and South Dakota are still “secrecy jurisdictions”.

Some progress has been made in making tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions more transparent. But many would say the progress has been mainly benefited wealthy countries, helping them increase tax revenue and to be seen to be doing something to fight corruption, while still allowing corruption to flourish in poorer nations.

Until countries such as the US and Australia embrace the reforms that have been on the table since LuxLeaks, expect further document leaks with similar results in the next five years.

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

– ref. The next Pandora Papers exposé is inevitable – unless governments do more on two key reforms – https://theconversation.com/the-next-pandora-papers-expose-is-inevitable-unless-governments-do-more-on-two-key-reforms-169357

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cecilia Leong-Salobir, Honorary Research Fellow, The University of Western Australia

Review: True to the Land: A History of Food in Australia by Paul van Reyk (Reaktion Books)

Paul van Reyk’s True to the Land: A History of Food in Australia ambitiously evaluates the foodways of this land over 65,000 years. A Sydney-based food writer, van Reyk is also a regular presenter and administrator of the symposium of Australian Gastronomy.

The bulk of rigorous food research in Australia is conducted through university PhD theses, and in recent years several monographs have been published by food historians on the food practices here. This book weaves the history of Indigenous Australians with that of settlers and migrants.

A chronologically organised social history, it is skilfully structured through empirical evidence and ably builds on the work of prominent Australian food historians. In a series of themes spread over ten chapters, van Reyk includes primary sources from newspapers, exploration accounts, early cookery books and women’s magazines. The volume is amply illustrated with maps, recipes, anecdotes and photographs from the archives.

True to the Land, more than any other food history of Australia, re-evaluates previous accepted knowledge about Indigenous Australians on a range of issues including land use, food sovereignty and food security.

Read more:
Can we be Australian without eating indigenous food?

Food and the continent

Throughout this book the author constantly reminds us of the ways in which Indigenous Australians contribute to our foodways (the eating habits and culinary practices of a community). He writes,

[Aboriginal Australians] were actively involved in agriculture and aquaculture, were managing food stock for sustainability and had developed sophisticated strategies for turning fire, a significant environmental hazard, into a powerful tool for resource management. The consequences of this act of possession reverberate through the rest of this book.

The first two chapters discusses the lie of the land in geographical and historical terms. This premises the starting point of the food history of the continent when the First Peoples migrated to the Australian mainland.

Van Reyk, as with other scholars in recent years, asserts that Aboriginal people developed deliberate strategies in resource management of the land. There were controlled burn-offs, careful harvests of food from plants, the sea and other waterways. Importantly too, surplus food was stored for later use, in protected locations such as trees, caves or buried in sand.

Gold and Chinese food

From the period 1788 to 1850, van Reyk details the rudimentary food practices of British colonists in New South Wales, and, the establishment of settlements and colonies in other parts of Australia.

Cooking was done on open fire until permanent homes were built. Colonists and settlers initially supplemented their European diet with native flora and fauna. Colonial land grab caused conflict resulting in the killing of Aboriginal men, women and children.

One outcome of the displacement of Aboriginal peoples and land exploration was the discovery of gold. A direct consequence of the gold rush years, between 1851 to 1899 was the increase in population in the cities and towns associated with the goldfields. European populations prospered and dining out was possible. The gold boom also attracted Chinese workers to Australia; this gave rise to the first Chinese food being sold to the public.

Read more:
From lurid orange sauces to refined, regional flavours: how politics helped shape Chinese food in Australia

Van Reyk pinpoints the ebb and flow of the nation’s economic life between 1900 to 1945 through the years of federation, the two world wars and the interwar years. The publication of cookery books for home cooks began at this time. As the nation prospered, Aboriginal people were coerced to work on farms and as domestic servants on little remuneration.

Aboriginal labour and the stolen generation

Discussing Aboriginal labour and the stolen generation, the author points out that while cookery books and other records

offer insights into the domestic lives of Australian women as home makers, what they don’t tell is the stories of the thousands of Aboriginal women and girls forced into domestic service during these years.

Among other topics examined in the years spanning between 1946 and 1979, are the contributions to the culinary landscape by European postwar migrants and the Asianisation of Australian foodways.

The emergence of modern Australian cuisine took hold from the 1980s to the 1990s, with rising affluence. The concluding chapter identifies current environmental and sustainable concerns of foodways in the nation and food insecurity among Aboriginal Australians.

Read more:
From curried wombat to rendang and doro wat: a brief history of curry in Australia

I have two minor criticisms. One, it would enhance this book if there was more engagement with secondary sources pertinent to food historiography. I temper this though by saying that the readability of this book for the general reader is achieved without overuse of theory and jargon. The other criticism is that not all authors cited are in the index. These two points in no way detract from what is a brilliantly structured and well-researched book.

I highly recommend True to the Land to the general public, university students of food history, school teachers and academics. This food history is also relevant to researchers on Australian history, colonial history and cultural and social histories.

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

– ref. True to the Land: a new history of food in Australia begins 65,000 years ago – https://theconversation.com/true-to-the-land-a-new-history-of-food-in-australia-begins-65-000-years-ago-166965

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Poole, Associate Professor in Physiology, UNSW

We have more than five senses. What you might think of as your sense of “touch” is actually a range of different sensory pathways that allow you to distinguish various types of mechanical forces, to detect changes in temperature, and to feel pain.

This year’s Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, announced this week, went to US physiologist David Julius and Lebanese-born researcher Ardem Patapoutian, for revealing the mechanisms that underpin these various sensations of touch. So how do these mechanisms work?

Read more:
Nobel prize: how chili peppers helped researchers uncover how humans feel pain

Our brains constantly process vast amounts of tactile and thermal information from our environment. As your hand wraps around your coffee cup in the morning, you can sense whether the coffee is too hot, just right for drinking, or has gone cold. You can feel the weight of the cup in your hand and the smoothness of its surface, and sense the positioning of your arm as you move to take a sip.

To make sense of all these stimuli, our bodies need to convert external environmental information into biological signals. This process begins at nerve cell endings in our skin.

On the surface of these nerve cells are specialised molecules called “ion channels” that can open in response to an environmental stimulus, resulting in a localised electrical signal. This signal can then be amplified into an electrical impulse that is transmitted via nerve cells to our brain, where it is interpreted as a sensation.

Julius and Patapoutian made separate and equally significant contributions to our understanding of exactly which types of ion channels can act as sensory receptors.

In 1997, Julius and his team identified the first known receptor for heat, by investigating how cells respond to capsaicin, the chemical that causes the burning sensation when we eat hot chillies.

Their research identified an ion channel known as TRPV1 as the receptor activated by capsaicin. What’s more, they demonstrated this receptor is also activated by high temperatures that we perceive as painful.

Subsequent research has identified other members of the same family of ion channels that are each activated by a distinct temperature range. Thus, to sense different temperatures, our bodies use separate receptors to distinguish between painful or damaging heat or cold, and to sense moderate changes in temperature.

Read more:
Can eating hot chilli peppers actually hurt you?

More than two decades later, in 2010, Patapoutian finally identified one of the receptors that responds to mechanical forces, enabling our sense of touch. He and his team identified a receptor molecule that responds to pressure, by using a fine probe to make tiny indentations in laboratory-cultured cells.

They named the ion channel PIEZO1, from the Greek word for pressure. They went on to demonstrate that a second ion channel, PIEZO2, is also required for our nerve cells to sense touch. When the surface of a sensory nerve cell is indented, both these receptor molecules change shape, initiating an electrical impulse.

What’s more, PIEZO2 receptors not only enable a sense of touch but also signal mechanical information from within our bodies. They thus allow us to detect stretching in our limbs so we can control our movement, and signal when our lungs are fully inflated or our bladder is full.

Research is still ongoing to discover whether our nerve cells have other mechanically activated ion channels that help us perceive our environment in other ways.

So when you next take a sip of hot coffee, or feel a cool breeze on your face, imagine those tiny receptor molecules in your nerve endings, working hard to deliver those signals to your brain so you can enjoy the world around you.

Kate Poole receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) and the Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development (US Airforce Office of Scientific Research)

– ref. How do you feel? Your ‘sense of touch’ is several different senses rolled into one – https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-feel-your-sense-of-touch-is-several-different-senses-rolled-into-one-169344

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Bean, Research Fellow, The University of Queensland

Hopping on your bike when it’s raining, or snowing, might seem unappealing. But our research has found inclement weather conditions deter some cyclists more than others.

In the first analysis of its kind, we captured eight years of data from 40 bike-sharing schemes around the world, across a range of climate zones, totalling 100 million trips. We then linked this data to fine-grained historical weather information.

We found weather patterns affect people’s willingness to cycle in different ways. For example, people in Melbourne are more likely to avoid cycling in the rain or snow than people in Dublin. And female cyclists are more put off by rain and snow than male cyclists.

These differences are important. Personal decisions on how and when to travel can affect overall traffic congestion, environmental pollution and travel experience. So understanding how outdoor conditions affect cycling is crucial to effective transport planning and more sustainable cities.

Insights from ‘big data’

Obviously, cycling behaviour is more affected by bad weather than most other forms of transport. Previous research has confirmed this; however, the data has been patchy and limited. Bike-share schemes, which digitally record every trip taken, mean excellent “big data” is now available.

We used data from 40 public bike sharing programs in 40 cities across 16 countries. The programs spanned five climate zones, ranging from hot to frosty.

The cycling habits of people who own their bike may differ from those who use bike-sharing schemes. But bad weather can cause all cyclists to delay trips or change transport modes, so most of our findings are likely to apply broadly.

Read more:
Australian cycling boom? Nope – it’s a myth

What we found

Prior studies have shown rain and snow are among the worst deterrents for cycling. But our analysis reveals a more nuanced picture.

In cities such as Melbourne (Australia), Chicago (the United States) and Vancouver (Canada), people are more likely to avoid cycling when it rains or snows.

In the top 5% rainiest hours of the year in Dublin (Ireland), people use bike share at 81% of the average usage rate. In Seville and Valencia these figures are 79% and 74%, respectively.

In Brisbane this figure drops to 68%, while in Melbourne it’s 46%.

Past research has assumed this trend is due to people in cooler cities being more accustomed to rain and snow, while people in hot climes are accustomed to the sun. But while Dublin is notoriously rainy, Seville and Valencia are rather dry.

Various factors may affect willingness to cycle in the rain. For example, high-quality cycling infrastructure may spur people to get on their bikes even in inclement weather. Seville and Valencia have large bike-share systems and safe cycling networks, whereas Melbourne’s was small and not particularly useful for commuting.

Other factors can push bike-share use up or down. They include lengthening opening hours, increasing prices or changing public transport arrangements – for example, Melbourne’s free tram zone.

We found female cyclists are put off by rain and snow more than male cyclists. Not all bike-share systems record the gender of subscribers, and so this effect could only be studied in New York City and Chicago.

This may suggest a greater risk aversion among women, often the product of socialisation in patriarchal cultures where women are taught from childhood to take fewer risks.

Read more:
Too wet? Too cold? Too hot? This is how weather affects the trips we make

Goldilocks temperatures

Unsurprisingly, people cycle when it’s not too hot or too cold. We found the sweet spot is around 27-28℃, and bike usage declines when it gets hotter or colder.

But what’s considered too hot or too cold to cycle is not closely connected to the climate zone.

For example, cyclists in Trondheim (Norway) and Ljubljana (Slovenia) are sensitive to lower temperatures even though the first is a cold city and the second is less so. And cyclists in chilly Dublin (Ireland) and tropical Kaohsiung (Taiwan) are less sensitive to lower temperatures, even though these two cities also have vastly different climates.

This finding is surprising because, as with rain and snow, it was previously assumed people in the tropics could tolerate more heat while people in temperate climates were more tolerant of cooler temperatures.

Read more:
Cycling and walking are short-changed when it comes to transport funding in Australia

On your bike

In Australia, bicycle travel accounts for only about 1% of journeys. Obviously, we can’t control the weather – but we can transform our institutional and political environments to remove barriers to cycling.

This includes creating safe, weatherproof infrastructure separated from high-speed motor vehicles. And cycling should become an integral part of transport planning and receive a fair share of funding.

Such changes will require public support to implement. Planning officials and cycling advocates must do better at motivating people to cycle. This might include positioning cycling as a “normal” pursuit, or framing it as a source of pleasure and well-being.

Improving cycling rates offers huge potential benefits. It would lower health-care costs, ease traffic congestion, lower greenhouse gas emissions and, importantly, make our cities more liveable places.

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

– ref. We analysed 100 million bike trips to reveal where in the world cyclists are most likely to brave rain and cold – https://theconversation.com/we-analysed-100-million-bike-trips-to-reveal-where-in-the-world-cyclists-are-most-likely-to-brave-rain-and-cold-166894

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wen-Ti Sung, Sessional Lecturer, Taiwan Studies Programme, Australian National University

China has been flying a record number of military aircrafts into Taiwan’s “air defence identification zone” in recent days, heightening regional concerns about the risk of military escalation or even an outright war.

Taiwanese people are largely alert, but not alarmed. So, why are the Taiwanese not losing their minds over what seems to be intensifying “drums of war”?

It comes down to familiarity with China’s pattern of military pressure tactics, as well as a general alarm fatigue from decades of exposure.

Why is China flying so many jets near Taiwan?

Many Taiwanese see the Chinese military display as more of a show than a preparation for an all-out invasion. There are several reasons being China’s “show of force” in recent days, pointing to short- and medium-term goals.

Domestically, the military pressure serves Chinese President Xi Jinping’s propaganda and political agenda. Xi’s defining political idea is promoting the “China Dream” to his people, which partly entails becoming “a strong nation with a strong army”.

China had just had its National Day celebration on October 1, and a public show of force is a visual embodiment of that narrative. China’s nationalist Global Times newspaper even went so far as to call the flight incursions a form of National Day “military parade”.

Moreover, the Chinese Communist Party is at a key period in terms of its leadership reshuffle. Next month, it will hold its Sixth Plenum, an important meeting where party heavyweights will discuss and build consensus on forming a de facto shortlist for the next generation of party leadership (to be installed in late 2022).

At this critical juncture, as Xi faces significant internal dissent, a muscular show of force seems to be a natural instrument to generate pro-incumbent, rally-around-the-flag sentiment.

Xi will likely remain supreme leader no matter what. But such a nationalist display increases the chances his preferred proteges will be on the shortlist for other key positions just below him.

Shaping the China policy of Taiwan’s opposition party

Taiwan’s main opposition party, the Kuomintang (KMT), has also just elected a new leader after a party campaign focused primarily on Taiwan’s policy towards China.

The new chairman, Eric Chu, who ran on an American-friendly foreign policy platform, won a humble victory with 45% of the votes in a tight, four-way race. Chu has since promised to be an unifier who will listen to other voices in his party, and has pledged to renew stalled talks with China.

As such, Beijing has good reason to impose military pressure at this moment in the hope of nudging the KMT’s new policy in Beijing’s preferred direction.

Notably, while Beijing sent a total of 149 military jets into Taiwan’s vicinity from October 1–4, it reportedly sent only one on October 5 – the day the KMT’s new leader assumed office.

Military threat against Taiwan faces diminishing returns

Another reason why Taiwanese people are not very alarmed by the increasing number of Chinese warplanes is simply the law of diminishing impact over time.

People are used to this type of low-intensity Chinese military provocation. In fact, they been living in the near-constant presence of Chinese military and diplomatic pressure for over a quarter century.

In the run-up to Taiwan’s first direct presidential election in 1996, China’s People’s Liberation Army conducted massive missile tests in the waters near Taiwan, which strongly hinted at a possible invasion.

Read more:
Taiwan: what election victory for Tsai Ing-wen means for the island’s future

Since then, China has frequently staged military exercises around Taiwan, including flying military jets into the island’s vicinity. These are intended to underscore the risks of potential war and caution Taiwan against crossing Beijing’s “red lines”.

Chinese state television, for example, once published a video of the Zhurihe training drills of 2015, which included footage of Chinese soldiers assaulting a building that bore a remarkable resemblance to Taiwan’s presidential office.

Is China really in a hurry to invade Taiwan?

This long-standing Chinese strategy of brinkmanship theatre has been a double-edged sword. It has encouraged pragmatism in Taiwan’s pursuit of a stronger identity on the global stage, but it has also alienated many Taiwanese from Beijing.

For example, polls consistently show less than 10% of Taiwanese favour unification with China, and a negligible 2.7% self-identify as primarily “Chinese” in their national identity.

Then why does Beijing still resort to these alienating tactics, if unification is the ultimate goal?

One explanation is Beijing places a higher priority on deterring Taiwan’s further movement towards independence than promoting unification, so it is willing to trade the latter for the former. In other words, Beijing may simply not be as zealous about pursuing unification in the near-term.

Instead, keeping an eye on the long game, Beijing is willing to risk short- to medium-term costs in losing hearts and minds in Taiwan. The hope is, in time, it can eventually regain the initiative. For this reason, being able to deter further movement towards independence may be sufficient to buy China much-needed time.

Read more:
Australia would be wise not to pound ‘war drums’ over Taiwan with so much at stake

So what is Beijing’s ultimate plan?

According to hawkish General Qiao Liang, the plan is “strategic patience”.

This means waiting until the cross-strait military balance tilts further in China’s favour, using the military option only when it can comprehensively overwhelm Taiwan and disincentivise or even deny American military intervention.

And politically, Beijing aims to use the gravity of its economy to attract Taiwanese youth opinion leaders and slowly build back Taiwanese support for eventual unification. In this approach, economic incentives replace soft power, which Beijing is lacking at the moment.

Read more:
China does not want war, at least not yet. It’s playing the long game

This is in line with Marxist logic, which is fundamental to Chinese communism. In this line of thinking, connections built on “infrastructure” (material and economic common interests) are longer-lasting than connections based on “superstructure” (ideational or emotional alignment).

The challenge for Taiwan and like-minded societies in the west is both to prove the resiliency of their shared liberal democratic values and build a concerted voice that prevents China from mistaking Taiwan for a soft target.

Only through closer cooperation with other like-minded democracies can Taiwan mitigate the risk of military escalation and ensure China’s development will remain peaceful into the future. This is ultimately in the interest not only of the region, but China itself.

Wen-Ti Sung receives funding from Taiwan Fellowship, a competitive research grant provided by Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that supports scholars to conduct fieldwork research on Taiwan.

– ref. Why Taiwan remains calm in the face of unprecedented military pressure from China – https://theconversation.com/why-taiwan-remains-calm-in-the-face-of-unprecedented-military-pressure-from-china-169160

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

Our names are a critical part of our identity. They are a personal and social anchor tying us to our families, our culture, our history and place in the world.

For Māori, a name is intrinsic to, and linked by, our whakapapa (genealogy), often reflecting the elements observed, such as a river (awa), at the time of birth before entering Te Ao Mārama, the world of life and light.

In law, names matter too. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Aotearoa New Zealand accepted in 1993, states that every child has the right to a name. The law governs the naming of individuals as well as the changing of names.

But no such laws exist for countries. Nations can and do change their own names (such as when they gain independence), or have them changed by others (such as after a war). What worked for an earlier generation may not for later ones, as national values and identities evolve.

This is the challenge presented in a petition organised by Te Pāti Māori (Māori Party). As well as calling for Aotearoa to become the country’s official name, the party also wants to restore all original Māori place names by 2026.

Names can change

As these and other lands were colonised, so too were their original place names, with the colonisers seeking to assert their authority and versions of history.

Power, the politics of language and the naming of places are all closely related. As the old saying goes, “the namer of names is the father of all things”.

Many European explorers preferred to name what they “discovered” after something they were familiar with. New York was named by the British after they defeated the Dutch, who had named their settlement New Amsterdam, part of the region they called New Netherland.

Read more:
Removing monuments to an imperial past is not the same for former colonies as it is for former empires

Before the arrival of the Dutch and British, the wider area was called manaháhtaan, from the Indigenous Munsee language of the Lenape people, which lives on in the name Manhattan.

Closer to home, the Dutch name New Holland was slowly phased out in the early 19th century by the colonial authorities in favour of Australia, from the Latin “Terra Australis” (Southern Land), a reference to the mythical great unknown southern land “terra australis incognita”.

A short history of Nieuw Zeeland

Over the years there have been various petitions and attempts to change the name of New Zealand, including in 1895 a call to officially adopt “Māoriland”, already a common unofficial name for the country.

When Abel Tasman sighted these well-populated shores in 1642, he called the place Staten Land in the belief it was somehow connected to an Isla de los Estados (Staten Island) in what is now modern Argentina.

Read more:
Bilingual road signs in Aotearoa New Zealand would tell us where we are as a nation

Later, however, a Dutch East India Company cartographer conferred the name Nieuw Zeeland (or Nova Zeelandia in Latin).

“Zee” in Dutch translates as “sea”, and its English etymology is complicated. It seems to be of Gothic origin, emerging from Germany, and was adopted into the languages of Northern Europe where, for example, Sjælland (sea-land) described a place closely connected to the sea.

Māori on the first map

Our country was not named directly after the link between land and sea, but rather after the Dutch place that already had this name — specifically, Zeeland in the south-west of the Netherlands. Forts in modern-day Taiwan and Guyana were also called Zeelandia by early Dutch explorers.

When James Cook arrived in 1769, Nieuw Zeeland was anglicised to New Zealand, as can be seen in his famous 1770 map. Cook renamed Te Moana-o-Raukawa as Cook Strait, and imposed dozens more English place names.

He did, however, attempt to retain Māori names for both main islands: his map records “Eaheinomauwe” (possibly He-mea-hī-nō-Māui, or the things Māui fished up) for the North Island and “T Avai Poonamoo” (Te Wai Pounamu, or greenstone waters) for the South Island.

The first reference in legislation to “New Zealand” was in the Murders Abroad Act of 1817, passed by parliament in England in response to increasing lawlessness in the South Pacific – including the maltreatment of Indigenous sailors aboard European ships.

Paradoxically, perhaps, the act demonstrated a British view that New Zealand was not truly part of the British realm.

Read more:
Matariki: reintroducing the tradition of Māori New Year celebrations

Nu Tirene appears

By 1835, a number of iwi (tribes) engaged in international trade and politics were using the name “Nu Tireni” to describe New Zealand in their correspondence with Britain.

Nu Tirene then appeared in the 1835 Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes of New Zealand, and then Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840.

The Māori Legal Corpus, a digitised collection of thousands of pages of legal texts in te reo Māori spanning 1829 to 2009, contains around 4,800 references to Nu Tirene, Niu Tirani and Niu Tirene.

The translation into te reo Māori of the Maori Language Act 1987 refers to Niu Tireni, as does the Māori Language Act 2016.

Read more:
Let’s choose our words more carefully when discussing mātauranga Māori and science

Locating Aotearoa

The precise origin of the composite term “Aotearoa” is not known. But if we translate “Ao” as world, “tea” as bright or white, and “roa” as long, we have the common translation of “long bright world” or “long white cloud”.

Sir George Grey used Aotearoa in his 1855 Polynesian Mythology, and Ancient Traditional History of the New Zealand Race, and in his 1857 Māori proverbs work, Ko nga whakapepeha me nga whakaahuareka a nga tipuna o Aotea-roa.

The Māori Legal Corpus mentions Aotearoa 2,748 times, with one of the earliest written references being Wiremu Tamehana’s hui invitation to other chiefs in October 1862.

The popularity of Aotearoa can be gauged from William Pember Reeves’ 1898 history of New Zealand: The Long White Cloud Ao Tea Roa.

Today, government departments commonly use Aotearoa, and it appears on the national currency. One of the commonest expressions of personal and national identity is the “Uruwhenua Aotearoa New Zealand” passport.

Time for change?

Whether enough New Zealanders want a formal change isn’t clear. A recent poll showed a majority wanting to retain New Zealand, but a significant number interested in a combined Aotearoa New Zealand.

Nor is there consensus on Aotearoa being the best alternative, with some debate about whether the name originally referred only to the North Island and Aotearoa me Te Waipounamu being used in the south.

At the same time, there is a growing awareness of te reo Māori (as an official language, including among Pākehā) and understanding of our national names and their significance. This allows us to better understand where we have come from and where we want to go.

By also acknowledging Māori names, we give substance to our distinctness as a nation. In time, perhaps, it will lead to us embracing a name that better reflects our history, our place in the world and our shared future.

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

– ref. Putting Aotearoa on the map: New Zealand has changed its name before, why not again? – https://theconversation.com/putting-aotearoa-on-the-map-new-zealand-has-changed-its-name-before-why-not-again-168651

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Clare Collins, Laureate Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Newcastle

Salt is the most common form of sodium and is added to food during manufacturing, home cooking or at the table to enhance the taste or to extend the shelf life.

Most people have heard the advice to cut down on salt.
That’s because high sodium intakes are associated with high blood pressure, a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease, heart attacks and strokes.

So the recent headline “Food myths busted: dairy, salt and steak may be good for you after all” was bound to grab-attention.

In the research article this headline is based on, the authors examined whether advice to substantially lower sodium intakes was supported by robust evidence.

The article’s premise is that current advice to limit sodium consumption to 2.3 grams a day is unachievable for most people in the long term. And it claims there isn’t good quality evidence to show lower salt intakes reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

The authors suggest that current global sodium intakes, which range from 3-5 grams per day, are associated with the lowest risks for a heart attack, stroke or dying prematurely. And that heart attacks and strokes increase only when sodium intakes are higher or lower than this.

But there are a number of controversies about these claims, and the existing advice to limit salt consumption remains. Lets take a closer a look at some of the issues associated with these claims, as well as important research the authors missed.

Most of us could afford to cut down on salt

One teaspoon of salt weighs around 5 grams and contains 2 grams of sodium.

Australians consume about 3.6 grams of sodium per day, equivalent to 9.2 grams (about 2 teaspoons) of table salt.

This is higher than the suggested dietary target of 2 grams of sodium (5 grams of salt) per day and the adequate intake range of 460-920 milligrams (1.3-2.6 grams of salt) a day.

Read more:
Health Check: how much salt is OK to eat?

Sodium intakes in Australia are similar to the rest of the world. Data from 66 countries, accounting for three-quarters of the world’s adult population, reported the average sodium consumption is 3.95 grams per day and ranges from 2.2 to 5.5 grams per day.

Yes, it’s possible to cut down on salt

Changing individual behaviour long term is challenging. But it’s possible.

A 2017 systematic review of dietary salt-reduction interventions found individual dietary counselling could reduce a person’s salt consumption by about 2 grams a day (equivalent to 780mg of sodium), over time periods up to five years.

Population-wide strategies that include reformulating manufactured food with lower levels of salt, improved labelling and mass media education were even more effective in some regions, reducing average salt intakes by around 4 grams a day in Finland and Japan.

The authors of the latest paper highlight a lack of studies in the population showing they’ve achieved dietary sodium intakes of less that 2.3 grams per day.

But this fails to acknowledge the challenges in conducting such a study to test that, or the importance of reducing your sodium intake relative to what you usually consume.

Cutting salt lowers your risk of heart disease

A recently published randomised trial across 600 villages in rural China shows cutting salt intakes can reduce a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease, heart attack and stroke.

The study included more than 20,000 people with high blood pressure who either had a history of stroke or were aged over 60 years. One group was randomly assigned to use a salt substitute to reduce their sodium intake. The second group continued to use regular salt. Both groups were followed up over five years.

Read more:
There is no great salt debate: we should be consuming less

The intervention led to a reduction in sodium excreted in the urine (indicating complicance) and a reduction in blood pressure.

The rate of any major cardiovascular event, including heart attack, was 13% lower among those in the salt-substitute group compared to the regular salt group. The rate of strokes was 14% lower.

This trial demonstrates the benefit of reducing dietary sodium intakes, irrespective of a specific daily target.

Is it risky to have too little salt?

Humans need sodium to maintain essential bodily processes such as fluid volume and cell stability. Sodium levels are balanced though a sensitive system of hormones, chemical processes and nerves to ensure that sodium in excess of needs is excreted in the urine.

There is conflicting evidence about heart health when you have very low sodium intakes. Some researchers have suggested there is a J-shaped relationship, where both low and very high intakes increase the risk of poor outcomes (the end of a “J” shape), while the lowest risk is across a broad mid-point of salt intake (the curve in the “J”).

Read more:
Salt: how to cut back without losing that delicious flavour

The J-shaped curve in some studies on salt and blood pressure can be explained by issues such as measurement error, random variation, other differences (in age, sex, smoking status or socioeconomic status), existing dietary patterns or other health problems, interactions between a major sodium reduction, and the body’s physiological pathways that regulate blood pressure.

Or it could be explained by reverse causation, where the people recruited into the study report low sodium intakes because they have already been advised to follow a low salt diet before enrolling in the trial.

While we wait for more research to explaining discrepancies related to a J-shape curve, the evidence overwhelmingly finds lower sodium intakes, compared to higher intakes, lead to important reductions in blood pressure.

Read more:
Seven things to eat or avoid to lower your blood pressure

Clare Collins is affiliated with the Priority Research Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition, the University of Newcastle, NSW. She has received research grants from NHMRC, ARC, MRFF, Hunter Medical Research Institute, Diabetes Australia, Heart Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, nib foundation, Rijk Zwaan Australia, WA Dept. Health, Meat and Livestock Australia, and Greater Charitable Foundation. She has consulted to SHINE Australia, Novo Nordisk, Quality Bakers, the Sax Institute and the ABC. She was a team member conducting systematic reviews to inform the Australian Dietary Guidelines update and the Heart Foundation evidence reviews on meat and dietary patterns.

– ref. Is salt good for you after all? The evidence says no – https://theconversation.com/is-salt-good-for-you-after-all-the-evidence-says-no-168743

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mohamad Bazzi, Postdoctoral research fellow, University of Zurich

Before humans and early primates, before dinosaurs, and even before trees, there were sharks. Sharks have been around for more than 400 million years (although how long exactly remains contested). They have survived five major mass extinctions.

But the sharks of long ago are not like the ones we see today. In fact, we still understand quite little about their long-term evolution. Our research, published today in the journal Current Biology, demonstrates how shark evolution over the past 83 million years has been driven by diet preference and climate change — leading to the diversity we see today.

As it turns out, being picky about your prey is a risky game for sharks to play.

When the scales tipped

One of the more peculiar patterns in biology is for very closely related orders of living animals to have greatly different numbers of species. A notable example is the difference in species number between mackerel sharks (the Lamniformes order) and ground sharks (the Carcharhiniformes order).

Both orders share nearly 170 million years of evolutionary history, and both have species found the world over. However, there are only 15 species of Lamniformes known today (including the great white shark), compared to more than 290 species of Carcharhiniformes (including hammerheads, tiger sharks and many species found on coral reefs).

But why do some orders of shark thrive, while others dwindle? To find out, we turned to the fossil record.

The fossil record reveals shark species in prehistoric times followed a very different pattern to species alive today. Before the “age of dinosaurs” ended some 66 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous Period, Lamniformes were more diverse than Carcharhiniformes.

To investigate this shift, we looked at changes in the shapes of shark teeth over the past 83 million years.

Why teeth?

Unlike their soft cartilaginous skeleton, shark teeth are made up of a substance called “enameloid”, making them very hard. Sharks also continuously grow new teeth, which means their teeth provide an almost continuous fossil record.

Luckily, the shapes of shark teeth also provide rich information on their diets. For instance, a fish-eating shark is likely to have pointy, narrow teeth — often with multiple cusps to increase its chances of catching slippery prey (see the image of the mako shark below, a predominately bony-fish specialist).

By comparison, a shark that specialises in hunting seals is more likely to have broad teeth, which may be serrated to help with cutting. It is precisely this variation in tooth shape which we focused on in our latest study.

By examining more than 3,000 teeth, we found a clear link between changes in tooth shape over time and changes in the environment that took place during and after the end-Cretaceous mass extinction — the same event that wiped-out non-bird dinosaurs about 66 million years ago.

Plenty of fish, yet sharks can be choosy

During the Cretaceous, when Laminformes were more abundant, many shark species lived in inland seas that were common at the time. One example was the Western Interior Seaway, which divided North America into east and west “subcontinents”.

However, towards the end of the Cretaceous, these inland seas started disappearing. Sea levels lowered and exposed entire chunks of land. Inland seas are rare today (the Caspian Sea is one example, but it too is receding).

Read more:
The Caspian Sea is set to fall by 9 metres or more this century – an ecocide is imminent

The reduction in these marine ecosystems led to a significant loss of wildlife, including marine reptiles and cephalopod ammonites (relatives of squid and octopus) upon which many Cretaceous Lamniformes preyed.

As a result, many Lamniformes suffered extinction. On the other hand, Lamniformes with more generalised diets survived the extinction event — as did Carcharhiniformes, which also tend to have more generalised diets.

Why the meg went missing

A similar event may have occurred just a few million years ago to one of the most awe-inspiring lamniform sharks ever known: the meg (Otodus megalodon). The meg was the largest predatory shark species to have existed.

Megalodon was truly an imposing predator that lived during the Miocene and early Pliocene, roughly 4—23 million years ago. Based on its tooth shape, it likely specialised in eating whales, which were very diverse at that time.

Our results show the period in which it lived was also a turning point for Lamniformes, with record-low tooth disparity (a loss in the amount of shape variation).

Although it’s still difficult to know why exactly the meg went extinct, it’s likely its specialised diet, which might have included the giant sperm whale Leviathan melvillei, put it at a disadvantage as cooling climates during the Miocene and Pliocene led to changes in its preferred diet.

To generalise, it seems specialised diets, such as that of the megalodon and some Cretaceous Lamniformes, may have put these species at a greater risk of extinction.

Read more:
Making a megalodon: the evolving science behind estimating the size of the largest ever killer shark

Today’s species

So what does this mean for modern sharks?

By studying the stomach contents of modern Lamniformes, we found most species tend to feed on specific food groups. The thresher and mako sharks feed primarily on bony fish. The basking shark exclusively eats plankton, while adult great white sharks feed mainly on mammals.

Since Lamniformes were much more diverse in the past, our research indicates the low diversity of Lamniformes living today is likely the result of repeated extinction events.

By comparison, modern and past Carcharhiniformes are and were more flexible in their diets. They also benefited directly from the expansion of coral reefs over the past 50 million years.

Thanks to important biological insights offered by the fossil record, we now have evidence dietary specialisation and adaptability to environmental changes likely drove shark evolution over the past 83 million years — leading to the imbalance in Lamniformes and Carcharhiniformes species numbers today.

But what does the future hold? Although it’s hard to say for sure, the news isn’t great for Lamniformes. Of the 15 species remaining, five are classified as “endangered” or “critically endangered” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Another five are considered “vulnerable”.

Lamniformes are also mostly oceanic species with specialised diets, and are therefore particularly vulnerable to chronic overfishing and habitat destruction.
And since our results indicate diet and prey availability underpinned much of the diversity among modern sharks, we think it will probably decide their survival in the future, too.

Mohamad Bazzi receives funding from Forschungskredit (K-74604-01-01).

Nicolas Campione receives funding from the Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Research Award (DE190101423).

– ref. How fussy eating and changing environments led to the diversity of sharks today (and spelled the end for megalodon) – https://theconversation.com/how-fussy-eating-and-changing-environments-led-to-the-diversity-of-sharks-today-and-spelled-the-end-for-megalodon-168851

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mohamad Bazzi, Postdoctoral research fellow, University of Zurich

Before humans and early primates, before dinosaurs, and even before trees, there were sharks. Sharks have been around for more than 400 million years (although how long exactly remains contested). They have survived five major mass extinctions.

But the sharks of long ago are not like the ones we see today. In fact, we still understand quite little about their long-term evolution. Our research, published today in the journal Current Biology, demonstrates how shark evolution over the past 83 million years has been driven by diet preference and climate change — leading to the diversity we see today.

As it turns out, being picky about your prey is a risky game for sharks to play.

When the scales tipped

One of the more peculiar patterns in biology is for very closely related orders of living animals to have greatly different numbers of species. A notable example is the difference in species number between mackerel sharks (the Lamniformes order) and ground sharks (the Carcharhiniformes order).

Both orders share nearly 170 million years of evolutionary history, and both have species found the world over. However, there are only 15 species of Lamniformes known today (including the great white shark), compared to more than 290 species of Carcharhiniformes (including hammerheads, tiger sharks and many species found on coral reefs).

But why do some orders of shark thrive, while others dwindle? To find out, we turned to the fossil record.

The fossil record reveals shark species in prehistoric times followed a very different pattern to species alive today. Before the “age of dinosaurs” ended some 66 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous Period, Lamniformes were more diverse than Carcharhiniformes.

To investigate this shift, we looked at changes in the shapes of shark teeth over the past 83 million years.

Why teeth?

Unlike their soft cartilaginous skeleton, shark teeth are made up of a substance called “enameloid”, making them very hard. Sharks also continuously grow new teeth, which means their teeth provide an almost continuous fossil record.

Luckily, the shapes of shark teeth also provide rich information on their diets. For instance, a fish-eating shark is likely to have pointy, narrow teeth — often with multiple cusps to increase its chances of catching slippery prey (see the image of the mako shark below, a predominately bony-fish specialist).

By comparison, a shark that specialises in hunting seals is more likely to have broad teeth, which may be serrated to help with cutting. It is precisely this variation in tooth shape which we focused on in our latest study.

By examining more than 3,000 teeth, we found a clear link between changes in tooth shape over time and changes in the environment that took place during and after the end-Cretaceous mass extinction — the same event that wiped-out non-bird dinosaurs about 66 million years ago.

Plenty of fish, yet sharks can be choosy

During the Cretaceous, when Laminformes were more abundant, many shark species lived in inland seas that were common at the time. One example was the Western Interior Seaway, which divided North America into east and west “subcontinents”.

However, towards the end of the Cretaceous, these inland seas started disappearing. Sea levels lowered and exposed entire chunks of land. Inland seas are rare today (the Caspian Sea is one example, but it too is receding).

Read more:
The Caspian Sea is set to fall by 9 metres or more this century – an ecocide is imminent

The reduction in these marine ecosystems led to a significant loss of wildlife, including marine reptiles and cephalopod ammonites (relatives of squid and octopus) upon which many Cretaceous Lamniformes preyed.

As a result, many Lamniformes suffered extinction. On the other hand, Lamniformes with more generalised diets survived the extinction event — as did Carcharhiniformes, which also tend to have more generalised diets.

Why the meg went missing

A similar event may have occurred just a few million years ago to one of the most awe-inspiring lamniform sharks ever known: the meg (Otodus megalodon). The meg was the largest predatory shark species to have existed.

Megalodon was truly an imposing predator that lived during the Miocene and early Pliocene, roughly 4—23 million years ago. Based on its tooth shape, it likely specialised in eating whales, which were very diverse at that time.

Our results show the period in which it lived was also a turning point for Lamniformes, with record-low tooth disparity (a loss in the amount of shape variation).

Although it’s still difficult to know why exactly the meg went extinct, it’s likely its specialised diet, which might have included the giant sperm whale Leviathan melvillei, put it at a disadvantage as cooling climates during the Miocene and Pliocene led to changes in its preferred diet.

To generalise, it seems specialised diets, such as that of the megalodon and some Cretaceous Lamniformes, may have put these species at a greater risk of extinction.

Read more:
Making a megalodon: the evolving science behind estimating the size of the largest ever killer shark

Today’s species

So what does this mean for modern sharks?

By studying the stomach contents of modern Lamniformes, we found most species tend to feed on specific food groups. The thresher and mako sharks feed primarily on bony fish. The basking shark exclusively eats plankton, while adult great white sharks feed mainly on mammals.

Since Lamniformes were much more diverse in the past, our research indicates the low diversity of Lamniformes living today is likely the result of repeated extinction events.

By comparison, modern and past Carcharhiniformes are and were more flexible in their diets. They also benefited directly from the expansion of coral reefs over the past 50 million years.

Thanks to important biological insights offered by the fossil record, we now have evidence dietary specialisation and adaptability to environmental changes likely drove shark evolution over the past 83 million years — leading to the imbalance in Lamniformes and Carcharhiniformes species numbers today.

But what does the future hold? Although it’s hard to say for sure, the news isn’t great for Lamniformes. Of the 15 species remaining, five are classified as “endangered” or “critically endangered” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Another five are considered “vulnerable”.

Lamniformes are also mostly oceanic species with specialised diets, and are therefore particularly vulnerable to chronic overfishing and habitat destruction.
And since our results indicate diet and prey availability underpinned much of the diversity among modern sharks, we think it will probably decide their survival in the future, too.

Mohamad Bazzi receives funding from Forschungskredit (K-74604-01-01).

Nicolas Campione receives funding from the Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Research Award (DE190101423).

– ref. How fussy eating and changing environments led to the diversity of sharks today (and spelled the end for megaladon) – https://theconversation.com/how-fussy-eating-and-changing-environments-led-to-the-diversity-of-sharks-today-and-spelled-the-end-for-megaladon-168851

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Renae Barker, Senior Lecturer, The University of Western Australia

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, places of worship in Australia have faced significant restrictions. These have included limits on the number of people who can attend, bans on singing and closure altogether.

This has impinged upon people’s freedom of religion. However, as with other COVID restrictions, religious people have generally accepted these restrictions to protect public health.

Now, there may be light at the end of the tunnel for religious institutions, including allowances for certain numbers of unvaccinated people to attend places of worship. But since the states and territories will set their own re-opening rules for public venues, religious leaders still face uncertainty.

If places of worship remain barred from allowing entry to the unvaccinated in some places, religious leaders may be forced to turn them away, putting them in an uncomfortable position.

This brings up an interesting legal question about how to balance freedom of religion against public health protections.

How are NSW and Victoria handling it?

At 70% full vaccination for adults, places of worship in NSW will be able to open for vaccinated people, with certain restrictions on capacity, and no singing.

Once the vaccination rate reaches 80%, however, the unvaccinated will be able to attend public worship, with the same capacity limitations.

They will not be allowed into other public venues, such as restaurants, stores, hairdressers or gyms, until December 1 at the earliest. And the government has warned businesses may continue to restrict access for those who are unvaccinated.

Victoria has taken a different approach. At the 70% full vaccination rate, places of worship will be able to hold outdoors services with a cap of 50 vaccinated people, at one person per four square metres. If the vaccination status of attendees is unknown, the attendance cap will be 20.

At 80% full vaccination, indoor worship will be permitted for the fully vaccinated with a cap of 150 and social distancing.

Outdoors worship will be allowed for up to 500 vaccinated people. If the vaccination status of worshippers is unknown, the 20-person cap and one-person-per-four-square-metre rule will remain.

It remains to be seen how the other states and territories will handle these decisions when they release their reopening plans.

Why can the unvaccinated go to church but not the footy?

The NSW government has not given an official reason for opening churches, mosques and temples to the unvaccinated, but not entertainment or sports venues.

The likely reason is freedom of religion.

Many religions involve an element of communal worship and public gathering. COVID restrictions have significantly restricted these practices. In fact, public gatherings have been completely banned under strict stay-at-home orders. As a result, many religions have moved to online or streaming-based worship.

Freedom of religion is well recognised in international law as a fundamental human right. Article 18 of the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says freedom of religion includes the right

to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

But there are limits to this freedom. The same covenant says freedom of religion

may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

There is a big question, then, for state premiers as they begin to lift COVID restrictions: to what extent are the restrictions on religion necessary to protect public health?

Because views about which COVID restrictions are necessary to protect public health have varied significantly across states and territories, we should expect different approaches to the re-opening of places of public worship.

Read more:
‘The blood of Jesus is my vaccine’: how a fringe group of Christians hijacks faith in a war against science

Few challenges to vaccination rules

This could cause confusion, but it is unlikely we’d see many legal challenges to different re-opening plans.

In Australia, there are few avenues to challenge restrictions on freedom of religion. The constitution prohibits the federal government from making laws to prohibit the free exercise of religion. However, COVID restrictions are imposed by state and territory governments. The freedom of religion provision in the constitution does not apply.

As such, the main legal protections for freedom of religion in Australia are religious exemptions and anti-discrmination law.

There are a few medical exceptions available for people who cannot get a COVID vaccine, but it is highly unlikely exemptions would be given to those who object to vaccination on religious grounds.

There is currently no religious exception for childhood vaccination programs under the federal “no jab, no pay” and state “no jab, no play” policies. In the case of vaccines, religious freedom is outweighed by the need to protect public health.

Anti-discrmination law is also unlikely to provide an avenue to challenge vaccine mandates, passports or bans on unvaccinated people from places of worship.

In determining whether or not there has been discrimination, the courts will consider what is reasonable in the circumstances. Given the very real and significant public health risk posed by COVID, it is likely restrictions on those who are not vaccinated will be considered reasonable – at least in the short term.

This may change if the health risk posed by COVID changes.

Concern from religious leaders

Some religious leaders have expressed concern about the new rules on reopening places of worship. As Bishop Paul Barker from the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne put it, the rules could turn those who don’t show proof of vaccination into “the lepers of Jesus’ day”.

Religious leaders may be forced to turn the unvaccinated away. Such a position may be theologically very difficult for many religions.

As Archbishop Anthony Fisher from the Catholic Diocese of Sydney explained,

It’s our nature as churches to have our doors open to welcome all people. We have a commitment to that, so we’re talking to the government at the moment about how that’s going to work out.

However, it is important to note that, with a few exceptions, religious leaders have generally be supportive of vaccinations.

What does this say about freedom of religion in Australia?

Australians enjoy a comparatively high level of freedom of religion. In the 2019 Pew Research Centre’s index on global restrictions on religion, Australia scored among the least restrictive group of nations.

This is despite the fact Australia does not have a national bill of rights, nor is discrimination on the basis of religion unlawful at the federal level.

Read more:
Why Australia needs a Religious Discrimination Act

However, this does not mean Australia can be complacent. The lack of laws protecting freedom of religion means it falls to the political process to ensure this. This in turn depends on who is in power and the will of the majority.

In the same Pew report, Australia had a moderate score on social hostility towards religion. This means there is potential for greater legal restrictions to be introduced in the future.

The recognition of the need for religious freedom in the COVID re-opening roadmap is welcome. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that if the political process does not deliver legislated religious freedom, we have few legal avenues to challenge government restrictions when they do occur.

Renae Barker is a Trustee for the Anglican Diocese of Bunbury

– ref. Will COVID vaccinations be mandatory for places of worship? It could depend what state you’re in – https://theconversation.com/will-covid-vaccinations-be-mandatory-for-places-of-worship-it-could-depend-what-state-youre-in-169091

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Baker, Research Fellow in Statistics for Biosecurity Risk, The University of Melbourne

Unthinkable in 2019, lockdowns have been a key public health measure to reduce the impact of COVID in Australia. However, lockdowns take a toll on the population, and there is a limit to how long people and communities can sustain these behaviours.

While governments set restrictions through policy, the actual reduction in spread is due to changes in people’s behaviour. Our collective choices have slowed the virus and stopped it on multiple occasions – until the recent Delta variant outbreaks in New South Wales and Victoria.

We have been modelling behaviours in Australia since April 2020 and how they relate to changes in the ability of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID to spread. Our understanding of how people have responded to policy settings underpins the Doherty Modelling.

Concerns about “compliance fatigue” might make us question the role of lockdowns in the current outbreak. Has exhaustion led to rule-bending or breaking? In fact, Australians have shown themselves to be resilient and adaptable.

Macro-distancing and micro-distancing

Throughout the epidemic, Australians have shown an impressive ability to change how we interact with others.

In our analyses, we consider two key population behaviours that suppress transmission: macro-distancing and micro-distancing.

Macro-distancing is about the number of people we interact with, while micro-distancing is about our behaviours when we see people.

Both work together to reduce transmission at a population level. We monitor these behaviours using data from weekly anonymous nationwide surveys. We also draw together data on people’s mobility collected by technology companies including Google.

Read more:
Doherty modelling update provides the goalposts, but local insights will determine play

Transmission potential and the effective reproduction number

We combine these behavioural data with data on vaccination coverage and our understanding of disease dynamics to calculate the transmission potential (TP). The TP measures how transmissible COVID should be, on average, in the community. If it is greater than one, then we expect the virus to be able to spread. If it is less than one, the virus should not be able to establish itself, even if seeded into the community.

The TP is updated weekly for each state and territory in the Common Operating Picture. Where the virus is circulating, we also measure the effective reproduction number (Reff), which measures the actual rate of spread among currently active cases.

Where the virus is circulating, we want to drive the Reff to below one. And for all of Australia, we aim to achieve a TP of near one.

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

How behaviour has changed

Over the past 18 months, the levels of macro- and micro-distancing behaviour achieved under any given set of restrictions have changed. The first national lockdown saw the largest changes in behaviour, according to our modelling. Australians responded to the threat and we stopped the virus.

We have repeatedly observed in our modelling similarly low levels of mixing – both macro and micro – in response to outbreaks and restrictions, including at the height of Victoria’s second wave, and recently in NSW, Victoria and the ACT.

Outside of lockdown periods, different regions of Australia show very different patterns. Post the second wave, Victorians remained cautious, mixing less than anywhere else in the country and maintaining micro-distancing behaviours. In contrast, those not on the Eastern seaboard continued to mix more.

However, when the virus arrives and stay-at-home policies are enacted, we all respond similarly. Incursions of the virus into Western Australia and the Northern Territory in 2021 resulted in enormous changes in behaviour.

Our behaviour changes for reasons other than government policy. As our perception of risk increases, we naturally increase our distancing behaviours. We have noted increased macro- and micro-distancing behaviours as cases grow, and sometimes before stay-at-home measures are imposed. We have also seen reduced distancing as case numbers drop.

Has behaviour change driven spread of the Delta variant?

Probably not.

The emergence of the Delta variant has fundamentally changed our ability to control COVID. The Delta variant is approximately twice as infectious as ancestral strains from early 2020. Behaviours which stopped COVID in its tracks earlier in the pandemic can now only slow its spread.

Our modelling of distancing behaviours and of transmission potential allow us to test theories.

We can ask: if Delta were established and people behaved as they did in Victoria in August 2020 (during the second wave of the original COVID strain), could we control transmission? Back then, we estimated transmission potential to be 0.56. Adjusting for Delta by doubling 0.56 leads to a number greater than 1, meaning we would likely see a growing outbreak.

The reverse scenario can also be modelled. The current behaviours in the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales and Victoria would all likely be sufficient to curb transmission of the earlier COVID strain.

Although case numbers are higher this year, we are still reducing our contacts and slowing the spread of the virus as we did in 2020.

Why aren’t lockdowns sufficient?

The aggregate measures of behaviour do not tell the whole story.

Some sections of the community are unable to work from home and are therefore limited in their ability to reduce their contacts. Lockdowns are not effective at reducing transmission in some workplaces. So despite careful behaviour we can still see rising caseloads.

It’s a pattern that’s played out throughout the pandemic.

In NSW, recent transmission has mainly been in essential workers. In the Victorian second wave, a large amount of transmission was in residential aged care homes, where workers and residents had unavoidable close contact.

Read more:
‘Are you double dosed?’ How to ask friends and family if they’re vaccinated, and how to handle it if they say no

Signs of lockdown fatigue?

Illegal gatherings can lead to clusters of infections (as reported after the AFL Grand Final).

While these well-publicised events tend to be one-offs, they are costly because they seed the virus into new communities. Victoria’s Delta outbreak is now larger than it might have been.

Thankfully these types of events, driven by a minority of individuals, don’t reflect the broader population’s choices. They don’t reflect our collective ability to slow the spread of the virus.

Despite early challenges, we are now on a trajectory to achieving world-leading vaccine coverage. We have already seen high vaccine coverage help turn the NSW epidemic around. Victoria is not far behind.

Every vaccine administered makes outbreak control easier. And every choice we make about how we interact with others matters.

Christopher Baker receives funding from The Australian Government Departments of Health and Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Freya Shearer receives funding from The Australian Government Departments of Health and Foreign Affairs and Trade.

James McCaw receives funding from the Australian Government Departments of Health and Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council. He is an invited expert member of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee.

Nick Golding receives funding from The Australian Government Department of Health.

– ref. Tired of lockdown rules? Our analysis shows most Australians have curbed mixing and helped suppress COVID – https://theconversation.com/tired-of-lockdown-rules-our-analysis-shows-most-australians-have-curbed-mixing-and-helped-suppress-covid-168946

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor, School of Science, Griffith University

Prime Minister Scott Morrison may be warming to a net-zero emissions target by 2050, but Australia is still far from adopting it – largely thanks to resistance from the National Party.

Should Morrison fail to get the policy over the line, he will no doubt point to the government’s low-emissions technology roadmap as evidence the government still has a climate plan.

But a vague plan is not enough. That was confirmed by a recent analysis showing Australia’s climate policies are insufficient and have inevitably led to investment in new fossil fuel projects.

Reaching net-zero emissions will require intense policy focus, private investment and clear accountability – conditions only a firm numerical target can provide. Here are five reasons the Morrison government must, at a minimum, set a target of net-zero emisisons by 2050.

1. Give certainty to investors

Australia’s business community has been urging a national net-zero target to create certainty for investors.

In just one example, the A$2 trillion Investor Group on Climate Change recently called on the Morrison government to adopt a stronger climate policy. As chief executive Rebecca Mikula-Wright, told The Australian:

we have to be able to invest with certainty for the long term if we’re going to invest billions of dollars in capital.

The New South Wales Coalition government has set a target of net-zero emissions by 2050, with an interim target of 50% emissions reduction by 2030. It expects those targets will stimulate up to $37 billion in private-sector investment.

2. Guide government policy

Research into emissions reduction in South Australia shows how setting a strong emissions-reduction target provides a framework for government policy.

In 2002, the state’s then Labor government adopted a target of 26% renewables generation by 2020. It marked the beginning of consistent and coordinated climate policy, making the state more attractive to investors than other states with weaker policies.

The target was backed by government action. New laws encouraged wind farms in areas away from towns and homes, and the projects were underwritten by state government supply contracts. And as coal generators closed, the state government funded new employment opportunities for affected workers.

The state now has a target of 100% electricity from renewables by 2030 – one that has been embraced by the current Liberal government. It continues to create the market conditions for increased investment in renewables technology.

Likewise, in NSW the net-zero target has triggered supportive government policy, such as seeking private investment in pumped hydro storage schemes and planning for massive investment in solar and wind.

Read more:
Against the odds, South Australia is a renewable energy powerhouse. How on Earth did they do it?

3. Ensure government accountability

A numerical emissions target means a government can be held to account. When targets are accompanied by the appropriate reporting mechanisms, it’s clear if they’re being met.

This accountability can be seen in the United Kingdom. There, a group of climate scientists recently warned the nation risked missing its 2035 emissions-reduction target by a long way because government policies were insufficient, and new commitments too slow.

The UK has set a target of net-zero by 2050, and missing its interim targets would put that longer-term goal at risk.

Such targets acts as a gauge against which government progress can be evaluated. In Australia, this happens in other policy areas such as regular Closing the Gap reports, which measure progress towards targets in areas such as health, education, employment and life expectancy.

And following delays in getting people vaccinated against COVID-19, Australia’s vaccination targets now establish benchmarks against which governments are being assessed.

4. Boost trade and international relations

If Australia continues to lag the world on climate policy, we will suffer a real economic cost.

From 2026, the European Union will apply border charges to carbon-intensive goods from countries such as Australia without a carbon price or a 2050 net-zero emissions target. Other nations are considering similar measures.

Australia already has a poor reputation on climate action, dating back to the 1997 Kyoto conference where the Howard government demanded special treatment. Among the demands were a uniquely generous target whereby our national emissions would actually increase by 8% above 1990 levels.

Our international reputation as a climate pariah has only worsened in the decades since. Now, even key allies such as the United States and UK are calling on Australia to lift its game.

Australia must urgently change the way it’s perceived on the world stage, by setting a net-zero target that shows we’re making a serious contribution to the global climate effort.

Read more:
Spot the difference: as world leaders rose to the occasion at the Biden climate summit, Morrison faltered

5. Give the government credibility at home

Setting a net-zero target would give the Morrison government some chance of restoring its credibility on climate policy before the next election.

At the 2019 general election, the loss of Tony Abbott’s seat of Warringah to pro-climate independent Zali Steggall sent a warning to Liberal MPs, even those in blue-ribbon seats, that they’re vulnerable on climate policy.

The 2019-20 bushfire season was a brutal reminder to Australian voters that climate change is happening now. The federal government is yet to show the community it understands the need to respond.

Even if Australia adopts a 2050 target, however, it’s not enough. The timeline is so long, today’s politicians can get away with doing very little now. And by the time 2050 rolls around, it will be all but impossible to hold them to account for today’s failures. Very few will still be in public life, if they’re alive at all.

So if the Morrison government does want to show it takes climate policy seriously, it must set a credible 2030 target. The current goal – a 26-28% emissions reduction based on 2005 levels – is totally inadequate.

A responsible target, with a finish line just eight years away, would give the Morrison government the laser focus it needs to get Australia on the path to net-zero.

Ian Lowe received funding from the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council in the 1980s for a study of Australia’s energy needs to 2030. He is a past president of the Australian Conservation Foundation..

– ref. 5 reasons why the Morrison government needs a net-zero target, not just a flimsy plan – https://theconversation.com/5-reasons-why-the-morrison-government-needs-a-net-zero-target-not-just-a-flimsy-plan-169015

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fatemeh Aminpour, Associate Lecturer, School of Built Environment, UNSW

Children account for a large proportion of new infections in Australia’s current COVID-19 outbreaks. This has raised concerns about their safe return to school.

As schools in New South Wales and Victoria resume face-to-face learning, children under 12 will be more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection since vaccination of this age group hasn’t started in Australia (although they are less likely to get seriously ill). Face masks are not mandatory for these students either, but are mandatory for secondary school students in Victoria and in NSW.

Therefore, physical distancing and use of outdoor spaces for school activities top the list of recommendations to keep children safe from COVID-19.

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

However, physical distancing, even outdoors, can be hardly practised if the school is overcrowded. Overcrowding is common in Australian schools, which are increasingly accommodating more students. This issue has been recognised as a significant barrier to children’s free activities, especially during recess and when they are on the move.

In NSW, for example, the required open space per student is 10 square metres and nearly all schools meet this standard. While this seems to allow a fair amount of room for physical distancing, children may nevertheless believe their schools are overcrowded and don’t offer enough room for play.

Read more:
Let them play! Kids need freedom from play restrictions to develop

Why does this happen? Do children use school grounds in ways that we don’t anticipate?

My PhD study conducted in three public primary schools in Sydney reveals children’s use and perception of school environments differ from what adult designers intended. Children dislike and avoid some of the school ground spaces designed by adults.

Large parts of school grounds, including covered outdoor learning areas, are covered with low-quality asphalt on which children are not allowed to run and cannot sit comfortably.

The “no running on concrete” rule restricts children’s intense physical activity to areas covered with grass or synthetic rubber. The problem is these areas are often not big enough for the numbers of children who want to use them, resulting in crowding.

Adding to the problem is the “out of bounds” rule, which bars children from using areas that are out of sight of staff. These areas are often around the edges of school grounds because staff tend to supervise children from the central parts of the school. Out-of-bounds areas are underused yet could provide extra space for children’s physical, social and dramatic play.

So, how can school design and planning help overcome the crowding that makes physical distancing difficult?

1. Provide quality material for ground surfaces

By replacing asphalt with better quality surface materials, children’s activities can be spread out across more of the school grounds, easing crowding. This will reduce the impact on children’s physical activity of the “no running on concrete” rule.

In a recent study, we found natural grass is children’s favourite surface for activities like running or performing gymnastics. It doesn’t become too hot in the sun, isn’t slippery and doesn’t hurt if they fall.

2. Increase opportunities for nature play

Besides the known benefits of nature play for children’s well-being, natural settings usually attract smaller groups that may result in less crowding. This contrasts with spaces such as sports fields where large numbers often play together.

My recent research shows children prefer trees with wide canopies, accessible branches, upraised roots and/or soft trunks because they offer sensory stimulation and opportunities for co-operative play.

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

3. Recognise the value of neglected areas

Out-of-bounds areas at schools are often neglected based on the questionable assumption of their low value for children’s play. Making better use of these spaces can disperse children over the whole school area and enhance their opportunities for safe play.

Children may also find these spaces quiet and less busy since they are typically secluded and partially segregated from sanctioned areas. Less noisy spaces make it easier for children to talk with each other, which is a significant part of their socio-dramatic play.

4. Create separate zones

School layouts can be designed to establish separate zones that offer suitable secluded spaces for various groups, or cohorts, of students in order to avoid crowding. A cohort is a distinct group that stays together for the entire school day for in-person learning, with little or no contact between groups.

“Cohorting”, also known as “podding”, allows for more efficient contact tracing in the event of a positive COVID-19 test result. Targeted testing, quarantine and isolation can be applied to a single cohort/pod rather than schoolwide closures in the event of an individual or group testing positive.

5. Use nearby community/public spaces

Schools can locate the extra space they need on nearby community/public open spaces when the local council and the Department of Education reach a joint-use agreement. Children’s safe use of these sites depends on:

• the quality of these facilities
• their location in the neighbourhood
• ease of walking there to and from school
• access during school hours.

Sharing neighbourhood facilities can help meet children’s need for access to broader recreational resources. It also strengthens the social bond between schools and their communities.

Overcrowding in Australian schools is not a new issue yet could be an obstacle to safe face-to-face education at a time when it is desperately needed. Current concerns about COVID-19 outbreaks at schools can prompt policy and institutional redesign to tackle this longstanding problem of overcrowding. Children and school communities should be engaged in the earlier phases of school design and planning to tap into their unique insights into the effectiveness of educational environments.

Read more:
In debates about opening schools, we’re neglecting an important voice: our children’s

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

– ref. Physical distancing at school is a challenge. Here are 5 ways to keep our children safer – https://theconversation.com/physical-distancing-at-school-is-a-challenge-here-are-5-ways-to-keep-our-children-safer-168072

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert S. Fuller, Adjunct fellow, Western Sydney University

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains names of people who have died.

Songlines criss-cross across Australia. They are one of the foundational spiritual features of the world’s oldest continuing culture.

Australian Aboriginal peoples had oral cultures: while there are no Bibles or Qurans to document their spirituality, the Dreaming stories of Ancestral creators who formed the land and the features were shared through song. By walking and singing the songlines, those creators are celebrated by the passing generations.

Most of our knowledge of songlines comes from Aboriginal peoples in central and northern Australia, a well-known example being the Seven Sisters Songline, which crosses much of Australia from the west coast to the east.

But, due to invasion and attempted cultural destruction since 1788, knowledge of songlines in southeast Australia has been limited. Now, new research has begun reawakening a dormant Black Duck Songline covering 300 km along the New South Wales South Coast.

Read more:
Songlines: Tracking the Seven Sisters is a must-visit exhibition for all Australians

Umbarra and Wumbarra

The Black Duck Songline, as current Aboriginal knowledge holders confirm, travels up the South Coast from over the Victorian border to the Hawkesbury River, north of Sydney, passing through many important cultural locations of the Yuin and Dharawal peoples of the region.

The name comes from the Pacific Black Duck (Anas superciliosa), known as Umbarra to the Yuin and Wumbarra to the Dharawal.

The Yuin story of Umbarra comes from Wallaga Lake near Narooma on the NSW far south coast. Umbarra is an animal hero, rather than a Creator, and is the totem and protector of the Yuin peoples from the Dreaming.

A Yuin man, Merriman, had Umbarra as his totem. When his people were in danger, Umbarra warned them so they could take refuge on what is now called Merriman’s Island in Wallaga Lake.

Umbarra became the Yuin protector, and, through kinship linkages, the bird is equally important to the Dharawal.

One of the authors of this piece, Robert Fuller, was exploring the astronomy and songline connections of the Saltwater Aboriginal peoples of the NSW coast.
Through a yarning process, speaking to Yuin and Dharawal knowledge holders about the cultural astronomy of their communities, the importance of Umbarra to the Yuin peoples became clear, as did the route of the songline.

The Black Duck Songline has now been traced through multiple Aboriginal communities. Knowledge holders speak about how their people travelled along songlines for trade, to attend ceremonies and to access resources.

Read more:
How ancient Aboriginal star maps have shaped Australia’s highway network

How a songline is reawakened

A songline is not just a map across Country.

It is a celebration of the stories which make up the songline, and these stories are encompassed in the form of song. The melody stays consistent as a songline passes through different language groups and dialects along the route.

A songline is never extinguished, although the Country through which it passes may be dying because it is not being sung. This has given rise to the Aboriginal expression to “sing up Country”: refreshing the songs and the Country to which the songs belong.

The Black Duck Songline was not unknown to the knowledge holders of the South Coast, but the details of the route had begun to be lost. Probably the last public walk of the songline was by Uncle Guboo Ted Thomas (1909-2002), coinciding with the Bicentennial in 1988.

Other knowledge holders who learned from Uncle Guboo have been able to confirm details of the songline, and members of the Yuin and Dharawal communities are keen to recover the full knowledge of the route of the songline.

After the Hawkesbury River, it is possible the Black Duck Songline may continue north, eventually turning west and south, via the Narran Lakes and the Snowy Mountains, connecting with its origin on the Gippsland Coast, forming a circle.

The major focus of the reawakening of the songline will be to find the songs that make up the story and try and connect them in the correct sequence and with the correct spiritual locations along its route.

If the Black Duck Songline can be awakened, this could be a model for the recovery and reawakening of other songlines in areas of Australia where Aboriginal knowledge has been suppressed.

Robert S. Fuller received funding from the Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship

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

– ref. ‘Singing up Country’: reawakening the Black Duck Songline, across 300km in Australia’s southeast – https://theconversation.com/singing-up-country-reawakening-the-black-duck-songline-across-300km-in-australias-southeast-167704

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

The announcement today that New Zealand will introduce a vaccination certificate by November is welcome news. Whether by “carrot” or “stick”, vaccination rates must keep climbing, as it is now likely case numbers will climb under alert level 3 conditions in Auckland.

We’ve seen a growing number of mystery cases over the past couple of weeks – people testing positive after going to hospital for non-COVID reasons, or from essential worker surveillance testing.

These cases suggest there is a significant amount of undetected community transmission, and that makes it much harder to stamp out.

While the slight easing of restrictions announced yesterday may or may not accelerate the growth in cases, it is unlikely to slow it. This has led to some debate about whether the government has abandoned its elimination strategy in favour of suppression of cases.

To some extent this is a semantic argument. Elimination has been defined as “zero tolerance” for community transmission, as opposed to zero cases. The fact that New Zealand was able to get to zero cases for much of the past 18 months has inevitably come to define what elimination has meant in practice.

Before vaccines were widely available, having zero cases was crucial in allowing us to enjoy level 1 freedoms. But New Zealand is now transitioning into a new phase of the pandemic, and this was always going to happen. Borders can’t remain closed forever and the virus was always going to arrive sooner or later.

Return to tougher restrictions still a possibility

In an ideal world, our border defences would have kept Delta out and New Zealand would have been able to stay at alert level 1 until the vaccine rollout was complete. But the Delta outbreak has forced our hand to some extent.

Whether another week or two at level 4 would have been enough to eliminate this outbreak is impossible to know. Given the outbreak is spreading in very difficult-to-reach communities, stamping out every chain of transmission is extremely challenging.

As we shift from an elimination to a suppression strategy, the country will have to tread a very narrow path to avoid overwhelming our hospitals and throwing our at-risk populations under the bus.

This includes Māori and Pasifika, who were effectively put at the back of the vaccine queue by dint of their younger populations, despite being at higher risk of severe COVID-19.

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

We are now relying on a combination of restrictions and immunity through vaccination to prevent cases growing too rapidly. As vaccination rates increase, restrictions can be progressively eased.

But if we relax too much, there is a risk the number of hospitalisations could start to spiral out of control. When the R number is above 1, cases will continue to grow relentlessly until either more immunity or tougher restrictions bring it back under 1.

Getting vaccination rates up is crucial but will take time, so the government may yet be forced to tighten restrictions to protect our healthcare systems.

Read more:
New Zealand cannot abandon its COVID elimination strategy while Māori and Pasifika vaccination rates are too low

The vaccination advantage

New Zealand was always going to have to grapple with these really tough decisions, though Delta has forced us to do this earlier than we would have liked.

But our elimination strategy has given us has an important advantage – almost 70% of the total population has had at least one dose of the vaccine before experiencing any large-scale community transmission.

We still have a lot of work ahead, but having access to the vaccine before being exposed to the virus is a luxury people in most countries didn’t have.

There is a lot that could happen between now and Christmas. Currently, the Australian state of Victoria has over 100 people in intensive care, which is equivalent to almost a third of New Zealand’s total ICU capacity. Those ICU beds are normally full with patients with conditions other than COVID-19.

The implications for the healthcare system are obvious. If New Zealand goes the way of Melbourne, harsher restrictions will probably be inevitable.

Not a white flag

The more optimistic scenario is that a combination of restrictions, vaccination and contact tracing is just enough to keep a lid on the case numbers. It’s almost inevitable cases will increase. But if it isn’t too rapid and hospitals can meet the demand, it could tide us over until we have the high vaccine coverage we need.

Read more:
New Zealand government takes a calculated risk to relax Auckland’s lockdown while new cases continue to appear

And while vaccination rates are not yet high enough, they are still helping a lot, cutting the R number to around half what it would be with no vaccine. The country is in a far better position now than it would have been if the Auckland outbreak had happened in May or June.

Everyone can do their bit by doing two things: help and encourage those around you to get vaccinated, and stick to the rules.

We have to keep community transmission rates low to keep pressure off our hospitals and help us get to the next step of the road map. Moving away from a literal interpretation of elimination does not mean waving a white flag.

Michael Plank is affiliated with the University of Canterbury and receives funding from the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and Te Pūnaha Matatini, New Zealand’s Centre of Research Excellence in complex systems.

– ref. The COVID-zero strategy may be past its use-by date, but New Zealand still has a vaccination advantage – https://theconversation.com/the-covid-zero-strategy-may-be-past-its-use-by-date-but-new-zealand-still-has-a-vaccination-advantage-169251

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

Scott Morrison has a new attack word. “Shakedown”.

“Shakedown” is defined as “an illegal or deceitful attempt to get money from someone, for example by swindling or blackmailing them”.

In yet another episode in the old federal-state blame game, the Morrison government is accusing Queensland in particular of this unsavoury practice, with its Mafia connotations.

As NSW, Victoria and the ACT look towards moving out of lockdowns, the strain will come on already stretched hospital systems.

The hospital capacity of Queensland, with minimal COVID, would be quickly tested once it opened its border – as the Morrison government wants it to do in accordance with the COVID national plan’s vaccination timetable. The same goes for Western Australia, which has a notoriously stressed hospital system.

Last week health ministers from every state and territory signed a letter to the federal government saying: “We are entering into the most critical phase of the COVID-19 pandemic response for our hospital systems.

Read more:
Hospital emergency departments are under intense pressure. What to know before you go

“While we still need collaborative effort to find long term solutions to issues impacting our hospital systems, these have now been overtaken by the pressing need to address the situation at hand.

“All states and territories require immediate additional Commonwealth funding to support the pressures currently on our health systems.”

On Friday Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk linked the need for more hospital funding to Queensland’s border opening.

Morrison pushed back, declaring the pandemic should not “be used as an excuse for shakedown politics”.

On Tuesday the prime minister was giving “shakedown” another workout, targeting Queensland hard.

Pressed on Brisbane radio about Palaszczuk wanting more money, Morrison said, “we’re not going to respond to shakedowns in a pandemic.”

He pointed out that “we’ve increased our funding to hospitals in Queensland, since we came to government, by 99.2%”, saying this compared to a 55.3% increase by Queensland over the same period.

Read more:
Vaccination status – when your medical information is private and when it’s not

In another interview Morrison went further. “[To] say, ‘well … I’m going to hold the federal government to ransom and to seek to extort from them money on the basis of COVID’ – I just don’t think is the right way to go.”

“We’ve shared 50/50 the costs of COVID on the health system, more than $30 billion around the country […] So we’ve been doing our bit.

“Of course there are challenges, but as a state government, they’ve got to be responsible for their state health system. New South Wales is getting on with it. Victoria is getting on with it. The ACT is getting on with it. So Queensland needs to get on with it.”

There have been mixed messages out of Queensland about whether its hospital system is adequate to the challenges ahead.

Health Minister Greg Hunt insisted on Tuesday “on the advice that we have, all of the states and territories have prepared. They’ve prepared for a surge.”

If Queensland had an issue when they did not have COVID pressures, “that is not related to COVID”, he said, suggesting the state government should spend more money.

Read more:
How COVID health advice and modelling has been opaque, slow to change and politicised in Australia

Hunt said Queensland had “got themselves in a pickle of on the one hand saying their hospitals are prepared, on the other hand trying to justify using money as a basis for closing borders.”

The adequacy, or not, of the nation’s hospital systems in general, and that in Queensland in particular, is documented in work for national cabinet that’s overseen by the Secretary of the Health Department Brendan Murphy and regularly updated for national cabinet.

Murphy was asked during a Tuesday appearance with Hunt when that document would be released. He said:“I would favour a transparent approach, but national cabinet will make that decision”.

The national cabinet should immediately release this assessment.
The public has the right to know whether we can be confident about hospital adequacy as we move into this new phase of the pandemic.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Don’t play ‘shakedown’ with me, Morrison tells Queensland – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-dont-play-shakedown-with-me-morrison-tells-queensland-169283

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

It would have come as a surprise to Australian night owls when, at around 2:42am AEDT on Tuesday, their Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger and Oculus services were suddenly and inexplicably gone.

This was no local disturbance. In a blog post, Downdetector.com, a major monitoring service for online outages, called it the largest global outage it had ever recorded — with 10.6 million reports from around the world.

The outage had an especially massive knock-on effect on individuals and businesses around the world that rely on Whatsapp to communicate with friends, family, colleagues and customers.

It took Facebook nearly six hours to get services back online, albeit slowly at first. Ironically, the outage was so pervasive Facebook had to resort to using Twitter, its rival platform, to get updates out into the world.

The internet and its outwardly visible face (the World Wide Web) is a remarkably fault-tolerant machine. It was designed to be resilient — and the web has never gone down completely. As such, global outages like this one are quite rare.

But they do happen. To Google’s embarrassment, several of its services including Gmail, YouTube, Hangouts, Google Calendar and Google Maps went offline for about an hour in December last year.

And in June this year, a cloud-computing company that services clients such as the Guardian, the New York Times, Reddit and The Conversation went offline too.

Read more:
Fastly global internet outage: why did so many sites go down — and what is a CDN, anyway?

What caused it?

While Facebook’s management was apologetic, they gave no hint as to what caused the outage.

With hacking issues becoming all too common in today’s cyber-security threat environment, the question arises whether Facebook’s outage might have been the result of a successful hack. But this seems unlikely.

According to a report from The Verge referencing FaceBook’s Chief Technology Officer and Vice President of Infrastructure, it seems the problem was probably Facebook’s internal infrastructure.

Facebook engineers were sent to one of the company’s data centres in California to work on the problem, which implies they were unable to log in remotely to the data centre.

Experts have said the outage could have only have come from inside the company. It’s likely Facebook engineers inadvertently made changes to how the network is set up, creating a cascading set of problems.

Such events have happened before, albeit not with such a catastrophic effect.

However, given the highly confidential way Facebook operates its network, it’s not possible to know exactly what happened with the network configuration. We will probably never be told.

A Domain Name Server problem

Supporting the network configuration explanation is the fact that the error messages that appeared when people tried to contact facebook.com and whatsapp.com indicated it was a DNS problem. So the websites still existed, but couldn’t be reached.

DNS stands for Domain Name Server and is described as the “phonebook of the internet”. It translates domain names read by us into encoded internet addresses (IP addresses) to be read by computers.

When you enter a domain name such as “facebook.com” or “whatsapp.com” into your browser, the Domain Name Server is consulted and the corresponding encoded internet address, the IP, is called.

Read more:
‘What is my IP address?’ Explaining one of the world’s most Googled questions

When everything is working as it should, the user is then connected to the requested domain. On the strength of evidence gleaned from expert sources close to Facebook, it seems most unlikely the outage was caused by an external attack.

A whistleblower speaks up

The Facebook outage occurred only hours after the US-based 60 Minutes program aired an incendiary interview with former Facebook employee and whistleblower, 37-year-old Harvard graduate Frances Haugen.

In a complaint to federal law enforcement, and in the interview, Haugen alleges Facebook’s Instagram app is harming teenage girls, and that Facebook’s own research indicates the company “amplifies hate, misinformation and political unrest, but the company hides what it knows”.

To support the allegations, Haugen shared more than 10,000 pages of internal documentation with the US Securities and Exchange Commission — all pretty damning stuff. She said:

The thing I saw at Facebook over and over again was there were conflicts of interest between what was good for the public and what was good for Facebook, and Facebook over and over again chose to optimise for its own interests, like making more money.

Given the timing of the interview and Facebook’s global outage, it’s natural to wonder whether the two events are connected. However, with the absence of any definitive evidence to support this theory, a causal link has not been established between both events.

But considering the seriousness of Haugen’s revelations, and the weight of objective evidence in the form of thousands of insider documents, it’s clear further investigation is warranted.

Facebook has around 2.89 billion monthly active users and a market capitalisation of US$1.21 trillion. By any standard, it’s a big and powerful company with a great deal of influence. Now is the time to shine a light on its ethics, or lack thereof.

Hopefully there won’t be any more outages to slow down this process.

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

– ref. What caused the unprecedented Facebook outage? The few clues point to a problem from within – https://theconversation.com/what-caused-the-unprecedented-facebook-outage-the-few-clues-point-to-a-problem-from-within-169249

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

As well as Michelle Grattan’s usual interviews with experts and politicians about the news of the day, Politics with Michelle Grattan now includes “Word from The Hill”, where all things political will be discussed with members of The Conversations’s politics team.

In this week’s episode, politics + society editor Amanda Dunn and Michelle discuss the dramatic changing of the guard in NSW and the fallout from ICAC’s announcement of its investigation into Gladys Berejiklian for the debate about a federal integrity commission.

They also canvass the increasing signs Scott Morrison is inclined to stay away from the Glasgow climate conference, as he points out Jacinda Ardern is not attending.

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Signs are Scott Morrison wants to avoid Glasgow – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-signs-are-scott-morrison-wants-to-avoid-glasgow-169263

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Giuseppe Carabetta, Senior Lecturer, Sydney University Business School, University of Sydney

Racing to hit vaccination targets and lift the restrictions making Melbourne the world’s most locked-down city, the Victorian government has mandated COVID vaccinations for an estimated 1.25 million of the state’s 3.5 million workers.

The order applies to all “authorised providers” and “authorised workers” whose work requires contact with others. By October 15 they must show proof they have received or booked their first vaccination, or have a medical exemption from a authorised practitioner. Anyone without an exemption must be fully vaccinated by November 26.

Separate deadlines apply for those subject to Victoria’s existing mandatory vaccination directions covering health care, construction workers and teachers.

Who are the ‘authorised’ providers and workers?

An authorised provider or worker is any business or person exempt from the orders to shut or work at home during lockdown.

The “authorised providers” list includes supermarkets, restaurants and cafes providing takeaway services, bottle shops, banks, post offices, news agencies, petrol stations, child care services, schools and mobile pet-grooming services.

The “authorised workers” list covers more than 70 categories. It includes health practitioners, emergency workers, essential services workers, those who work in courts or the administration of justice, manufacturing, public transport, professional athletes, zoo workers, faith leaders, actors and parliamentarians.

In short, if your work can’t be done from home, your job is most likely on the list.

Are there any exemptions?

There is an exemption for those unable to be vaccinated on medical grounds, as determined by the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation. The list of accepted medical reasons is short. Any exemption must be certified by an authorised medical practitioner.

Read more:
Who can’t have a COVID vaccine and how do I get a medical exemption?

What makes this legal?

The state government has the power to make public health directions including mandating vaccines under Victoria’s Public Health and Wellbeing Act and associated state-of-emergency powers. It is the same mechanism by which vaccinations for sectors such as construction have been mandated.

Read more:
What are the protests against Victoria’s construction union all about? An expert explains

Prior to the COVID pandemic, similar provisions have enabled the Department of Health to direct hospitals and health providers to require workers to be vaccinated against diseases such as influenza and hepatitis B. This was achieved through amendments to Victoria’s Health Services Act and Ambulance Services Act.

Doesn’t this conflict with the Fair Work Act?

No. The Fair Work Ombudsman has previously issued guidance on the conditions that make it lawful and reasonable under the Fair Work Act for an employer to require that employees be vaccinated. That guidance includes “tiers” of work to help assess if vaccination was justifiable. But these aren’t relevant if a direct law – in this case a public health direction – mandates vaccination.

Read more:
Can Australian employers make you get a COVID-19 vaccine? Mostly not — but here’s when they can

Is there any legal recourse?

There is already one legal challenge before Victoria’s Supreme Court. This has been lodged by couple Belinda and Jack Cetnar. Their core argument is the mandate is discriminatory and contravenes human rights.

One difference between this challenge and those being made in the NSW Supreme Court against the NSW government’s vaccine mandates is that Victoria has a Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

At the hearing setting the trial date for the Cetnars’ challenge, Justice Melinda Richards noted the Cetnars had grounds to argue their a case under the Charter but queried other arguments they presented in their written documentation. These included the mandate contravening the Commonwealth Biosecurity Act and the Nuremberg Code.

So what about discrimination and human rights?

Vaccination status is not a prohibited ground under discrimination law, so the mandate cannot be challenged as unlawful discrimination on this basis. Adverse treatment on the basis of health or disability may amount to unlawful discrimination in other circumstances, but the new rules allow for this.

Human rights law allows for limitations on human rights where necessary to protect public health and the fundamental right – to life. However, such restrictions must be necessary and proportionate to the risk and balanced against individual rights.

This principle is reflected in Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, and in the position of bodies such as the World Health Organization.

In December 2020, at press conference, WHO’s immunisation director Kate O’Brien said the organisation didn’t favour vaccine mandates.

However, a WHO policy brief published in April notes vaccine mandates “can be ethically justified, as they are crucial to protecting the health and well-being of the public”. This comes with important caveats:

While interfering with individual liberty does not in itself make a policy intervention unjustified, such policies raise a number of ethical considerations and concerns and should be justified by advancing another valuable social goal, like protecting public health.

Ultimately it may be necessary for the courts to determine whether the new rules strike an appropriate balance. However, it seems unlikely any court will overturn this mandate, given vaccination is effective, the mandate is temporary, applies only to onsite work, provides medical exemptions, will alleviate pressure on the health system and help ease existing restrictions (which also infringe on individual liberty).

Who is responsible for enforcing these rules?

Workers covered by the mandate will be required when working to carry an authorised worker permit confirming they have been vaccinated. Businesses will be responsible for issuing these permits, and for ensure all employees onsite have a permit.

If an authorised officer attends a workplace and finds workers without a valid permit, both employers and employees can be fined.

The penalties are the same as other breaches of restrictions or directions. On-the-spot fines of up to $1,817 can be issued to individuals and up to $10,904 for businesses for not having a permit.

A court can impose a fine of up to $21,808 on individuals and $109,044 on employer for issuing worker permit to an employee not meeting the permit requirements.

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

– ref. Your rights under Victoria’s ‘authorised worker’ vaccine mandate: an expert explains – https://theconversation.com/your-rights-under-victorias-authorised-worker-vaccine-mandate-an-expert-explains-169137

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Sutton, Senior Lecturer in Accounting, University of Technology Sydney

One of the most significant outcomes from the aged care royal commission was the federal government’s commitment this year to mandate minimum staffing levels in residential aged care homes by 2023.

Our study, published today, shows only a tiny fraction of aged care homes would already comply with the new requirements.

Substantial increases in staffing will be needed across the sector, placing even more pressure on an industry already struggling to meet the needs of a growing number of Australians.

Read more:
4 key takeaways from the aged care royal commission’s final report

What are minimum staffing standards?

Minimum staffing standards are designed to ensure all aged care homes have sufficient staff to meet their residents’ care needs. This type of regulation already exists in several countries, including the United States, Japan and Germany.

Japan and Germany both prescribe minimum staff-to-resident ratios. In the United States, homes must have a certain number of staff on site each day and many states regulate the minimum time staff spend with residents. Also, while some countries mandate requirements for all care staff, others target specific roles, such as licensed nurses.

Read more:
Want to improve care in nursing homes? Mandate minimum staffing levels

In Australia, licensed nurses include both registered nurses (RNs), who have at least a bachelor’s degree, and enrolled nurses who have completed a two-year diploma.

However, most aged care is provided by unlicensed personal care workers, who don’t need formal qualifications.

Australia’s new staffing standard has three requirements that will be mandatory from October 1, 2023:

1. providers must ensure residents receive at least 200 minutes of total care per day

2. at least 40 minutes of that care must be provided by an RN

3. an RN must be on site for morning and afternoon shifts each day.

These requirements are stated as industry averages with each home’s requirements adjusted based on the relative complexity of their residents’ care needs.

Why are minimum standards necessary?

The royal commission heard evidence that more than half of all Australian residents in aged care (57.6%) live in aged care homes with inadequate staff.

In the final report, it stated

all too often, and despite best intentions, aged care workers simply do not have the requisite time, knowledge, skill and support to deliver high quality care.

For example, the commission heard testimony from families of residents at an understaffed home in Victoria, where staff didn’t have time to help residents go to the toilet or eat meals, or attend to their clinical care.

The commission also heard about the dangers of not having enough trained nurses. One witness described a regional home where three nurses had to look after up to 80 residents on weekends.

The witness’ father, a resident living with dementia, had been neglected and hospitalised on several occasions due to falls that occurred while left unattended.

What did we find?

Our study of historical staffing levels found few aged care homes (3.8%) had staffing above all three requirements of the new standard.

While many homes (79.7%) would meet the requirement to have an RN on site, few had levels above daily requirements for total direct care (10.4%) or RN care (11.1%).

The homes that fell short of these two requirements will need to increase staff time by an average of 43 minutes of total care per day and 18 minutes of RN time per day.

Read more:
Nearly 2 out of 3 nursing homes are understaffed. These 10 charts explain why aged care is in crisis

We also found evidence the new standard is likely to cause different pressures for homes across the sector. The homes most at risk of non-compliance are likely to be larger with more residents to care for, located outside metropolitan cities and run by small providers.

Interestingly, while smaller homes were more likely to meet the two requirements about daily minutes, they were much less likely to have an RN on site for two shifts.

So what needs to change?

The new minimum standards are a crucial piece of regulation to ensure Australian aged care homes provide sufficient staff to deliver quality care to residents.

However, this requires a substantial expansion of a workforce already under strain. Workforce shortages are already a problem due to the COVID-19 pandemic, with low immigration and additional work demands, such as infection control and handling family requests.

A report published in August by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia suggests even without the minimum standards, Australia’s aged care workforce needs to grow by an additional 17,000 workers per year between now and 2030.

Our study highlights areas requiring urgent action. For example, the new requirements will likely cause a dramatic increase in demand for RNs. While training and retention initiatives announced in the recent federal budget will help, much more will be required, such as improved working conditions and pay, to arrest the decline of RNs in the sector.

In addition, targeted government support will likely be required to help homes outside the major cities, and those smaller in size, to attract appropriate care workers to fill shortfalls.

Such measures will be required to enable a fair transition towards compliance with the minimum staffing standard within the sector.

Nicole Sutton is the current Treasurer of Palliative Care NSW.

Deborah Parker receives funding from the Department of Health and Ageing and the Australian Research Council. She is currently Vice President of Palliative Care NSW and Board Director of Carrington Care.

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

– ref. Only 3.8% of Australian aged care homes would meet new mandatory minimum staffing standards: new research – https://theconversation.com/only-3-8-of-australian-aged-care-homes-would-meet-new-mandatory-minimum-staffing-standards-new-research-165877

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Olivia Meehan, Object-based Learning Co-ordinator, The University of Melbourne

In this series we pay tribute to the art we wish could visit — and hope to see once travel restrictions are lifted.

A nimble row of bamboo grows between the street and the grounds of the Nezu Museum 根津美術館 in Minami-Aoyama, Tokyo. The softly murmuring greenery gently ushers you along the side of the museum, beneath its overarching eaves, to the entrance.

In the winter months, when there is snowfall in the capital, masses of snow slide off the roof to line the ground at the bottom of this bamboo, creating the illusion of a white-peaked mountain range on the path.

There are many such transporting and transient scenes to be found at the Nezu Museum and Garden, located on the private estate of the Nezu family and housing the extraordinary collection of pre-modern East Asian treasures amassed by businessman and philanthropist Nezu Kaichirō (1860-1940).

The original house, built in 1906, was destroyed in an air raid in 1945. Following successive reconstructions over the decades, the decision was made to undertake a large scale renovation to restore Nezu’s vision.

The renowned Japanese architect Kuma Kengo redesigned the museum building with elements found in traditional Japanese residential architecture and a contemporary finish. It reopened in 2009.

Read more:
If I could go anywhere: a world through the eyes of botanical artist Marianne North at Kew Gardens

The foyer opens to full length windows overlooking the garden, a modern take on the traditional Japanese idea of creating an invisible threshold from the inside to outside world. Buddhist sculptural pieces are displayed facing inwards: they cast a friendly eye on visitors whose gaze naturally drifts from the garden inside. Though not specifically a house museum, the atmosphere here has the intimate characteristics of a private home.

I have a deep interest in museums that were once someone’s home, especially those with gardens; however small. From Kettle’s Yard in Cambridge, England to the Alvar Aalto House/Studio in Helsinki, to the Musée Nissim de Camondo, Paris, I seek them out for the intimacy and personality sometimes missing from large, formal museum spaces.

A gentle, calm atmosphere

There are over 7,400 objects in the Nezu collection, many of which are classifed as Important Cultural Property or national treasure. In some galleries, the LED light fittings are programmed and adjusted to resemble sunrise; in others, to imitate the diffused light from a paper lantern.

These carefully considered aspects of display serve to protect the objects from harsh, possibly damaging light, and generate a gentle, calm atmosphere. Each object is also afforded a luxurious amount of room, making it easier to become absorbed in the ritual of close observation.

Read more:
If I could go anywhere: Japanese art island Chichu, a meditation and an education

We might be invited to contemplate a small but robust 16th century, jewel-shaped ceramic incense container. Or to behold the pair of 19th century, six-fold screens created by Suzuki Kiitsu: Mountain Streams in Summer and Autumn — so modern and bright the water appears to flow across and off the panels.

At each turn, I feel as if I am activating Kuma’s architectural vision of designing a space at one with the landscape, not imposed upon it. This is a building that works in harmony with its surroundings. Stepping into the garden offers a seamless continuum of this experience.

As I think about living with objects and nature, I recall the brilliant short film made by husband and wife design team Charles and Ray Eames in 1955: House: After Five Years of Living. Composed entirely of 35mm slides, the film details their modernist family home in the Californian neighbourhood of Pacific Palisades. Intersecting with the building itself are objects and artefacts; table settings and images of nature such as pine needles or the silhouette of a eucalyptus tree. Just like Kuma’s approach, emphasis is placed on texture and warmth coupled with steel, and cool stone.

Four types of tea-houses

The garden of the Nezu Museum comprises a series of panoramic views and four types of tea-houses framed by the delicate architecture of maple trees and other foliage. The variant greens are pleasantly overwhelming, an irresistible and gentle embrace as you wander the winding pathways of this vast and multifaceted estate occupying 17,000 square metres of metropolitan Tokyo.

The initial layout reflected the shinzan-yūkoku garden style, translated as “deep mountains and mysterious valleys”, and over the years it has been carefully restored to reflect the tastes of Nezu.

The variation and life of a mountainside appears in small and delicate ways: pruned hedges, rocks covered in moss. Glimpses of the pond through a veil of evergreen trees might reveal a momentary sparkle of sun glitter or the reflection of clouds.

In the spirit of the ritual of tea drinking, the museum’s cafe, also designed by Kuma, sits at the end of a stone path lined with a low, snaking hedge of pink azalea. I have a long list of favourite museum cafés. This one is in the top tier. A glass tea-house nestled amongst the trees, it serves a deliciously refreshing matcha.

Drinking fragrant
new tea from Uji
I can scoop up the essence
and understand
how the ancients came to adore it.

-Ōtagaki Rengetsu (1791-1875)

The Nezu Museum is a cultural retreat offering restorative experiences through art, objects and its captivating garden. I look forward to our reunion once the borders are open again.

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

– ref. If I could go anywhere: the deep mountains and mysterious valleys of Tokyo’s Nezu Museum – https://theconversation.com/if-i-could-go-anywhere-the-deep-mountains-and-mysterious-valleys-of-tokyos-nezu-museum-168468

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Megan Prictor, Senior Research Fellow in Law, The University of Melbourne

In the US, some National Basketball Association (NBA) players have recently asserted their right to privacy over their COVID vaccination status. In Australia, discussion of vaccine passports has also highlighted this issue.

We value the idea that our medical information is private and subject to special protection and that our doctor can’t freely share it with others. Yet suddenly, it seems we might be asked to hand over information about our vaccination status in many different situations.

It might be so we can keep doing our job, go into shops and restaurants or travel. It might make us uneasy. But can we refuse to tell others our vaccination status on privacy grounds? What does the law in Australia say about who can ask for it, and why, and what they can do with it?

Read more:
‘Are you double dosed?’ How to ask friends and family if they’re vaccinated, and how to handle it if they say no

What we already disclose

Vaccinations and medical exemptions are recorded on the Australian Immunisation Register operated by the federal government.

Information from the register is used to create immunisation history statements and COVID digital certificates. This information can then flow through to check-in apps to let us prove our vaccination status when we are asked to.

It’s understandable to think our health information should be secret – kept between us and our doctor. But the law – principally the Australian Privacy Act and health records laws in many states – allows it to be collected by other people if certain conditions are met. And it’s not only the doctor’s clinic and other health services where this information is allowed to move around.

For instance the No Jab, No Play legislation in Victoria, designed to increase immunisation rates in young children, means proof of their vaccination status must be given in order for the child to access kindergarten.

Adults have to disclose information about medical conditions and disabilities to organisations like VicRoads in order to obtain a driver licence. We might even disclose a health condition to our employer so “reasonable adjustments” can be made to help us keep working.

So there are many examples of disclosing health information well beyond the doctor’s clinic walls, and all of them are provided for by law.

Read more:
Health workers are among the COVID vaccine hesitant. Here’s how we can support them safely

Sensitive information

Our vaccination status is classified as “health information” under Australia’s privacy laws.

Health information falls into a larger category of “sensitive information” – information that requires the most careful handling. The Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) in our Privacy Act set out the rules for how this information can be collected, used and disclosed.

The APPs say a business or employer (an APP entity) can only collect sensitive information like our vaccination status under certain conditions. An example is if the information is reasonably necessary for the business’s activities and we give our consent.

For this consent to be valid it must be given freely. People can’t be threatened or intimidated into disclosing their vaccination status.

Employers can mandate vaccination – as some businesses are doing – if it is “lawful and reasonable”. In this situation, an employee refusing to disclose their vaccination status would likely be in breach of a lawful and reasonable direction by their employer. Any consequences would be covered by the terms of their employment contract.

Read more:
The 9 psychological barriers that lead to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and refusal

Public health and consequences

The collection of our vaccination status might also be allowed by other Australian laws, such as public health orders and directions. The mandatory collection of vaccination status in the aged-care sector is a good example.

Where proof of vaccination becomes a requirement of entering a premises or working in a particular job, we can choose to keep that information private, but not without consequences. Our privacy is not protected absolutely – the trade-off might be that we are denied entry or refused employment.

Information about a person’s vaccination status can only be collected by “lawful and fair” means such as asking them directly, but not collecting it by deception or without them knowing.

Separate rules say what can then be done with the information. Generally, it can’t be used for a different purpose than it was collected for, or shared with other people or organisations, unless an exception applies.

Although private sector employers’ handling of employee records is exempt from the Australian Privacy Principles, they should still store this information securely and make sure it is not used and disclosed unnecessarily.

Read more:
If privacy is increasing for My Health Record data, it should apply to all medical records

But isn’t privacy a human right?

Privacy is recognised as a fundamental human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights documents.

Australia is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states: “no-one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy” (Article 17.1).

But this right is not absolute and it can be limited by national measures “in time of public emergency” (Article 4.1). On the flip side, any requirement to disclose vaccination status is shaped by human rights principles so that the requirement must be reasonable, proportionate and necessary.

It must also take into account the risk of discrimination. Our Human Rights Commission has outlined how certain people might be at particular risk of discrimination related to sharing their vaccine status. They might have difficulty using technology or not have access to it. So, even those who have been vaccinated might find it difficult to provide proof.

The World Health Organisation says people who don’t disclose their vaccination status shouldn’t be denied participation in public life.

Although health information is protected under Australian law, the law also allows this information to be collected, used and shared when reasonably necessary.

Privacy is not absolute. The COVID emergency limits some privacy protections in favour of public health goals. We need to be alert to the trade-offs and potential discrimination – particularly when access to jobs and services depends on the disclosure of vaccine status.

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

– ref. Vaccination status – when your medical information is private and when it’s not – https://theconversation.com/vaccination-status-when-your-medical-information-is-private-and-when-its-not-168846

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Candice Harris, Professor of Management, Auckland University of Technology

All parents work.

The difference lies in the breakdown between their paid and unpaid workloads. That equation is influenced by many things, including education, qualifications, age, ethnicity, financial status, number and age of dependants, gendered and societal expectations, and personal choice.

But during COVID-19 lockdowns, many working parents have had to conduct their paid work – usually done in the workplace – at home.

Personally, professionally and geographically, this is new territory — for working parents, their loved ones and their employers.

It is also largely uncharted territory for researchers.

Previous academic studies of work-life integration have largely treated home and work as separate domains, with clearly demarcated tasks performed in distinct locations and at different times.

Additionally, past research into balancing those roles and working flexibly (including from home) has found parents mainly worked while children were at school or day care, or that they weren’t in full-time paid work.

The lockdown effect

Lockdowns have changed that, requiring many parents to work full-time while simultaneously schooling and caring for their children.

In this context, we suggest established, seemingly distinct concepts such as “work-life conflict” or “work-life balance” are limited in their ability to reflect and describe this new pandemic reality.

To that end, we have conceived a new concept that more accurately describes the working parent’s experience of juggling paid work (formal employment) and unpaid work (such as caregiving, household duties and volunteering) when both are being performed in the same environment during the same blocks of time.

We call it “zigzag working”.

Read more:
The double juggle: how working parents manage school holidays and their jobs

The working-from-home shuffle

Let’s imagine a typical example: Sarah teaches 26 nine- and 10-year-olds at a local primary school and is also mum to two kids aged 11 and 15, both studying from home during lockdown. Her husband is an essential worker, so he still goes out to work during the week.

One hour of her morning might look something like this:

9am: set up in the kitchen, designated as her “work zone”, she begins a Zoom session with her class to facilitate a 20-minute discussion

9.07am: motions to her teenage son not to eat the ingredients she is planning to use for dinner that night

9.20am: leaves the Zoom call, giving her students time to complete a task and for her to hang out a load of washing and reply to an email from a parent

9.35am: goes online again with her students for eight minutes to check their progress

9.41am: is approached by her 11-year-old daughter who needs help with her maths

9.50am: brings her class back together on Zoom to hear about their work, while also indicating to her son what he can eat from the fridge

Read more:
Working from home during COVID-19: What do employees really want?

Meeting and monitoring

Or another imaginary example: Ananya is a senior team manager working in banking. She’s a solo mum of twin boys aged 16, also studying at home and really missing soccer, which both play at a high level. They have a Labrador puppy.

1.15pm: listening live to her CEO update, she is texting her boys to encourage them to get out for a skate rather than spend their lunchtime gaming (they ignore her)

1.30pm: after the update, she grabs some of leftovers as lunch

1.37pm: takes a phone call from a team member

1.48pm: now that her boys have resumed online classes she sits down to reply to several emails

2.07pm: encourages one son to complete an overdue school project, as well as filling the dog’s water bowl

2.11pm: starts an urgent conversation via Teams with her manager

2.17pm: realises one of her twins is gaming when he’s meant to be working on his project

2.19pm: courier knocks on the door, no one else hears it, she interrupts another Teams meeting

New territory for employers

These scenarios illustrate the realities of zigzag working — the continuous and concurrent diving between paid and unpaid work as micro sessions, or managing paid and unpaid tasks simultaneously.

During lockdowns, many of the forms of support parents rely on – including relatives, paid household services, schools, day cares centres and after-school sports – are not available.

This is also new territory for employers, with many making up the rules as they go along and with large numbers of staff working at home full time.

We encourage employers to think about the roles working parents are juggling. Some tried and true forms of organisational support and being a “good employer” will no doubt apply here.

Read more:
How to deal with a year of accumulated burnout from working at home

Employers might also consider tweaks for lockdown working, including:

• recognising that working parents may be frequently interrupted, prolonged periods of “focused time” do not exist, and there is no such thing as “complete silence”

• not starting online meetings exactly on the hour, when school class sessions typically start

• checking in advance with working parents when is convenient to take a call, or scheduling a time for one

• breaking up long online meetings with micro breaks for all participants

• recording organisational updates so parents can tune in at a time to suit the family schedule

• enabling and encouraging staff to take reasonable breaks, as they would do in a normal work environment

• encouraging and facilitating discussions of “chaos” to counteract notions of being the ideal worker or parent.

Read more:
Forget work-life balance – it’s all about integration in the age of COVID-19

Researching the new reality

Life was complex before COVID-19. Now it feels especially challenging.

We encourage employers to understand the reality of zigzag working and to play a positive part in it. As well, they should recognise zigzag working may also be experienced by working grandparents and contractors managing several jobs on top of family responsibilities.

For a parent, the impacts of zigzag working may be magnified if they have a partner also trying to do paid work in the home.

The permutations are many. So too are the research opportunities to study and understand this new zigzag reality.

Jarrod Haar receives funding from (1) Royal Society of New Zealand Te Apārangi; (2) The New Zealand Health Research Council, (3) Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga, and (4) New Zealand National Science Challenge: Science for Technological Innovation (Kia Kotahi Mai: Te Ao Pūtaiao me Te Ao Hangarau).

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

– ref. In a lockdown, where does work end and parenting begin? Welcome to the brave new world of ‘zigzag working’ – https://theconversation.com/in-a-lockdown-where-does-work-end-and-parenting-begin-welcome-to-the-brave-new-world-of-zigzag-working-169088

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Candice Boyd, ARC DECRA Fellow in Human Geography, The University of Melbourne

Young people moving to the city has been a serious dilemma for regional Australian communities for decades.

Between 2011 and 2016, about 180,000 regional Australians between 20 and 35 years old moved to capital cities, although around 30% of them eventually returned to a regional area.

The reasons for what researchers term “youth outmigration” are varied, from seeking education and employment opportunities, to the lure of an urban lifestyle. This can have a negative impact on the communities left behind, including local workforce ageing, impact on the local economy and availability of services.

But what about the young people who don’t go?

New research

As part of a three-year study of this phenomenon, 50 young people were interviewed from three regional areas of Australia — Griffith in NSW, Port Hedland in Western Australia, and Port Lincoln in South Australia. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 34.

The study aimed to better understand the reasons why young people leave these areas, choose to stay in their hometowns, or return to their hometowns having left for a period of time.

The three locations were chosen because each is experiencing net youth outmigration despite increasing economic investment, online study options, and business sponsorship schemes such as Regional Development Australia’s Grow Our Own. Partnerships between industry and government like this are part of an effort to keep young people in their regional areas.

Young people explain why they stay

Interviews suggest the reasons Australian young people choose to stay or go had more to do with emotions and identity than money, education, or job opportunities. For example, young people who stay reported feeling safe and comfortable in the country:

I think country towns, they have more security, and more like a family feel. I think there’s a level of intimacy in the relationships you develop in the community.

Others talked about feeling unsafe and stressed in cities:

I was not confident to go to the city and live by myself. I am a big fan of wider populations, not the city. I would go down for a holiday and to go shopping, but I am not a big fan of crowds.

Others again said they wanted peace and stability:

I like my peace and quiet, and I also like to have good space around me. I don’t like hearing cars all the time. I am not big on change.

Young people also described their country or regional lifestyle as a positive thing, worth staying for:

All my life I have always grown up seeing old people having a yard, and they have their roses and their chickens or have their dogs and their cats, and they seem more content, like they have more of a purpose in the country — they can grow their own vegetables here.

The stigma of staying

But despite wanting to stay, this decision was not straightforward. Interviewees spoke of a cultural expectation, starting in childhood, that when you reach adolescence, you needed to go to “the big smoke” to go to university:

I think the pressure [to leave] probably came from the school sector more so than family […] when I think back, I think the schooling sector put the weighting on going to university.

This was reinforced by others in the community, who expected the younger people to leave.

If you were just waiting at the train station or something like that, they’d say “when are you leaving?” Everyone just assumes that you will.

Young people reported the pressure to leave came from schoolteachers who had had a positive experience of city life, or from parents who wanted their children to have “a better life”.

When I got the [local] job, I was too scared to tell my parents. They really wanted me to go to uni.

Interviewees spoke of how staying in their home areas was equated with failure.

It’s almost like you have to leave, if you’re going to be successful.

A small shift could make a big difference

What if instead of asking a regional young person “when are you leaving?”, we asked “what are your plans?”?

What difference might that small shift in emphasis make, so regional youth feel free to make a home wherever they feel safe and comfortable, and not according to prior assumptions and expectations?

Policymakers and regional community leaders should understand there can be complex emotional reasons behind young people’s migration decisions, and that they can feel pressured to leave or judged for staying.

Turning the tide of young people leaving their regional area might be as much about shifting community attitudes and expectations as it is about creating local employment opportunities.

Candice Boyd receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. ‘It’s almost like you have to leave’: young people from regional areas face a big stigma if they don’t move to the city – https://theconversation.com/its-almost-like-you-have-to-leave-young-people-from-regional-areas-face-a-big-stigma-if-they-dont-move-to-the-city-168655

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Caldicott, Senior lecturer, Australian National University

Emergency departments around Australia have experienced COVID in a variety of ways.

From the first quarter of 2020, most if not all have worked hard to plan for an influx of very unwell, highly infectious patients. In the less fortunate of jurisdictions, those apprehensions are being realised — though thankfully not yet to the magnitude seen in some overseas cities.

Hospital emergency departments (EDs) are under intense pressure and there have been calls for the public to carefully weigh up need before presenting there. Don’t come if you don’t need to, they’ve been told. But equally, don’t wait if you need treatment, especially for COVID.

Less staff, more pressure

For all hospitals, COVID planning has involved creating streams of patient flow, to ensure those infected can be treated in addition to and at the same time as those who are not — while preventing the former infecting the latter. This is labour-intensive work, often duplicating patient pathways but without a doubling of staff.

In fact, staff numbers in many EDs are down in Australia, for a variety of reasons. Many smaller rural departments rely on fly-in-fly-out locums, now locked out by lockdowns. At times, doctors and nurses have been furloughed because they have been infected at work or elsewhere, or because they have been close contacts.

Understaffed EDs push on, with the greater burden being carried by fewer health workers, resulting in their subsequent burnout. To that, add the task of working in full personal protective equipment, often for many hours at a time. It is physically demanding, uncomfortable, unpleasant work, in an environment in which both high levels of vigilance to keep staff safe and cognitive skills to manage often complex and rapidly deteriorating patients are required.

Read more:
Health workers are among the COVID vaccine hesitant. Here’s how we can support them safely

Not just COVID patients

Much of the focus in the media on health care in a time of pandemic has understandably been on COVID hospitalisations and subsequent intensive care unit admissions. Less has been said about the impact of COVID on the treatment of other illnesses or injuries.

We are very fortunate in Australia there is still more of “the other” in our EDs than there is COVID. That might change in the run up to Christmas.

The ED is most obviously a place of treatment for acute injuries and illnesses. In addition to that, we treat people with chronic illnesses. The ED can act as a safety net for those who have no one else to turn to and reassure many without affliction. For patients in each of these categories, the experience of ED has changed significantly.

There are great concerns many of those who need immediate medical care are deferring seeking it. They may fear catching COVID or being a burden on a strained system. Many in the latter category are elderly patients and those with probably the most reasonable indications for using our services.

Read more:
Here’s what happens when you’re hospitalised with COVID

First off, it’s your emergency

So how should we, as a resource-constrained civil society, in the middle of a pandemic, use our EDs?

The first and overriding principle is that any medical emergency is YOUR emergency. If you think you are experiencing a medical emergency — one you cannot see yourself addressing with the resources available to you, at the time you are experiencing it — you should come to ED. It doesn’t matter if it seems trivial to others, it’s your emergency. And we are your emergency department.

If you don’t feel too unwell, and are uncertain where you should go for medical care, there are alternatives to the ED where excellent medical advice and treatment can be found.

Telehealth has been a godsend to both patients and our GP colleagues. There are now also numerous health lines to call. Pharmacists can provide excellent information about medication, as well as now providing COVID vaccinations.

The ED is not the best place to go to have a COVID test. If you are otherwise well, there are many testing locations where you will wait a far shorter time for a test and the results.

Similarly, many concerns about the very rare side effects of COVID vaccination can be addressed with a telehealth consultation and a blood test if required.

Read more:
How COVID affects the heart, according to a cardiologist

Extra precautions, longer waits

If you do come to the ED, try and be patient. There are extra measures in place to keep you safe.

You’ll need to wear a mask and check in with a QR code, use hand sanitiser and physically distance. There are increasingly strict rules about the numbers of visitors.

If that’s a problem, you’re probably going to be asked to leave. It’s nothing personal — we have a duty of responsibility to all our patients.

You might wait longer than expected despite the efforts of medical staff to see everyone as quickly as possible.

Read more:
How contagious is Delta? How long are you infectious? Is it more deadly? A quick guide to the latest science

EDs treat all comers

Finally, if you’re worried about the consequences of catching COVID, get vaccinated. We treat all comers, with a variety of beliefs about their medical care — all as long as they agree to abide by the rules of “The House”: to be respectful and abide by hospital procedures.

But vaccination will reduce your chance of needing ED attention as a consequence of COVID — and protect you from catching it if you come to ED for another reason.

Working in the ED at the moment isn’t much fun for anyone. We’re all really tired and, for many, that’s even before the ED where we work has become COVID-dominant. We’re looking forward to moving out of this phase of the pandemic, safely. Then we can get back to treating the mishaps of more normal human lifestyles, led to the fullest.

Read more:
How well do COVID vaccines work in the real world?

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

– ref. Hospital emergency departments are under intense pressure. What to know before you go – https://theconversation.com/hospital-emergency-departments-are-under-intense-pressure-what-to-know-before-you-go-169098

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gregory Moore, Doctor of Botany, The University of Melbourne

From time to time, I’m contacted by people who have a favourite garden tree that seems suddenly to be in serious decline and lacking healthy foliage. Often the decline has been occurring over many months, but when first noticed, the change seems to have been dramatic.

The symptoms described accord with grazing — where animals nibble at foliage until it’s quite degraded — so I ask if they have seen brushtail possums in the tree.

More often than not the answer is a firm, “No!”

However, just because you haven’t seen them, it doesn’t mean the possums aren’t there. One owner, who said they weren’t aware of any possums, checked at night with a torch; they counted 56 possums in a single, sick-looking river red gum.

It’s not uncommon for one tree within a group of the same species to be grazed while other trees are left alone.

In the early evening, a steady stream of possums can be seen coming from all directions and from nesting sites in other trees hundreds of metres away, all homing in on the one sickly specimen.

To the human eye, this seems very strange behaviour. Wouldn’t the possums be better off grazing on a healthy tree?

But possums are real tree experts and know exactly what they are doing.

Read more:
Curious Kids: if trees are cut down in the city, where will possums live?

It’s all about the sugar content

The common brushtail possum, Trichosurus vulpecula, will eat both plants and small animals if given the chance, but plants form the bulk of their diet. Eucalypt leaves are a favourite, but they’ll nibble the leaves of other plants in our gardens.

So what is going on when one tree is grazed in preference to others? One of the main drivers revolves around sugar.

When plants photosynthesise, one of the first products of the process is sugar. Sugars are carbohydrates made up of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms and one of the most common is glucose (C₆H₁₂O₆), which is the common sugar used in coffee, tea and cooking.

Sugar may be copping a bit of stick at present for its role in human diets, but in terms of plant metabolism, glucose is a marvellous molecule.

It is made from simple and ready available ingredients. It is soluble in water and can be easily transported around inside the plant. And it stores significant energy.

This makes it a very accessible and desirable molecule within the plant, but too much glucose in solution can cause problems for the plant and attract grazers keen on an easy sugar hit.

The plant has evolved an elegant solution to these problems. It simply takes two or more glucose molecules and bonds them together to make starch‚ which is not very soluble in water, contains lots of energy and so is an ideal storage form of carbohydrate.

The plant converts any excess glucose that it has into starch for later use when things might be tougher.

What’s this got to do with possums, again?

When a plant is stressed, one of its first responses is to mobilise its resources. Among other things, it often converts its starch reserves back to sugar. As soon as this happens, the stressed plant becomes sweeter than its healthier neighbours — and brushtail possums know it.

Some stressed trees emit chemicals that can be picked up by grazers. In other cases, the grazers may come upon a stressed tree by chance.

In either case, the grazer gets an increased sugar hit and so will return to the tree when the opportunity presents; other grazers may follow.

In the case of brushtail possums, a possum may return to the same tree night after night and, despite territorial disputes, may be joined by other possums in a feeding feast.

A stressed tree is a grazer’s delight

Initially, the tree may have been stressed by drought, poor nutrition or waterlogged soils. The increased grazing then adds to the level of stress.

And when lots of leaves are removed, many trees such as eucalypts, elms, oaks and even deciduous conifers will respond by producing new leaves and shoots. These lovely new leaves and shoots are soft and loaded with sugars — a grazer’s delight.

With more stress, the tree converts more and more starch into sugar and produces yet more new leaves and shoots — so the grazers get a sweet and nutritious reward for their efforts. They will keep returning to the same tree.

All of this extra grazing comes at a price to the tree, which is exhausting its starch reserves, but getting little or no reward from the sugar produced.

Eventually, the tree will succumb. It may die from starvation due to the loss of its reserves and the failure of new foliage to survive long enough to photosynthesise. Or it may die from another environmental stress or a pest or disease attack.

Grazing can be lethal to a tree, but you can see why the grazers keep coming back.

Stressed trees are an easy and rewarding energy source. Perhaps, like us, the possums become addicted to a high sugar diet and simply can’t resist returning to the tree — even if, in the end, the tree is grazed to death.

Read more:
Hidden housemates: when possums go bump in the night

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

– ref. Why sweet-toothed possums graze on stressed, sickly-looking trees – https://theconversation.com/why-sweet-toothed-possums-graze-on-stressed-sickly-looking-trees-169241

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By William Partlett, Associate Professor, The University of Melbourne

On September 17, the first day of Russia’s parliamentary elections, Apple and Google agreed to demands from the Russian government to remove a strategic voting app developed by opposition leader Alexei Navalny from the iOS and Android app stores.

Apple then disabled its Private Relay feature (which enhances web browsing privacy) for users in Russia. Google also removed YouTube videos giving advice on how to vote strategically in the elections.

In the past, large tech companies have generally ignored censorship requests from the Russian government. So why did the US tech giants finally cave in to pressure?

The answer provides a glimpse into how Russia, a sophisticated cyber superpower, is building its sovereign internet. It is preserving control, but without isolating itself from the broader internet.

Is digital democracy a delusion?

Apple and Google have both placed democratic values at the centre of their sales pitch.

Google used to have “don’t be evil” as its unofficial motto and within its code of conduct. It now proclaims its mission is to “organise the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”.

Apple’s official policy is that “where national law and international human rights standards differ, we follow the higher standard”. Such marketing claims draw on the language of cyber-utopianism, a concept that sees the internet as a force for democracy in the world.

But many experts have been sceptical; US researcher Evgeny Morozov famously called cyber-utopianism a “delusion”. This scepticism has increased in recent years, with mounting evidence of a conflict between democratic values and the core business model of for-profit tech companies.

Adding to this, authoritarian governments have begun to develop ways to avoid the democratising effects of the internet. One key strategy is to construct a “sovereign” internet that isolates itself from the rest of the web.

The leading model comes from China, which has built an almost parallel internet infrastructure behind its “great firewall”. Human Rights Watch has warned Russia’s approach rests on the same principle of “increasing isolation from the World Wide Web”.

Battleground Russia

For many years, the internet had been a relatively democratic force in Russia, which has the most internet users in Europe.

The internet is increasingly important in Russian politics, as younger generations ignore state-sponsored media and engage through western tech platforms. Navalny has relied heavily on this to build his political movement.

Read more:
Alexei Navalny has long been a fierce critic of the Kremlin. If he was poisoned, why now? And what does it mean?

Until recently, the Russian state struggled to regulate this activity, allowing Navalny to amass a large following. In fact, efforts to regulate tech platforms has seemed ineffective.

For instance, in 2018, the government’s attempt to ban the messaging app Telegram collapsed into farce. As it turned out, the Russians not only lacked the technical capacity to block the app, it was also frequently used by Russian security services.

Russia’s September parliamentary election

The parliamentary election held last month, however, has some disturbing implications for the democratic use of the internet in Russia.

For a regime that relies heavily on image, the results of this election were crucial in demonstrating to both Russians and international audiences that Vladimir Putin and his ruling party were still popular.

It had been a difficult two years for the Russian regime. The pandemic exposed serious deficiencies in governance, and polls showed weakening support for the ruling party. The current regime had to show it was in control, and it needed to control the internet to do so.

Read more:
Vladimir Putin plans to win Russia’s parliamentary election no matter how unpopular his party is

The ruling party first responded with a vicious crackdown on the political opposition. In February, Navalny was sent to prison. Later, his entire organisation was declared “extremist” — leading to the blocking of its websites, and the imprisonment or exile of several of its members.

In addition, the Russian state sharpened its tools for internet censorship. Among other provisions, a law introduced in July required foreign social media companies with more than 500,000 daily Russian visitors to have employees in Russia.

Meanwhile, sophisticated techniques were developed to slow down internet access to targeted platforms.

Operating largely from exile, Navalny’s team continued to rely on the internet to influence the Russian parliamentary election. At the centre of this effort was the team’s Smart Voting app — designed to undermine the monopoly of the ruling party by uniting the opposition.

The app was initially made available through Apple’s and Google’s app stores. But the Russian state pressured the tech giants to remove it in the days leading up to the election — threatening two key actions if they failed to comply.

First, the state would prosecute Russia-based employees of Google and Apple. Second, it promised to slow down internet traffic to Apple and Google platforms in Russia, and shut down the Apple Pay and Google Pay services.

Facing an escalating series of threats, the tech giants eventually backed down and removed the app.

A new model of the sovereign internet?

The Russian regime secured a key win in its attempt to build a sovereign internet. On one hand, the state now has a technique for ensuring the deletion of sensitive online material that threatens its power.

On the other hand, it still has connections to the mainstream internet (including Google and Apple) that it can manipulate for its own goals. These cyber black-ops — most famously on show in the 2016 US presidential election — are a central part of Russia’s foreign policy.

To build this sovereign internet, Russia is exploiting a simple, unavoidable truth: tech giants are ultimately for-profit corporations, with a priority to maximise profits and shareholder value.

And this poses two worrying questions. Will other authoritarian countries follow Russia’s lead? And how can opposition movements that rely on big tech for their democratic organisation respond?

Read more:
Thanks to the internet, we know what’s happening in Myanmar. But a communication blackout may be near

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

– ref. Russia is building its own kind of sovereign internet — with help from Apple and Google – https://theconversation.com/russia-is-building-its-own-kind-of-sovereign-internet-with-help-from-apple-and-google-169115

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Margie Danchin, Paediatrician at the Royal Childrens Hospital and Associate Professor and Clinician Scientist, University of Melbourne and MCRI, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute

As Australia works towards getting 80% of over-16s fully vaccinated against COVID and higher, there’s more pressure to mandate vaccination across a range of sectors.

Some sectors in certain states and territories already have a COVID vaccine mandate in place, such as health and aged-care staff. Victoria last week mandated COVID vaccination for all authorised workers in the state, which has been a tough but necessary decision. Governments and businesses are also considering mandates for many other groups.

Vaccine passports are also on the way, meaning you’ll need to show proof of being fully vaccinated to do things like travel internationally, and to visit venues in hospitality, entertainment, retail and others in certain states and territories.

But there are some people who can’t get a COVID vaccine for medical reasons, though these are very rare. So what are these conditions, and if you have one of them, how can you prove it?

Permanent exemptions

It’s recommended all Australians over 12 receive two doses of a COVID vaccine. We have robust data now on these vaccines, so we know they’re safe and effective. Serious adverse events are very rare.

There are few situations where someone can’t have a COVID vaccine for medical reasons. The criteria to receive a permanent medical exemption are very narrow and rarely required.

The only criteria are:

• anaphylaxis following a previous dose of a COVID vaccine

• or previous anaphylaxis to any component of a COVID vaccine.

For live vaccines, such the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) and varicella vaccines, people who are significantly immunocompromised can get a permanent medical exemption. But this isn’t relevant for COVID vaccines because they’re not live vaccines.

There are some conditions people commonly believe may require a vaccine exemption, but the following are not reasons to be exempt from COVID vaccination:

• egg allergy, even severe

• a chronic underlying medical condition – these individuals are often at higher risk of more serious disease from COVID, such as people who are immunocompromised who can still receive the COVID vaccines because they’re not live vaccines

• family history of any adverse events following immunisation.

Temporary exemptions

There are some situations when a COVID vaccine may need to be temporarily deferred. For example, if someone has an acute illness with a fever of 38.5℃ or over. However, this would usually be for a short period only and wouldn’t require them to obtain a written temporary medical exemption.

But there are also some “acute major medical illnesses” where people may be able to get a temporary immunisation medical exemption form. This needs to assessed and given by a medical provider, and only temporarily exempts you from a COVID vaccine.

Last week ATAGI, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, which provides medical advice to the federal government on the use of vaccines including COVID vaccines, released expanded guidance on which of these conditions may warrant a temporary medical exemption.

Read more:
Soon you’ll need to be vaccinated to enjoy shops, cafes and events — but what about the staff there?

These exemptions include people with acute major medical conditions such as major surgery or hospital admission for a serious illness.

Temporary exemptions are only recommended to be provided for up to six months. Ideally, they’re reviewed within six months to see whether the person has recovered and can now be safely vaccinated. They’re also only given if another COVID vaccine isn’t suitable or available.

Temporary exemptions may also be specific to a certain vaccine, such as:

• if a person has a history of heart inflammation (myocarditis or pericarditis) attributed to a previous dose, or has had another illness causing heart inflammation in the past six months, or acute decompensated heart failure. This is only for mRNA vaccines, including those by Pfizer and Moderna

• if a person has a history of specific very rare bleeding and clotting conditions including: capillary leak syndrome, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, idiopathic splanchnic thrombosis, or antiphospholipid syndrome (with thrombosis and/or miscarriage). This is only for the AstraZeneca vaccine.

If possible and safe, individuals who can’t get one of the above vaccines for one of these reasons should receive an alternative COVID vaccine.

Temporary exemptions may also be for people who:

• have had COVID, until they’ve completely recovered. ATAGI recommends vaccination can be deferred for up to six months, because past infection reduces the chance of reinfection for at least this amount of time. However, they don’t need to delay vaccination if they’ve recovered from COVID and their job requires them to be vaccinated, or they’re at higher risk of COVID due to exposure or personal risk. Having chronic symptoms following COVID, known as “long COVID”, isn’t a medical reason not to receive a COVID vaccine. If people who’ve recently had COVID are unsure about whether to get vaccinated, they should talk to their medical provider about the best time to proceed with vaccination

• have had a serious adverse event from a previous COVID vaccine dose that can’t be attributed to another cause. An adverse event is considered serious if the person is hospitalised or it causes persistent or significant disability. These events need to be reported to the adverse event surveillance system in the person’s state or territory and/or to Australia’s medical regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). They’re carefully assessed on a case-by-case basis by an experienced specialist to work out how likely a recurrence of the serious adverse event is if another dose of COVID vaccine is given

• are assessed to be a risk to themselves or others during the vaccination process. For example, this could be due to a severe neurodevelopmental condition such as autism spectrum disorder. Specialist services may be available that can help facilitate safe vaccination for these individuals, such as with the assistance of distraction or awake sedation.

Pregnancy isn’t a valid reason for exemption, in the absence of any of the criteria listed above.

How would I get an exemption, if I’m eligible?

COVID vaccine medical exemptions can be obtained from general practitioners, paediatricians, clinical immunologists, infectious disease, general or public health physicians, gynaecologists or obstetricians.

If someone thinks they qualify for an exemption based on the above, it’s often best to visit a GP first to discuss.

The federal government will introduce a certificate system for people to prove they have a medical exemption later this month. These would be available through the Services Australia app.

With mandates looming, GPs and other providers will feel pressure to dispense exemptions to people not wanting to be vaccinated. Employers will be seeking clarity about who can receive one. This can often cause distress and conflict if the request for an exemption is denied, for both the provider and patient.

Also, if mandates aren’t applied equally and fairly, there’s a risk of compounding disadvantage.

These mandates are made at a jurisdictional level, so there may also be differences regarding which groups are affected depending on the state or territory.

The stakes are high for those who remain unvaccinated, so it’s vital employers, individuals and medical providers are aware of the new ATAGI clinical guidance regarding the medical exemption criteria and that jurisdictions provide additional clarity about the process.

Margie Danchin receives funding from the NHMRC, WHO, DFAT and the Commonwealth and State Departments of Health. She is Chair, Collaboration on Social Science and Immunisation (COSSI).

– ref. Who can’t have a COVID vaccine and how do I get a medical exemption? – https://theconversation.com/who-cant-have-a-covid-vaccine-and-how-do-i-get-a-medical-exemption-168371

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexandra Crosby, Associate Professor, University of Technology Sydney

Does anything beat the experience of finding a wild mulberry tree and stuffing a handful of fresh juicy berries in your mouth? Have you ever roasted potatoes with a sprig of rosemary taken from an overgrown nature strip?

COVID lockdowns have encouraged more people to explore their neighbourhoods and appreciate their local green spaces, where edible plants are often growing freely. Alongside the joy in eating something freely harvested, foraging can help us learn about plants, become better environmental stewards, and bring together communities.

It can also help us notice changes in season, weather and climate. So with spring upon us, how do you forage safely, respectfully, and legally?

Wild, edible plants thrive in cities

The locations of Sydney and Melbourne were chosen by colonists, in part, because they’re within large food basins. Many edible species existed well before colonisation, thanks to the favourable climate, shape of the coastline and custodianship of Country.

Edible native plants, from ground covering warrigal greens to the huge canopies of Illawarra plum trees, are still naturally growing all over southeast Australian cities. Further north, macadamias, lemon myrtles and finger limes thrive, and pigface is common on sand dunes along coastal towns.

Today, edible plants thrive despite the disturbances of soils and water from urbanisation. Fruit trees, for example, emerge spontaneously on the edges of park lands, in vacant lots and in people’s gardens.

In some cases, urbanisation is actually responsible for the growth and distribution of edible plants.

Birds, rats, bats broaden the trajectories of mulberry, loquat, and papaya seeds by eating them and expelling the seeds somewhere else. This is also how mulberries, which European settlers introduced to Australia, now grow in most Australian cities.

Kumquat, citrus, and fig trees are also very common in tropical and temperate climates. And keep an eye out for blackberry vines. They’ve created an immense environmental problem, although the fruit is delicious, and grow best in NSW, Victoria and Tasmania.

Think before you pick

But foraging is not a free for all, and doing it safely and respectfully is important.

First and foremost, in Australia, wherever you walk, you are on Country. Take a moment to remember that although urban foraging may be new to you, Aboriginal people have always gathered native plants while caring for Country.

Foraging also carries possible risks to your own health. Some plants in urban areas are poisonous, such as the castor oil plant and many gum trees. Plants could also be contaminated from pollution in the air, water and soil, and by chemical sprays.

You can learn about some of the possible environmental contaminants in your neighbourhood here, and there are a few services like VegeSafe that test soil samples for metals.

Always start by considering the past and current uses of the land where you’re foraging. Was the land once industrially zoned? Do dogs urinate there? Make sure you always wash foraged food.

Legally, plants are the property of whoever owns the land on which they’re growing. That means foraging for food on private land is legal, as long as you either own the land or have the owner’s permission.

Read more:
Our land abounds in nature strips – surely we can do more than mow a third of urban green space

But if food is accessible on public land — such as lemons or bananas hanging over a fence, or rosemary and parsley planted as ornamentals in a park or street shoulder — you can harvest them. Just take what you need, and leave plenty for others.

Foraging respectfully

There are different cultures around growing and sharing food, depending on the local area. For example, many neighbourhood nature strips are technically owned by the council, but planted and tended by residents.

Community gardens and even streets with nature strips may have their own harvesting rules. Some groups like Green Square Growers encourage spontaneous harvesting. Others, such as Sydney City Farm, carefully document volunteer hours then allocate produce accordingly.

Since 2016, we have been working in various suburbs of Sydney to conduct research on urban gardening. We discovered people often work with plants to develop a sense of place that goes well beyond what’s visible in their gardens.

We found networks of neighbours grow together with plants on street edges, through exchanging cuttings, seeds, tips, stories and produce. Coming across a row of trees heavy with olives on a nature strip may feel like a lucky discovery, but these plants are probably watered, pruned, and whitewashed for winter by one or more gardeners.

For someone who has carefully netted a fruit tree to protect it from bats and cockatoos, or who has patiently tended a vine for three years before their first passionfruit appears, there’s nothing more infuriating than a stranger harvesting.

On the other hand, helping yourself to a fragrant feijoa tree weighed down by ripe fruit makes sense, when the fruits would otherwise fall, rot and go to waste.

When possible, ask residents about the plants growing on or around their properties. Conversations about what’s growing in neighbourhoods build so-called “civic ecologies” — actions that bring together environmental and civic values, building neighbourly connections around common interests and care for shared places.

Learn from foraging celebrities

In Australia, a hand full of “foraging” celebrities have brought attention to this age old practice. They see foraging as an opportunity to learn about what’s growing where, and why.

Read more:
Supermarket shelves stripped bare? History can teach us to ‘make do’ with food

In Sydney, Randwick Council Sustainability Educator Julian Lee, has created a Scrumper’s Delight participatory map that records edible plants growing in public spaces. Sydney artist and activist Diego Bonetto — aka The Weedy One — brought a wealth of planty knowledge from Piedmont, Italy to Australia in the 1990s, and since then his passion has evolved to a public pedagogy about respectful foraging.

Milkwood Permaculture offer tips, even on foraging sea weed. The Melbourne Forager on Instagram makes urban foraging hip. And a growing number of Indigenous businesses, such as Indigigrow, share Indigenous knowledge by selling plants people can recognise outside their gardens.

Foraging in cities is fun, it helps us remember we’re part of ecosystems, and we have a responsibility to care for Country. So keep in mind principles of reciprocity, and go forth and learn what’s growing in your city.

Read more:
Farming the suburbs – why can’t we grow food wherever we want?

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

– ref. Rosemary in roundabouts, lemons over the fence: how to go urban foraging safely, respectfully and cleverly – https://theconversation.com/rosemary-in-roundabouts-lemons-over-the-fence-how-to-go-urban-foraging-safely-respectfully-and-cleverly-167883

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane Tiller, Ethical, Legal & Social Adviser – Public Health Genomics, Monash University

Genomic testing — the ability to read an individual’s genetic code and identify their risk of conditions such as cancer — has opened up huge possibilities in personalised medicine.

But it has also introduced serious ethical challenges. Particularly, there is the danger of life insurance companies using such information to discriminate against those at higher risk of conditions.

Canada, Britain and most European countries have already banned or restricted life insurers from using genetic test results.

Australia’s response so far has been mostly to leave it to industry self-regulation. But our research suggests most health professionals don’t think this is enough. More than 90% of the experts we surveyed agreed more government oversight is required.

Australia’s regulatory approach

Australia’s federal Private Health Insurance Act (2017) prohibits health insurers from using genetic information to discriminate against customers. But there is no legal prohibition against life insurers using results to charge people higher premiums or deny them coverage altogether. This applies to death cover, total and permanent disability, critical illness/trauma and income-protection cover.

In 2018 a joint parliamentary inquiry recommended a prohibition against life insurers using the outcomes of predictive genetic tests, at least in the medium term. It also recommended the government maintain a watching brief and consider legislation in future.

The federal government did not respond to the inquiry’s report, leaving it to the industry to self-regulate.

Read more:
Australians can be denied life insurance based on genetic test results, and there is little protection

In 2019 the financial services industry’s peak body, the Financial Services Council, introduced a five-year moratorium on insurers using applicants’ genetic test results up to certain financial limits.

Life insurers can only ask for or use genetic test results for policies worth more than A$500,000 for death cover or total and permanent disability cover, A$200,000 for critical illness/trauma cover, and $4,000/month for income protection.

Given the median yearly household income is about A$122,000, these thresholds are arguably too low to prevent insurers from using genetic test results in many cases.

Our survey results

With the moratorium now half over (it will end in 2024), we surveyed health professionals to gauge their views about Australia’s approach. The survey was part of a federal government-funded research project to evaluate the moratorium.

Of 166 respondents, 121 were genetic specialists — geneticists and genetic counsellors who help people make sense of and make decisions about genetic testing. There are 480 such specialists in Australia registered with the Human Genetics Society of Australasia. With genetic testing increasingly being offered outside genetics clinics, we also invited specialists such as oncologists to take part.

Not everyone answered every question, so the following percentages are based on those that answered specific questions. While 93% agreed consumers are better protected under the moratorium, 88% remained concerned about genetic discrimination.

The most common complaints were that the financial thresholds were too low, there was no certainty for patients beyond 2024, and the insurance industry couldn’t be trusted to regulate itself.

More than 90% said the Australian government should introduce legislation to regulate life insurers.

Canada’s legislation, for example, bans insurers and other service providers from using genetic test results to discriminate against applicants.

The British government, meanwhile, has a hybrid regulatory model. This involves a Code on Genetic Testing and Insurance agreed to between the government and life insurance industry. In our survey, 95% said a similar approach is required for Australia.

Read more:
Why New Zealanders are vulnerable to genetic discrimination in health and life insurance

Safeguarding Australia’s genomic future

Genetic technology is transforming health care. Precision medicine relies on genomic testing to personalise therapeutic treatments. Genomic research is also critical to understanding disease, improving diagnostic methods and guiding the selection of the most effective drugs for treatment.

To maximise its potential and ensure public trust in genomics, it seems clear more must be done to prevent genetic discrimination and ensure all Australians — particularly those most at risk from genetic conditions — can benefit from the genomics revolution.

Jane Tiller has received funding from the Australian government’s Genomic Health Futures Mission, to monitor the effectiveness of the Australian genetics and life insurance moratorium. She is a founding member of the Australian Genetic Non-Discrimination Working Group

Paul Lacaze has received funding from the Australian government’s Genomic Health Futures Mission, to monitor the effectiveness of the Australian genetics and life insurance moratorium. He is a founding member of the Australian Genetic Non-Discrimination Working Group

– ref. Australians need more protection against genetic discrimination: health experts – https://theconversation.com/australians-need-more-protection-against-genetic-discrimination-health-experts-168563