Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julien Louys, Deputy Director, Australian Research Centre for Human Evolution, Griffith University

If you stood in the middle of the Nefud Desert in central Arabia today, you’d be confronted on all sides by enormous sand dunes, some rising more than 100 meters from the desert floor.

The few scraggly bushes make poor browse for the herds of goats and camels that eke out a living in this harsh environment. But this wasn’t always the case.

Our research published today in Nature shows that in repeated pulses over the past 400,000 years, the Nefud Desert landscape received monsoon rains that resulted in rolling grasslands, flowing rivers and large lakes home to thousands of wild donkeys, antelopes and hippos.

Humans also inhabited these green corridors as they made their way out of Africa, only to disappear when conditions deteriorated again.

Among other findings, we present the oldest dated evidence for hominins in Arabia, in the form of stone tools dated to about 400,000 years ago. The Homininae subfamily is the group of humans of which Homo sapiens is the sole survivor.

Early movements out of Africa

Today Arabia is one of the world’s driest places, and was long thought to have played little role in human prehistory.

While the rich and long-studied Levant and the Mediterranean regions were considered critical for the dispersal of people out of Africa, it was thought most humans would have avoided places like the Arabian “Empty Quarter” — due to the harshness of its environmental conditions.

But detailed scientific investigations over the past few decades have been slowly changing these ideas. A rich stone tool culture has now been recovered from the surfaces of many ancient and dried out lakebeds in Southwest Asia.

However, because these were from isolated beds — often hundreds of kilometres apart — and restricted to surface scatters, it was difficult to determine who had left these tools, when, and where they came from.

In collaboration with the Heritage Commission of the Saudi Ministry of Culture and other Saudi colleagues, our international team of researchers has been working in Saudi Arabia, Southwest Asia’s largest country, for the past decade.

We have recorded and studied a wealth of stone tools and animal fossils emerging from the sands and ancient lakebeds. And we’ve made some startling discoveries.

We recovered a Homo sapiens finger bone, among other fossils, from an ancient Saudi Arabian lakebed known as Al Wusta. These remains were dated to 85,000 years ago. This finding shows modern humans had made it out of Africa at least 20,000 years before the genetic evidence indicates we left.

It has been thought (and many still believe) Homo sapiens only left Africa about 50-65,000 years ago. Our finger bone finding challenges this view, as do other discoveries – including from Madjedbebe in Australia.

Read more:
Buried tools and pigments tell a new history of humans in Australia for 65,000 years

What happened to the group of people from Al Wusta remains unknown. They may have moved further into Asia, or retreated back to Africa. Or they may have become locally extinct.

A green Arabia

We also report a series of archaeological sites associated with multiple lakes across two locations which tell the story of human prehistory going back 400,000 years. The first of these locations, Khall Amayshan 4, is a depression located between large sand dunes covering 60,000 square metres.

In this single depression we found individual lakebeds dated back to 55,000, 100,000, 200,000, 300,000 and 400,000 thousand years ago. And each of the five lake phases is represented by its own unique archaeological signature.

Today different populations around the world can be identified by their cultures, which include the tools they use, how they’re made and how they use them. Think chopsticks across Asia and forks in Europe, for example.

These tools are passed on to successive generations, even if those generations move from their point of origin. The way people made and used stone tools in the past also reflected patterns of cultural inheritance.

So by studying and comparing the stone tools from Arabia with those from surrounding regions, we can find out not just when people were living and moving through the region, but also where their ancestors had moved from and how they changed as they moved.

The most striking thing we found was that each assemblage of stone tools recovered from each ancient lakebed was very different from the others.

Our detailed examination of the lakebeds and the mammal fossils they preserved, including from hippos, clearly pointed to how much wetter, greener and more productive each of those phases were compared to the region today.

The different technologies associated with each green phase indicate there was no long-term continuity in the populations in the area. Instead, different populations, perhaps even different species of hominin, were moving in and out with each phase.

At the Jubbah Oasis around 150 km east of Khall Amayshan 4, two further sites – Jebel Qattar 1 and Jebel Umm Sanman 1 – filled in the last of the gaps in the timeline. These sites presented different stone tools dating to around 200,000 and 75,000 years ago, also associated with green phases.

Each of these phases occurs during wetter climatic periods, which are wetter due to the northern movements of the monsoon, bringing increased rainfall to the desert. Once the climate shifted back, however, conditions became arid again and humans and other fauna disappeared from Arabia.

Read more:
Prehistoric desert footprints are earliest evidence for Homo sapiens on Arabian Peninsula

Our findings reveal the intimate association between early human migrations and patterns of climate change — wherein different groups of humans repeatedly made it out of Africa when conditions became favourable.

And this happened long before the dispersal event of 50-65,000 years ago, which finally saw their descendents permanently colonise other regions.

Yet dozens of questions remain. Were some of these migrations from northern Neanderthals? What became of these different populations? Where did they go? Could some have made it to Southeast Asia and hence to Australia?

The human story won’t be told completely until we explore more long-neglected areas, much like our ancestors once did.

Julien Louys receives funding from The Australian Research Council and the Leakey Foundation

Gilbert Price receives funding from The Australian Research Council and the Leakey Foundation.

Huw Groucutt receives funding from the Max Planck Society.

Michael Petraglia receives funding from the European Research Council and the Max Planck Society.

– ref. Research reveals humans ventured out of Africa repeatedly as early as 400,000 years ago, to visit the rolling grasslands of Arabia – https://theconversation.com/research-reveals-humans-ventured-out-of-africa-repeatedly-as-early-as-400-000-years-ago-to-visit-the-rolling-grasslands-of-arabia-167050

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shaun Carney, Vice-Chancellor’s professorial fellow, Monash University

The history of the Australian Labor Party is both proud and miserable. At the federal level, it has spent considerably more time in opposition than in office, holding government for just 26 of the 66 years since the end of the second world war.

It has been a party of debilitating, long-running splits. One was over conscription during the first world war. Another was over how to respond to the Great Depression. The worst split, over the influence of communists within the ALP and the Catholic groups that fought against it, extended from the 1950s to the 1970s.

It was so deep, so enduring, that it came to be known simply as The Split and kept Labor in opposition for 23 years straight.

That’s the miserable part. What about the pride? The ALP has, through the decades, survived the disruptions and eventually found its way back to office, even if only for brief periods as was the case under the leadership of Jim Scullin (1929-32), Gough Whitlam (1972-75), Kevin Rudd (2007-10; June-September 2013) and Julia Gillard (2010-13).

Since Federation, the ALP has enjoyed just two decent runs in office, under arguably the party’s four best leaders. John Curtin and then Ben Chifley headed a Labor government from 1941 to 1949. And the Labor government led first by Bob Hawke and later by Paul Keating governed for five terms in 1983-96.

In keeping with its remit as a standard-bearer of social democracy, Labor has habitually been the party of ideas, change and legislative ambition. This internal dynamism, drawing from the party’s members and its affiliated unions, which themselves have millions of members, has been what has helped Labor overcome its disappointments and blunders.

Read more:
With the government on the ropes, Anthony Albanese has a fighting chance

On the three occasions in the past 50 years that voters have decided to elect Labor to government from opposition, the party has gone to them with an established, well-articulated, wide-ranging set of policy proposals. It has never just fallen into office.

Whitlam came to power with an extensive reform agenda dubbed The Program – another Labor product that attracted capitalisation. He sought to implement it with an unyielding determination so fierce that it ultimately weakened his tenure.

Hawke offered a wide-ranging economic and social policy accord with the union movement as well as a formal consensus approach that included the corporate sector.

Rudd’s program in 2007 was less coherent and far-ranging but it did encompass a new workplace relations regime, a carbon emissions trading scheme and ambitious policies on education, broadband and manufacturing.

Each time, Labor took office after voters bought its message that there were substantial problems in Australian society that needed fixing.

The personalities and capabilities of the party’s leaders have counted for a great deal. But, above all, policy and ideology have been decisive factors in Labor’s triumphs and troubles throughout its long history.

How times have changed. More than two years into Anthony Albanese’s leadership, and with an election likely to be called less than six months from now, the Labor Party has offered few real signs of its plans for the nation.

Albanese’s approach so far has been to emphasise what he won’t do. He has overseen the stripping back of the party’s platform and junked proposals deemed to have hurt Labor at the last election, covering franking credits, capital gains tax and negative gearing.

On climate change, voters have been told to wait until closer to the election to be told how Labor would reach zero net carbon emissions by 2050. Policy pronouncements in most key areas are being pushed off into that nebulous “closer to the election” timeframe.

Read more:
Labor is set to have itself a nervy little Christmas. It’s not too late to make 2021 sing

Essentially, Albanese has asked himself “what would Bill Shorten do?” and then done the opposite. As leader, Shorten saw off two Liberal prime ministers in Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull. He did this by going in hard against them – a strategy he continued against the third Liberal leader he faced, Scott Morrison – while also releasing a torrent of challenging policy ideas.

At the 2016 election, this approach almost got Shorten across the line. In 2019, he failed again even though the opinion polls had suggested he would win.

Shorten’s approach of setting the political agenda did not produce electoral success, so Albanese has dedicated himself to not reproducing it. Judging that in 2019 Labor had too many policies, a confusing set of messages and a deeply unpopular chief salesman, he has backed himself in as a considerably better salesman who cannot be tripped up because he is in no danger of offering too much, too soon.

Nowhere was this better demonstrated than in Albanese’s budget reply speech in May. The government had thrown out its entire budget strategy, the nation was roiled by the pandemic, and the vaccine rollout was a shambles. Albanese used this nationally televised prime time appearance to talk about social housing – a worthy policy area, for sure, but an exceedingly strange choice for that moment.

The Labor leader’s risk-averse strategy seems to rest on an assumption that there is a natural equilibrium in national electoral politics – that an open-minded public approaches each election as a contest between evenly matched contenders. History suggests, however, that when it comes to electing Labor to power that is not true.

Clearly, Shorten was not popular enough among voters to get Labor over the line. There appears to be less antagonism and disdain towards Albanese in the community, but is he sufficiently more popular to make a difference? Here, we are left to rely on opinion polls, a fraught enterprise after their failures at the 2019 election.

On personal measures such as satisfaction and preferred prime minister, Albanese rates higher than Shorten but still scores a negative approval rating and lags behind Morrison in Newspoll and the Nine papers’ Resolve Political Monitor. To put it crudely, while Albanese is not as unpopular as Shorten, he could not be said to be popular; he is certainly not more popular personally than Morrison, his direct opponent.

Albanese’s supporters, mindful that the prime minister is expected to call an election less than five months from now, point to the latest Newspoll, which shows Labor ahead of the government 54-46 on a two-party preferred basis, as a sign that his strategy is working.

Read more:
Coalition slumps but Morrison gains in Newspoll; electoral changes to curb micro parties

Shorten’s backers did the same thing at the end of 2018. In November and December of that year, just five months before the election, Newspoll had Labor with an even bigger lead, 55-45. Come the election, Labor’s two-party preferred vote was 48.5%.

It’s true political leaders live to create history rather than follow it, but it’s also the case that a Labor leader who pursues a strategy of keeping out of trouble in the hope that his opponent will fall over is taking a bold and unprecedented course. The result will be either the ALP’s most remarkable victory, or yet more heartbreak.

Shaun Carney 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. Albanese’s small-target strategy may give Labor a remarkable victory — or yet more heartbreak – https://theconversation.com/albaneses-small-target-strategy-may-give-labor-a-remarkable-victory-or-yet-more-heartbreak-166752

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Loizou, PhD Candidate, University of Technology Sydney

This article contains mentions of the Stolen Generations, and policies using outdated and potentially offensive terminology when referring to First Nations people.

There has been a long debate around whether First Nations people should be compensated for the past acts and conduct of settlers. Recently, the Commonwealth government created the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme to compensate Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory and Jervis Bay Stolen Generations survivors.

The primary purpose of the redress scheme is to

help the Stolen Generations to heal the trauma from being forcibly removed from their family.

The redress scheme seeks to specifically “recognise the harm and ongoing trauma of forced removal from family for Stolen Generations survivors” and “assist with the healing of this trauma for the Stolen Generations survivors”.

A way to consider the nature and purpose of any redress scheme is to reflect on whether reconciliation can be achieved through engaging with injustices of the past.

This redress scheme raises questions about the ability of Australia to address the needs of First Nations peoples. Australia still hasn’t properly compensated First Nations people after the recommendations of the Bringing Them Home report 20 years ago.

Addressing past injustices

Damage was created through injustices against First Nations people, and it is the legacy of this damage that Australia needs to address.

This legacy stems from the history of modern settler colonialism, which is defined as

a distinct type of colonialism that functions through the replacement of Indigenous populations with an invasive settler society that, over time, develops a distinctive identity and sovereignty. Settler colonial states include Canada, the United States, Australia, and South Africa.

Read more:
The discovery of Indigenous children’s bodies in Canada is horrific, but Australia has similar tragedies it’s yet to reckon with

In 1997, the Human Rights Commission issued the Bringing Them Home report. This landmark document identified the intention of the removal policies was to destroy Aboriginal culture:

one principal effect of the forcible removal policy was the destruction of cultural links. This was of course their declared aim.

The report noted this practice was a form of genocide:

When a child was forcibly removed that child’s entire community lost, often
permanently, its chance to perpetuate itself in that child. The inquiry has concluded that this was a primary objective of forcible removals and is the reason they amount to genocide.

On this basis, federal and state governments have been well informed that policies imposed on First Nations people were genocidal in nature.

Read more:
Morrison government sets up redress scheme for survivors of Stolen Generation in territories

Limitations of the recent redress scheme

The redress scheme concedes the finding by the Bringing Them Home report that “most [Aboriginal] families have been affected in one or more generations, by the forcible removal of one or more children.”

However, there are limitations to this proposed scheme.

First, the Bringing them Home report is over 20 years old. It would have been more accurate to refer to a more recent report. Organisations such as The Healing Foundation have created many recent reports while working with Stolen Generations survivors.

Second, the purpose behind the redress scheme is to provide financial compensation for the damage caused by the policies and actions impacting Stolen Generations survivors — but only in the territories. It raises questions about other states committing to compensating and providing redress for Stolen Generations survivors.

Third, the nature of trauma requires greater consideration. This ongoing trauma is not just the loss of immediate and extended family and community – but the disconnect from respective lands and culture.

Genocide affects more than one member of the family, and is carried on through generations. So, the issue of trauma suffered by Stolen Generations survivors and their descendants needs to be considered more broadly.

What government should do to help survivors

Over the years, Stolen Generations survivors have attempted to seek justice through litigation, such as the case of Cubillo v Commonwealth. This case sought redress and compensation for the past injustices of policies and practices designed to separate Lorna Cubillio and Peter Gunner from their families when they were children.

However, the High Court found the plaintiffs were not able to sue the Commonwealth for negligence, despite the abuse they endured.

A one-off payment to Stolen Generations survivors isn’t the best way to approach long-term and intergenerational trauma. It would be more effective to provide ongoing support for these survivors through culturally safe health services. It would also be more beneficial for the government to have discussions with Stolen Generations survivors and their families about their respective needs to heal.

This would need to include the consideration of trauma experienced by other Stolen Generations survivors who might not qualify under the eligibility criteria of the redress scheme.

For example, descendants of Stolen Generations are not covered by the redress scheme proposal, despite many of them being impacted by intergenerational trauma.

Australia has a colonial settler legacy, and its effects continue to cause suffering to the families who had their children taken from them. Most have yet to be recognised or compensated. These are the silent victims of policies designed to destroy their culture and the future of their families.

A just society would be able to engage with its past and not shy away from it. However, the colonial settler society of Australia is yet to fully face its past and the legacy of the foundations it was built on, as it struggles to comprehend the nature of a just society.

Lorna Cubillo was my Aunty. She was in the Retta Dixon Home with my Mother.

Jim Morrison 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. Stolen Generation redress scheme won’t reach everyone affected by the policies that separated families – https://theconversation.com/stolen-generation-redress-scheme-wont-reach-everyone-affected-by-the-policies-that-separated-families-166499

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Archa Fox, Associate Professor and ARC Future Fellow, The University of Western Australia

The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines are some of our best weapons in the fight against COVID-19. They’re highly effective and many millions of people around the world have received their doses.

These vaccines are the first to be made synthetically, that is, they are made outside of a living cell.

Some posts on social media grasp onto the fact they are not “natural” and have created anxiety in vaccine-hesitant people by playing on this point.

So what does it mean for the mRNA vaccines to be synthetic, and why is that OK?

How did we develop our first synthetic vaccines?

Humans have been inoculating with germs to train our bodies to fight infectious diseases for a long time.

Even before the famous experiments of Edward Jenner (credited with developing smallpox vaccine) in the mid 18th century, Chinese and some European societies were using material from cow pustules to protect against smallpox.

Read more:
From smallpox to polio, vaccine rollouts have always had doubters. But they work in the end

In the 20th century vaccine production gathered pace, using weakened or inactivated viruses.

Many viruses for vaccines are grown in chicken eggs, making this a problem for those allergic to eggs. Some of the newest vaccines, like the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, are grown in cells in large fermentation tanks. Recombinant protein vaccines, such as the hepatitis B vaccine, are made inside bacteria, then purified for use.

So we now have a whole range of different types of vaccines, each made differently, providing protection against different conditions. The thing all these vaccines have in common is that they are grown inside a living cell, so might be considered “natural”.

The mRNA vaccines are the first synthetic vaccines.

mRNA is a temporary genetic instruction that tells our cells to make a particular protein. It consists of a central portion with the genetic code for the protein and shorter portions either side that are important for the “readability” of the code.

mRNA vaccines are made in reaction vessels (large containers), and involve first making mRNA, then wrapping that in oily coats.

To make the mRNA, we use methods figured out in the 1970s, in a process known as “transcription”, where a DNA template is copied, creating an mRNA version of the genetic sequence.

This mRNA production is very similar to what happens when our cells make our own mRNA. The oily coats are also made synthetically and are very similar to lipids in our cells.

Why is synthetic OK?

The definition of synthetic is where a substance or compound is made by chemical synthesis, especially to imitate a natural product.

What is important to recognise is that, from a chemical perspective, a compound is the same, whether it was made by a living organism inside a cell, or whether it was made in a lab. If a chemist synthesises a compound, and a biochemist extracts the same compound from a natural source, those two compounds are identical.

This understanding was developed in the 19th century, when the concept of “vitalism” was being challenged. Vitalism espouses that organic materials cannot be created from inorganic matter. But we know now this is not the case.

A classic experiment was reported by Friedrich Wöhler, who synthesised urea (a molecule also produced by our bodies and found in urine) by heating a chemical called ammonium cyanurate. The synthetic urea was identical to natural urea, even though his synthetic method was nothing like the biological production of urea.

We don’t even think about it, but many of us eat and drink a huge number of synthetic molecules each day.

Vitamin C in pills, for example, is usually synthetic, but it still works because it is identical to the vitamin C we get from fresh fruits and vegetables. In fact, many of the dietary supplements that we take are synthetic.

Some common medicines, like aspirin, are synthetic variants of naturally occurring biomolecules.

Other fully synthetic molecules, like aspartame (artificial sweetener), are consumed in large quantities, up to hundreds of milligrams per soft-drink can. These quantities are thousands of times greater than the doses of the mRNA vaccines (between 30 and 100 micro-grams).

Synthetic components of mRNA vaccines

While the components of mRNA vaccines are almost identical to the components in our cells, there are some differences.

mRNA is a chain of linked building blocks, or nucleosides. Most of the mRNA vaccine building blocks – the As, Gs and Cs that make up the mRNA genetic code – are the same as the ones in our cells, and are originally extracted from yeast.

Read more:
3 mRNA vaccines researchers are working on (that aren’t COVID)

The fourth building block, U, is replaced with a component called N1-methylpseudouridine to make the mRNA more stable and stop our cells breaking it up immediately.

Although this component is not normally found in our mRNA, this modified building block is found in some archaea, microbes that can be found in extreme environments on earth, but also in our guts and in our belly buttons.

How are mRNA vaccines broken down in our cells?

The vaccine mRNA gets degraded relatively quickly, just like our own mRNAs get degraded.

The individual mRNA building blocks are salvaged by our efficient cell recycling system, and can be used to make new mRNAs, while other parts are excreted in urine.

So after a few days there is unlikely to be any mRNA vaccine left in our bodies. But hopefully it will have done the job needed to teach our immune system to recognise SARS-CoV-2 and prevent the worst symptoms of COVID-19.

Read more:
What do I need to know about the Moderna vaccine? And how does it compare with Pfizer?

Actually, the ability to make mRNA vaccines outside of cells is one of the strengths of the technology. By eliminating the need for growing cells, or viruses, in some ways it simplifies vaccine production.

On the other hand, synthesis involves it’s own complex technical steps, but in the coming years we will likely see innovation in simplifying this too. In fact, the World Health Organization is calling for all countries in the developing world to learn to make mRNA vaccines.

Hopefully when the next pandemic hits the world will be ready.

Archa Fox receives funding from the ARC and NHMRC. She is a Director of the RNA Society and Chair of the RNA network of Australia.

Charles Bond 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. You don’t need to worry about COVID vaccines being ‘unnatural’ or ‘synthetic’ – https://theconversation.com/you-dont-need-to-worry-about-covid-vaccines-being-unnatural-or-synthetic-166268

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marisa Stone, Adjunct Research Fellow, Centre for Planetary Health and Food Security, Griffith University

If you’ve wandered through a forest, you’ve probably dodged dead, rotting branches or stumps scattered on the ground. This is “deadwood”, and it plays several vital roles in forest ecosystems.

It provides habitat for small mammals, birds, amphibians and insects. And as deadwood decomposes it contributes to the ecosystem’s cycle of nutrients, which is important for plant growth.

But there’s another important role we have little understanding of on a global scale: the carbon deadwood releases as it decomposes, with part of it going into the soil and part into the atmosphere. Insects, such as termites and wood borers, can accelerate this process.

The world’s deadwood currently stores 73 billion tonnes of carbon. Our new research in Nature has, for the first time, calculated that 10.9 billion tonnes of this (around 15%) is released into the atmosphere and soil each year — a little more than the world’s emissions from burning fossil fuels.

But this amount can change depending on insect activity, and will likely increase under climate change. It’s vital deadwood is considered explicitly in all future climate change projections.

An extraordinary, global effort

Forests are crucial carbon sinks, where living trees capture and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, helping to regulate climate.
Deadwood — including fallen or still-standing trees, branches and stumps — makes up 8% of this carbon stock in the world’s forests.

Our aim was to measure the influence of climate and insects on the rate of decomposition — but it wasn’t easy. Our research paper is the result of an extraordinary effort to co-ordinate a large-scale cross-continent field experiment. More than 30 research groups worldwide took part.

Wood from more than 140 tree species was laid out for up to three years at 55 forest sites on six continents, from the Amazon rainforest to Brisbane, Australia.
Half of these wood samples were in closed mesh cages to exclude insects from the decomposition process to test their effect, too.

Some sites had to be protected from elephants, another was lost to fire and another had to be rebuilt after a flood.

What we found

Our research showed the rate of deadwood decay and how insects contribute to it depend very strongly on climate.

We found the rate increased primarily with rising temperature, and was disproportionately greater in the tropics compared to all other cooler climatic regions.

In fact, deadwood in tropical regions lost a median mass of 28.2% every year. In cooler, temperate regions, the median mass lost was just 6.3%.

More deadwood decay occurs in the tropics because the region has greater biodiversity (more insects and fungi) to facilitate decomposition. As insects consume the wood, they render it to small particles, which speed up decay. The insects also introduce fungal species, which then finish the job.

Read more:
Wood beetles are nature’s recyclers – with a little help from fungi

Of the 10.9 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide released by deadwood each year, we estimate insect activity is responsible for 3.2 billion tonnes, or 29%.

Let’s break this down by region. In the tropics, insects were responsible for almost one-third of the carbon released from deadwood. In regions with low temperatures in forests of northern and temperate latitudes — such as in Canada and Finland — insects had little effect.

What does this mean in a changing climate?

Insects are sensitive to climate change and, with recent declines in insect biodiversity, the current and future roles of insects in deadwood are uncertain.

But given the vast majority of deadwood decay occurs in the tropics (93%), and that this region in general is set to become even warmer and wetter under climate change, it’s safe to say climate change will increase the amount of carbon deadwood releases each year.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that the amount of carbon dioxide released is still only a fraction of the total annual global deadwood carbon stock. That is, 85% of the global deadwood carbon stock remains on forest floors and continues to store carbon each year.

We recommend deadwood is left in place — in the forest. Removing deadwood may not only be destructive for biodiversity and the ability of forests to regenerate, but it could actually substantially increase atmospheric carbon.

Read more:
Photos from the field: zooming in on Australia’s hidden world of exquisite mites, snails and beetles

For example, if we used deadwood as a biofuel it could release the carbon that would otherwise have remained locked up each year. If the world’s deadwood was removed and burned, it would be release eight times more carbon than what’s currently emitted from burning fossil fuels.

This is particularly important in cooler climatic regions, where decomposition is slower and deadwood remains for several years as a vital carbon sink.

What next?

The complex interplay of interactions between insects and climate on deadwood carbon release makes future climate projections a bit tricky.

To improve climate change predictions, we need much more detailed research on how communities of decomposer insects (such as the numbers of individuals and species) influence deadwood decomposition, not to mention potential effects from insect diversity loss.

But insect diversity loss is also likely to vary regionally and would require long-term studies over decades to determine.

For now, climate scientists must take the enormous annual emissions from deadwood into account in their research, so humanity can have a better understanding of climate change’s cascading effects.

Read more:
Trees can’t save us from climate change – but society will always depend on forests – podcast

David Lindenmayer receives funding from the Australian Government, the Government of Victoria, the Government of NSW, The Australian Research Council, and The Australian National University. David Lindenmayer is an Elected Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, and a member of Birds Australia, the Canberra Ornithologists Group, the Ecological Society of Australia, and the Ecological Society of America.

Sebastian Seibold has received funding from EU Marie Curie actions through the German Ministery for Education and Research provided (DAAD prime fellowship).

Nigel Stork receives an ARC Discovery Grant.

Kurtis Nisbet and Marisa Stone 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. Rotting forest wood releases a whopping 10.9 billion tonnes of carbon each year. This will increase under climate change – https://theconversation.com/rotting-forest-wood-releases-a-whopping-10-9-billion-tonnes-of-carbon-each-year-this-will-increase-under-climate-change-164406

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Agathe Tiana Randrianarisoa, PhD student and Senior Researcher, RMIT University

Imagine it’s summer in Australia and a bushfire is bearing down on your suburb. Are you the pragmatic type – you’ve swapped phone numbers with the neighbours, photocopied your ID and have your emergency plan at the ready? Or are you the sentimental type – you’ve backed up the family photos but forgotten to insure the house, or don’t have an evacuation plan for the cat?

Our research out today shows when it comes to getting ready for disasters, there are four types of people. And this matters, because good disaster preparedness doesn’t just help people during and immediately after a disaster – it can also mean a quicker recovery.

The research, commissioned by Australian Red Cross, examined the experiences of 165 people who lived through a disaster such as fire and flood between 2008 and 2019. We identified a number of steps people wished they’d taken to prepare for disaster, such as protecting sentimental items, planning where the family should meet if separated and better managing stress.

The Black Summer bushfires, this year’s New South Wales floods, the storms around Melbourne and even COVID-19 remind us how disasters can disrupt people’s lives. Hopefully, examining the hard-won lessons of those who’ve lived through the worst life can throw at us will help individuals and communities better prepare and recover from these events.

Our key findings

The survey questions focused on preparedness actions people took before a disaster, their experience of a disaster and recovery.

Participants were 18 years or older and had experienced a disaster between January 2008 and January 2019. This allowed time for people to experience the challenges and complexity of the recovery process.

Among our key findings were:

• feeling prepared leads to a reduction in stress when dealing with the recovery process. And the less people are stressed, the better their recovery up to ten years after a disaster.

• generally, the more people do to get prepared, the more they feel prepared. However, one in five respondents who reported not feeling prepared had undertaken actions that should have made them feel prepared. And 3% said they were prepared when they hadn’t undertaken any action, which mostly comes from the lack of knowledge of the most efficient preparedness actions.

• the source of advice matters. More of those who received preparedness advice from Australian Red Cross – either directly or through its Get Ready app – had recovered. Those who had no preparedness training or received advice from family or friends were least likely to report having felt in control during the emergency.

Read more:
Proceed to your nearest (virtual) exit: gaming technology is teaching us how people respond to emergencies

3 ways to prepare

Three distinct groups of preparation actions emerged, which we outline below.

Protect my personal matters:

• develop strategies to manage stress levels
• protect or back up items of sentimental value
• make copies and protect important documents such as identification papers, wills, financial documents
• make plans for reunification of family if separated during an emergency.

Build my readiness:

• identify sources of information to help prepare for and respond to an emergency
• find out what hazards might affect their home and plan for them
• use preparedness materials such as bushfire survival plans.

Be pragmatic:

• make a plan for pets/livestock/animals
• swap phone numbers with neighbours
• take out property insurance.

Those who had taken action to prepare for disaster were asked what other actions they wished they’d taken. The top answer was having copies of important documents, such as ID and financial papers, that are potentially complicated to replicate and may be needed during recovery.

The full range of answers is below:

Which preparedness type are you?

Our research showed four types of persona emerged in terms of preparing for a disaster. Hopefully, identifying these groups means preparedness messaging can in future be customised, based on people’s characteristics.

Have a look at the graphic below – is there a type you identify with the most?

Recovery is complex

Our survey asked if people felt they had recovered from the disaster. Importantly, we did not propose a standard definition of recovery, which allowed respondents to define their recovery in their own way. We then sought to determine how a person’s disaster preparation affected recovery.

Nearly 18% of respondents said they had not recovered at the time of the survey. Surprisingly, 86% of those said they took action to get prepared (compared to 76% of those who had recovered). But those who had not recovered were more likely to feel their preparation actions were not enough. Importantly, 86% also experienced high levels of stress during the recovery, compared to 60% who had already recovered at the time of the survey.

Interestingly, the proportion of respondents who found the recovery process slightly stressful, somewhat stressful or extremely stressful are comparable (15%, 16% and 16% respectively). However, four out of ten respondents reported high levels of stress during the recovery.

What’s more, a greater proportion of those who had not yet recovered required government assistance after the disaster (71%), relative to those who felt they had recovered (38%).

In the group of those not yet recovered, people earning less than A$52,000 a year were over-represented.

Read more:
COVID-19 revealed flaws in Australia’s food supply. It also gives us a chance to fix them

Ready for anything

Our research shows being prepared can help reduce the long-term impacts of a disaster. The level of disaster preparedness in the Australian population is traditionally low, and so it’s important to demonstrate the benefits to ensure more people get ready for emergencies.

Preparedness programs should have a greater focus on preparing for the long-term impacts of a disaster. And these programs should differ based on people’s characteristics and they type of preparation support they need, particularly focusing on those who have less capacity to prepare and recover from the disruption of disaster.

This story is part of a series The Conversation is running on the nexus between disaster, disadvantage and resilience. It is supported by a philanthropic grant from the Paul Ramsay Foundation. Read the rest of the stories here.

Agathe Tiana Randrianarisoa works for Australian Red Cross. She also is a PhD student at RMIT University and DIAL (Dauphine University/IRD).

John Richardson works for Australian Red Cross. He is also an Honorary Fellow of the University of Melbourne’s Melbourne School of Population and Global Health

– ref. When it comes to preparing for disaster there are 4 distinct types of people. Which one are you? – https://theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-preparing-for-disaster-there-are-4-distinct-types-of-people-which-one-are-you-164169

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rochelle Spencer, Co-Director, Centre for Responsible Citizenship and Sustainability, Murdoch University

What are the three biggest challenges Australia faces in the next five to ten years? What role will the social sciences play in resolving these challenges?

The Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia asked these questions in a discussion paper earlier this year. The backdrop to this review is cuts to social science disciplines around the country, with teaching taking priority over research.

One Group of Eight university, for example, proposes to cut the number of anthropology and sociology staff from nine to one. Positions across the social sciences are to be reclassified from teaching and research to teaching-only.

In addition, research funding is increasingly going to applied research. The federal government wants research that has greater engagement with industry and can be shown to contribute to the national interest.

The confluence of funding changes and loss of revenue from fee-paying international students comes on the back of other ominous long-term trends. Since the 1980s, successive federal governments have undermined perceptions of the importance of the social sciences compared with science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).

Read more:
Defunding arts degrees is the latest battle in a 40-year culture war

The latest policy involves a major shift in the purpose of Australian universities — to produce “job-ready graduates”, with more emphasis on industry engagement. The restructuring of funding is touted as an investment in the sciences. Fees have increased for social science students.

Today’s problems call for social science expertise

All this is happening at a time, during a pandemic, when the social sciences could not be more relevant and necessary. The challenges we face make it vital that the sciences work in partnership with the social sciences.

The pandemic has highlighted issues such as attitudes to vaccination and behaviour change, fake news and the politics of science, the vulnerability of people in care, roles and responsibilities of the state and the citizen, and gender disparities of the pandemic’s impact, to name a few. To tackle such issues we need to understand the social and cultural diversity underpinning people’s beliefs and values and how these interact during a global emergency. That’s the work of social scientists.

For example, gender analyses of the impacts of COVID-19 have revealed:

• women are 22% more likely to lose their jobs
• 20 million girls worldwide will never return to school
• a paltry 23% of emergency aid targets women’s economic security.

These impacts are likely to be long-lasting due to systemic gender inequality. But to remedy such impacts we need to understand the context of cultural and social structures.

It is social science research that reveals how the pandemic is compounding the precarity and inequality that women face. Around the world cultural norms restrict women’s independence and mobility, and burden them with unpaid care work and unequal access to resources. Women are disproportionately concentrated in the social, care and education sectors that have been hit hardest by the pandemic.

Read more:
Pandemic widens gap between government and Australians’ view of education

Beyond the pandemic, the social sciences equip students to tackle the complex problems we face in the 21st century. Social sciences provide the skill set to:

• understand the nature of individuals, communities and cultures (the human condition)
• gain a broad comparative perspective on questions and concerns of the world today
• appreciate how the crises of this century impact how we live.

Fields of study include development studies, sustainability, anthropology, sociology, gender and race, Indigenous studies, human security, political science and economics. This makes the social sciences directly relevant to countless pressing issues. These include the pandemic and vaccine hesitancy, climate change, race and gender relations, inequality and poverty, mass migration and refugees, and authoritarianism.

Events in the news give us a sense of the complex social phenomena that require social science analysis to be fully understood. Examples include Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, March 4 Justice, the aged care royal commission, community support for the Tamil asylum-seeker family from Biloela, and the Federal Court victory for a group of teenagers that means the environment minister has a duty of care to protect children from the harms of carbon dioxide emissions.

Anthropologists, sociologists and political scientists provide the evidence that enables us to apply the solutions to globally important issues in local settings. For example, we have the science to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and create vaccines. But how do we achieve the social and behavioural change required for sanitation, vaccine uptake, mask-wearing, social distancing and so on? In short, how do we translate that science into good public policy?

In another example, it’s one thing to understand climate science, but how do we then ensure people know what they can do about it in their everyday lives? Expert analysis and translation by social scientists gives us insights into why certain social change occurs or doesn’t.

Read more:
Creating research value needs more than just science – arts, humanities, social sciences can help

Job-ready? Social science graduates are

Social scientists have perhaps never been in greater demand. They are employed across public and private sectors, in environmental sustainability, community and international development, refugee and humanitarian agencies, health and education services, business and social enterprise, minerals and resource development, agriculture and land management, politics and policy. Employers value social science graduates for their analytical skills, cultural awareness, effective communication and language skills.

Indeed, arts, humanities and social science graduates are more employable than science graduates.

Read more:
Humanities graduates earn more than those who study science and maths

The pandemic should have reminded us why we need the insights from the social and behavioural sciences to help align human behaviour with the advice of experts. We have become acutely aware that pandemics are complex social phenomena. Divestment from the social sciences at this precarious moment in time is remarkably short-sighted.

Rochelle Spencer has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Development Research Awards, the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, and the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. She is affiliated with the Research for Development Impact Network, the Development Studies Association of Australia, and the Development in Practice Journal.

– ref. In a time of COVID and climate change, social sciences are vital, but they’re on university chopping blocks – https://theconversation.com/in-a-time-of-covid-and-climate-change-social-sciences-are-vital-but-theyre-on-university-chopping-blocks-166015

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland

You may have already downloaded to your phone a digital certificate proving you have received one or two doses of a COVID vaccine. Its dark-green colour calls to mind the “Green Pass” now in use in European countries, which is required to gain access to venues such as restaurants, museums and some public transport.

These “vaccine passports” (also available to those who have recovered from COVID-19, or tested negative within the past 72 hours) have been met with a good deal of protest. In France, for example, more than 200,000 people turned out to protest against the Pass Sanitaire, which is requireed to dine out, drink in a bar, visit a hospital or travel on a long-distance train. The numbers at these events, though, are eclipsed by the millions who have rushed to get vaccinated, reviving stalling rollouts.

Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison has vacillated on the issue of vaccine passports (as he has on many pandemic issues).

In May he supported the passport idea for interstate travel. Then he backed away from the idea in the face of opposition from state premiers and the Coalition’s own ranks. In mid-August, however, he was again speaking in favour of passports for interstate travel. By last week he was even more supportive, calling them sensible and saying businesses had a legitimate” right to refuse entry to anyone refusing to get vaccinated.

Predictably enough, there is passionate opposition to any form of vaccine passport — mostly, though not exclusively, from the political right. But polls show overwhelming support. A YouGov poll published the week, for example, shows 66% support (with 21% opposed and 13% undecided).

Findings from behavioural economics suggests this is likely to continue.

Read more:
Top economists in no rush to offer cash incentives for vaccination

Framing decisions

Most modern work in behavioural economics can be traced back to the work of psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman (winner of the 2002 Nobel memorial prize for economics).

The pair introduced the idea of “framing” — the way in which a problem in presented, affecting the decision made — in their classic 1981 paper “The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice”.

The paper demonstrated the power of framing through an experiment that asked American and Canadian university students to decide on a response to a hypothetical (at the time, though more relevant today) “outbreak of an unusual Asian disease”

Participants were asked to imagine preparing for an outbreak expected to kill 600 people by choosing from alternative programs to combat the disease.

One group of participants was asked to choose between “A” and “B” programs:

• Program A: “200 people will be saved”
• Program B: “there is a 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved, and a 2/3 probability that no people will be saved”

In this scenario 72% of participants preferred program A.

A second group of participants was asked to choose between “C” and “D” programs:

• Program C: “400 people will die”
• Program D: “there is a 1/3 probability that nobody will die, and a 2/3 probability that 600 people will die”

In this scenario 78% preferred program D — the same outcome as program B. The framing of the issue — lives saved versus deaths — was critical.

Similar findings have been reported from many other studies, most notably in the work of George Lakoff, author of Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate.

Australia’s context differs to Europe

How does this relate to vaccine passports?

In European countries, where the strategy has been to “live with COVID”, managing infection rates without the restrictions adopted by Australia and New Zealand, vaccine passports have been introduced in response to the surge in cases resulting from the Delta variant. The passports have been framed as restricting the freedom of the unvaccinated to do things for which the passport is now required. Resistance has been expressed primarily in these terms.

In Australia, by contrast, it is highly likely much of the country will be in some form of lockdown by the time vaccination rates are high enough to relax controls in any significant way.

In this context, introducing vaccine passports can be framed as restoring freedom to those who are vaccinated. We’ve already seen this in a small way, with the NSW government’s decision to allow small outdoor gatherings provided everyone present is vaccinated.

Read more:
Grattan on Friday: Vaccine passports are a better tool than mandating jabs for all jobs

With this framing, opposition to passports will be divided between two groups.

One group is the hardcore anti-vaxers and opponents of any public health mandate, who want to resist any push for vaccination.

The other group is at the opposite end of the spectrum — those who think even the much smaller risks posed by fully vaccinated people are too great to bear. To confuse things, some people may switch between one argument and the other depending on the audience. This division makes it even less likely that effective opposition will emerge.

Protesters might make some noise, but in practice the biggest hurdle for vaccine passports will likely be the administrative failures that have plagued every aspect of Australia’s response. Two problems to already emerge are security flaws enabling certificates to be forged, and incomplete records meaning people can’t download their certificate.

We can only hope such problems are sorted out by the time vaccine passports become a reality.

John Quiggin is fully vaccinated with Astrazeneca and is in a high-risk age group for Covid.

– ref. Do vaccination passports take away freedoms? It depends on how you frame the question – https://theconversation.com/do-vaccination-passports-take-away-freedoms-it-depends-on-how-you-frame-the-question-166963

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leigh Boucher, Senior Lecturer – Modern History, Macquarie University

Our writers nominate the TV series keeping them entertained during a time of COVID.

Binge watching a gut-wrenching story about the early years of the HIV/AIDS epidemic might seem like a strange choice in Sydney right now. What possible solace could be found in a story about a group of young friends in 1980s London who found their joyful steps towards the creation of a queer world fractured by fear and death?

I rewatched the five-part British TV series It’s a Sin in lockdown recently, and the sorrow that reverberates through the show resonated a little more potently than it did on my first viewing earlier this year. It also, though, in its elaboration of joyful possibilities fractured by an epidemic, helped me make sense of some of the intangible losses of lockdown.

As counsellor Neeraja Sanmuhanathan has written, many in lockdown are feeling “disenfranchised grief”. Yet even naming these feelings risks insensitivity, because others are dealing with grief much more difficult to bear.

New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian speaks from a rhetorical playbook of unity, discipline and shared citizenship obligations to compel Sydneysiders to stay at home under lockdown. It’s a Sin can help us consider how the sorrows and hardships of these obligations are unevenly distributed, for they depend on what your home looks like, and whether it is your primary source of nourishment and care.

Read more:
Think of it this way: at least you’re not locked down with drunken, misanthropic bookshop owner Bernard Black

Queer networks

It’s A Sin opens in 1981. A group of young Londoners find their way to each other and a queer life as new forms of social visibility are being carved out from the grip of homophobic discrimination and sentiment.

We soon come to love, even if they sometimes behave a little poorly, Olly (a star-making turn from Year and Years frontman Olly Alexander), Roscoe (Omari Douglas), Colin (Callum Scott Howells) and Jill (Lydia West) as their lives converge in a share house, “the Pink Palace”, which becomes the emotional centre of the story.

They are a diverse lot, both in ambition and background. All, in different ways, seek to escape the futures mapped for them by others, although what they would like to become is much less clear.

Exuberant confusions and experiments are at the centre of the first few episodes. I challenge anyone not to be totally undone by Colin’s endearing uncertainties as he takes tentative steps into homosexual worlds. We see parties, drinks at the pub, exciting intimacies. And The Pink Palace develops its own tender traditions and vocabularies; the housemates exclaim “La” to each other as they enter and exit the house. These are the everyday familiarities that feel like a hug of recognition.

Rather than a world organised by biological family and the romantic couple, friendship is sovereign here. These new kinds of friendship prioritise pleasure and joy. They are full of disordering excitements that produce new ways to understand their world.

This is why the emergence of HIV/AIDS, which haunts the show from the first episode, feels so tragic. Just as historical change produced the possibility of forging queer public worlds — spaces for dissident desires — an epidemic ravaged them, unleashing fresh waves of homophobia.

Created by Russell T. Davies, each episode of It’s a Sin takes place a few years apart, tracing the impact of the epidemic on queer lives over a decade. We watch these tentative worlds shattered first by fear, then by death, doubly punished by a state that refused to help. In the UK and US, gay men in the early years of the epidemic were seen as a problem to be managed and a sin to be expunged rather than partners in the possible response.

There are lessons here about the importance of engaging with — rather than disciplining and policing — communities. The “Australian-Response” to HIV/AIDS was hailed as a success because the state engaged with and learnt from those vulnerable to the disease to develop community-led policy.

Read more:
Friday essay: recognising the unsung heroes of Australia’s AIDS crisis

Part of the mastery of the show is that we, as viewers, share the fears of these young men and their friends. We know what is coming, even if they don’t. We find ourselves wondering who from the Pink Palace and their friends will be struck down.

In one episode, one of the housemates is forcibly and legally detained in hospital after his diagnosis. His mother and friends hire a lawyer to release him so he might be cared for by those who understand him.

Watching this makes for difficult viewing. Queer networks, however, power the show. They hold those who are sick, comfort those who are stricken by loss, and politically mobilise to force the state to act. They share grief with parents who lose their sons, holding to account families whose love turned out to be conditional.

This is queer intimacy as life-saving.

This is friendship as primary nourishment and radical politics.

Less rigid boundaries

The emotional and narrative centre of It’s a Sin is a home. But this home looks quite different to the one our leaders today might imagine when they issue stay-at-home orders — almost always referring to a family when doing so. It’s certainly not organised around a couple (and the children).

The boundaries around the Pink Palace are porous, people come and go, and you never know who might be at the breakfast table. It is, however, affirming in its instabilities. For Roscoe, this home is an escape from a familial home that was a place of violent rejection.

And that, I think, highlights the challenge facing so many queers in lockdown today. Queer lives are often organised around friendships, (as indeed are many others not oriented around a romantic couple). Boundaries around queer homes may be less rigidly drawn. The intimacies and communities that sustain living queer, enabling joyful exploration of who we might become with each other, are often forged both within and beyond the walls of our home.

This is why so many queer friends I know are struggling. Lockdown hasn’t simply shut down our capacity to dance and have fun, or to have casual (and thus apparently meaningless) sex. It has turned the spaces beyond our homes, in which we nourish our queer selves, into sites of danger. It has turned having your friends over and snuggling on the couch into a breach of duty.

Which is to say, much like the HIV/AIDS epidemic, the impact of lockdown is being felt unevenly and with different effects.

On the release of It’s a Sin, there was much public discussion about the ways in which this show re-imagined the experience of HIV/AIDS for a generation far enough removed from the early years of the epidemic to understand it as history rather than experience.

Watching this series now, though, I find myself mourning the everyday, public, and non-familial intimacies of queer life lost to us during lockdown. It might not have provided solace, but it has helped me to explain my sense of loss.

It also made me wail. And perhaps having a good cry is what many of us need.

It’s a Sin is showing on Stan.

Leigh Boucher receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Watching It’s a Sin under lockdown: a different kind of home shaped by life-saving queer friendships – https://theconversation.com/watching-its-a-sin-under-lockdown-a-different-kind-of-home-shaped-by-life-saving-queer-friendships-166735

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

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

In this episode, politics + society editor Amanda Dunn and Michelle discuss the June quarter national accounts, released on Wednesday. While this quarter was better than expected, the September quarter is certain to be negative as a result of the prolonged lockdowns.

They also mark the change this week in the national COVID debate, as the Victorian government, following NSW, admits defeat in the battle to get to COVID zero.

Additional audio

Gaena, Blue Dot Sessions, from Free Music Archive.

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. Podcast with Michelle Grattan: Learning to live with COVID – https://theconversation.com/podcast-with-michelle-grattan-learning-to-live-with-covid-167131

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

COVID has been spreading quickly in western NSW Indigenous communities where low vaccination rates and poor conditions make for a toxic mix. The first Indigenous death occurred in Dubbo this week.

As efforts intensify to deal with the NSW outbreak Pat Turner, CEO of the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations (NACCHO) joins the podcast. As well as discussing the NSW situation, she warns of the vulnerability of communities in Western Australia, attacks religious figures promoting dangerous misinformation, and says Indigenous communities can’t safely open at 70% or 80% vaccination rates.

On western NSW, where there are hundreds of cases, Turner says crowded and bad housing make it “almost impossible to isolate and quarantine”. People in Wilcannia are “having to isolate in tents – in Australia in 2021”.

In WA First Nations communities, the low vaccine coverage “is a very significant concern to all of us”.

“It has by far the lowest uptake, with less than 10% of its population 12 years and over fully vaccinated”.

“I would think that the first death for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people […] has been a wake up call for some, especially those who didn’t think that COVID would affect them. The reality is sinking in for many of those.”

One obstacle is the spread of false claims by god botherers.

“[Aboriginal] Pastor Geoffrey Stokes called out a circular that had been sent around by [a] so-called Indigenous prayer group in the goldfields of Western Australia. And it happened that it was a white bloke from Brisbane who had circulated the misinformation. So that was soon put to bed.

“But there are people and communities, Aboriginal communities that belong to groups like the Assemblies of God and, you know, other such religions that strongly believe that God will protect them.”

“God will not stop COVID killing our people. I’m sorry to the religious leaders who believe that, but I’m telling them that will not happen.”

While the national cabinet’s plan provides for easing restrictions for the general community at 70% and 80% vaccination levels of those 16 and over, Turner insists that can’t apply in Indigenous communities.

“No, no, no, 70 to 80% will not be good enough for our communities. We are aiming for 100% vaccination of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people 12 years and over by the end of this year.”

Additional audio

A List of Ways to Die, Lee Rosevere, from Free Music Archive.

Michelle Grattan 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. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Pat Turner on COVID – and god botherers – stalking Indigenous communities – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-pat-turner-on-covid-and-god-botherers-stalking-indigenous-communities-167115

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mohiuddin Ahmed, Lecturer of Computing & Security, Edith Cowan University

Over the past 25 years, the name “Google” has become synonymous with the idea of searching for anything online. In much the same way “to Hoover” means to use a vacuum cleaner, dictionaries have recognised “to Google” as meaning to undertake an online search using any available service.

Former competitors such as AltaVista and AskJeeves are long dead, and existing alternatives such as Bing and DuckDuckGo currently pose little threat to Google’s dominance. But shifting our web searching habits to a single supplier has significant risks.

Google also dominates in the web browser market (almost two-thirds of browsers are Chrome) and web advertising (Google Ads has an estimated 29% share of all digital advertising in 2021). This combination of browser, search and advertising has drawn considerable interest from competition and antitrust regulators around the world.

Leaving aside the commercial interests, is Google actually delivering when we Google? Are the search results (which clearly influence the content we consume) giving us the answers we want?

Advertising giant

More than 80% of Alphabet’s revenue comes from Google advertising. At the same time, around 85% of the world’s search engine activity goes through Google.

Clearly there is significant commercial advantage in selling advertising while at the same time controlling the results of most web searches undertaken around the globe.

This can be seen clearly in search results. Studies have shown internet users are less and less prepared to scroll down the page or spend less time on content below the “fold” (the limit of content on your screen). This makes the space at the top of the search results more and more valuable.

In the example below, you might have to scroll three screens down before you find actual search results rather than paid promotions.

While Google (and indeed many users) might argue that the results are still helpful and save time, it’s clear the design of the page and the prominence given to paid adverts will influence behaviour. All of this is reinforced by the use of a pay-per-click advertising model which is founded on enticing users to click on adverts.

Annoyance

Google’s influence expands beyond web search results. More than 2 billion people use the Google-owned YouTube each month (just counting logged-in users), and it is often considered the number one platform for online advertising.

Although YouTube is as ubiquitous to video-sharing as Google is to search, YouTube users have an option to avoid ads: paying for a premium subscription. However, only a minuscule fraction of users take the paid option.

Evolving needs

The complexity (and expectations) of search engines has increased over their lifetime, in line with our dependence on technology.

For example, someone trying to explore a tourist destination may be tempted to search “What should I do to visit the Simpsons Gap”.

The Google search result will show a number of results, but from the user perspective the information is distributed across multiple sites. To obtain the desired information users need to visit a number of websites.

Google is working on bringing this information together. The search engine now uses sophisticated “natural language processing” software called BERT, developed in 2018, that tries to identify the intention behind a search, rather than simply searching strings of text. AskJeeves tried something similar in 1997, but the technology is now more advanced.

BERT will soon be succeeded by MUM (Multitask Unified Model), which tries to go a step further and understand the context of a search and provide more refined answers. Google claims MUM may be 1000 times more powerful than BERT, and be able to provide the kind of advice a human expert might for questions without a direct answer.

Are we now locked into Google?

Given the market share and influence Google has in our daily lives, it might seem impossible to think of alternatives. However, Google is not the only show in town. Microsoft’s Bing search engine has a modest level of popularity in the United States, although it will struggle to escape the Microsoft brand.

Another option that claims to be free from ads and ensure user privacy, DuckDuckGo, has seen a growing level of interest – perhaps helped through association with the TOR browser project.

While Google may be dominating with its search engine service, it also covers artificial intelligence, healthcare, autonomous vehicles, cloud computing services, computing devices and a plethora of home automation devices. Even if we can move away from Google’s grasp in our web browsing activities, there is a whole new range of future challenges for consumers on the horizon.

Read more:
Robot take the wheel: Waymo has launched a self-driving taxi service

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. Is Google getting worse? Increased advertising and algorithm changes may make it harder to find what you’re looking for – https://theconversation.com/is-google-getting-worse-increased-advertising-and-algorithm-changes-may-make-it-harder-to-find-what-youre-looking-for-166966

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian M. Mackay, Adjunct Associate Professor, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland

Scientists in South Africa have discovered a new viral variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

It’s not a single virus but a clustering of genetically similar viruses, known as C.1.2.

The researchers, in a pre-print study released last week but yet to be peer reviewed, found this cluster has picked up a lot of mutations in a short period of time.

Indeed, this is what viruses do. They continually evolve and mutate due to selective pressures but also because of opportunity, luck and chance.

C.1.2 has some concerning individual mutations. But we don’t really know how they’ll work together as a package. And it’s too early to tell how these variants will affect humans compared with other variants.

There’s no need to panic. It’s not spreading widely, and it’s not at Australia’s doorstep. The tools we have in place work against SARS-CoV-2, whatever the variant.

Will it be more infectious or severe?

C.1.2 is distinct from but on a genetic branch near the Lambda variant, which is common in Peru.

It has some concerning individual mutations. But we don’t know how these mutations will work altogether, and we can’t predict how bad a variant will be based on mutations alone.

We need to see how a certain variant works in humans to give us an idea of whether it’s more transmissible, causes more severe disease or escapes the immunity we get from vaccines more than other variants.

At this stage we don’t know enough about how C.1.2 behaves in humans because it hasn’t spread enough yet. It represents less than 5% of new cases in South Africa, and has only been found in around 100 COVID cases worldwide since May.

It’s not yet listed by the World Health Organization as a variant of interest or a variant of concern.

Read more:
The Lambda variant: is it more infectious, and can it escape vaccines? A virologist explains

Will it overtake other variants?

It’s early days, so it’s impossible to predict what will happen to C.1.2.

It could expand and overtake other variants, or it could fizzle and disappear.

Again, just because this virus has a bunch of mutations, it doesn’t necessarily mean the mutations will work together to out-compete other variants.

Delta is the kingpin variant at the moment, so we need to keep an eye on C.1.2 to see if it starts to push out Delta.

So, it’s important to keep watching it in case it starts transmitting widely. One group in Australia, the Communicable Diseases Genomics Network, monitors these developments closely.

Read more:
Why is Delta such a worry? It’s more infectious, probably causes more severe disease, and challenges our vaccines

There’s no need to panic

At this point, there’s no need for concern.

Australia still has its border restrictions in place, so the odds of this rarely occurring virus coming into the country and spreading are very low.

There’s no evidence our vaccines don’t work against it. Our vaccines provide protection from severe disease and death against all other SARS-CoV-2 variants thus far and there’s a good chance they’ll continue to do so against C.1.2 variants.

Read more:
What’s the difference between mutations, variants and strains? A guide to COVID terminology

It won’t be long until we have a better idea of how C.1.2 behaves. There’s a lot of eyes on it, and we need to have patience as the data comes in.

Sensationalism and panic in the meantime isn’t going to solve anything.

New variants, and other bits of news amid the pandemic, are often latched onto and amplified by certain people and media. There’s a real risk this causes fear when it’s not needed, and inducing fear is a form of harm.

It is a tough time for the public because it’s hard to know who to listen to and trust.

I would say it’s best to listen to the experts, particularly organisations whose job it is to track and communicate risks about these things, like the WHO and your local jurisdiction’s health department.

Don’t amplify or pay attention to obvious alarmism and extreme negativity, and make sure you’re getting your information from media sources that are trustworthy.

Vaccination remains our best single tool

The chances of new variants arising increases the more the virus spreads.

Vaccinating as many people as possible, as quickly as possible, is key to reducing the risk of new variants arising.

That’s not to say it will reduce the risk to zero and there will be no more variants. Mutations happen by chance, and happen in a single person. One way mutations can arise is in people whose immune systems are compromised — they mount an incomplete immune response and the virus adapts, escapes and is released with more mutations.

Nothing is perfect in biology. People’s immune systems respond in different ways, and a lot is based on individals’ immune history — how competent their immune system is and whether they have chronic disease.

We also won’t have every single person fully vaccinated, and vaccines aren’t 100% perfect, so there will still be some spread of the virus.

But vaccination reduces the risk a lot. We also know what else works to limit this virus, including ventilation, filtering air, masks and social distancing measures.

Ian Mackay has previously received research funding from NHMRC and the ARC.

– ref. There’s no need to panic about the new C.1.2 variant found in South Africa, according to a virologist – https://theconversation.com/theres-no-need-to-panic-about-the-new-c-1-2-variant-found-in-south-africa-according-to-a-virologist-167105

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

Australia’s economy was performing exceptionally well in the lead-up to the Delta variant lockdowns, propped up by a barrage of government spending in the three months to June and impressive household spending.

The June quarter national accounts published on Wednesday show inflation-adjusted production, income and spending (gross domestic product) climbed 0.7% between March and the end of June, ahead of the NSW lockdown that began on June 26.

Were it not for a surge in imports and a weather-related decline in the volume of exports (each of which cuts measured GDP) gross domestic product would have climbed 1.7% in the June quarter.

Over the year to June economic activity grew a record 9.6%, as it climbed back from a record 7% slide in the three months to June in 2020.

Australian quarterly gross domestic product

At a Parliament House press conference, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg was the first to concede the good news was historical — of “little comfort” to Australians under renewed lockdowns facing difficult days ahead.

The September quarter figures, to be released in three months’ time, were likely to show an economic collapse of at least 2% — the deepest dive since 1974, with the exception of last year’s COVID collapse.

But the starting point for the dive was better than any other developed country. Australia is the only developed country to have gone into this year’s Delta lockdowns with both GDP and employment higher than before COVID-19 struck early last year.

Read more:
The four GDP graphs that show us roaring out of recession pre-lockdown

Propping up gross domestic product in the June quarter was a 7.4% surge in public infrastructure spending, driven by state and local governments, which by itself accounted for more than half of the growth in quarterly GDP.

A 1.3% increase in other government spending accounted for the other half.

But household spending accounted for almost as much, jumping 1.1% in the quarter as Australians took advantage of a relatively COVID-free autumn to boost spending on domestic tourism, on one measure by as much as 28%.

Household final consumption expenditure

Australians were in a better position to spend than the published economic growth figures suggest.

A better measure of buying power is real net national disposable income per capita. This takes account of things such as high iron ore prices, which are excluded from the GDP. It shows buying power up 1.8% in the quarter to a new all-time high.

Real net national disposable income per capita

Before the Delta lockdowns, households were continuing to wind back their record high savings rate, which peaked at 22% in June 2020. They saved 9.7% of their income in the June quarter of this year, compared to 11.9% in the March quarter.

Household saving ratio

The lockdowns and the growing realisation they won’t have a clear end date, as they did last year, are likely to have already pushed the saving rate back up.

For months to come, today’s good economic news is set to be as good as it gets.

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

– ref. Four GDP graphs that show how well Australia was doing – before Delta hit – https://theconversation.com/four-gdp-graphs-that-show-how-well-australia-was-doing-before-delta-hit-166817

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katina Zammit, Deputy Dean, School of Education, Western Sydney University

Homework hasn’t changed much in the past few decades. Most children are still sent home with about an hour’s worth of homework each day, mostly practising what they were taught in class.

If we look internationally, homework is assigned in every country that participated in the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2012.

Across the participating countries, 15-year-old students reported spending almost five hours per week doing homework in 2012. Australian students spent six hours per week on average on homework. Students in Singapore spent seven hours on homework, and in Shanghai, China they did homework for about 14 hours per week on average.

Read more:
Aussie students are a year behind students 10 years ago in science, maths and reading

Shanghai and Singapore routinely score higher than Australia in the PISA maths, science and reading tests. But homework could just be one of the factors leading to higher results. In Finland, which also scores higher than Australia, students spent less than three hours on homework per week.

So, what’s the purpose of homework and what does the evidence say about whether it fulfils its purpose?

Why do teachers set homework?

Each school in Australia has its own homework policy developed in consultation with teachers and parents or caregivers, under the guiding principles of state or regional education departments.

For instance, according to the New South Wales homework policy “… tasks should be assigned by teachers with a specific, explicit learning purpose”.

Homework in NSW should also be “purposeful and designed to meet specific learning goals”, and “built on knowledge, skills and understanding developed in class”. But there is limited, if any, guidance on how often homework should be set.

Research based on teacher interviews shows they set homework for a range of reasons.
These include to:

• establish and improve communication between parents and children about learning

• help children be more responsible, confident and disciplined

• practise or review material from class

• determine children’s understanding of the lesson and/or skills

• introduce new material to be presented in class

• provide students with opportunities to apply and integrate skills to new situations or interest areas

• get students to use their own skills to create work.

So, does homework achieve what teachers intend it to?

Do we know if it ‘works’?

Studies on homework are frequently quite general, and don’t consider specific types of homework tasks. So it isn’t easy to measure how effective homework could be, or to compare studies.

But there are several things we can say.

First, it’s better if every student gets the kind of homework task that benefits them personally, such as one that helps them answer questions they had, or understand a problem they couldn’t quite grasp in class. This promotes students’ confidence and control of their own learning.

Read more:
Learning from home is testing students’ online search skills. Here are 3 ways to improve them

Giving students repetitive tasks may not have much value. For instance, calculating the answer to 120 similar algorithms, such as adding two different numbers 120 times may make the student think maths is irrelevant and boring. In this case, children are not being encouraged to find solutions but simply applying a formula they learnt in school.

In primary schools, homework that aims to improve children’s confidence and learning discipline can be beneficial. For example, children can be asked to practise giving a presentation on a topic of their interest. This could help build their competence in speaking in front of a class.

Homework can also highlight equity issues. It can be particularly burdensome for socioeconomically disadvantaged students who may not have a space, the resources or as much time due to family and work commitments. Their parents may also not feel capable of supporting them or have their own work commitments.

According to the PISA studies mentioned earlier, socioeconomically disadvantaged 15 year olds spend nearly three hours less on homework each week than their advantaged peers.

Read more:
‘I was astonished at how quickly they made gains’: online tutoring helps struggling students catch up

What kind of homework is best?

Homework can be engaging and contribute to learning if it is more than just a sheet of maths or list of spelling words not linked to class learning. From summarising various studies’ findings, “good” homework should be:

• personalised to each child rather than the same for all students in the class. This is more likely to make a difference to a child’s learning and performance

• achievable, so the child can complete it independently, building skills in managing their time and behaviour

• aligned to the learning in the classroom.

If you aren’t happy with the homework your child is given then approach the school. If your child is having difficulty with doing the homework, the teacher needs to know. It shouldn’t be burdensome for you or your children.

Katina Zammit 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’s the point of homework? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-point-of-homework-154056

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanne Orlando, Researcher: Children and Technology, Western Sydney University

People in China under the age of 18 will only be allowed to play video games between 8pm and 9pm on Fridays, weekends and on public holidays, under new rules introduced this week. China’s state media service says the rules aim to curb gaming addiction.

China has a history of making dramatic moves aimed at cutting down children’s gaming time, which have included a cyber curfew set in 2019 restricting game play at night, to forcing players to make their real names and identification numbers visible when playing. Some parents have sent kids to military-style anti-gaming camps.

It’s clear China is associating time spent gaming with addiction; that more time gaming equals addiction.

However, the way the World Health Organization defines addictive gaming disorder is different. It’s not about time, it’s more about the attitude and intensity a person brings to the gaming. Addiction means being obsessed to the point where other things in life are falling down due to the gaming.

Read more:
Gaming has benefits and perils – parents can help kids by playing with them

My research, which has involved speaking to many children about their gaming, suggests most kids are drawn to gaming chiefly because it is a way to hang out with friends. And even when strict rules are introduced, many kids will try very hard to find a way around them.

How to recognise gaming addiction

True gaming addiction is like gambling addiction; it goes beyond a fun past time to a no-holds barred intense approach.

People might stop showering, they may lose friends, they may find themselves thinking about it day and night, watching as their grades go down.

The WHO says to be diagnosed with gaming addiction, a person needs to demonstrate all three of these symptoms for at least 12 months:

• losing control over how much you’re gaming

• prioritising gaming to the extent that it takes precedence over other activities and interests

• continuing to game despite negative effects on school, family life, work, health, hygiene, relationships, finances or social relationships.

There is a big difference between being an enthusiastic gamer and being addicted to gaming. So as long as these things aren’t happening, spending time gaming isn’t found to be harmful in the long run. In fact, some studies are showing the benefits of gaming on children’s well-being.

True gaming addiction affects only a small number of people. The American Psychiatric Association estimates that around 0.3 to 1% of the population will be diagnosed with this condition.

Three hours a week is not much

When I heard about these new rules, I thought: to an average 15 year old boy, three hours a week is not a lot. Many would clock that up in an average day. So for many kids in China, this will feel like a big change.

If players all game at the same time, there will be a lot of pressure on the servers and a lot of lag time. Many games will not function properly, which will be very frustrating for players. In response, the gaming industry may develop games that can be completed in a shorter amount of time.

Gaming could also shift to other kinds of platforms that are not official video game platforms, such as unlicensed games accessible on foreign platforms such as Steam, or gaming on virtual private networks (VPNs).

China’s ruling may reduce video game play at first. However, one thing we know for sure is that the online world always adapts.

What about parents who say ‘I wish we had China’s video game rules’?

A lot of parents really struggle to get their kids off the games, especially in lockdown. It still tends to be boys (usually between about the ages of 10 and 18) who game a lot, although girls are getting there.

I can understand parents who have heard about China’s new rules and thought it sounded pretty good. Having the government take the reins would appeal to some parents.

But I would urge parents worried about their children’s gaming to really sit down and ask their child why they are drawn to gaming so much. Not in a judgemental “Why are you always on there? Why can’t you give it a break?” way, but in the spirit of true curiosity.

When I talk to children for my research, the number one thing they say about why they game so much is that they like hanging out with friends.

It is a sense of community. It’s like going to the park or hanging out at a mall, but it occurs in an online space. Some kids talk about how they don’t even really play the game, they are just hanging out with friends on that platform.

Yes, the games are designed to be competitive and there is an adrenaline rush and lots of action, which of course they are attracted to as well. But for many kids, it’s chiefly about the social aspect.

Understanding why your kid is drawn to gaming may help you contextualise your own concerns around their gaming time.

What if I brought in the three-hours-a-week rules at my home?

Some parents may be considering implementing the three hours a week rule in their own home.

I can understand the appeal, but everything in my research shows most older kids will find ways to get around the rules. They may game at odd hours, when parents are not watching or disguise their gaming as other online work.

Yes, parents need to set boundaries around gaming. It should not be 24/7. It’s healthy to have rules around when they can play, how long they can play and the types of games allowed.

Parents need to properly understand the ratings for games; I have encountered cases of six year olds playing R-rated games, which have very strong sex and violence themes.

Look up your games on YouTube to see the type of imagery and game play involved. Play them with your child and talk together about the content.

Children often tell me they are drawn to gaming because they feel there’s nothing else to do at home. In lockdown, that may feel especially true.

So think about creating space for other activities kids can do at home. We don’t expect parents to be their child’s social concierge and organise all of their activities, but if you can do some non-screen family activities that may help give the child a more diverse diet of playtime.

And lastly, parents should be aware of their own screen time. Kids can perceive rules restricting gaming time as hypocritical if the parent themselves spends a lot of time watching TV or on their phone.

Read more:
Forget old screen ‘time’ rules during coronavirus. Here’s what you should focus on instead

Joanne Orlando 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. China’s new rules allow kids on video games just 3 hours a week – but gaming addiction isn’t about time, it’s about attitude – https://theconversation.com/chinas-new-rules-allow-kids-on-video-games-just-3-hours-a-week-but-gaming-addiction-isnt-about-time-its-about-attitude-167104

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frederic Kiernan, Research Fellow, Creativity and Wellbeing Hallmark Research Initiative, The University of Melbourne

How have you been passing the time during lockdown? Have you been taking an online drawing class, or did you join an online choir? Perhaps you focused on gardening, or finally picked up that guitar in the corner to have a go?

We have long known creative activities help us cope during hard times. Engaging with the arts enhances physical and mental well-being, can boost our sense of accomplishment and meaning, and strengthen our resilience to cope with life’s challenges.

The arts help give life beauty.

So we wanted to explore how Australians turned to art during lockdowns in 2020. We wanted to know which art forms most appealed to Australians, and which ones were helping Australians cope with the lows of lockdown.

In our newly published research, we found many Australians improved their mood using the arts. But the activities we turned to the most frequently weren’t necessarily the ones which could most improve our sense of well-being.

What makes us feel better?

In an online survey, we asked Australians which artistic creative activities they had been undertaking during the lockdown, and which activities they normally participated in but weren’t under lockdown.

We also asked our participants to rank their activities from most to least effective at making them “feel better”. Measures for anxiety, depression, loneliness and emotion regulation were taken to help us identify any relationships between mental health and well-being and arts engagement.

The most popular activities were watching films and television, listening to music and cooking and baking. Listening to music was ranked as the most effective activity at making our participants feel better — but watching films and television ranked more than halfway down the list, at 18 out of 27.

Read more:
Great time to try: baking sourdough bread

Of the most effective activities, singing took second place and dancing came in third.

The power of music

Three of the four most frequently undertaken activities (watching films and television, listening to music and reading) are usually considered passive or receptive activities: engaging with the artistic creation of others, rather than creating our own new art.

It comes as little surprise the most prevalent activities were receptive ones, since they could be easily done from home. But passive activities were often not the ones which were effective in helping us through trying times.

Active arts activities are beneficial partly because they involve seeking out novel ideas, experiences and possibilities, which in turn have positive cognitive, physical, emotional and social effects.

Read more:
Great time to try: learning to draw

But listening to music seemed to be different from other passive arts activities.

Music has long been regarded as an effective coping tool. We use music to regulate our emotions and to create a refuge for healing and imaginative play.

Listening to music can also accompany daily activities such as cooking or doing household chores much better than activities such as watching television or reading. Some of music’s well-being benefits may originate in this combination of aesthetic and practical elements.

We also found anxious and depressed Australians seem to be turning to music as a coping mechanism or emotional crutch significantly more than others. People often report specifically listening to sad music to help improve their mood.

While this might seem counter intuitive, listening to sad music while in a negative state can produce a positive outcome as a form of processing or catharsis.

(However, people living with depression should approach listening to sad or negative music with caution. Emerging research indicates those with clinical depression may find the outcome of sad music to be more negativity instead of positive release.)

Get up and moving

Participants who reported exercising more during the pandemic compared to their pre-pandemic routine fared significantly better in terms of mental health and well-being compared to those undertaking less or the same amount of exercise than prior to the pandemic.

This finding supports a growing body of research showing increased physical activity during lockdown is a robust method for maintaining mental wellness.

It also indicates why participants found dancing to be so beneficial. Not only is dance a form of artistic expression, it can be more effective than other forms of exercise at reducing body fat and is linked to numerous physical and psychological benefits.

Sadly, dancing was the activity most likely to have ceased under lockdown, followed by theatre rehearsals and performances, and singing.

Your own artistic helper

There are clear public health and safety reasons for why so many people had to stop dancing, singing and making theatre during the COVID-19 pandemic. But these activities are very effective in helping us navigate difficult times.

Read more:
Great time to try: knitting your first woolly scarf

With this in mind, artistic creative activities — and in particular active activities such as singing and dancing — warrant additional support and consideration as an important and efficient aspect of Australia’s mental health response to COVID.

For those interested in incorporating singing and dancing into your lockdown routines, there is no shortage of inspiration for how to do so online. The arts always seem to find a way.

This research was a collaboration between the Creativity and Wellbeing Hallmark Research Initiative (CAWRI) at the University of Melbourne and the MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development at Western Sydney University.

Frederic Kiernan has previously received funding from the former Australian Government Department of Education and Training as well as the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the History of Emotions CE1101011.

Anthony Chmiel and Jane Davidson 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. What art are you engaging with in lockdown? Australians are mostly watching TV — but music, singing and dancing do more for your mood – https://theconversation.com/what-art-are-you-engaging-with-in-lockdown-australians-are-mostly-watching-tv-but-music-singing-and-dancing-do-more-for-your-mood-166823

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanne Orlando, Researcher: Children and Technology, Western Sydney University

People in China under the age of 18 will only be allowed to play video games between 8pm and 9pm on Fridays, weekends and on public holidays, under new rules introduced this week. China’s state media service says the rules aim to curb gaming addiction.

China has a history of making dramatic moves aimed at cutting down children’s gaming time, which have included a cyber curfew set in 2019 restricting game play at night, to forcing players to make their real names and identification numbers visible when playing. Some parents have sent kids to military-style anti-gaming camps.

It’s clear China is associating time spent gaming with addiction; that more time gaming equals addiction.

However, the way the World Health Organization defines addictive gaming disorder is different. It’s not about time, it’s more about the attitude and intensity a person brings to the gaming. Addiction means being obsessed to the point where other things in life are falling down due to the gaming.

Read more:
Gaming has benefits and perils – parents can help kids by playing with them

My research, which has involved speaking to many children about their gaming, suggests most kids are drawn to gaming chiefly because it is a way to hang out with friends. And even when strict rules are introduced, many kids will try very hard to find a way around them.

How to recognise gaming addiction

True gaming addiction is like gambling addiction; it goes beyond a fun past time to a no-holds barred intense approach.

People might stop showering, they may lose friends, they may find themselves thinking about it day and night, watching as their grades go down.

The WHO says to be diagnosed with gaming addiction, a person needs to demonstrate all three of these symptoms for at least 12 months:

• losing control over how much you’re gaming

• prioritising gaming to the extent that it takes precedence over other activities and interests

• continuing to game despite negative effects on school, family life, work, health, hygiene, relationships, finances or social relationships.

There is a big difference between being an enthusiastic gamer and being addicted to gaming. So as long as these things aren’t happening, spending time gaming isn’t found to be harmful in the long run. In fact, some studies are showing the benefits of gaming on children’s well-being.

True gaming addiction affects only a small number of people. The American Psychiatric Association estimates that around 0.3 to 1% of the population will be diagnosed with this condition.

Three hours a week is not much

When I heard about these new rules, I thought: to an average 15 year old boy, three hours a week is not a lot. Many would clock that up in an average day. So for many kids in China, this will feel like a big change.

If players all game at the same time, there will be a lot of pressure on the servers and a lot of lag time. Many games will not function properly, which will be very frustrating for players. In response, the gaming industry may develop games that can be completed in a shorter amount of time.

Gaming could also shift to other kinds of platforms that are not official video game platforms, such as unlicensed games accessible on foreign platforms such as Steam, or gaming on virtual private networks (VPNs).

China’s ruling may reduce video game play at first. However, one thing we know for sure is that the online world always adapts.

What about parents who say ‘I wish we had China’s video game rules’?

A lot of parents really struggle to get their kids off the games, especially in lockdown. It still tends to be boys (usually between about the ages of 10 and 18) who game a lot, although girls are getting there.

I can understand parents who have heard about China’s new rules and thought it sounded pretty good. Having the government take the reins would appeal to some parents.

But I would urge parents worried about their children’s gaming to really sit down and ask their child why they are drawn to gaming so much. Not in a judgemental “Why are you always on there? Why can’t you give it a break?” way, but in the spirit of true curiosity.

When I talk to children for my research, the number one thing they say about why they game so much is that they like hanging out with friends.

It is a sense of community. It’s like going to the park or hanging out at a mall, but it occurs in an online space. Some kids talk about how they don’t even really play the game, they are just hanging out with friends on that platform.

Yes, the games are designed to be competitive and there is an adrenaline rush and lots of action, which of course they are attracted to as well. But for many kids, it’s chiefly about the social aspect.

Understanding why your kid is drawn to gaming may help you contextualise your own concerns around their gaming time.

What if I brought in the three-hours-a-week rules at my home?

Some parents may be considering implementing the three hours a week rule in their own home.

I can understand the appeal, but everything in my research shows most older kids will find ways to get around the rules. They may game at odd hours, when parents are not watching or disguise their gaming as other online work.

Yes, parents need to set boundaries around gaming. It should not be 24/7. It’s healthy to have rules around when they can play, how long they can play and the types of games allowed.

Parents need to properly understand the ratings for games; I have encountered cases of six year olds playing R-rated games, which have very strong sex and violence themes.

Look up your games on YouTube to see the type of imagery and game play involved. Play them with your child and talk together about the content.

Children often tell me they are drawn to gaming because they feel there’s nothing else to do at home. In lockdown, that may feel especially true.

So think about creating space for other activities kids can do at home. We don’t expect parents to be their child’s social concierge and organise all of their activities, but if you can do some non-screen family activities that may help give the child a more diverse diet of playtime.

And lastly, parents should be aware of their own screen time. Kids can perceive rules restricting gaming time as hypocritical if the parent themselves spends a lot of time watching TV or on their phone.

Read more:
Forget old screen ‘time’ rules during coronavirus. Here’s what you should focus on instead

Joanne Orlando 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. China’s new rules allow kids on video games just three hours a week – but gaming addiction isn’t about time, it’s about attitude – https://theconversation.com/chinas-new-rules-allow-kids-on-video-games-just-three-hours-a-week-but-gaming-addiction-isnt-about-time-its-about-attitude-167104

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

An independent review has concluded that while the ABC’s recent true-crime series on the 1979 Luna Park fire makes a strong case that it was arson, the program misled its audience by suggesting a link between the notorious Sydney crime figure Abe Saffron and the late NSW premier, Neville Wran.

The review was commissioned by the ABC after an initial complaint about the program’s treatment of Wran had been dismissed by the ABC’s internal processes.

It was carried out by one of Australia’s foremost media scholars, Emeritus Professor Rodney Tiffen of Sydney University, and the distinguished investigative journalist Chris Masters.

Three main questions in the series

The Exposed: The Ghost Train Fire series dealt with three main issues.

1. Was the cause of the fire properly investigated by the police, bearing in mind six children and one adult died?

2. Who stood to benefit from the proposed redevelopment of the site that followed the fire?

3. Was Wran connected with Saffron and did he interfere with the decision-making about the redevelopment to advance Saffron’s interests?

On the first issue, Tiffen and Masters found the program produced sufficient evidence to show that on the balance of probabilities, the fire was caused by arson. They went on to say:

The police investigation was inadequate and had a predetermined outcome – that the fire was the result of an electrical fault.

The reason for this police failure was corruption, and the links between the officers involved and organised crime figures.

The program mounts a scathing demolition of the police investigation. Uncovering fresh evidence and with the use of witness testimony, Exposed demonstrated there was no effective forensic investigation of the scene, and in fact it was immediately compromised by police and others.

The program convincingly makes the case that the coroner had to proceed with insufficient evidence.

As to who stood to benefit, the reviewers found that although Saffron’s name did not appear on any relevant documents, the program produced evidence showing Saffron’s cousins and nephew were principals of Harbourside Amusements, the company that ultimately won the tender to redevelop the Luna Park site.

The reviewers said the program mounted a persuasive case that through personal links, Saffron was effectively in charge of this venture.

Read more:
10 years after Finkelstein, media accountability in Australia has gone backwards

Shortcomings with one main argument

It was on the third issue where the reviewers found fault with the series.

They found the crucial decision to award the contract to Harbourside Amusements was made by a committee of senior public servants, and there was no evidence of Wran interfering with that decision-making.

Concerning Wran’s alleged connections with Saffron, the reviewers found a number of shortcomings.

The first was reliance on evidence from what became known as The Age tapes. These were made by NSW police tapping the telephone of a Sydney solicitor, Morgan Ryan, who was suspected of being involved in an immigration racket, among other things.

Several of the taped conversations were between Ryan and Justice Lionel Murphy, a former attorney-general in the Whitlam government and by then a justice of the High Court.

However, because the tapping was done without a warrant, the tapes were inadmissible in court. They were leaked to the crime reporter Bob Bottom and published in The Age in February 1984. It led to a royal commission.

The commission found that although the tapes were genuine, the transcripts were too unreliable to be admissible as evidence in court.

One allegation in the transcripts was that Murphy had intervened with Wran to arrange for a Saffron company to win the lease for Luna Park, at the behest of Ryan. Further, it was alleged Murphy told Ryan that Wran had agreed to do this.

Concerning this, the reviewers said:

Wran himself was not caught in any surviving evidence, and so he figures in the transcripts only as a figure whom others are making claims about. Even if Wran had agreed with Murphy to make representations regarding the Luna Park lease – and this is far from an established fact – it is not clear how he did so.

The reviewers continued:

The program makers contended to the reviewers that the surviving Age tapes evidence supports the proposition that Neville Wran was allegedly in direct communication with criminals.

The reviewers note the 394-page report sighted by them does not mention Luna Park. Nor is there any evidence of Neville Wran’s communications being directly intercepted.

Strong impression that Wran was complicit

Tiffen and Masters also did not find corroborating evidence in the program to support the related question of whether Wran socialised with Saffron.

The primary source here was Rosemary Opitz, who said she was “in Abe Saffron’s inner circle for approximately 40 years”. She said Saffron used to put on Friday night drinks, and that she saw Wran there, “very pally” with Saffron.

The reviewers concluded the program’s due diligence checks affirmed Opitz’s credibility. However, they said no solid evidence was given to corroborate her most serious claims, and no contrary views were presented.

Finally, the reviewers drew attention to a storyboard used by the program to illustrate alleged connections between Saffron and several other figures, including Wran. Of this, the reviewers stated:

Apart from the Opitz interview, no such direct relationship between Saffron and Wran has been established. This graphic is dramatic but in suggesting such a strong and direct link between Wran and Saffron it is misleading.

The cumulative effect of interview commentary, the storyboard graphic, the sequence summarising findings with family members and absence of rebuttal content left the reviewers with a strong impression the program concluded Wran was complicit.

In response, ABC News Director Gaven Morris issued a statement saying the network did not accept the reviewers’ opinion that the graphic was misleading. He went on:

The series did not purport to have proven the allegation. The review does not question the decision to include any of that material in the series but contends that viewers would have been left with the impression that the program was asserting Mr Wran’s guilt. That was not the program’s intention or assertion.

The ABC’s editorial director, Craig McMurtrie, had previously told a Senate committee the program had not needed to corroborate the material about Wran with multiple sources because Wran was not a focus of the series. Further, he said, the material about Wran was presented as allegations, not proven facts.

This position was also supported by the ABC’s editor-in-chief and managing director, David Anderson.

‘Unproven’ allegations swinging in the breeze

These responses do not represent the journalistic standards the ABC is renowned for, on the whole rightly. “What is your second source?” is one of the first questions the editor of an investigations unit will ask a reporter bringing forth serious allegations of the kind aired about Wran.

Serious allegations cannot just be left swinging in the breeze as “unproven” when the initiating process that hangs them out there is your own investigation.

It doesn’t matter whether Wran was the focus of the series or not. What matters is the seriousness of the allegations made against him: that he was complicit in a corrupt process and socialised with a notorious crime figure who ultimately benefited from that corrupt process.

At the same time, the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.

Anyone who was paying attention to the aftermath of the Luna Park fire knew there was a stench surrounding it, but in the Sydney of the late 1970s and early 1980s, it was impossible to get to the bottom of it.

As the reviewers noted, the Exposed series did a remarkable job in showing how corrupt police derailed the investigation from the start, prompting calls now for a new inquest or a judicial inquiry.

The series also joined the dots connecting Saffron to the crime, providing at least a modicum of explanatory relief for the families devastated by the deaths of six children and an innocent man.

Read more:
The long history of political corruption in NSW — and the downfall of MPs, ministers and premiers

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

– ref. How Ghost Train Fire exposed remarkable police corruption, yet also failed ABC’s high journalistic standards – https://theconversation.com/how-ghost-train-fire-exposed-remarkable-police-corruption-yet-also-failed-abcs-high-journalistic-standards-167042

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah Schunker, Lecturer of Physics, University of Newcastle

Why is the Sun’s atmosphere hotter than its surface? — Olivia, age 9, Canberra

Hi Olivia, that’s a great question! In fact, it’s such a great question many scientists around the world are trying to answer it.

The truth of the matter is — we don’t know! But we do have some ideas about where the energy that heats the Sun’s atmosphere might be coming from, and it has a lot to do with the Sun’s magnetic field. Let me explain what this means.

The temperature of the Sun

Heat is created in the very centre of the Sun, at its core, where the temperature is a blistering 27 million degrees Celsius. And just like walking away from a campfire, the temperature gets cooler further away from the core.

The temperature of the Sun’s surface is about 6,000℃, which means it’s much cooler than the core. Also, it continues to cool down for a short distance above the surface.

But higher above the surface, in the atmosphere, the temperature suddenly shoots up to more than a million degrees! So there must be something that’s heating the Sun’s atmosphere. But we can’t easily find out what it is.

The key is the Sun’s magnetic field

The leading idea among experts is the Sun’s magnetic field is actually bringing energy from inside the Sun up through its surface and into its atmosphere.

Like Earth, the Sun has a magnetic field. We can imagine a magnetic field as invisible lines connecting the North and South poles of a star or planet.

We can’t see magnetic fields, but we know they are there because we have objects that react to them. For example, a compass needle on Earth will always point to the North pole because it lines up with Earth’s magnetic field.

While the Sun also has a North and South pole, its magnetic field behaves differently to Earth’s and looks a lot messier. At the surface of the Sun, the magnetic field lines look like many loops rising up out of the surface into the atmosphere — and these loops are changing all the time.

If the loops touch each other they can cause sudden explosions of enormous amounts of energy that heat up the atmosphere. We also know there are waves travelling along the magnetic field lines bringing energy up. Could they be responsible for heating the atmosphere?

Is it a combination of the waves and the explosions, or something else altogether? Being able to measure the Sun’s magnetic field would really help us understand what’s going on.

Measuring the magnetic field

Magnetic fields may be invisible, but we can still measure them because they make small changes to the light that comes from the Sun. The surface of the Sun is very bright, so it’s easy to see changes in the light coming from the surface, and measure the magnetic field there.

But the Sun’s atmosphere is so hot the light there is not visible anymore. Rather it makes X-rays, which are a type of light we can’t see! Even if we use special X-ray telescopes, the X-rays from the Sun’s atmosphere are too dim for us to figure out what the magnetic field in the atmosphere looks like.

The good news is there is a brand new satellite, NASA’s Parker Solar Probe, which is now orbiting close to the Sun (but not too close) and actually flying through the magnetic field to measure it. We should be receiving a lot of exciting new information from it over the next five years.

These magnetic field measurements will bring us closer to understanding what is making the atmosphere of the Sun, and other stars, much hotter than their surface.

Read more:
Curious Kids: how does the Sun make such pretty colours at sunsets and sunrises?

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. Curious Kids: why is the Sun’s atmosphere hotter than its surface? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-is-the-suns-atmosphere-hotter-than-its-surface-166747

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Shortis, Research Fellow, RMIT University

In June 2020, the Australian federal government announced a new, A$270 billion defence strategy. Part of this entailed spending $800 million on new AGM-158C long-range anti-ship missiles from the United States.

The new spend formed part of a long tradition of Australian defence procurement from the US. In 2017, the Australian National Audit Office estimated the Australian Defence Force (ADF) had spent an eye-watering $10 billion on American weapons and equipment in the previous four years alone.

This trend looks set to continue. This May, for example, the ADF announced the establishment of a $7 billion space division, which will inevitably deepen Australia’s security and economic ties with the US.

And as the Biden administration focuses more attention on “the Quad” — the quadrilateral security arrangement between the US, Australia, Japan and India — to counter Chinese influence in the Asia-Pacific region, Australia will most likely purchase even more American weapons and military equipment.

ANZUS is no security guarantee

These close security linkages reflect the broader consensus underpinning the Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS), which marks its 70th birthday today.

This consensus – shared not just by US and Australian governments, but also by the broader foreign policy and media establishments in both countries – is that ANZUS makes Australia, and the world, safer.

The belief is the treaty — and the deep friendship between our two countries — gives Australia special access to advanced American military technology that we need (although not at a discount).

And, more importantly, that it keeps us under an American security umbrella. Australians can rely, in the recent words of one senior bureaucrat, on the “protection afforded” by ANZUS.

This assumption rests specifically on Article IV of the treaty, in which each party “declares that it would act to meet the common danger”. This language is widely assumed to constitute a security guarantee from the US. However, the reality is, it does not.

President Harry Truman, who oversaw the birth of the treaty, was never willing to provide that, nor has any administration since. A commitment to “act” in the face of “common danger” could, after all, mean absolutely anything.

ANZUS does not provide Australia with a security guarantee, and it never will. And, perhaps more importantly, even if it did, it does not make us safer.

Read more:
Defence update: in an increasingly dangerous neighbourhood, Australia needs a stronger security system

Reinforcing a perception of perpetual military threat

Why is this? One reason is the treaty (and Australia’s relationship with the US more broadly) reinforces and perpetuates a belief that Australia faces a perpetual military threat.

It also reinforces the idea that military might is needed to meet that threat. The purchase of more American weapons, in the words of Prime Minister Scott Morrison, has the effect of “deterring an attack on Australia and helping to prevent war”.

Even putting the questionable basis of this assumption aside, this focus on military threat at the expense of all else has had significant consequences for both Australia and our region. Other genuine threats, such as climate change, are always treated as peripheral to the core of Australia’s relationship with the US.

It was perhaps telling that as Australian officials were negotiating the purchase of more American weaponry last year, they weren’t using our uniquely close relationship to secure priority access to something that would actually make Australians safer: American vaccines.

When Morrison announced the country’s new defence strategy, he justified both the spending and aggressive posturing on the basis a post-COVID world will be “poorer, more dangerous and more disorderly”.

As I argue in my new book, Our Exceptional Friend: Australia’s Fatal Alliance with the United States, ANZUS reinforces this way of seeing the world.

Instead of viewing our region with empathy and generosity — or partnering with the US to prevent the world from becoming poorer, more dangerous or more disorderly — the Australian government seeks to arm itself.

In the process, it serves only to perpetuate a world in which conflict becomes ever more likely, and economic, racial and environmental inequality more entrenched.

A shift in mentality is needed

ANZUS was born out of a shared experience of war in the 1950s, and particularly Australian perceptions of ongoing, existential threats from non-white neighbours. These perceptions, based on deep racism and fear, were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

Yet, the current US-Australia strategic relationship still requires an enemy – a “common danger”. As a result, the US and Australia will always find one, together.

The only way to change this is through a deep, honest reckoning with the origins of Australia’s security alliance with the US — and its consequences.

Read more:
ANZUS at 70: Together for decades, US, Australia, New Zealand now face different challenges from China

This doesn’t mean scrapping ANZUS. Even if that were possible, the structures that exist around it and the ideas that inform Australian foreign policy would endure.

It does mean, however, trying to find different ways for Australia to manoeuvre within those structures, stepping back from a fear-mongering, military threat mentality, and forging genuine relationships with our neighbours.

It means trying to forge a relationship with the United States that is not, in the words of a former US president, “sealed with … blood”.

Yet, even as the recent events in Afghanistan make the consequences of our unquestioning security alliance so glaringly obvious, there is no indication Australia will do anything other than double down on it.

The mindset that has led successive Australian governments to follow the US will not change, no matter what Washington does or who is in charge. The position of the current government is to strengthen the treaty, rather than try to dismantle it.

That’s dangerous for us and the world. Happy birthday, ANZUS.

Emma Shortis’s new book, Our Exceptional Friend: Australia’s Fatal Alliance with the United States, was published last month by Hardie Grant Books.

Emma Shortis 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. The ANZUS treaty does not make Australia safer. Rather, it fuels a fear of perpetual military threat – https://theconversation.com/the-anzus-treaty-does-not-make-australia-safer-rather-it-fuels-a-fear-of-perpetual-military-threat-165670

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karin Hammarberg, Senior Research Fellow, Global and Women’s Health, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University

The COVID-19 pandemic has taken an enormous toll on people’s mental health around the world.

Even in Australia, where the numbers of those infected, hospitalised, and dying from COVID-19 have been much lower than in most other countries, our research has shown the mood of the population has been badly affected by lockdowns and restrictions on freedoms.

This in turn can make it harder for people to work and participate in society. That’s why policy makers need to turn their attention to what they can do to support people as they adapt to life in a COVID-normal world.

Findings from our new survey research offer important clues to what people think will help them adjust.

Our research

In 2020 we conducted two anonymous online surveys of Australians over 18 about their experiences of living with COVID 19 and their mental health. The first was launched in April, just after nationwide COVID-19 restrictions began. The second was done in August when restrictions had eased except in Victoria.

In the second survey we included a list of 16 potential policies and asked respondents to tell us which ones would help them recover from the COVID-19 restrictions.

They included policies around mental health, financial support, employment assistance, access to telehealth, support for community organisations, and government management of future pandemics.

What we found

More than 13,000 people completed the first survey.

This showed more than one in four had significant symptoms of depression and more than one in five had significant symptoms of anxiety during the first month of COVID restrictions. This was at least double the rates of non-COVID times.

Read more:
Australians are 3 times more worried about climate change than COVID. A mental health crisis is looming

The second survey was completed by more than 9,000 people. We were surprised to find people who lived in parts of the country where restrictions had eased were not feeling much better than they did at the time of the first survey. Less surprising was people in locked-down Victoria were feeling much worse than people elsewhere.

Of all the potential policy solutions, respondents most strongly backed planning for next time. Almost half (46%) said, “to have a publicly available plan about management of future pandemics” would be “very helpful” for their personal recovery.

This policy option was the most supported across genders, ages, places of residence, and socioeconomic circumstances.

Four other potential policies were rated as “very helpful” by more than 30% of respondents: two related to mental health support, one to individual financial support, and one to support for community organisations.

“Access to face-to-face counselling with a mental health professional” and “a GP asking me about my mental health” as well as “financial support for living expenses” were most strongly supported by respondents who identified as women or non-binary and those in the youngest group. This was probably because they were more likely than men and older people to have lost their job and experience financial hardship as a result of COVID-19 restrictions.

“Additional support for community organisations” (such as Men’s Sheds, community choirs, sports clubs, environmental groups) was rated as “very helpful” by around one third of people of all genders and ages.

Why policymakers need to listen

The findings from our study offer policymakers insights into what people in Australia think would help as we all adjust to the reality that COVID-19 is likely to be part of their lives for the foreseeable future.

The United Nations has already recommended all countries plan a response to the mental health consequences of the pandemic. We argue this planning should be guided by evidence, and as the OECD recommends, the community needs to be involved in working out the details.

The most popular proposed policy among those surveyed was for a publicly available pandemic management plan. This is particularly notable because a key recommendation from the Health Department after the H1N1 pandemic in 2009 was that a comprehensive plan for managing pandemics should be developed for the whole of Australia.

“Effective communications, robust science-based decision making and a flexible public health response system able to respond rapidly to a crisis” were identified as essential components of such a plan.

Had this recommendation been implemented then, it is likely Australia’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic would have been quicker, better coordinated among the commonwealth, state, and territory governments – and so less confusing and more effective.

Read more:
Lockdowns make people lonely. Here are 3 steps we can take now to help each other

It supports the argument by international disaster risk reduction experts that governments need to change the mindset from “if” to “when” future pandemics will occur.

And as a weary public works its way through more lockdowns and worrying daily updates, they need to know lessons have been learned. Reassurance Australia is ready for “next time” will be an essential plank of their mental health recovery.

Heather Rowe receives funding from the Australian Government Medical Research Future Fund

Jane Fisher receives funding from The Finkel Family Foundation, The National Health and Medical Research Council, the Medical Research Futures Fund, Grand Challenges Canada, the Victorian Department of Families, Fairness and Housing, the Victorian Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions, the Australian Department of Health, VicHealth, the Sexual Violence Research Initiative and World Bank Group, and the Ramsay Hospital Research Foundation.

Karin Hammarberg, Maggie Kirkman, and Thach Tran 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 asked 9,000 Australians about their mental health needs post-COVID — this is what they want – https://theconversation.com/we-asked-9-000-australians-about-their-mental-health-needs-post-covid-this-is-what-they-want-165885

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emily Edwards, Research fellow, Allergy and Clinical Immunology Laboratory, Monash University

A number of countries including the United States and the United Kingdom are moving to make a third dose of COVID-19 vaccine available to people who are immunocompromised.

But why are people with weaker immune systems at the front of the queue for a third dose?

As we continue to roll out COVID-19 vaccines around the world, emerging data is showing those who are immunocompromised aren’t necessarily as well protected by the first two doses.

So for these people, a third dose, sooner rather than later, could be particularly beneficial.

First, who is ‘immunocompromised’?

People who are immunocompromised have conditions called immunodeficiencies, where part of their immune system is missing or not functioning as well as it should.

Around 2.8% of adults in the US are immunocompromised. We expect the rate is similar in Australia.

Immunodeficiencies are broadly divided into two categories:

• primary immunodeficiencies are very rare, often inherited conditions caused by mutations in our DNA

• secondary immunodeficiencies are more common and are acquired after birth. Factors that can cause secondary immunodeficiency include malnutrition, certain infections, cancer, and some drug treatments.

Read more:
Why do we need booster shots, and could we mix and match different COVID vaccines?

Immunodeficiencies vary in severity, depending on what part of the immune system is missing or the degree of function lost.

The moderate to severe end of the spectrum includes serious forms of primary immunodeficiencies, untreated human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, organ or bone marrow transplant recipients, and people treated with chemotherapy or high doses of immunosuppressive drugs.

We know severely immunocompromised people are susceptible to more severe and prolonged illness with COVID-19.

How well do COVID-19 vaccines work in immunocompromised people?

A preprint (a study yet to undergo peer review) from the UK shows the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines are 73% and 74.6% effective in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 in immunocompromised people respectively.

However, several published and emerging studies are reporting that people who are severely immunocompromised have very high rates of “breakthrough” infections (where people become infected despite being fully vaccinated). This clearly signals COVID-19 vaccines aren’t working optimally in this group.

Some people with primary immunodeficiencies can generate immune responses to COVID-19 vaccines, but these responses tend to be lower than what we’re seeing in healthy people. This decreased immunity could lead to increased breakthrough infections.

Normally, after one dose of the Pfizer vaccine, nearly 100% of healthy people will make detectable levels of antibodies against the virus.

But in a trial with organ transplant recipients, only 4% of people generated a detectable immune response after one dose, increasing to 40% after two doses and 68% after three doses.

So a third dose is likely to provide significant benefit to severely immunocompromised patients.

Read more:
We don’t yet know how effective COVID vaccines are for people with immune deficiencies. But we know they’re safe — and worthwhile

Notably, immunocompromised people are already given additional doses of some vaccines.

For example, it’s recommended people who have received a bone marrow transplant receive two doses of the influenza vaccine in the first year after the transplant, instead of the usual single dose.

What about third doses in other people?

In addition to classic immunodeficiencies, ageing can lead to a modest immune deficit. In turn, older people are more susceptible to some infections, including COVID-19.

Studies with the Pfizer vaccine show immune responses are lower in older people compared to younger people. Pfizer has shared early data showing a third dose of their vaccine can increase immunity in 65 to 85-year-olds.

Some countries are starting to offer third doses to older people. For example, Israel started delivering third doses to people over 60 in late July (before opening boosters up to younger age groups during August).

However, double and even single doses of the Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccines very effectively protect against severe disease with COVID-19 among older people. So it’s still unclear whether this is urgently needed.

A third dose for all ages could ultimately be used to generate optimal immunity against COVID-19. Some preprint studies suggest immunity can modestly decline by about three months after the second dose.

Pfizer has shared preliminary data showing a third dose can boost immunity in healthy people.

But the rollout of third doses to a broader range of people in higher-income countries has implications for vaccine equity. The World Health Organization Director General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, has led calls to pause third doses until more people in lower and middle income countries are able to access vaccines.

However, he specified immunocompromised people should have access to a third dose.

When might third doses be offered in Australia?

In Australia, a third dose of a vaccine may be offered to immunocompromised people, and possibly eventually to everyone. Some media reports have suggested this may be months away. Health Minister Greg Hunt has indicated current vaccine agreements have factored in the possibility of boosting.

A shift to third doses would need approval from the Australian regulatory and vaccine advisory bodies, and would probably focus on immunocompromised and other high-risk people initially.

A third dose of a variant-specific vaccine could also be an option in the future. These vaccines can deliver an updated version of the virus “antigen” — the target our immune system learns to recognise on the surface of the virus — to refocus our immune system on new strains like Delta.

This approach would be similar to our yearly update of the flu vaccine. Pfizer, Moderna and other vaccine manufacturers have variant-specific COVID-19 vaccines in clinical testing.

Read more:
Immunocompromised people make up nearly half of COVID-19 breakthrough hospitalizations – an extra vaccine dose may help

Even with a third dose, other measures will continue to be important in protecting immunocompromised people from COVID-19. These include “shielding” (staying at home and minimising face-to-face contact with others), immunoglobulin replacement treatment (which replaces antibodies needed to fight disease), and high vaccine uptake among the rest of the community.

But it’s clear a third dose would be uniquely beneficial for this group.

Emily Edwards is Vice President of AusPIPS (Australian Primary Immunodeficiency Patient Support group) Inc.

Kylie Quinn receives funding from the Rebecca L. Cooper Foundation, the CASS Foundation, the Medical Research Future Fund and RMIT University.

– ref. Why is a third COVID-19 vaccine dose important for people who are immunocompromised? – https://theconversation.com/why-is-a-third-covid-19-vaccine-dose-important-for-people-who-are-immunocompromised-166569

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Trish Fleming, Professor, Murdoch University

Odds are, if you’ve seen a cat prowling around your neighbourhood, it doesn’t have an owner. Australia is home to hordes of unowned cats, with an estimated 700,000 living without appropriate care in urban areas, around rubbish dumps or on farms.

Unowned cats are sometimes called “stray” or “semi-feral”: they, or their parents, were once owned by humans but are now abandoned or lost. Unowned stray cats rely heavily on human settlements for food and shelter and breed freely. Feral cats, on the other hand, live in the wild and can survive without relying on people for food.

Like their feral counterparts, unowned cats are a public health threat, they can fight with or transmit diseases to pet cats, and they kill native wildlife.
And, of course, they themselves suffer poor welfare. In fact, our recent studies show unowned cats have significantly shorter lives than pet cats, with less than half surviving their first year.

It’s vital we find effective ways to reduce their numbers — but what’s the best way to go about this?

Street cats have hard, short lives

Free-roaming cats have hard lives on the streets. Even when they’re owned by someone, things can come to a sticky end.

Numerous international studies report high death rates for roaming pet cats, with causes including road accidents and accidental poisoning. They’re also frequently injured or killed by domestic dogs.

Even Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s cat Paddles, the “first cat” of New Zealand, was killed by a car in 2017.

Unowned cats encounter the same issues and more, but without an owner to provide immediate veterinary attention. So it’s no surprise free-roaming unowned cats have low life expectancy.

We analysed the demographics of free-roaming unowned cats in Perth, Western Australia. The 145 unowned cats we studied had significantly shorter lives than the 899 pet cats in Perth. The median age of unowned cats was just eight to ten months. By contrast, the median age for pet cats was about five years.

The unowned cats in our study looked healthy, were reproductive, and had few external parasites. However, these animals were the ones that had survived long enough to be trapped and studied. Cats often hide when traumatised or ill, and so sick cats will often just “disappear”.

Alarmingly, 58% of the cats we examined had consumed dangerous refuse, including sharp, dangerous items or indigestible material that blocked their gastrointestinal tracts. Nearly all (95%) carried substantial loads of transmissible helminth parasites.

Read more:
Don’t let them out: 15 ways to keep your indoor cat happy

Across Australia’s states and territories, there are two main approaches local governments use to manage unowned cat populations in urban and regional areas: trap and euthanase or trap and adopt.

Another approach is to trap, desex and return cats to their point of capture (called “trap-neuter-return”). Although this is currently being undertaken by private individuals and groups in capital cities and some towns, it is considered illegal across most jurisdictions in Australia, as it is construed as abandonment or releasing an invasive species.

1. Euthanasia

In most parts of the country, where problems with unowned cats have been reported, they are trapped and removed. This normally means euthanasia.

For example, in Brisbane, a council program that ran since 2013 efficiently reduced the numbers of unowned cats with euthanasia, with complaints about stray cats falling from about 140 to just ten per year, over five years.

But high rates of euthanasia for unowned cats can be problematic for many people, especially for veterinarians undertaking the task. It can be traumatic and challenging to euthanise healthy cats just because they are unwanted.

Read more:
Why your veterinarian may refuse to euthanise your pet

2. Trap-neuter-return programs

Some believe desexing cats and returning them to street life, with supplementary feeding, is a solution to large numbers of unwanted cats, because it avoids euthanasia.

But overseas studies have shown trap-neuter-return programs encourage abandonment of unwanted cats at feeding stations. Numbers of cats can actually go up, despite best efforts.

And what is the quality of life for returned cats? Given the difficult, short lives of free-roaming cats, trap-neuter-return programs are arguably a less ethical choice with poor welfare outcomes for the cats themselves. There have even been calls in Japan to revise trap-neuter-return policies on account of poor health and well-being of the cats.

Returning neutered animals to where they were found may also violate state laws. Enforcing these laws is critical to reduce unowned cat populations, improve the welfare of cats, and discourage dumping of unwanted pets.

3. Adopt a cat

In May, the ACT government released an ambitious and targeted ten-year plan with the vision that, by 2031, “all cats in the ACT will be owned, wanted and cared for by responsible owners”. It is an exemplar of what the community can do to improve the lives of cats, and we believe it should be modelled elsewhere in Australia.

The plan has been developed to raise best practice standards, recognising the duty of care needed to ensure the health and well-being of cats.

This starts with responsible owners. It calls for improved compliance with compulsory desexing and registration. To encourage people to comply, the ACT government will be implementing free or low-cost desexing and free microchipping. Compulsory containment for new cats acquired after July 1, 2022 is also on the cards.

The plan provides a strategy to trap roaming cats, with improvements in how pet cats can be identified and returned to their owners, while unowned neighbourhood cats will be put up for adoption.

So what do we do about it?

Well, we know two tasks are critical: removing unowned cats from the streets, and reducing unwanted breeding and abandonment of cats.

Trap-neuter-return programs can do more harm than good because cats still live a hard life on the streets and may lead to some people feeling comfortable abandoning unwanted cats at the release sites. And while euthanasia has been shown to be effective, it can be a difficult choice.

Instead, Australia must boost efforts to socialise and adopt unowned cats, and enforce laws that stop owned cats free-roaming the streets. This will require enormous effort with community education, but it is a compassionate choice addressing all problems caused by free-roaming cats (both owned and unowned).

If you’re inspired to give a cat a “furrever” home, contact your nearest cat welfare organisation or local council. And if you already have a pet cat, it’s important to keep it on your property all day, every day — not only to protect native wildlife, but to protect the cats themselves.

Read more:
One cat, one year, 110 native animals: lock up your pet, it’s a killing machine

Mike Calver receives funding from Perth Region NRM.

Tida Nou receives funding from Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program through the Threatened Species Recovery Hub.

Heather M. Crawford and Trish Fleming 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. Street life ain’t easy for a stray cat, with most dying before they turn 1. So what’s the best way to deal with them? – https://theconversation.com/street-life-aint-easy-for-a-stray-cat-with-most-dying-before-they-turn-1-so-whats-the-best-way-to-deal-with-them-164796

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole (Nikki) Brunker, Lecturer in Education, University of Sydney

We all know the challenges lockdowns are creating for our children during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, providing effective support for their social and emotional well-being may help us look beyond fears to the possibility of making gains during this interruption to our familiar lives.

Social and emotional well-being relates to the ability to understand ourselves, and others, and to manage life’s challenges. This calls for skills such as being able to:

• understand and engage with our emotions and the emotions of others
• form and build positive relationships
• take on and persist with challenges.

Read more:
Students in Melbourne will go back to remote schooling. Here’s what we learnt last time and how to make it better

Well-being is a broad concept that encompasses the individual and their context, recognising variation among children. It’s crucial to remember well-being is a process of both experience and development, so skills vary with age and circumstances.

Well-being is greatest cost of lockdowns

Loss of well-being was shown to be the greatest cost of lockdowns for students schooling from home in 2020.

The experience of schooling during lockdown varies, but the greatest impact is that it makes existing inequities worse. The lives of too many children and young people are filled with enormous difficulty and limited opportunities. This was the case before lockdown, but the problem has grown.

Schools continue to work tirelessly to meet students’ needs. It is important to recognise there are social issues that require extensive work beyond schooling.

Read more:
Remote learning didn’t affect most NSW primary students in our study academically. But well-being suffered

Developing skills helps with well-being

The individual aspect of social and emotional well-being involves the ongoing development of key skills. These skills have been variously termed soft skills, 21st-century skills, general capabilities, and dispositions. These skills grow and develop as our life experience expands and the challenges we encounter become more complex.

The benefits of developing social and emotional well-being are important in themselves. However, research has long shown the benefits extend to academic learning.

Well-being skills have been recognised as helping students with schooling during lockdown. Self-organisation, autonomy and adaptability enable students to thrive during lockdown. Schooling during lockdown also provides an opportunity to develop these skills in the context of life’s other challenges.

Read more:
Students who are more adaptable do best in remote learning – and it’s a skill we can teach

What can we do to support children’s well-being?

What can we do to support our children’s well-being in lockdown and beyond through the pandemic?

1. Focus on the potential gains.

We don’t simply “bounce back” from adversity; we need to be able to move forward by supporting our children to work with the challenge of adversity. This includes adults in their lives modelling how to do that, which helps children develop the skills to cope with further adversity that they will inevitably face in their lives.

Research is not showing learning loss through schooling under lockdown, as the latest NAPLAN results also indicate. It is showing gains can be made by working with the situation.

Read more:
Early NAPLAN results show promise, but we don’t know the full impact of COVID school closures yet

2. Look after our own well-being.

Remember the oxygen mask principle – we need to take care of ourselves to be able to support our children’s well-being. Children develop the skills to self-regulate – that is, they learn to understand and manage their own emotions – when supported through co-regulation with adults. We can only do that when we are taking care of our own well-being.

3. Attend to daily essentials for all.

Play, exercise, get outdoors, socialise and monitor engagement with news media. Each of these activities will look different from what we would choose outside of lockdown, and there are lots of possibilities.

Engaging in unfamiliar ways of doing our everyday activities builds our well-being by developing our ability to be flexible in our thinking and adapt to changing situations.

Read more:
5 tips from a play therapist to help kids express themselves and unwind

4. Develop personal skills.

Key skills include self-organisation, autonomy, flexible thinking and adaptability. Well-being is learned through explicit approaches, life experiences and modelling.

We can support children by helping with routines and organisation to enable them to not be overwhelmed.

At the same time, encourage independence through activities they complete without you, such as a Lego challenge. Some other simple things to do include: encourage reading, play board games, promote creative (tech-free) play and teach simple strategies to cope with stress such as the 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 grounding technique.

Read more:
Books offer a healing retreat for youngsters caught up in a pandemic

5. Adjust expectations to the situation.

As we adapt to the circumstances, our expectations need to adapt. Kids will have more screen time for schooling, socialising and, yes, gaming, which will support their well-being.

Read more:
Time well spent, not wasted: video games are boosting well-being during the coronavirus lockdown

Kids will get distracted, have ebbs and flows in motivation, won’t complete everything for school, will refuse to do some things and will need to take time away from schooling. Give space for this to be acceptable. Remember to model how you manage your own distractions and other responses to working in this different context.

Also, stress looks different in kids. They might be rude, defiant, angry and avoid doing things – even the things they love.

The dominant approach to children’s behaviour at home and school is reward and punishment. It induces a stress response to trigger change in behaviour, so only escalates the stress our children are experiencing now.

Talk and listen to each other’s concerns to find solutions. Recognise when things aren’t a priority for now, such as cleaning their bedroom every week.

There is room for us to gain from the experience of lockdown. We might just need to shift our focus.

Nicole (Nikki) Brunker 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. Students’ well-being must always be the priority. Here are 5 tips to help them through lockdown – https://theconversation.com/students-well-being-must-always-be-the-priority-here-are-5-tips-to-help-them-through-lockdown-166642

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Wade, Lecturer in Social Inquiry, La Trobe University

In a typical year there are around 21,000 mass participation sporting events across Australia, attracting 3.4 million participants. From fun runs to marathons, road cycling to bush trekking, walking with pets to obstacle courses, Australians take part in these events at an extraordinary scale.

It isn’t just about the exercise. Many of these events are wholly or partly dedicated towards fundraising, with participants raising around A$75 million each year for charity.

In 2020, around 19,000 planned events did not take place. The sector has not fared much better this year, with the Australian Mass Participation Sporting Events Alliance estimating more than 70% of events will not return for 2021. Their absence has hit charities during already tough times.

The alliance, representing over 450 event operators and suppliers, many of which support events with a significant focus on charitable giving, has estimated 45% of the industry may not survive the impacts of COVID. They have called for government support through direct financial support, wage subsidies or a government-backed insurance scheme to cover cancelled events.

The Cancer Council has been hosting events like the Relay for Life since 1999. The event usually hosts more than 134,000 participants raising over $14 million each year. Due to COVID-related impacts, the charity has so far taken a $30 million hit on expected revenues. Funding for new research grants from the council were reduced by a third in 2020, with similar impacts expected for 2021.

Research initiatives have also been affected at the Melanoma Institute of Australia. After not being able to host their Melanoma March in-person for two consecutive years, the institute lost $1.5 million in anticipated funding. Australia has the world’s highest melanoma rates, and it is the most common cancer affecting Australians aged 15 to 39.

MS Australia also relies heavily on activity-based fundraising events in supporting over 25,000 Australians living with multiple sclerosis. Sadly, many of their 2021 Walk, Run + Roll events have now been postponed.

The loss of these events also means fewer opportunities for vital advocacy efforts, especially in drawing attention to conditions that are not well known.

Weekend warriors and virtual innovation

Australia has a strong culture of fitness philanthropy, raising funds through physical activities that range from relaxed jaunts to gruelling endurance tasks, such as the Kokoda Challenge.

But most fitness philanthropists are not endurance enthusiasts. They are average “weekend warriors” seeking fun ways to support admirable causes.

Typically, fitness philanthropists get involved to give back to organisations that have supported them, help others and to boost a charity’s standing.

Powered by social media, event participants can publicly display their willing efforts and evident pleasure — which can also motivate others to join the cause.

Participation in fitness philanthropy can also improve mental health through empowering people within their communities and fostering new connections.

Unfortunately, it may be some time before many events are seen again in Australia. The Sydney City2Surf — usually attracting around 85,000 participants and raising over $48 million for charity since 2008 — will again not take place in-person this year.

But some events are moving online in creative virtual alternatives.

In 2020, the London Marathon was held in-person for elite runners only. Other participants took part virtually, tracking their runs via GPS to earn their finishing medal. This October, an estimated 50,000 in-person competitors will be joined by 50,000 virtual participants, making it the largest marathon ever staged.

Similar virtual formats have been adopted in Australia. Under COVID conditions, people have been running races in their own neighbourhoods, setting their own routes, tracking their times and getting involved via social media.

For this year’s race in July, the Gold Coast Marathon used digital run bibs, leader boards and custom photo certificates to bring the event to life. Even with a virtual race, 3,360 participants ran to raise money for 92 different charities.

The 2020 Virtual Melbourne Marathon used an app with voice prompts, comment functions, individual and team feeds, a dedicated music playlist, and landmark audio cues that connected with wearable devices to enhance the virtual experience. For the 2021 event in December – which will again be held virtually – over $105,000 has already been raised for charity.

The run must go on

While state governments have gone to extraordinary lengths to accommodate the AFL and NRL, many mass participation sport events have faced insurmountable difficulties.

Across its eight races, the Gold Coast Marathon normally hosts more than 27,000 participants. Due to logistical difficulties presented by COVID-19, the event was cancelled last month for the second year in a row. Despite this, almost half a million dollars has been raised for individually-nominated charities by runners participating virtually.

Fitness philanthropy is a crucial source of fundraising for many charities, and the loss of these events is depleting resources for health and medical research. Substantial revenue losses – compounded by the thousands of jobs lost in the university sector – has weakened Australia’s research capacity to address serious health concerns.

Read more:
Rising on pause; Dark Mofo ticket sales delayed. The government must insure our arts events

Calls from the Australian Mass Participation Sporting Events Alliance for increased government support, so organisations can survive current restrictions and come out the other side of COVID, have not yet be heeded.

But we should also think creatively about how other organisations could partner with charities in developing their own fitness philanthropy fundraisers. As we head into the summer of cricket and tennis amid potential ongoing lockdowns, could sport administrators and broadcasters support forms of backyard-based fitness philanthropy?

Such initiatives can foster participation in their sports while promoting worthy causes.

Meanwhile, keep an eye out for events offering virtual participation, and throw your support behind friends and family taking up these challenges.

Catherine Palmer receives funding from Australian Research Council.

Kevin Filo, Matthew Wade, and Nicholas Hookway 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. Australian charities are struggling with the loss of fun runs and other ‘fitness philanthropy’ events – https://theconversation.com/australian-charities-are-struggling-with-the-loss-of-fun-runs-and-other-fitness-philanthropy-events-165955

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

On the eve of ANZUS turning 70 on Wednesday, Scott Morrison was asked whether he had spoken to US President Joe Biden since the fall of Kabul.

“No, I haven’t as yet. I anticipate doing that not too far away,” he said on Queensland radio.

When it was put to him that the lack of contact, plus the US not providing Australia with spare doses of the Pfizer vaccine, suggested Australia was “on the nose” with the president, Morrison quickly protested.

“No, not at all. I mean, I mean, I just don’t agree with that. I’ve been dealing with the United States on many issues and we continue to do that. And, you know, I’m not precious about these things. I just focus on getting the job done.”

Presumably he expects a phone conversation to mark the ANZUS anniversary. It would be strange if there wasn’t one.

Regardless of when the call comes, it is notable that many months into the Biden presidency, it remains unclear precisely how the relationship between the two leaders lies. The coming months will throw some light on it.

In relation to the Kabul evacuation, the government would point to the discussions between Foreign Minister Marise Payne and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

But Australia is an ally joined at the hip with America, and its soldiers served in Afghanistan for the best part of two decades, which would make some leader-level contact to have been expected during the evacuation. Moreover, Morrison and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson spoke then.

The Australia-US relationship doesn’t depend on the personal rapport between the leaders of the two countries at any particular time. The alliance is driven by shared national interests.

Nevertheless, personalities can be important. This was never more evident than with the Bush-Howard bond at the start of the Afghanistan war – especially tight because John Howard was in Washington when the terrorist attacks occurred on September 11, 2001.

The opportunity to “eyeball” can be central in developing a relationship and Morrison and Biden have had minimal eyeball time.

So far, there has only been that three-way meeting (US, Australia, UK) when Morrison attended the G7 summit in June. It seems there wasn’t time for an additional bilateral session. Given a choice, one would have thought Morrison would have been better off meeting just with Biden, whom he didn’t know personally.

Why is Morrison not further forward in the foreign queue for presidential attention?

Possibly it’s a matter of all the other demands on the president. Biden is overwhelmed with domestic and foreign problems; he looks less than robust and no doubt his team limits what he has to do. The attitude might be that Australia would understand if it’s sometimes taken for granted.

In the past, Australia wasn’t a country high in Biden’s consciousness. For example, it’s a tradition for the US vice president to receive visiting Australian foreign and defence ministers, but when Biden was vice president under Barack Obama it was initially quite difficult for Australian officials to make this happen.

Possibly the Biden administration remembers how cosy (albeit for pragmatic reasons) Morrison was with Donald Trump, including the unfortunate occasion when a joint appearance had all the hallmarks of a Trump rally.

Possibly the president and those around him are frustrated with the Coalition’s tardiness in signing up to a more ambitious climate change agenda.

Perhaps it is an amalgam of all these things.

Work is currently underway for a meeting in the US of leaders of the Quad security grouping – the US, Australia, India and Japan – in late September or early October.

If the meeting is in person, Morrison intends to go, despite the difficulties of the domestic COVID situation. This would provide the opportunity for bilateral discussions with Biden.

A major topic of the bilateral talks would be Australia’s position on climate change, ahead of the November climate conference in Glasgow.

Whether Morrison will be able to embrace the net-zero 2050 target is still unknown, dependent on the divided and shambolic Nationals. Biden would want that and more.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday Morrison will take part in a small ceremony at the Australian-American Memorial in Canberra, and address parliament on ANZUS. He’d hope to say he’d spoken to the president by then.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Morrison yet to forge personal relationship with Biden as ANZUS turns 70 – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-morrison-yet-to-forge-personal-relationship-with-biden-as-anzus-turns-70-167054

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kalinda Griffiths, Scientia lecturer, UNSW

On Sunday, New South Wales saw four more deaths from COVID-19. One of them was a man from Dubbo who was in his 50s and unvaccinated. It was the first COVID-19 death of a First Nations person in Australia.

Aboriginal communities in remote areas have been pleading with the government for help with medical resourcing and food for families. It was recently found there were pleas for protection against COVID in Wilcannia, with Aboriginal health organisation Maari Ma Aboriginal Health contacting Ken Wyatt about this back in March last year.

There has been some progress in the nation’s vaccination rates with a little over 32% of the eligible population over the age of 12 now vaccinated. However, the second wave of COVID-19 in New South Wales highlights concerns for the unvaccinated and those with multiple risk factors. This includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

New South Wales is now in day 76 of their most recent outbreak with cases reaching over 20,000.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were identified as a priority group early in the vaccine rollout, yet they still have lower vaccination rates than the NSW population.

Almost 12% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are fully vaccinated in NSW compared to almost 30% of the non-Indigenous population.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at risk

It’s well known Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people experience higher rates of disease than non-Indigenous people. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in New South Wales experience two or more health conditions at a rate that is over two and half times greater than non-Indigenous people.

In addition, there is increased risk of spread in families, as larger family groups often live together in regional and remote communities.

These risks, along with extreme yet ignored service gaps in regional and remote areas, mean our Indigenous community is facing severe risk of death and disease from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Children and young people under the age of 20 account for a little over 20% of Australia’s case numbers, with all children aged 12 to 15 now recommended to get the Pfizer vaccine.

Pre-existing conditions such as asthma, gastrointestinal disease, diabetes/prediabetes, as well as children who are immunocompromised and preterm, have been found to be predictors of severe COVID-19 disease.

This is of great concern to Aboriginal communities, considering Aboriginal children are up to two times more likely to be hospitalised for respiratory conditions than non-Indigenous children.

Read more:
The COVID-19 crisis in western NSW Aboriginal communities is a nightmare realised

We need better data

The gaps in COVID-19 publicly available data are concerning, especially data specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

There is currently no information on vaccination rates for children over the age of 12 in out-of-home care. In 2018 there were 45,800 children in out-of-home care. About 40% of these children are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander.

There is also little to no data available on the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people tested for COVID, as well as issues with the accuracy of Indigenous status in the reporting of the case numbers.

Despite the daily high case numbers, this week the New South Wales government announced restrictions in the state will be relaxed across selected local government areas for those people who are fully vaccinated.

While the risk for those people who are vaccinated is relatively low, greater activity could still increase the spread of COVID-19 across the state, putting people in Aboriginal communities at greater risk.

Knowing exactly who is vaccinated and who is at greatest risk will be of the utmost importance as restrictions start to ease.

How the public can help

The increasing case numbers and resultant lockdowns across NSW local government areas have seen Aboriginal communities having limited access to health care and basic necessities due to limitations in the supply of regional and remote supermarkets. A number of First Nations people have rallied together to support their communities.

This has included pages that have been set up for:

• emergency food packs across western NSW

• support for Wilcannia community

• fresh fruit and veggies in Wilcannia

• a volunteer group to assist in coordinating water and food support in Wilcannia nd provides opportunities for people to volunteer.

• an interstate fundraiser from Lullas Children and Family Centre to supply Aboriginal kids with educational toys, games and other items

People can donate or contact the volunteer group to get involved.

Where to next?

As the Delta variant makes its way across Australia, all people need access to vaccines. This means increasing government resources and health system efforts in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities as well as ensuring all Indigenous people have multiple access points to the vaccines.

This could include door-to-door vaccinations in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, pop-up vaccination clinics in regional and remote local government areas as well as school-based vaccinations.

With the expected mRNA vaccine supplies to be sufficient for the entire Australian population in the coming months, the biggest next step is ensuring their distribution is prioritised to those who need it the most.

This requires moving beyond the rhetoric and supporting health services, particularly Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations, to do the work.

Kalinda Griffiths receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Research Council. She is also Thinker in Residence at the Australian Health Promotion Association.

– ref. The first Indigenous COVID death reminds us of the outsized risk NSW communities face – https://theconversation.com/the-first-indigenous-covid-death-reminds-us-of-the-outsized-risk-nsw-communities-face-166888

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

Failure is only the beginning.

Thirteen of Australia’s 80 closely-regulated MySuper superannuation funds have failed the APRA performance test. There’s a one in six chance you’re in one.

The results were made public on Tuesday and handed to the funds on Monday.

And from here on — for the people who run those funds — it’s about to get a whole lot worse.

APRA is the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. Landmark reforms introduced in response to a devastating Productivity Commission report into the “mess” that is much of Australia’s super industry require APRA to rate each MySuper fund (and from next year most other funds) with a pass or a fail according to how they have managed their members’ money.

To fail — as one in six funds have — would require the fund to have for seven or eight years managed its members’ funds so badly that when judged by its own stated investment strategy, those members would have been better off investing in the broad categories of assets themselves and paying the managers to stay away.

Under the rules, which go by the name Your Future, Your Super, funds can only be given a “pass” or a “fail”. Those that fail are required to write to their members.

Letters humbling

The letters, which have to be delivered within 28 days, and which APRA will check, are humiliating.

“Hello [fund member],” they begin. “Your superannuation product has performed poorly under an annual performance test”.

As a result, we are required to write to you and suggest that you consider moving your money into a different superannuation product.

By switching into a better performing product, you can potentially save thousands of dollars more for retirement. For example, by earning 1% higher net return over a 30‑year period, you could be 20% better off at retirement.

At the bottom of each letter is a QR code members can use to go to ato.gov.au/yoursuper to compare funds’ performance. If members log in with their MyGov account they will be told exactly what super they have and where it is (I’ve tried it and it works) and get a comparison tailored to their circumstances.

The 13 funds forced to send out these letters will be lucky to see out the year. Once a fund suffers withdrawals and has to pay out members it performs even worse. Within months, many will be taken over.

Killing season

Those that remain are unlikely to last a second year. Once a product fails for two consecutive years (most that fail in the first year are expected to fail in the second) it will be prohibited from accepting new members, which means it’ll be killed.

It may or may not be relevant, but the driving forces behind the revolution are women. Women typically do much worse out of super than men.

Karen Chester chaired the Productivity Commission inquiry that quantified the hundreds of thousands of dollars lost in retirement by each worker who stays in a dud fund, and came up with the first draft of the performance test.

Kelly O’Dwyer, as financial services minister championed it, as did her successor Jane Hume.

In charge of policing the rules is APRA executive board member Margaret Cole, who was known as the “enforcer” during her time as director of enforcement and financial crime at the UK Financial Services Authority.

On Friday she declared bluntly that Australia had too many funds, too many persistently underperforming funds and too many with fees that remain too high.

Industry funds among those failed

Among the chronic underperformers now facing a death spiral are five industry funds — two of them run by members of Industry Super Australia, the organisation that represents funds set up “only to benefit members”.

Rather, they were members. Maritime Super left just ahead of the results. LUCRF, originally set up by what is now the United Workers Union, was terminated on the release of the results. Industry Super scrubbed it from its website.

The other industry funds that failed the performance test are run by the Australian Catholic Superannuation and Retirement Fund, Christian Super and the Victorian Independent Schools Super Fund.

Among the for-profit failures are funds run by Westpac (BT Super) and the Commonwealth Bank (Colonial First State).

The banking royal commission found that funds run by banks often pay money to other parts of the bank for services such as buying and selling bonds, rather than doing it themselves or through brokers who would get better prices.

In the dark, until now

Super customers needn’t know what happens. They don’t get bills.

Whereas electricity bills hurt when they are delivered and have to be paid, the bills for super fees (and hidden fees in the form of relentless underperformance) aren’t seen, and don’t have to be paid — the fees come out of the funds.

And the funds grow every year, even where they are squandered. Compulsory super throws in a fresh 10% of salary each year.

The aim of what’s happened this week is to make visible what is normally invisible, and to prod people into action.

An act of faith… in competition

The government could have gone down a different track.

Peter Costello, the long-serving Coalition Treasurer who now heads the Future Fund which manages government investments, wanted his successor to create a government super fund (run by his Future Fund) which it would default new workers into.

The Future Fund would have protected workers, but to do it, would have played safe. As it became dominant it would have stifled competition and the promise of better returns. Or that was the thinking.

Read more:
Super funds have been working for themselves when they should have been working for us. That’s about to change

Chester, O’Dwyer, Hume and Treasurer Josh Frydneberg decided instead to supercharge competition — to make crystal clear which are the funds to run from and the funds to run to. They are making running as easy as two clicks.

One in every 11 dollars we earn is funnelled into superannuation. Legislated increases mean it will soon be one in nine.

It’s important it’s looked after.

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

– ref. My super fund just failed the APRA performance test. What’s next? – https://theconversation.com/my-super-fund-just-failed-the-apra-performance-test-whats-next-166956

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan McMullan, Conjoint Senior Lecturer, School of Women’s and Children’s Health, UNSW

The Delta variant is more infectious and is leading to more COVID-19 cases in children than previous strains.

Many parents are wondering whether Delta is making kids sicker, and how to care for their children if they get COVID.

It can be a nerve-racking time for parents, but there are practical things you can do to make your child more comfortable if they’re ill.

How common is COVID in kids, and how sick do they get?

There have been more than 50,000 confirmed COVID cases in Australia.

Of these, 4,625 cases have been in children aged 0-9, and 6,325 among those aged 10-19 — totalling approximately 20% of all Australian cases.

Symptoms in children are often like those of other viral infections and may include fever, runny nose, sore throat, cough, vomiting, diarrhoea and lethargy.

A small number of children have other symptoms such as tummy pains, chest pain, headache, body aches, breathing difficulties or loss of taste or smell. Up to half of children with COVID may be asymptomatic.

Despite evidence the more-infectious Delta variant is causing more severe illness in young adults, there’s no convincing evidence it has caused more severe illness in children to date.

Read more:
Under-12s are increasingly catching COVID-19. How sick are they getting and when will we be able to vaccinate them?

Most children can be cared for at home. Hospital networks, including children’s hospitals and local networks, are helping parents and carers to support this care at home.

In some cases, children and families may be transferred to special health accommodation to provide safe isolation and care.

How can I best care for my child at home if they get COVID?

Caring for a child with COVID will look similar to the general supportive care for children with other viral infections.

Children should be dressed in appropriate clothing, so they’re comfortable — not sweating or shivering.

Parents and carers should make sure the child drinks lots of fluids. They can also take paracetamol or ibuprofen if they are uncomfortable with pain or fever. These medicines should be administered as directed in the product information or by a health professional.

Read more:
Masks, ventilation, vaccination: 3 ways to protect our kids against the Delta variant

Warning signs of deterioration include prolonged fever (for more than five days), difficulty breathing or chest pain.

Some children get severe abdominal pain, vomiting and/or diarrhoea. It’s important to encourage these children to frequently drink fluids. It’s a concern if they’re drinking less or passing urine less than half of what they normally would, or if they are excessively sleepy or irritable.

For these or other serious concerns, parents and carers should seek urgent advice from their care team. In an emergency, they should request ambulance assistance, informing the operator the child has COVID.

Don’t some children end up in hospital or intensive care?

Yes, there’s a small risk of severe disease from COVID in children but this is very uncommon, even in children who have medical vulnerabilities.

Children and adolescents can develop inflammatory complications after COVID, though this is rare. Symptoms include persistent fever and rash, among others. These conditions, termed “Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C)” or “Paediatric Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (PIMS-TS)” have been reported mainly in the United States and Europe.

Estimates from the US suggest these occur in around one in 3,000-4,000 cases of COVID in children. There’s only been a handful of cases reported in Australia to date.

Children aged 12-15 in Australia are now eligible for vaccination, and vaccination trials are ongoing for younger children.

Do children get ‘long COVID’?

There has been increasing concern about prolonged symptoms after COVID infection, sometimes called long COVID, even with mild disease.

Fortunately, this is rare in children. In a study of more than 150 children with mild or asymptomatic COVID in Australia, most symptoms resolved in 4-8 weeks and children generally returned to their baseline health within 3-6 months.

What if some people in the home aren’t infected?

The SARS-CoV-2 virus spreads easily from one person to another, particularly in close contact and for those living in the same household as someone who has the virus.

You can reduce the risk of spread by:

• keeping more than 1.5m distance where possible

• getting the child to use a separate bathroom, if this is available

• wearing a mask (for adolescents and older children); younger children and others who cannot wear a mask can be encouraged to observe the other behaviours

• covering coughs and sneezes

• performing regular hand hygiene with soap and water or hand sanitiser.

Good ventilation is also a factor in reducing transmission, but not everyone can modify this in their living situation.

If someone in the household has COVID, high touch surfaces such as door handles, kitchen bench tops, switches and taps should be regularly cleaned.

Personal household items such as cutlery, dishes and towels should be washed before being shared. Regular household disinfectant is sufficient.

The authors would like to acknowledge Christine Lau, paediatrician, and Nadine Shaw, clinical nurse consultant, Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network, for their contributions to this article.

Brendan McMullan receives funding from the Curing Homesickness Foundation and NSW Ministry of Health. He is affiliated with the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases.

Philip Britton receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Commonwealth Department of Health and NSW Ministry of Health.

– ref. Got a child with COVID at home? Here’s how to look after them – https://theconversation.com/got-a-child-with-covid-at-home-heres-how-to-look-after-them-166732

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Burke, Professor of Environmental Politics & International Relations, UNSW

Scientists recently confirmed the Amazon rainforest is now emitting more carbon dioxide than it absorbs, due to uncontrolled burning and deforestation. It brings the crucial ecosystem closer to a tipping point that would see it replaced by savanna and trigger accelerated global heating.

This is not an isolated example of nature being damaged at a mass scale. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change this month confirmed global heating is now affecting every continent, region and ocean on Earth. That includes Australia, which is a global deforestation hotspot and where the Great Barrier Reef is headed for virtual extinction.

In the face of such horrors, a new international campaign is calling for “ecocide” – the killing of ecology – to be deemed an international “super crime” in the order of genocide. The campaign has attracted high-profile supporters including French President Emmanuel Macron, Pope Francis and Swedish activist Greta Thunberg.

Making ecocide an international crime is an appropriate response to the gravity of this harm and could help prevent mass environmental destruction. But whether it does so will depend on how the crime is defined.

Defining ecocide

The global campaign is being led by the Stop Ecocide Foundation. Last month an independent legal panel advising the campaign released a proposed amendment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It would make ecocide a crime, defining it as:

unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.

Defining a new international crime is a tricky balance. It must:

• capture the gravity, nature and extent of the harm
• set appropriate, but not impossible, standards of proof
• set moral standards that other international laws should follow.

The draft definition marks an important step in getting ecocide on the international agenda. And it does a good job of defining and balancing the core elements of ecocide – “severe” and either “widespread” or “long-term” damage to “any element of the environment”.

Laudably, these core elements show a concern for ecosystem integrity, human rights to a healthy environment, and the way grave damage to ecosystems can have devastating local and planetary consequences well into the future. This is a significant achievement.

Despite these strengths, lawyers and scholars, including ourselves, have identified problems with the definition.

Read more:
Repeating mistakes: why the plan to protect the world’s wildlife falls short

Towards an ecological approach

A key concern is that the proposed definition considers only “unlawful” or “wanton” acts to be ecocide.

Most environmental destruction is not illegal. We need look no further than Australia’s land clearing laws or, indeed, federal environment law which has comprehensively failed to protect nature.

Under the proposed definition, lawful acts are only ecocidal if they are “wanton” – defined as “reckless disregard for damage which would be clearly excessive in relation to the social and economic and benefits anticipated”.

This condition assumes some ecocidal damage is acceptable in the name of human progress. According to the panel, such “socially beneficial acts” might include building housing developments and transport links.

This assumption furthers the human-centred privilege and “get-out-of-jail” clauses that have so weakened international environmental law to date.

We are not saying that housing, transport links or farms should not be built. But, in a period some scientists are calling the sixth mass extinction, they cannot come at the expense of crucial species and ecosystems. Sustainable development must respect this boundary.

The assumption also fails to recognise the gravity of ecocide. Such trade-offs – formally known as “derogations” – are rejected by international conventions governing slavery, torture, sexual violence, and fundamental human rights.

For example, the Convention Against Torture states:

no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

An international crime of ecocide must meet a similar standard. It should recognise that all forms of life, and the ecological systems that support them, have value for their own sake.

This perspective is known as multispecies justice. It holds that human well-being is bound to flourishing ecosystems, which have an intrinsic value outside the human use for them.

Genocide – the annihilation of human groups – is recognised as a crime against humanity. As political philosopher Hannah Arendt argued, genocide is an attack on human diversity that erodes the “very nature of mankind” and poses a grave threat to global order.

In the same way, the definition of ecocide should recognise that acts which destroy biological diversity, and lead to species extinction, threaten the very nature and survival of Earth’s multi-species community.

In Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe, the Balkans and more recently Myanmar, millions were killed and dispersed under a crime against humanity known as “ethnic cleansing”. Yet this killing and dispersal is happening to non-human communities as we write. The vast habitat destroyed by deforestation is as important to displaced animals as our homes are to us.

And this is a shared calamity. Mass environmental destruction is an attack on the foundations of all life that makes up the biosphere, of which humanity is only a part.

Read more:
There’s no end to the damage humans can wreak on the climate. This is how bad it’s likely to get

What should be done?

The Stop Ecocide Foundation says the proposed definition will now be “made available for states to consider”.

As they do so, we ought to work towards a definition of ecocide that puts non-human lives at its centre. The crime of ecocide must be defined in a way that honours its victims – the myriad beings of the Earth.

In the meantime, political efforts to rein in biodiversity destruction must become an urgent global priority. And citizens can press their governments to criminalise the ecocidal acts that have become business as usual.

Read more:
Ordinary people, extraordinary change: addressing the climate emergency through ‘quiet activism’

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. Human progress is no excuse to destroy nature. A push to make ‘ecocide’ a global crime must recognise this fundamental truth – https://theconversation.com/human-progress-is-no-excuse-to-destroy-nature-a-push-to-make-ecocide-a-global-crime-must-recognise-this-fundamental-truth-164594

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Benjamin, Associate Professor in Maritime Archaeology, Flinders University and ARC Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, Flinders University

When people arrived in Australia more than 65,000 years ago, they landed on shores that are now deep under water. The first footprints on this continent took place on these now-submerged landscapes.

More than 2 million square kilometres of Australia’s continental landmass — an area larger than Queensland — was drowned by sea-level rise over the last 20,000 years. This land was once home to thousands of generations of Indigenous peoples.

Read more:
Australia’s coastal living is at risk from sea level rise, but it’s happened before

Despite the scale of this vast drowned cultural landscape, Australia has fallen behind international best practice in locating, recording and protecting submerged Indigenous cultural places.

Last year, our team reported the discovery of nearly 300 stone artefacts submerged on the continental shelf off northwestern Australia.

This discovery demonstrated that submerged Indigenous sites are likely to exist around the continent, but remain unknown due to a lack of investigation.

Read more:
In a first discovery of its kind, researchers have uncovered an ancient Aboriginal archaeological site preserved on the seabed

The big picture and the local scale

In two new studies published in Australian Archaeology, we outline approaches to help us better understand and manage Indigenous underwater cultural heritage.

Through a two-pronged approach at both the local and regional level, we review big data to predict the location of sites. We also put boots on the ground and divers in the water to find and record them.

At the local level, our research at Murujuga in northwest Australia indicates we must combine archaeological data from above and below the water to understand the past landscape at periods of lower sea level.

Drawing on evidence from across terrestrial, coastal and submerged environments, we found archaeological material in all three zones.

Our study also aligns archaeological practice with histories of Indigenous Australians, who describe cultural landscapes extending into Sea Country. Some oral histories describe past sea-level rise and drowned cultural landscapes.

At the regional scale, our study shows how research into submerged landscapes can be expanded across Australia. Taking the Northern Territory as a case study, we assessed the potential for archaeological material to be preserved on the seabed.

National environmental frameworks, such as Marine bioregional plans for Australia’s seabed focus largely on marine biodiversity and habitats, only acknowledging archaeology through a selection of historic shipwrecks.

With few regional or state-level mechanisms in place to inform marine management planning, Indigenous underwater cultural heritage has been ignored or marginalised. There is now an opportunity and an ethical obligation to integrate Indigenous perspectives and traditional knowledge into marine science research.

Threats to underwater Indigenous heritage

Indigenous underwater cultural heritage is threatened by a variety of activities, including dredging, offshore cables and pipelines, seabed mining, and oil and gas exploration.

Such developments can cause significant damage and even explosions and fires in the sea, as witnessed recently in the Gulf of Mexico.

We can expect increased pressure on coastal and submerged sites with the increasing impacts of climate change. Without mechanisms to consider the archaeology in the intertidal zone of Australia (the transitional area between land and sea) and the seabed, such disturbances will occur out of sight and out of mind.

Some state and local laws protect underwater cultural heritage, but these vary across the country. The national Underwater Cultural Heritage Act also does not adequately protect Indigenous cultural heritage.

The UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage protects all heritage greater than 100 years old, including both colonial-era sites and Indigenous underwater cultural heritage. But Australia’s national policy currently does not align with the convention.

Our systems must change

Archaeologists working in partnership with Indigenous communities must take a central role in scientific research, management of marine environments and industry-led campaigns, incorporating archaeology into environmental impact assessments.

Industry has begun to respond. One company, Woodside Energy, for example, has acknowledged the importance of this issue, and has engaged with the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation. The company says it has

sought to understand the potential heritage values of the submerged cultural landscape for the proposed Scarborough pipeline.

This is a new paradigm for the offshore sector in Australia and a sign of things to come as industry and policy-makers respond to scientific advances and new knowledge.

Coastal peoples all over the world have made a significant contribution to human history. Only through underwater archaeology can we fully understand these past peoples who called coastal environments their home.

Jonathan Benjamin receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Northern Territory Government.

Chelsea Wiseman receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Northern Territory Government.

John McCarthy receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Northern Territory Government.

Peter Jeffries receives/has received funding from Woodside, ARC Linkage, AHG (Commonwealth) Lotterywest, Yara and Rio Tinto. Peter is also co-chair of the Forum for Directors of Indigenous Organisations (FDIO).

Sean Ulm receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Australia’s coastal waters are rich in Indigenous cultural heritage, but it remains hidden and under threat – https://theconversation.com/australias-coastal-waters-are-rich-in-indigenous-cultural-heritage-but-it-remains-hidden-and-under-threat-166564

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

As New Zealand grapples to bring a Delta outbreak under control and to accelerate the vaccination rollout, social cohesion is vital for a successful elimination strategy.

Political consensus on elimination has endured so far. Unlike the anti-mask and anti-vaccination movements elsewhere, most New Zealanders continue to back the prime minister’s decision to place the country under the strictest lockdown.

But strains on public consensus are beginning to show, with a less-than-ideal parliament, some pushback against lockdowns and agitation to “open up”.

These debates will become more pressing as the government moves towards difficult discussions about an exit strategy and targets for vaccination rates.

Dissent and debate within parliament

At the highest level, the country has been let down by all sides.

During last year’s nation-wide lockdown, the prime minister created the epidemic response committee. It reflected a government confident enough to be questioned in public through a parliamentary body it did not control. The opposition was constructive in finding the best ways forward. This was constitutional governance at its best.

This time, all sides of the political spectrum have failed. It began with the decision to suspend the parliamentary sitting, on the advice of the director-general of health. Any such advice should have been given in conjunction with the attorney-general, as it has significant constitutional consequences.

The epidemic response committee was not resuscitated. Following a wave of criticism, the government floated a virtual option. Opposition parties rejected this, forcing the government to recall a truncated parliament with enhanced social distancing rules.

As a result, very few politicians are in parliament; and smaller parties are staying away for health (not constitutional) reasons. This is a poor example of how our country should be governed in at a time of emergency.

Dissent in the wider community

Dealing with protests outside parliament during this pandemic is equally difficult. The important point here is that people have rights, but these rights may be subject to reasonable limits.

All New Zealanders have a right to peaceful assembly in public to protest, but this can be curtailed by conditions of where, when and how. Fundamentally, nobody has a right to public protest in the middle of a national lockdown.

Other rights, such as freedom of expression, remain intact, pandemic or not. However, this too is not without limits. For example, advocacy is permissible in a speech about vaccination in a public space, but it cannot be misleading or factually incorrect.

Read more:
Phased border reopening, faster vaccination, be ready for Delta: Jacinda Ardern lays out NZ’s COVID roadmap

The above examples generally relate to situations in which a minority group is trying to influence the majority view. But the debate gets more complex when the majority tries to make smaller groups do things they disagree with.

Compulsion and harm to others

Vaccination is likely to bring this issue to a head. The government has released a plan for a phased border opening, based on its elimination strategy. The plan would eventually allow vaccinated travellers from low-risk countries to enter without quarantine.

This will only be possible once a high proportion of New Zealanders is vaccinated. Earlier modelling shows that, for the alpha variant of COVID-19, around 80-85% of the population would need to be vaccinated before New Zealand can relax border controls. For the more transmissible Delta strain, the source of New Zealand’s current outbreak, we would need to reach 97% of the population.

While Australia and other countries are now discussing how to adapt to an ongoing presence of COVID-19, accepting deaths and hospitalisations, New Zealand so far maintains elimination as a strategy “to stamp out the virus and keep our options open”.

Whatever vaccination target will be necessary, getting there from the current level of 21% of the population fully vaccinated will be a challenge. The government will likely need to use incentives and some degree of compulsion.

Read more:
What rights do NZ children and their parents have when giving consent to be vaccinated?

Free vaccinations, if delivered conveniently and safely as part of a targeted public health education campaign to overcome vaccine hesitancy, are an effective tool. Lowering the age for vaccinations will also lift the overall percentage of uptake. If all else fails, even cash incentives may help to increase voluntary vaccination.

But compulsion might become necessary. While the general rule is that people can refuse medical treatments, in times of emergency this can be trumped and regulations could be introduced to enforce vaccination. This is where we must be careful. The temptation will be to use compulsion or heavy-handed pressure (such as restricting social welfare) against those who choose not to get vaccinated.

So far, the government has only introduced law to make it mandatory that certain workers, such as those at the border, are vaccinated. This is done to reduce the risk to others, and it is the correct measure to use.

If people choose not to be vaccinated and risk harming others, the government should intervene, explaining the risk the unvaccinated pose, apart from their potential self-harm. It should then pass laws to allow reasonable levels of discrimination against people who refuse the vaccine.

This means if a risk of harm to others can be shown, it may become acceptable to stop unvaccinated people from entering restaurants, but not from buying food from a supermarket (although strict safety measures may be insisted upon). Conversely, if an unvaccinated person risks harming only themselves, the government should let them carry the full consequences of their choice.

Alexander Gillespie 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 are the limits of dissent as NZ locks down, vaccinates and prepares to ‘open up’? – https://theconversation.com/what-are-the-limits-of-dissent-as-nz-locks-down-vaccinates-and-prepares-to-open-up-166892

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society and NATSEM, University of Canberra

“The Art of Making Money” is the sort of book title you might see in an airport bookshop. But the (now not so) “Young British Artist” Damien Hirst has taken it rather literally.

Hirst’s latest art project, called The Currency, comprises 10,000 A4 sized pieces of handmade paper covered in very similar but not identical coloured spots. The back of each is numbered and signed by the artist with an arty title. Like actual contemporary bank notes, each also has a watermark, a microdot and a hologram to make it hard to forge.

The interesting twist is that Hirst has made this into an interesting experiment in the highly irrational economics of collectibles and blockchain technology.

Read more:
A token sale: Christie’s to auction its first blockchain-backed digital-only artwork

Each painting has a digital certificate of ownership — a so-called non-fungible token (NFT). In fact, the buyers of each work have paid US$2,000 for the electronic token only. If they want the physical artwork, they must choose by July 21 2022 to trade in their token. If they do so the token will be destroyed. If they decide to keep the token, the artwork will be destroyed. They cannot have both.

Adding to the fun is the secondary trade in the NFTs — highlighting just how much of the art market is driven by money rather than love. The sale of all 10,000 works is worth $US20 million. But over the past month, since the artworks went on sale, there have been more than 1,800 resales, for almost US$40 million. The highest price paid so far is US$120,000, for No. 6272, titled “Yes”.

These secondary sales already give us some insight as to whether buyers will treat the artworks as essentially homogenous (or “fungible” in economic jargon). But other questions remain. How many buyers will prefer to have the physical artwork or the digital token? Will this preference differ between art lovers and speculators? Will the buyers wait until the last possible days to decide whether to convert to preserve the “option value”?

Read more:
Damien Hirst’s ‘The Currency’: what we’ll discover when this NFT art project is over

On one question, though, we can be most confident of the answer. Despite the art project’s name, these artworks don’t make very good currency.

What makes a currency?

For one thing they are not divisible. It would be hard to buy something worth a lot less than one of the paintings with them. One could rip a a sheet in half but, as with half a bank note, it’s unlikely anyone would consider the value of the two pieces anywhere near the original.

So while Hirst’s works have many of the attributes of actual currency, they still lack attributes critical to work as currency. In this sense they are similar to so-called “cryptocurrencies”. Even the two best-known, Bitcoin and Dogecoin, can barely be used to buy anything, because few merchants accept them. The thousands of less well-known cryptocurrencies are even more useless for making payments.

The market for ‘the currency’

The original sale of the artworks worked like an initial public offering of shares. Aspiring buyers could register and say how many they wanted (but not nominate which individual work). The offering was over-subscribed, as more than 30,000 people wanted more than 60,000 tokens (that is, three time the available number).

This demand has spilled over into a secondary electronic marketplace (managed by HENI, the company that handled the initial sales). The graph below shows these sales.

Secondary sales of Damien Hirst’s ‘Currency’ art works

Almost 500 are currently listed for sale. Most of the recent sales were for about US$50,000, more than 20 times the original asking price. What makes one work worth more than another? That’s hard to say, though titles appear to play a big part. “Yes”, which exchanged hands for US$120,000, for example, is one of the few works with a one-word title.

Valuing collectables

Hirst’s experiment already highlights the strange economics of pricing collectables.

In economics the standard valuation technique “discounts” future values. It assumes a bird in the hand is worth more than one in the bush.

But art works and similar collectables are different. While some buy for love, speculators buy for money — on the assumption the value will be more in the future. The rationale is essentially the “greater fool theory” — the hope they can sell to another speculator at a higher price. That buyer in turn must expect someone else will pay even more. And so it goes on. Hirst’s experiment has so far demonstrated this graphically.

This often leads to a speculative bubble, which usually ends in tears. The price may collapse. As Isaac Newton ruefully remarked after after losing £20,000 in the South Sea Bubble of 1720: “I can calculate the motions of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people.”

Read more:
NFTs hit the big league, but not everyone will win from this new sports craze

By coincidence, Hirst’s artworks are currently trading around the same price as one Bitcoin.

I think the paintings are at least pretty. And there’s the option at least to swap the NFT into a physical form the owner can hang on their wall. There are enough people who would like to do that to give this artful “currency” some underlying fundamental value.

That can’t be said of cryptocurrencies.

John Hawkins does not own any of ‘the currency’.

– ref. Damien Hirst’s dotty ‘currency’ art makes as much sense as Bitcoin – https://theconversation.com/damien-hirsts-dotty-currency-art-makes-as-much-sense-as-bitcoin-166958