Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dougal Sutherland, Clinical Psychologist, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

New Zealand will begin easing its national lockdown from next Tuesday, but only after a five-day extension of some of the world’s strictest COVID-19 restrictions.

New Zealand will then remain at alert level 3 for two weeks, before a further government review and decision on May 11 about whether to relax restrictions further.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said the sacrifice New Zealanders have made to date has been huge, but the short extension of level 4 conditions – to cover a public holiday long weekend – locks in the gains made and provides added certainty.

Waiting to move alert levels next week cost us just two more business days but gives us much greater long-term health and economic returns down the track. It means we are less likely to have to go backwards.

She also reiterated New Zealand’s goal of eliminating COVID-19.

Elimination doesn’t mean zero cases, it means zero tolerance for cases. It means when a case emerges, and it will, we test, we contact trace, we isolate, and we do that every single time with the ambition that when we see COVID-19, we eliminate it. That is how we will keep our transmission rate under 1, and it is how we will keep succeeding.

As of Monday April 20, New Zealand has had 1,440 cases of COVID-19. 12 people have died from COVID-19 in New Zealand, while 974 people have recovered.

Below, New Zealand experts in public health, psychology, economics and politics give their take on the government’s decision.

A cautious welcome from a leading elimination advocate

Today’s announcement about stepping down the response levels is a welcome one. Last month New Zealand made the big decision to adopt an elimination goal in response to COVID-19 and go into a very tight lockdown. That move has achieved much in terms of reducing virus transmission and giving us time to get key systems working to ensure we can sustain elimination.

The discussion now is all about coming out of alert level 4 in a way that provides a high level of certainty we will achieve elimination. This is very different to coming out of lockdown in most countries, where the goal is just to suppress transmission rather than achieve elimination.

There are reasons we need to be cautious. The modelling work conducted by Te Pūnaha Matatini suggests we need two more weeks in lockdown to improve the chances of virus elimination. There are also concerns about partial opening of schools and early childhood centres at alert level 3 when there is uncertainty about the role of children in COVID-19 transmission.

That said, the move to level 3 on April 28 is probably a manageable compromise. We need to get businesses working again for the health of people and the economy.

– Professor of public health at the University of Otago Michael Baker

Read more: ‘Overjoyed’: a leading health expert on New Zealand’s coronavirus shutdown, and the challenging weeks ahead

New clusters will emerge, but COVID-19 is under control

As Prime Minister Ardern stated today, the effective reproduction number is now less than 0.5 (~0.48). If you contrast this to the situation roughly one month back, this number was around 2, and the infection was taking on an exponential growth.

In the absence of a vaccine, New Zealand have been successful in containing the epidemic using strong public health measures. When you combine this with increasing numbers of tests and contact tracing, the claim that community transmission is under control and transmission rate is low is fully justified.

Contact tracing works best during the “tail” of the epidemic, either during the first phase when the epidemic is “rising” or situations such as this in New Zealand when the infection is “dying out”.

We have ramped up our contact tracing at this stage and this will be sure to interrupt the chain of transmission of new outbreaks, as contact tracing and isolation will quickly bring the effective reproduction number under control. We may continue to see some new clusters emerge but they can be quickly addressed and mitigated.

– Associate professor of epidemiology and environmental health at the University of Canterbury Arindam Basu

Read more: The ‘herd immunity’ route to fighting coronavirus is unethical and potentially dangerous

Relief and a renewed sense of purpose

Many New Zealanders will likely feel a sense of relief about the government’s announcement that we will come out of level 4 lockdown next Monday night. Most seemed to be hoping for this response and to have stayed at Level 4 for any longer may have prompted exhaustion and frustration.

However, we are now on the home straight and the finish line is in sight. Moving out of level 4 with too little warning could have increased panic again, with schools and businesses rushing to prepare themselves and in doing so risking tripping up before the race is completed.

The allowance for businesses and schools to be restocked and cleaned this week may give people a sense of purpose and some level of control over their situation, perhaps cleverly diverting any restless energy into something productive. The timeline for when we might move out of level 3 further helps us psychologically, as clear expectations and boundaries assist us to feel calm and stick to the limits for one more week.

– Clinical psychologist at Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington Dougal Sutherland

Read more: The psychology of lockdown suggests sticking to rules gets harder the longer it continues

How every Kiwi can help catch future outbreaks

One key aspect of our response to COVID-19 continues to be understanding where the virus is being transmitted. Regardless of how the decision could have turned out today, we really do need to keep track of our movements.

This means we should keep a diary of where we’ve been and who we’ve been with for the foreseeable future. If we ever become infected with COVID-19 or a close contact of someone who has the virus, tracing 80% of all our close contacts within three days is the “gold standard”.

We can all help speed this up by tracking our movements. To remind us where we’ve all been, we could use social media check-ins, Google location history, or, if we have been shopping, we can look at our receipts or credit card and EFTPOS records.

There has also been discussion about technology and apps as one solution to controlling the pandemic. But, let’s not forget, we need COVID-19 testing for any apps to work. No tests, no point in an app, because these apps rely on testing. The apps are only ever a support to the hard work of testing and contact tracing.

– Associate professor in health and medical geography at the University of Canterbury Malcolm Campbell

Protecting lives as well as livelihoods

I am delighted with the decision of our government to extend the level 4 restrictions by only five days. The prime minister noted that our estimate of the transmission rate of the virus dropped to 0.48. This is not only far less than elsewhere in the world, but also less than the assumptions made by some modellers. It highlights how rigorously most Kiwis adhere to level 4 restrictions.

Political realities aside – and noting that the key coalition partner obviously had to be taken on board – the decision gives us the ability to take sufficiently good control of the epidemic before allowing some 400,000 New Zealanders to return to some form of paid employment, which is essential for their well-being.

I am particularly delighted the prime minister was again able to find the middle ground and balance the protection of our lives and livelihoods.

– Professor of macroeconomics at Massey University Martin Berka

Read more: Protecting lives and livelihoods: the data on why New Zealand should relax its coronavirus lockdown from Thursday

The politics of uniting a coalition government

The prime minister made it clear today’s decision was based on the recommendation of the director-general of health. So there is science in here – but there is politics too.

Jacinda Ardern heads a coalition government containing ministers from three different parties. The challenges of holding a multi-party government together in the best of times are formidable, and call for a range of political leadership skills that are not always required of single party governments. These are not the best of times, of course, so the fact no one in Ardern’s government has – so far – publicly broken ranks on the government’s approach to the COVID-19 crisis speaks volumes for the way the government is being run.

One other advantage of coalition governments is they can bring a wider range of perspectives and voices to policy decision making than is sometimes possible under single party government. When three parties govern together they necessarily bring a significant swathe of public opinion into the process. Decisions, therefore, are likely to be supported and to endure in ways that do not always occur when there is just one party at the cabinet table.

But no matter how many parties there are in government, there can only be one government and one message. The prime minister’s job today was to ensure each of the governing parties’ perspectives contributed to the final decision to come out of alert level 4.

It is still too soon to tell, but the early indications are that she got the call right.

– Professor of politics at Massey University Richard Shaw

Stay in touch with The Conversation’s coverage from New Zealand experts by signing up for our weekly NZ newsletter – delivered to you each Wednesday.

– ref. Delight, relief and caution: six experts on New Zealand’s move to ease its coronavirus lockdown – https://theconversation.com/delight-relief-and-caution-six-experts-on-new-zealands-move-to-ease-its-coronavirus-lockdown-136715

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liz Minchin, Executive Editor, New Zealand

The Conversation is expanding our New Zealand coverage by appointing Finlay Macdonald as the new NZ Editor: Politics, Business + Arts.

Finlay is an award-winning journalist, editor, publisher and broadcaster with 30 years’ experience in the New Zealand media. He has been editor of current affairs magazine The Listener, a publisher at Penguin Books and HarperCollins, a weekly columnist for the Sunday Star-Times, and has written and presented for television and radio.

Finlay will now work alongside Veronika Meduna, who becomes the New Zealand Editor: Science, Health + Environment, as well as our team of Australian-based editors.

Since starting at The Conversation in 2017, Veronika has published more than 400 stories by New Zealand experts, reaching a global audience of more than 11.7 million article views.

The Conversation delivers news differently. Articles are commissioned and edited by journalists but written only by academic experts. Everything we do is free to read, share and republish.

With Finlay joining our team, we will be able to share even more New Zealand expertise on global issues like COVID-19 with our many existing NZ media republishers – including Stuff, The New Zealand Herald, RNZ, The Spinoff, Newsroom – as well as international republishers including the BBC, ABC News, Scientific American, The Washington Post, Jakarta Globe and more.

Last month, The Conversation audience in Australia and New Zealand doubled to more than 26 million reads to articles, on The Conversation site and via republishers.

As a not-for-profit publisher, The Conversation can only expand our coverage thanks to the crucial support of readers like you, and ongoing funding from our local university partners: the Auckland University of Technology, Massey University, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington, University of Canterbury, University of Otago, and University of Waikato.

If you’re new to The Conversation, you can read about our charter, our latest public report for readers and partners, or how anyone can republish our articles for free.

You can stay in touch with The Conversation’s coverage from New Zealand experts by signing up for our free weekly NZ newsletter – delivered to you each Wednesday.

And if you would like to support The Conversation’s Australia and New Zealand’s work, please consider becoming a Friend and voluntary donor to The Conversation. (Please note that donations are in Australian dollars, but all donations will be used to support our joint New Zealand and Australian team.)

Thank you again for your support. And if you’d like to welcome Finlay, or have any questions or comments about our New Zealand coverage, please leave your comment below and I’ll do my best to get back to you.

– ref. Finlay Macdonald joins The Conversation in New Zealand – https://theconversation.com/finlay-macdonald-joins-the-conversation-in-new-zealand-136611

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dougal Sutherland, Clinical Psychologist, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

New Zealand will begin easing its national lockdown from next Tuesday, but only after a five-day extension of some of the world’s strictest COVID-19 restrictions.

New Zealand will then remain at alert level 3 for two weeks, before a further government review and decision on May 11 about whether to relax restrictions further.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said the sacrifice New Zealanders have made to date has been huge, but the short extension of level 4 conditions – to cover a public holiday long weekend – locks in the gains made and provides added certainty.

Waiting to move alert levels next week cost us just two more business days but gives us much greater long-term health and economic returns down the track. It means we are less likely to have to go backwards.

She also reiterated New Zealand’s goal of eliminating COVID-19.

Elimination doesn’t mean zero cases, it means zero tolerance for cases. It means when a case emerges, and it will, we test, we contact trace, we isolate, and we do that every single time with the ambition that when we see COVID-19, we eliminate it. That is how we will keep our transmission rate under 1, and it is how we will keep succeeding.

As of Monday April 20, New Zealand has had 1,440 cases of COVID-19. 12 people have died from COVID-19 in New Zealand, while 974 people have recovered.

Below, New Zealand experts in public health, psychology, economics and politics give their take on the government’s decision.

New clusters will emerge, but COVID-19 is under control

As Prime Minister Ardern stated today, the effective reproduction number is now less than 0.5 (~0.48). If you contrast this to the situation roughly one month back, this number was around 2, and the infection was taking on an exponential growth.

In the absence of a vaccine, New Zealand have been successful in containing the epidemic using strong public health measures. When you combine this with increasing numbers of tests and contact tracing, the claim that community transmission is under control and transmission rate is low is fully justified.

Contact tracing works best during the “tail” of the epidemic, either during the first phase when the epidemic is “rising” or situations such as this in New Zealand when the infection is “dying out”.

We have ramped up our contact tracing at this stage and this will be sure to interrupt the chain of transmission of new outbreaks, as contact tracing and isolation will quickly bring the effective reproduction number under control. We may continue to see some new clusters emerge but they can be quickly addressed and mitigated.

– Associate professor of epidemiology and environmental health at the University of Canterbury Arindam Basu

Read more: The ‘herd immunity’ route to fighting coronavirus is unethical and potentially dangerous

Relief and a renewed sense of purpose

Many New Zealanders will likely feel a sense of relief about the government’s announcement that we will come out of level 4 lockdown next Monday night. Most seemed to be hoping for this response and to have stayed at Level 4 for any longer may have prompted exhaustion and frustration.

However, we are now on the home straight and the finish line is in sight. Moving out of level 4 with too little warning could have increased panic again, with schools and businesses rushing to prepare themselves and in doing so risking tripping up before the race is completed.

The allowance for businesses and schools to be restocked and cleaned this week may give people a sense of purpose and some level of control over their situation, perhaps cleverly diverting any restless energy into something productive. The timeline for when we might move out of level 3 further helps us psychologically, as clear expectations and boundaries assist us to feel calm and stick to the limits for one more week.

– Clinical psychologist at Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington Dougal Sutherland

Read more: The psychology of lockdown suggests sticking to rules gets harder the longer it continues

How every Kiwi can help catch future outbreaks

One key aspect of our response to COVID-19 continues to be understanding where the virus is being transmitted. Regardless of how the decision could have turned out today, we really do need to keep track of our movements.

This means we should keep a diary of where we’ve been and who we’ve been with for the foreseeable future. If we ever become infected with COVID-19 or a close contact of someone who has the virus, tracing 80% of all our close contacts within three days is the “gold standard”.

We can all help speed this up by tracking our movements. To remind us where we’ve all been, we could use social media check-ins, Google location history, or, if we have been shopping, we can look at our receipts or credit card and EFTPOS records.

There has also been discussion about technology and apps as one solution to controlling the pandemic. But, let’s not forget, we need COVID-19 testing for any apps to work. No tests, no point in an app, because these apps rely on testing. The apps are only ever a support to the hard work of testing and contact tracing.

– Associate professor in health and medical geography at the University of Canterbury Malcolm Campbell

Protecting lives as well as livelihoods

I am delighted with the decision of our government to extend the level 4 restrictions by only five days. The prime minister noted that our estimate of the transmission rate of the virus dropped to 0.48. This is not only far less than elsewhere in the world, but also less than the assumptions made by some modellers. It highlights how rigorously most Kiwis adhere to level 4 restrictions.

Political realities aside – and noting that the key coalition partner obviously had to be taken on board – the decision gives us the ability to take sufficiently good control of the epidemic before allowing some 400,000 New Zealanders to return to some form of paid employment, which is essential for their well-being.

I am particularly delighted the prime minister was again able to find the middle ground and balance the protection of our lives and livelihoods.

– Professor of macroeconomics at Massey University Martin Berka

Read more: Protecting lives and livelihoods: the data on why New Zealand should relax its coronavirus lockdown from Thursday

The politics of uniting a coalition government

The prime minister made it clear today’s decision was based on the recommendation of the director-general of health. So there is science in here – but there is politics too.

Jacinda Ardern heads a coalition government containing ministers from three different parties. The challenges of holding a multi-party government together in the best of times are formidable, and call for a range of political leadership skills that are not always required of single party governments. These are not the best of times, of course, so the fact no one in Ardern’s government has – so far – publicly broken ranks on the government’s approach to the COVID-19 crisis speaks volumes for the way the government is being run.

One other advantage of coalition governments is they can bring a wider range of perspectives and voices to policy decision making than is sometimes possible under single party government. When three parties govern together they necessarily bring a significant swathe of public opinion into the process. Decisions, therefore, are likely to be supported and to endure in ways that do not always occur when there is just one party at the cabinet table.

But no matter how many parties there are in government, there can only be one government and one message. The prime minister’s job today was to ensure each of the governing parties’ perspectives contributed to the final decision to come out of alert level 4.

It is still too soon to tell, but the early indications are that she got the call right.

– Professor of politics at Massey University Richard Shaw

– ref. Delight, relief and caution: five experts on New Zealand’s move to ease its coronavirus lockdown – https://theconversation.com/delight-relief-and-caution-five-experts-on-new-zealands-move-to-ease-its-coronavirus-lockdown-136715

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katharine Kemp, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, UNSW, and Academic Lead, UNSW Grand Challenge on Trust, UNSW

Digital platforms such as Google and Facebook will be forced to compensate news media companies for using their content, under a new mandatory code to be drawn up by Australia’s competition watchdog.

The announcement, made by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg today, follows last year’s landmark report by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), which found that news media businesses lack bargaining power in their negotiations with digital giants.

Read more: Government orders mandatory code of conduct for Google, Facebook

News media businesses have complained for years that the loss of advertising revenue to Google and Facebook threatens their survival. The economic crash caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has turned that crisis into an emergency.

Frydenberg pledged that the latest move will “level the playing field”, adding: “It’s only fair that those that generate content get paid for it.”

Power imbalance and tumbling profits

A mandatory code of conduct was not the original plan. When the ACCC released its report last year, it suggested that Google and Facebook should each negotiate with news media businesses to agree on how they should fairly share revenues generated when “the digital platform obtains value, directly or indirectly, from content produced by news media businesses”.

The report concluded that tech giants are currently enjoying the benefit of news businesses’ content without paying for the privilege.

For example, Google’s search results feature “news snippets” including content from news websites. Both Google and Facebook have quick-loading versions of news businesses’ articles that don’t display the full range of paid advertising that appears on the news websites’ own pages.

These tactics make it less likely users will click through to the actual news website, thus depriving media businesses of the ensuing subscription and advertising revenue. Meanwhile, as the ACCC report showed, media companies’ share of advertising revenue has itself been slashed over the past decade, as advertisers flock to Google and Facebook.

Platforms giveth, platforms taketh away

Why don’t news businesses negotiate compensation payments with the platforms themselves, rather than asking the government to step in?

The answer is the vast mismatch in bargaining power between Australian media companies and global digital giants.

The ACCC report found that digital platforms such as Google and Facebook are “an essential gateway for news for many consumers”, meaning the news businesses rely on them for “referral traffic”.

Put simply, much of news companies’ web traffic comes via readers clicking on links from Google and Facebook. But at the same time, these digital giants are dominating advertising revenues and using news companies’ content in competition with them.

The pandemic effect

The COVID-19 crisis has dealt a further blow to media companies’ advertising revenue, as potential advertisers are forced into economic hibernation or simply go out of business.

Content licensing payments from Google and Facebook could provide crucial alternative revenue. But if the payments are structured as a share of advertising income, the publishers will share in Google and Facebook’s own advertising downturn.

The ACCC will not unveil the draft code until July, so it is still unclear how the obligations will be implemented or enforced.

ACCC chief Rod Sims has pledged that Australia’s mandatory code of conduct will feature “heavy penalties” for Facebook and Google if they fail to comply, involving fines that are “large enough to matter”.

How might Google and Facebook react?

The platforms could conceivably attempt to sidestep the compensation rules by no longer providing users with quick-loading versions of news articles. Google could also cease publishing news snippets at the top of its search results, as it did in Spain when faced with similar obligations.

But there is evidence, albeit from news publishers themselves, that this would merely drive readers directly to publishers’ websites.

Read more: Australian media regulators face the challenge of dealing with global platforms Google and Facebook

Australia’s decision to abandon negotiations in favour of mandatory rules stands in contrast to the situation in France, the European state most advanced in the implementation of a similar policy flowing from the European Union’s 2019 Copyright Directive.

Earlier this month, France’s competition regulator ordered Google to negotiate in good faith with publishers on remuneration for use of content. Any agreed compensation will be backdated to October 24, 2019, when the Copyright Directive became law in France.

Google’s previous solution had been to require that publishers license the use of snippets of their content to Google at no charge. But France’s watchdog argued this was an abuse of Google’s dominant position.

Google and Facebook are likely to continue to resist these developments in Australia, knowing they could be copied in other jurisdictions.

Even if they do cooperate, it’s not yet clear that “levelling the playing field” with the tech giants will make any difference to the collapse of media advertising revenue driven by the coronavirus.

– ref. No more negotiating: new rules could finally force Google and Facebook to pay for news – https://theconversation.com/no-more-negotiating-new-rules-could-finally-force-google-and-facebook-to-pay-for-news-136718

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maximilian de Courten, Professor in Global Public Health, Victoria University

The number of people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who need to go to hospital is increasing.

So family members and friends will be asking whether they can visit their loved ones. People will also want to visit patients in hospital for another reason. Perhaps they’ve just given birth or are recovering after a heart attack.

Whether you can visit or not depends on a mix of policies put in place nationally, by the states, and by individual hospitals.

And as the situation can change daily, it’s best to check the hospital’s website or phone ahead to avoid being refused entry at the hospital gates.

Read more: Banning visitors to aged care during coronavirus raises several ethical questions – with no simple answers

Why are more people in hospital?

The number of new cases diagnosed with the coronavirus each day in Australia is decreasing. But the number of people expected to be hospitalised with a suspected or confirmed case is still increasing.

This is due to the time lag, because whether there’s a need to hospitalise a patient for COVID-19 only becomes evident around the fifth day after diagnosis, sometimes even later. Further, patients with severe COVID-19 often have to remain in hospital for some time.

Initial estimates by the World Health Organisation predicted about 81% of COVID-19 infections to be mild or have no symptoms. But about 14% develop severe disease and require oxygen and 5% become critically unwell, requiring mechanical ventilation.

The latest data for Australia look a little better with 8% receiving hospital care, including 2% being in intensive care units (ICU).

Read more: Why are older people more at risk of coronavirus?

People spend on average eight days in hospital with COVID-19. But if they develop serious complications and require a ventilator, the average length of stay might be double that.

This is much longer than the usual length of hospital stays which, for patients who spent at least one night in hospital, is 5.3 days overall.

How are hospital visits changing?

Before the coronavirus, hospitals encouraged family and friends to visit their loved ones as this can help reduce patients’ anxiety and stress, and may help them recover faster.

Visiting hours and hospital policies are set to limit traffic in and out of wards, allow treatment to take place and for patients to rest and recover.

Hospitals might also have asked visitors to clean their hands when they first arrived to avoid bringing infections in.

In light of COVID-19, much tougher restrictions are now in place to protect the patient, hospital staff and the visitors.

For patients with COVID-19, rules about visiting them in hospital, and especially in the ICU, may be very restricted. Visiting may be prohibited or, if allowed, only for a very short amount of time under extra precautions.

For example, in New South Wales, visitors must wear a surgical mask and protective eyewear if they are visiting a person suspected or confirmed to have coronavirus.

These restrictions are set nationally and by individual states, and adapted into the visiting policies of individual hospitals.

Read more: What does it mean to be immunocompromised? And why does this increase your risk of coronavirus?

Different states have different rules

The most recent rules for Victoria allow patients in public, private and denominational hospitals only one visit per day, a maximum of two visitors at a time and for up to two hours.

However, you will be prohibited from visiting if you have:

• been diagnosed with coronavirus and should be in isolation
• arrived in Australia within the last 14 days
• recently come into contact with a person confirmed to have the coronavirus
• a temperature over 37.5℃ or symptoms of a respiratory infection.

These restrictions are in place regardless of whether your loved one has COVID-19 or is in hospital for another reason.

In some cases, visitors can stay longer than two hours. These exemptions include parents or carers of people under 18, carers of people with a disability, the partner or support person of someone giving birth, a person accompanying a patient to the emergency department, or a person providing end-of-life support.

While most states and territories have issued similar advice, Tasmania has closed all hospitals to visitors after the recent coronavirus outbreak in the North West Regional Hospital in Burnie.

Hospitals in Tasmania will make exceptions for people visiting their partners at the birth of a child, parents visiting dependent children and for “compassionate and end-of-life reasons”. But a person visiting under any of these exemptions still needs to check with the hospital.

Hospitals also have their own rules

Hospitals around the country have also restricted visiting hours and numbers beyond what the health departments are mandating.

For instance, at our hospital in Victoria, currently only one visitor per patient per day is allowed, and no children under 16. Visitors to our ICU are limited to a maximum of ten minutes whereas during labour one partner or support person can be there for 24 hours.

On entry, staff will screen you for symptoms and signs of COVID-19. This might be done by asking you a series of questions and/or checking your temperature.

Read more: The coronavirus pandemic is forcing us to ask some very hard questions. But are we ready for the answers?

So as the rules vary across states, territories, individual hospitals – and even different wards within a single hospital – check the latest restrictions for your state and hospital before planning a visit.

– ref. Can I visit my loved one in hospital even if they don’t have coronavirus? – https://theconversation.com/can-i-visit-my-loved-one-in-hospital-even-if-they-dont-have-coronavirus-135565

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Freeland, Professor of International Law, Western Sydney University

As the world tries to cope with the challenges of 2020, discussions around the use of mined resources from outer space continue to ratchet up.

On April 6, the US White House released an executive order that Americans

should have the right to engage in commercial exploration, recovery, and use of resources in outer space, consistent with applicable law.

It also requires the US secretary of state to negotiate bilateral and multilateral arrangements with foreign states regarding future “public and private recovery and use of space resources”.

This edict prompts a fundamental legal and policy question: if the mining and use of space resources by governments and enterprises will ultimately take place, how will this be governed?

Broad international discussions on this topic among the now 95 member states (including Australia) of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space began in earnest in 2016. These were due to continue last month but were postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

To understand the impact of the US push for space mining, we need to consider the technological, commercial, legal, and historical contexts underpinning it.

Fly me to the Moon

Space is undeniably a challenging place for commercial activity. We have an understanding of the vast deposits of rare and valuable minerals such as gold, silver and platinum, and water sources that might be found on celestial bodies (including the moon and asteroids). That said, it would be technologically complex to fulfil any dreams of an off-Earth resources economy.

Read more: Mining asteroids could unlock untold wealth – here’s how to get started

In 2019 the Japanese spacecraft Hayabusa-2 successfully collected rock samples from the asteroid Ryugu, roughly 300 million km from Earth. They are expected to arrive on Earth (landing at Woomera in Australia) in December.

Notwithstanding this achievement, extracting resources in sufficient quantities to support a moon base, for example, is a long way off, and processing such resources into useful substances such as fuel is further still.

But technological challenges haven’t stopped small start-ups and companies like Blue Origin from pitching everything from asteroid mining to lunar fuel processing plants.

Given the scale of the required investment, these companies need legal assurances. In 2015, the US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act asserted the right of US companies to own and sell resources mined in space “obtained in accordance with applicable law, including the international obligations of the United States”.

The act prompted wide discussion on the scope of the relevant international law at the time, particularly as reflected in the Outer Space Treaty.

Read more: We should work together in the race to mine the solar system

To whom do (which) rules apply?

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 – to which 109 countries including Australia are states parties – sets out the fundamental principles that govern all space activities.

In addition to restricting the placement of nuclear weapons in Earth orbit and on celestial bodies (a momentous achievement in its own right), the treaty also expressly bans claims of sovereignty in outer space, including the moon, planets and asteroids. Instead, it declares space is free for exploration and use. This includes the exploitation of space natural resources within the terms of the principles by all nations.

Australia is also a party to the 1979 Moon Agreement, which allows mineral and other space resources to be used for scientific purposes and to support scientific missions.

It states when natural resources exploitation is “about to become feasible”, the state parties to that treaty will agree on an appropriate international regime. But the Moon Agreement has only 18 state parties, and was never agreed to by any major space power such as Russia, China or the US.

The US executive order acknowledges space resource mining activities are subject to international law. But from the US perspective, the relevant law is centred around the Outer Space Treaty, with the Moon Agreement playing no part.

International reaction

There’s little doubt there will be geopolitical pushback from other countries to the blunt language of the US Order. Russia has already likened America’s approach to colonialism.

But beyond the rhetoric, the White House order merely confirms what we already knew: the US wants its companies to be able to use space resources.

If space mining technologies are to be developed, and national governments aren’t in a position to fund such research, the private sector (with the necessary legal confidence) will have to put its own money on the table.

The executive order also confirms the US is committed to the Outer Space Treaty, which remains as important now as it was 1967, if not more so. Thankfully, this dispels worrying suggestions the US might consider withdrawing from this most fundamental of space law instruments.

Read more: As the world embraces space, the 50 year old Outer Space Treaty needs adaptation

Beyond agreeing a legal framework

The Outer Space Treaty requires space activities be “carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries”.

Within legal discussions about the extraction and use of space resources, there are important questions regarding international wealth inequality, power structures, and where the roles and rights of private corporations intersect with international regulation. There are also debates to be had on the ethical and societal implications of mining the moon and other celestial bodies.

As we move from the “potential” towards the “reality” of space mining, there will certainly be many more governmental pronouncements from all corners of the earth. In every sense of the phrase, we’ll need to “watch this space”.

– ref. Giant leap for corporations? The Trump administration wants to mine resources in space, but is it legal? – https://theconversation.com/giant-leap-for-corporations-the-trump-administration-wants-to-mine-resources-in-space-but-is-it-legal-136395

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milena Heinsch, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Brain and Mental Health, University of Newcastle

We’ve now been social distancing for several weeks. While these measures have allowed us to slow the spread of COVID-19, they’ve also upended our day-to-day lives.

If you’ve found yourself experiencing feelings of fear, anxiety, depression, boredom, anger, frustration or irritability, you’re not alone.

Older adults, health-care workers, people with pre-existing mental health conditions and people experiencing financial pressure could be particularly vulnerable to psychological distress at this time.

When feelings of psychological distress increase, suicidal thoughts and behaviours may also increase.

So how do we know when to be worried about someone we love, and how can we support them from afar?

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

Recognising the signs

During COVID-19, we may all be feeling more stressed than usual. That’s why we need to stay connected with each other online, on the phone and via text messages.

But it’s important we’re attuned to whether this extra stress and uncertainty is developing into something more for any of the people we care about.

Some warning signs for suicide might be easier to recognise when you can see a person’s facial expressions and gestures. But there are cues you can pick up on during text, phone or online communication.

Social withdrawal can indicate a person is at greater risk. Perhaps a friend or relative is increasingly difficult to contact via phone or text, disappears from social media or starts saying they just want to be alone.

A persistent drop in mood might be revealed on the phone by a flat tone of voice, talking less than usual or more slowly, and by shorter text messages or none at all.

Some people might say things like “you’d be better off without me” or “there’s nothing to live for”, which suggest they can’t see a way out of their situation and may be thinking about suicide.

If you’re worried someone you know might be suicidal, reaching out and having a conversation could save their life.

Talking on the phone or online

Choose a time and place where you can talk openly and without getting interrupted. This might be challenging when whole families are at home together for extended periods. But these can be sensitive and confronting conversations and it’s important to protect the person, as well as people in your family or household.

You could start the conversation by asking your friend or loved one how they are. You might also let them know you’ve noticed a change in them: “you don’t seem yourself”.

Starting the conversation may look different if you’re online. Perhaps someone has posted a comment or image on social media that seems unusual for them, or which makes it seem like they’re thinking about suicide. If so, contact them directly by sending a private message. It’s OK to talk online, just not in a public forum.

Read more: Is your mental health deteriorating during the coronavirus pandemic? Here’s what to look out for

Once you’ve started the conversation, ask directly about suicidal thoughts and intentions (for example, “are you thinking about suicide?”).

And be prepared they may answer “yes”. Then you just have to listen with supportive statements. Say things like “that sounds really tough” rather than “don’t be silly”.

Being at a distance can be an advantage

You might feel worried about having a difficult conversation on the phone or online, but this style of communication actually has some benefits.

People may feel more comfortable revealing suicidal thoughts, without fear of stigma, when communication isn’t face-to-face. And sometimes people find it easier to communicate via emoji, GIFs or images rather than having to find the words to express how they’re feeling.

Read more: Social distancing can make you lonely. Here’s how to stay connected when you’re in lockdown

Further, listening on the phone or via messaging gives us time to think about how to best respond, and to let our initial reactions pass.

This is important because negative reactions, like criticising or dismissing someone’s feelings, may make the person less likely to seek help and increase their thoughts of suicide.

Encourage them to get help

If you’re worried about someone and you think they’re at risk of suicide, offering help is important. Our research with people who had previously attempted suicide found although participants wouldn’t necessarily seek help, many said they would accept it if it were offered.

While talking with the person you’re worried about is an important first step, you may be able to guide them towards professional help. For example, they may want help to make an appointment with a GP or counsellor, or to call a crisis line.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Lauren Rogers, a research assistant at the University of Newcastle, contributed to this article.

– ref. Are you worried someone you care about is thinking of suicide? Here’s how you can support them from afar – https://theconversation.com/are-you-worried-someone-you-care-about-is-thinking-of-suicide-heres-how-you-can-support-them-from-afar-135940

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeanne Marie Iorio, Senior Lecturer, Early Childhood Education, University of Melbourne

At childcare and preschool, children experience belonging to a community and engage actively with their learning.

They also collaborate in groups, which helps them learn how to negotiate, listen and engage together.

Learning in this sense is layered and complex in that children aren’t just taught knowledge, but participate in constructing it. And because of this, a child’s learning never stops.

Even if your child has paused attending childcare or preschool due to COVID-19, they are still learning, every day and in every moment.

Parents are the most important teachers

Play is central to children’s learning experiences. It’s how they make meaning in their world, create, build and maintain relationships, and explore and engage with theories and questions.

Early childhood teachers work with children to create daily moments of play that ignite wonder, inquiry and surprise.

They do so by using ordinary moments – such as a group of children drawing a map of the community or a toddler reaching out to catch the rain – as the foundation for creating experiences that further children’s thinking and ideas.

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

The children and teachers are co-participants in the learning process. They collaborate to understand and make meaning of the relationships between each other, with the other children in the setting and with the environment.

These same collaborations of meaning-making and discovery occur in families.

Even the Early Years Learning Framework – the national guide for the early childhood curriculum – states that parents and families are “children’s first and most influential educators”.

And research shows children’s development and learning never actually pauses. Children will still learn, grow and develop despite not attending preschool and childcare.

They will continue to make meaning of their world as they think, question and play at home, or as they walk with a parent, or eat breakfast with their family.

Read more: 8 tips on what to tell your kids about coronavirus

Even ordinary negotiations with a child and parent can be learning experiences.

Imagine your child wants to play with you while you are busy answering emails. Stopping for a moment and listening to your child’s request, then responding with a simple, “I can play with you in 15 minutes”, offers an opportunity for the child to act with patience and empathy.

Listening, collaboration and compromise are all part of this very ordinary moment and become how child and parent learn in relationship with each other and build knowledge together.

Here are some other ways parents can create learning experiences at home.

A bag of things

Your home is full of rich materials for children to explore and through which they can understand the world.

For example, give young child a small bag and ask them to fill it with things like fallen leaves, old buttons, bottlecaps, string or small bits of paper.

Then clear a space, empty the bag, and give the child time and space to play with the gathered materials.

You might be immediately inclined to give your child a task or tell them what to do with the materials. But instead, wait and trust the child to find their own way.

Slowness is part of the process. It gives children time to question: where did this button come from?; what happens when I stack these bottlecaps?; how can I use this string to create something else?

Listen to what your child is saying and doing. Then see how you might support your child to think deeper about the materials.

You may notice how your child is grouping the materials, so you could ask: “how are you deciding which items go together?”

You can place some empty containers in the middle of the space as a response to grouping and see what happens.

Spend time listening again and thinking about what your child is theorising during the grouping of materials.

Is she grouping the objects into a particular shape, or by certain amounts? Perhaps your child will manipulate the shapes into a sculpture.

Read more: Kids at home because of coronavirus? Here are 4 ways to keep them happy (without resorting to Netflix)

In this shared example, categorising (making groups) moves to theory building (how items are grouped) to creating and building new knowledge (how items come together to create something new).

You can keep this collection to play with later, showing your child how to recycle materials.

You can find more ideas for what to do at home at Reggio Children

Relationships with a place

Learning happens in relationships – relationship with families, animals and insects, plants, oceans and mountains, pens, pencils, paper and paint, and places.

Find a place close to your home you can visit regularly, like a nearby park. Help your children notice a tree’s bark, or follow the tree with their eyes from ground to sky.

Get them to look at the things around them.

What made you and them want to go to this place? Was it the colours, sounds, smells, memories? Who are the Traditional Custodians of the Land on which this place is located?

Be slow in this place and help your children discover something new.

• does the creek change after it rains?

• do they see something new if they follow an ant?

• do buildings make different shadows when it is sunny?

In these complex times, these relationships are how we can empower children to understand and contribute to their new reality.

You can find more ideas about building relationships with places in Out and About

– ref. Don’t worry, your child’s early learning doesn’t stop just because they’re not in childcare – https://theconversation.com/dont-worry-your-childs-early-learning-doesnt-stop-just-because-theyre-not-in-childcare-134668

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jenny Graves, Distinguished Professor of Genetics, La Trobe University

All over the world – in China, Italy, the United States and Australia – many more men than women are dying from COVID-19.

Why? Is it genes, hormones, the immune system – or behaviour – that makes men more susceptible to the disease?

Read more: More testing will give us a better picture of the coronavirus spread and its slowdown

I see it as an interaction of all of these factors and it isn’t unique to the SARS-Cov-2 virus – the different response of men and women is typical of many diseases in many mammals.

The grim figures

In Italy and China deaths of men are more than double those of women. In New York city men constitute about 61% of patients who die. Australia is shaping up to have similar results, though here it’s mostly in the 70-79 and 80-89 age groups.

One major variable in severity of COVID-19 is age. But this can’t explain the sex bias seen globally because the increased male fatality rate is the same in each age group from 30 to 90+. Women also live on average six years longer than men, so there are more elderly women than men in the vulnerable population.

The other major factor is the presence of chronic diseases, particularly heart disease, diabetes and cancer. These are all more common in men than women, which might account for some of the bias.

But then we must ask why men are more vulnerable to the diseases that put them at greater risk of COVID-19.

Men and women are biologically different

Men and women differ in their sex chromosomes and the genes that lie on them. Women have two copies of a mid-sized chromosome (called the X). Men have only a single X chromosome and a small Y chromosome that contains few genes.

One of these Y genes (SRY) directs the embryo to become male by kick-starting the development of testes in an XY embryo. The testes make male hormones and the hormones make the baby develop as a boy.

In the absence of SRY an ovary forms and makes female hormones.

It’s the hormones that control most of the obvious visible differences between men and women – genitals and breasts, hair and body type – and have a large influence on behaviour.

The Y chromosome and hormones

The Y chromosome contains hardly any genes other than SRY but it is full of repetitive sequences (“junk DNA”).

Perhaps a “toxic Y” could lose its regulation during ageing. This might hasten ageing in men and render them more susceptible to the virus.

But a bigger problem for men is the male hormones unleashed by SRY action. Testosterone levels are implicated in many diseases, particularly heart disease, and may affect lifespan.

Men are also disadvantaged by their low levels of estrogen, which protects women from many diseases, including heart disease.

Male hormones also influence behaviour. Testosterone levels have been credited with major differences between men and women in risky behaviours such as smoking and drinking too much alcohol, as well as reluctance to heed health advice and to seek medical help.

The extreme differences in smoking rate between men and women in China (almost half the men smoke and only 2% of women) may help to account for their very high ratio of male deaths (more than double female). Not only is smoking a severe risk factor for any respiratory disease, but it also causes lung cancer, a further risk factor.

Smoking rates are lower and not as sex-biased in many other countries, so risky behaviour can’t by itself explain the sex difference in COVID-19 deaths. Maybe sex chromosomes have other effects.

Two X chromosomes are better than one

The X chromosome bears more than 1,000 genes with functions in all sorts of things including routine metabolism, blood clotting and brain development.

The presence of two X chromosomes in XX females provides a buffer if a gene on one X is mutated.

XY males lack this X chromosome backup. That’s why boys suffer from many sex-linked diseases such as haemophilia (poor blood clotting).

The number of X chromosomes also has big effects on many metabolic characters that are separable from sex hormone effects, as studies of mice reveal.

Females not only have a double dose of many X genes, but they may also have the benefit of two different versions of each gene.

This X effect goes far to explain why males die at a higher rate than females at every age from birth.

And another man problem is the immune system.

We’ve known for a long time that women have a stronger immune system than men. This is not all good, because it makes women more susceptible to autoimmune diseases such as lupus and multiple sclerosis.

But it gives women an advantage when it comes to susceptibility to viruses, as many studies in mice and humans show. This helps to explain why men are more susceptible to many viruses, including SARS and MERS.

There are at least 60 immune response genes on the X chromosome, and it seems that a higher dose and having two different versions of these gives women a broader spectrum of defences.

Sex differences in diseases – the big picture

Sex differences in the frequency, severity and treatment efficacy for many diseases were pointed out long ago. COVID-19 is part of a larger pattern in which males lose out – at every age.

This isn’t just humans – it is true of most mammals.

Are sex differences in disease susceptibility simply the by-catch of genetic and hormone differences? Or were they, like many other traits, selected differently in males and females because of differences in life strategy?

Read more: Dry, wet, barking, hacking: a guide to coughs in the time of coronavirus

It’s suggested that male mammals spread their genes by winning competitions for mates, hence hormone control of risky behaviour is a plus for men.

It’s also suggested female mammals are selected for traits that enhance their ability to care for young, hence their stronger immune system. This made sense for most mammals through the ages.

So the sex bias in COVID-19 deaths is part of a much larger picture – and a very much older picture – of sex differences in genes, chromosomes and hormones that lead to very different responses to all sorts of disease, including COVID-19.

– ref. Why do more men die from coronavirus than women? – https://theconversation.com/why-do-more-men-die-from-coronavirus-than-women-136038

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julian Meyrick, Professor of Creative Arts, Griffith University

For more than 190,000 Australians employed in the cultural sector, the last month brought a quadrella of horror.

First, having spent decades promoting flexible labour markets, the federal government is now using those same conditions to exclude thousands of casual cultural workers from its JobKeeper assistance scheme.

Second, though it is pumping $189 billion into the economy it is offering a “rescue” package for the arts of just $27 million, the latter being 0.14% of the former, and 13.5% of what the Queensland government alone is offering Virgin Australia.

Third, the results of the last Australia Council funding round for key organisations show a reduction in its client base of 34% over the last five years. The kicker came when the arts minister announced the scrapping of Australian content broadcasting requirements and launched an Options Paper on their future.

For a sector where 53% of business have recently closed their doors, this is catastrophic. The olive in the dog-wee martini is that when the debt for supporting the country through COVID-19 arrives, cultural workers will be expected to pay it off just the same. Some governments subsidise their cultural sectors, and others do not. Only the Coalition, it seems, has found a way of getting its cultural sector to subsidise them.

Stop telling the arts to do better

The response so far to this right-royal example of policy ineptitude has been a predictably economic one. The Australia Institute has put out a report on the economics of the creative arts and called for the sector to be more “confident” in dealing with government on the basis of that data.

Arguments for Australian culture often focus on what it should say to demonstrate its worth. Rarely considered is the government’s capacity to listen, or the extent to which it is able to meaningfully interpret the truckloads of evidence put to it. The sector can present all the data it likes. In the end, the government has to choose which to accept and act on. For this, it needs its own cogent idea of culture.

A genuine cultural policy vision has certainly existed on the conservative side of Australian politics in the past. It was Prime Minister Alfred Deakin who established the Commonwealth Literary Fund in 1908, Sir Robert Menzies who started the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust in 1954, and Harold Holt – son of a Tivoli theatre manager and husband of a fashion designer – who signed the charter for the Australia Council in 1967.

Read more: Coronavirus: Australian arts need a stimulus package. Here is what it should look like

Conservative leaders used to get the arts

After Holt was presumed drowned, the contest to replace him lay between Paul Hasluck, a publisher and poet, and John Gorton, founder of the Australian Film School and the Australian Film Development Corporation. If it was Gough Whitlam who brought culture into the Cabinet, it was the Liberal Senator Tony Staley, one of the better arts ministers we have had, who took it to the next level of policy consideration and kept it there.

Of the state premiers, Sir Thomas Playford oversaw the first Adelaide Festival of the Arts in 1960, Sir Rupert Hamer wrote the Historic Buildings Act into law in 1974 (and saved the Regent Theatre), Joh Bjelke-Petersen founded the Queensland Performing Arts Complex and Jeff Kennett made Melbourne a cultural powerhouse in the early 1990s. Steven Marshall’s Arts Plan is a good example of conservative cultural policy-making today.

Culture wars

It is absolutely not true, therefore, that a proper appreciation of arts and culture is to be found only on the Australian political Left. But it begs the question what on earth has happened to create this perception? Why has a deep-rooted and persuasive cultural policy vision by and large vanished from Coalition beliefs and values?

Its absence is good neither for the government, the sector, nor the country. Bipartisan cooperation on matters of national interest – and the fate of Australian culture is surely one of these – is not a matter of pat verbal agreement.

Politics is not a game of ideological Snap. It arises when different parties advance their own interpretations of particular domains, and these are then incorporated into what the sociologist Norbert Elias calls “the social fund of knowledge”. When no such interpretations are advanced, the process of arriving at beneficial policy outcomes breaks down.

It’s not only the hole in the emotional heart of Coalition politicians the cultural sector should be concerned with right now, it is the hole in their corporate memory. However confidently the sector puts forward its numbers to government, the context for turning them into coherent industrial strategy is missing in (in)action.

It doesn’t have be that way. The right way to interpret abstract economic data is via a meaningful connection to history. Looking at the list of MPs who voted against extending the JobKeeper legislation to the arts there are many who would know exactly how disastrously the sector will fare as a result, not least Paul Fletcher, the minister in charge of it.

The way forward for Australian cultural policy lies in the minds of our politicians, not the attitudes of the sector. This does not mean Coalition ministers and their advisers should accept ideas and arguments they do not like or agree with. It means they must come up with ones of their own.

– ref. Artists shouldn’t have to endlessly demonstrate their value. Coalition leaders used to know it – https://theconversation.com/artists-shouldnt-have-to-endlessly-demonstrate-their-value-coalition-leaders-used-to-know-it-136608

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Baker, Associate Professor and Director, Centre for Rural Emergency Medicine, Deakin University

Toilet paper and ventilators may be unlikely bedfellows, but they serve as powerful symbols of the growing tensions between urban and rural regions in Australia and elsewhere amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Last month, the media reported dozens of frenetic “supermarket swoops” across the nation. Busloads of city residents converged on rural grocery stores to fill their trolleys with supplies, leaving the shelves bare for local shoppers.

As a result, supermarket managers and security guards stepped in to be custodians of the local, refusing access to those who did not look familiar.

It is important to note that “local” is a powerful cultural idea. Local shoppers don’t legally have a right to toilet paper in this instance, but there is a moral perception they should have first dibs based on their need for essential services and in the interests of social order.

No ‘locals only’ option for hospitals

The toilet paper fiasco serves as an analogy for a much graver issue as the pandemic spreads around the world.

What happens if overwhelmed city hospitals hoard the staff and resources needed to manage COVID-19, leaving rural areas to fend for themselves? Rural areas of the United States are already confronting this reality.

To compound the problem, many people have been eager to escape crowded cities like Sydney, London, New York and San Francisco for the imagined safety of the countryside. This places strain on rural healthcare providers, making it difficult to prepare for and utilise already stretched resources.

Small town health services cannot plaster “locals only” posters on their doors or allow only “familiar faces” access to lifesaving equipment.

As rural professionals in medicine, ethics and media/cultural studies, we bring an interdisciplinary perspective to the issue of local resourcing and implications for the urban-rural divide.

We understand that in a pandemic, urban health care workers would also feel a need to protect and ensure supplies at their local hospitals first. But the equity of urban-rural resourcing during the COVID-19 crisis warrants more attention.

Read more: COVID-19 may hit rural residents hard, and that spells trouble because of lack of rural health care

Big media focus on urban problems

Urban areas in Australia already have almost three times as many hospital specialists per capita as outer regional areas and many times more critical care specialists.

Our regional health systems are struggling. Many hospitals rely on fly-in-fly-out emergency, anaesthetic and intensive care doctors. These doctors (often from city hospitals on short-term contracts to fill gaps in the local roster) are now limited by quarantine restrictions. They also want to stay near their metropolitan hospitals in case they are needed.

Read more: Geographical narcissism: when city folk just assume they’re better

There’s a concern that a capital city’s rush for resources could also leave patients in rural hospitals without medical necessities, similar to the panic buying of supermarket goods that has left some remote Indigenous communities without basic food and hygiene necessities.

Yet, these issues have not been discussed enough. Big media tends to focus on the impact of this health crisis on major metropolitan areas where more people live.

How we can more equitably share resources

We need a better strategy for rural-urban resource allocation during the crisis.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen suggests solutions may have to be tailored to specific contexts (like rural and urban settings) to be effective and ensure everyone’s health is of equal value. Drawing on his “capability approach”, we need to allocate resources in a way that is community-centred, equity-focused and puts an emphasis on deliberative democratic processes.

To hash out solutions, stakeholders in rural and urban hospitals should gather around a “virtual” table to discuss their differing needs. Government organisations and medical colleges have already begun this process.

Read more: ‘Coronavirus holidays’ stoke rural fury

Effective resource allocation could impact who gets critical care treatment. Centralising resources is a proven lifesaver in normal times when transport is secure, but pandemics threaten to overwhelm our ability to move rural patients to hospitals in big cities. Transport could be delayed by days or even cease for a time.

Accessibility of life-saving equipment becomes key. We need to increase the capacity of transport services to get rural patients to cities when need be and ensure there is enough staff and equipment in regional areas to treat as many patients as possible locally.

The long-term benefits of better urban-rural cooperation

An unexpected upside to COVID-19 may be an increased sharing of knowledge and ideas between rural and urban communities.

Regional Australia has many general practitioners with anaesthetic skills, for instance. They are experienced in short-term ventilation for operations. These doctors can become “accidental intensivists”, meaning they could take care of critically ill patients, with preparatory online courses and real-time video support from urban specialists (who get to remain in their urban communities).

Urban doctors may also benefit from interacting with rural doctors who are already experts in making do with fewer resources. This kind of digital interaction could be useful long after the crisis has abated, too.

Civil wars have been fought over access to resources many times in the past. There is no reason to broaden the urban-rural divide in a war against a virus that has no borders.

– ref. Healing the urban-rural divide: Why a ‘locals-first’ approach doesn’t work in a pandemic – https://theconversation.com/healing-the-urban-rural-divide-why-a-locals-first-approach-doesnt-work-in-a-pandemic-135301

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jo Caust, Associate Professor and Principal Fellow (Hon), School of Culture and Communication, University of Melbourne

This past week the Australian Bureau of Statistics revealed arts and recreation is the hardest hit of all the sectors most affected by government-imposed shutdowns in Australia. At least 53% of the sector is no longer functioning and it is likely these figures will worsen in the coming weeks.

Now, researchers at the Grattan Institute have estimated up to 26% of the Australian workforce are likely to lose their jobs due to pandemic shutdowns and restrictions – but this rises to 75% for those employed in the creative and performing arts.

Read more: The charts that show coronavirus pushing up to a quarter of the workforce out of work

Theatres, galleries, arts centres, concert halls, cinemas and festivals have closed. Film production has ceased. Rehearsing for the next season has stopped. How long this will go on, no one knows.

The government has given generous industry packages to other sectors experiencing a direct economic impact, such as the aviation industry and higher education. Yet the impact on the arts sector is demonstrably greater.

The arts and creative sector contributed A$111.7 billion to Australia’s economy in 2018, or around 6.4% of GDP. At the same time, the aviation industry contributed A$18.42 billion to the economy.

The arts and creative sector is contributing six times as much to the Australian economy as aviation, and suffering by proportion the largest losses. Yet it’s getting nothing. Why?

A thousand cuts

In December 2019, the federal government “disappeared” the arts as a government portfolio, placing it within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications and no longer mentioning the arts by name.

Read more: Remember the arts? Departments and budgets disappear as politics backs culture into a dead end

During the current unprecedented shutdown, the Australia Council announced it would cease annual funding to 30 organisations across the country. While this action was not an outcome of the coronavirus shutdown, the timing could not have been worse.

Since the Australia’s Council’s funding was cut in 2015, small and medium arts organisations and individuals across all art forms have had to compete for an ever-decreasing purse. In 2016, 65 companies lost their annual funding: the latest losses bring us to at least 95 arts companies defunded by the Australia Council in the past five years.

These are excellent arts groups doing outstanding work – there is simply not enough money to go around.

The combination of the loss of core funding for these companies alongside the COVID-19 shutdown creates a disastrous scenario for the arts sector.

Other governments have announced generous measures to address the current emergency in the arts sector. In the UK, a relief fund will provide GB£162 million (A$319 million) for individuals and organisations during the crisis. The German government has provided a €50 million package (A$86 million) for artists and arts organisations. The US government through the National Endowment for the Arts has released US$75 million (A$118 million) to support the arts sector.

In contrast, the Australian government has pledged just an additional A$27 million to support the sector: A$7 million for Indigenous visual arts organisations, A$10 million for regional artists and A$10 million for the mental health service Support Act. The Australia Council’s 2020 Resilience Fund of A$5 million is re-appropriated money from other grant schemes. Most artists and arts workers will not benefit from the current measures.

Last week, federal Arts Minister Paul Fletcher voted with the rest of the Coalition government against a Greens amendment that would have broadened support to casuals employed less than 12 months, freelancers and businesses with “work structures unique to the arts industry”.

Some arts employees may be eligible for the government JobKeeper allowance of A$1,500 a fortnight, but most arts organisations have only a small team of ongoing staff. Many arts workers work short-term contracts and are not eligible for JobKeeper, and the income structure for artists may make it hard to prove eligibility for JobSeeker.

Even permanent employees might not be safe: Melbourne Symphony Orchestra musicians offered to take a 50% pay cut. Instead, they have been stood down.

A difficult task ahead

Working in the arts is not for the fainthearted. Many make a living by putting together a portfolio of jobs, gigs and commissions to provide them with a living wage.

To survive in the arts, artists and arts workers have to be entrepreneurial and resilient. They plan ahead to ensure they can survive during periods when there is limited work. This shutdown could not be planned for. It happened without warning, and important sources of income that may have taken years to organise disappeared overnight.

Artists and arts workers are parents and grandparents. They pay taxes, rent, mortgages and contribute to the economy. Their passion results in extraordinary creation: think of all the music you listen to, the paintings and artwork you love, the movies you adore and the books you are reading to get through this dark time.

We need our artists to continue and create during this time, and after it is over. To re-create much of what we already have may take years, unless we urgently support it now. If we don’t, the loss to our country may be greater than just economic.

As German Cultural Minister Monika Grütters observed: “Artists are not only indispensable, but also vital, especially now.”

– ref. Coronavirus: 3 in 4 Australians employed in the creative and performing arts could lose their jobs – https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-3-in-4-australians-employed-in-the-creative-and-performing-arts-could-lose-their-jobs-136505

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrea Carson, Associate Professor, Department of Politics, Media and Philosophy, La Trobe University

As the number of COVID-19 infections climbs across the globe, so too do stories about journalism job losses, newsroom cutbacks and masthead closures. This raises the question: what does the pandemic-induced economic crisis mean for public interest journalism?

Our latest research suggests quality health reporting in Australia – an important type of public interest journalism – was already under threat before the latest cutbacks, and before mis- and disinformation about the pandemic infected the internet.

Read more: A matter of trust: coronavirus shows again why we value expertise when it comes to our health

To stem the haemorrhage of public interest journalism, the Morrison government has announced a pandemic relief package for Australian media, including a A$50 million Public Interest News Gathering (PING) program. The government will support commercial television, newspaper and radio businesses that produce “quality news, particularly in remote and regional Australia”. Yet details about what constitutes public interest journalism and how it will be adequately supported remain sketchy.

Our study examined the quality of health reporting about cancer in Australia’s daily newspapers from 1997 to 2017. It found significant and increasing shortfalls in this type of public interest journalism.

While concerning, this finding was not surprising. Media companies have experienced significant financial duress in the digital age as technologies have transformed advertising markets and shifted revenues away from print to online competitors. This hardship for media outlets has led to newsroom cost-cutting and hundreds of masthead closures.

In terms of health reporting, it has meant fewer specialist medical reporters and experienced editors in newsrooms to sift through hype about miracle cures.

This is of concern for public knowledge about health issues. While newspapers have suffered significant cutbacks, their online reach and agenda-setting power mean they remain an important source of information for the public’s understanding of health care and disease. As many studies have found, news media play a key role in public health awareness and can influence how citizens use the healthcare system.

A prominent example of media effects on public health knowledge was the direct impact of an ABC television report in 2015 that was critical of a cholesterol-lowering drug. It resulted in 60,000 Australians changing their prescribed medication, often at serious risk to their health Andrea, is this ok?. The content was later removed, but the damage was done.

Our latest research investigated the quality of cancer reporting in two different years. These covered both a time of prosperity (1997) and a time of austerity (2017) for the Australian press.

More than 600 stories were sourced from tabloid and broadsheet-styled daily newspapers across Australia using keywords relating to cancer. We were specifically interested in cancer treatments and research.

We scored each story using a Media Quality Index (MQI), made up of eight measures. The eight measures were informed by past studies and tested the detail, accuracy and balance of reporting in the news stories and their headlines.

We found a statistically significant decline in the quality of reporting about cancer from 1997 to 2017 across the mainstream press. Tabloid articles received significantly lower MQI scores than the broadsheet stories.

Of particular concern was the under-reporting of harms. We found stories published in 2017 were far less likely to discuss side effects or the potential for harm of cancer treatments compared to stories in 1997. In 1997, 60% of news stories about cancer treatments and research mentioned potential side effects. This compared with just 7% of stories published in 2017.

Read more: During the Great Depression, many newspapers betrayed their readers. Some are doing it again now

This lack of critical health reporting about medical harms can limit the capacity of health consumers to make informed decisions about their illnesses and treatments. It can also inadvertently promote overuse of health services, with implications for the healthcare budget and public policy. Potentially, it can foster unrealistic expectations and undermine the public’s confidence in the medical profession if these expectations are not met.

We also found a significant rise in the use of sensational and emotive language in news reporting about cancer in 2017 (71%) compared to stories published in 1997 (34%).

This rise in emotive language and sensationalism is alarming because of the media’s potential to influence patient decision-making.

However, not all responsibility for sensationalism lies with media outlets. Researchers can stand to gain from favourable coverage of preliminary findings in terms of attracting venture capital. This underscores the need for specialist reporters who can detect questionable health claims in self-serving media releases.

In 2017, more headlines were guilty of clickbait – misleading readers to stoke attention and boost reader metrics to attract advertising dollars – compared to 1997. In 1997, 72% of headlines were considered accurate compared to 48% in 2017.

The initial misconception caused by a misleading headline is problematic because false impressions can be hard to correct. Again, they may raise a patient’s hopes and expectations regarding their cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Our study signals a broader warning about the quality of health reporting in the mainstream media. It shows the need for more public interest journalism to counter the abundance of health misinformation online.

To this end, the government’s PING program is a step in the right direction, but whether it will be enough remains to be seen.

This research project was led by Dr Nicholas Lawler, a medical resident at the Royal Melbourne Hospital.

– ref. Now more than ever, we need quality health reporting in Australia – https://theconversation.com/now-more-than-ever-we-need-quality-health-reporting-in-australia-136229

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Hesketh, ARC Future Fellow, The University of Queensland

Respirators and face masks are staple pieces of personal protective equipment for hospital workers and others in public health, as the COVID-19 pandemic has reminded us.

They can protect the wearer, but for diseases like COVID-19 that spread via discharged droplets they can also help prevent infected people spreading the disease further.

We can trace the popularity of respirators back to a paper presented to the Royal Institution in London in 1870 by a man named John Tyndall.

With the help of a beam of light, Tyndall demonstrated not only that dust in the air could contain germs and disease but also that a cotton-wool respirator could filter them out. The story of how Tyndall, an Irish physicist, became an advocate for the germ theory of disease and the mass production of cotton-wool respirators is far from straightforward.

Who was John Tyndall?

Tyndall is today little remembered, although he has recently received more attention including a well-received biography and the publication in instalments of his massive correspondence.

Much of the attention has to do with the fact that several of his discoveries contributed to our understanding of climate science. He discovered what we now call the “greenhouse effect” of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as well as drawing links between the movement of glaciers and atmospheric pressure. He also explained, by considering the effect of light on the particles in the air, why the sky is blue.

It was researching light and particles that led Tyndall to think more carefully about what he called “Dust and Disease”, the title of his January 1870 lecture at the Royal Institution. In order to study the decomposition of water vapour by light, Tyndall decided he needed to remove dust particles in the air that were complicating his experimental results. This proved more difficult than he anticipated.

Dust and disease

As he tried various strategies for removing the dust that seemed ubiquitous in the beam of light, he let some of the dust particles pass over the tip of a flame. At this point the matter burnt up in a trail of smoke, only leaving behind a blackness in the light beam. This was not what Tyndall expected and it led him to accept that the matter was organic in nature.

He soon discovered these organic dust particles were not only found in his Royal Institution laboratory but were in the air everywhere, and were therefore constantly passing into human lungs with every breath. As Tyndall wrote:

There is no respite to this contact with dirt, and the wonder is not that we should from time to time to suffer from its presence, but that so small a portion of it would appear to be deadly to man.

But deadly it most assuredly was. As his biographer Roland Jackson has argued, Tyndall believed the floating matter contained “the germs that cause disease and decay”.

The germ theory of disease

Tyndall thus hesitantly aligned himself with the “germ theory” of disease, which was still highly contested at the time. The germ theory held that epidemic disease was spread by microorganisms that could be carried through the air and so enter people’s bodies.

Through his experiments, Tyndall believed he had added a new source of evidence for explaining the cause of disease and decay. But his experiments also pointed towards a possible way to stop or reduce the spread of such disease.

While organic dust could not be blown away or somehow ejected from the air, Tyndall showed it could be filtered out through cotton wool. Further experiments showed the filtering process was most effective when applied to human breathing.

The practical application of the experiments seemed obvious:

If a physician wishes to hold back from the lungs of his patient, or from his own, the germs by which contagious disease is said to be propagated, he will employ a cotton wool respirator … Such respirators must, I think, come into general use as defense against contagion.

Better masks, fighting germs

Tyndall was heavily criticised by the London medical community for overstepping the boundaries of his scientific expertise. However, he continued his experiments with “floating matter”.

Applying his research, he developed a much-improved gas mask for firefighters. He also created techniques for preserving food and for sterilisation through discontinuous heating, a process now known as Tyndallisation.

Tyndall died in 1893. By that time the germ theory of disease was widely accepted, in large part due to Tyndall’s experiments, and today it is entirely taken for granted.

It also shapes our understanding of COVID-19 and how we go about mitigating the spread of the disease, such as by using cotton masks not too different from the ones Tyndall advocated producing 150 years ago.

– ref. How a 150-year-old experiment with a beam of light showed germs exist — and that a face mask can help filter them out – https://theconversation.com/how-a-150-year-old-experiment-with-a-beam-of-light-showed-germs-exist-and-that-a-face-mask-can-help-filter-them-out-136391

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Francis Markham, Research Fellow, College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University

On March 23 the government effectively doubled payments to the unemployed, single parents and students, introducing a new unconditional Coronavirus Supplement to go on top of existing allowances such as Newstart, Youth Allowance, Parenting Payment, Austudy and Abstudy.

From April 27 single unemployed adults will get around A$557.85 per week in income support, almost double the previous $282.85 per fortnight.

This additional support is time-limited, applying for only six months.

As well as covering the newly unemployed, it’ll extend to existing recipients, meaning it’ll be paid to about 2.3 million Australians.

Read more: Coronavirus supplement: your guide to the Australian payments that will go to the extra million on welfare

At the same time, the onerous requirement for recipients in remote Australia to conduct “work-like activities” or face fines and suspensions, has itself been suspended because work-like activities carry added risk.

The temporary doubling is intended to shield those who find themselves unable to find work at a time when the government has shut down large sections of the economy.

But it will have another (welcome) unintended consequence: it will temporarily cut poverty among Indigenous Australia to new lows.

Most very remote Indigenous Australians live in poverty

The income support system has failed for decades to keep Indigenous people out of poverty. At the time of the 2016 Census, 31% of Indigenous Australia lived below the poverty line of $404 per week.

And while the overall financial situation of Indigenous Australians improved over the decade from 2006 to 2016, in very remote Australia, poverty got worse.

Already alarmingly high in 2006 at 46%, by 2016 the proportion of very remote Indigenous Australians in poverty had climbed to 54%.

Percentage of Indigenous population living in poverty

Since then things have changed, for the worse.

According to Bureau of Statistics survey data, median Indigenous personal incomes fell from $482 per week in 2014-15 to $450 in 2018-19.

In remote Australia the fall was more precipitous.

Over those five years remote median Indigenous personal income fell from $375 per week to $310.

Median Indigenous income, 2014-15, 2019-19

The Coronavirus Supplement is set to dramatically change things.

Before the coronavirus outbreak about 27% of the Indigenous population aged 16 years or older were receiving payments that make them eligible for the Supplement.

The proportion who will actually get it be much greater, as many more will become unemployed or underemployed as a result of the crisis.

Read more: Three charts on: the changing status of Indigenous Australians

Indigenous workers are likely to be especially hit hard by the downturn due to discrimination and their more-precarious employment status.

The extra $225 per week is well-targeted at the poorest Indigenous Australians.

According to my estimates, around 38% of Indigenous adults in very remote areas will be eligible.

The biggest boost in 50 years

It is likely to be the most substantial increase in aggregate Indigenous incomes since Indigenous people won rights to equal wages and the full range of social security payments between 1969 and 1977.

In very remote areas, total community incomes are likely to increase by one quarter.

Indeed, so significant is the boost that remote community stores may run out of food as incomes start to catch up with people’s everyday needs, a concern expressed by the minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt.

It should be made permanent

It would be misguided to think Indigenous Australians need only temporary relief.

The Indigenous economy has been in crisis since 1788. The unemployment rate in places like Palm Island was 60% before the coronavirus hit.

The average duration of unemployment for Indigenous Australians is 73 weeks.

For Australia as a whole, it is 11 weeks.

Read more: Census data shows just how bad we’ve been at closing inequality gaps

The unfavourable job market now facing many Australians for the first time has been the normal state of affairs for many Indigenous people.

For this reason, the temporary increase to income support should be made permanent, and the suspended mutual obligation requirements abolished.

Doing so, and normalising some of the anomalies of the current arrangement (such as the exclusion of disability support pensioners, age pensioners, and temporary residents) would provide all Australians with an income floor below which no one could fall.

Read more: It’s Newstart pay rise day. You’re in line for 24 cents, which is peanuts

For Indigenous Australians, it would lock in the biggest reduction in poverty rates since the 1970s.

It would be affordable — it’s only a question of our priorities.

The crisis has reminded us once again how much we depend on each other. We can use it to rebuild a society which is fairer and in which no one is forced to struggle in deep poverty.

This article draws on the author’s contribution to the collection Indigenous Australians and the COVID-19 crisis: Perspectives on public policy, published by the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research at the ANU.

– ref. The coronavirus supplement is the biggest boost to Indigenous incomes since Whitlam. It should be made permanent – https://theconversation.com/the-coronavirus-supplement-is-the-biggest-boost-to-indigenous-incomes-since-whitlam-it-should-be-made-permanent-135936

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Hamilton, Visiting Fellow, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

In recent weeks a growing chorus of Australian commentators has called for social distancing measures to be eased or radically curtailed.

Some have claimed the lives saved by the lockdowns are not worth the damage they are causing to the economy.

Others have claimed the case for easing is strengthened by the fact many of the hardest hit by COVID-19 are elderly or suffering from other conditions.

Some might expect economists, of all people, to endorse this calculus.

But as economists we categorically reject these views, and we believe they do not represent the majority of our profession.

We believe a callous indifference to life is morally objectionable, and that it would be a mistake to expect a premature loosening of restrictions to be beneficial to the economy and jobs, given the rapid rate of contagion.

Read more: Eradicating the COVID-19 coronavirus is also the best economic strategy

It is wishful thinking to believe we face a choice between a buoyant economy without social distancing and a deep recession with social distancing.

In a world with COVID-19, there are no good choices.

The best we can do is limit the spread of COVID-19 as much as practicable and rely on the strength of the government’s balance sheet to cushion the impact on the workers and businesses hardest hit.

Our success to date is a direct result of the measures taken, but we cannot afford to be complacent.

We recognise there are trade-offs on some margins, but we urge the government to work closely with public health experts to carefully determine at what time, in what ways, and in which sectors, to begin lifting restrictions.

There should be no doubt the cost of getting this wrong is very high.

Open Letter from Australian Economists

19 April, 2020

Dear Prime Minister and Members of the National Cabinet,

The undersigned economists have witnessed and participated in the public debate about when to relax social-distancing measures in Australia. Some commentators have expressed the view there is a trade-off between the public health and economic aspects of the crisis. We, as economists, believe this is a false distinction.

We cannot have a functioning economy unless we first comprehensively address the public health crisis. The measures put in place in Australia, at the border and within the states and territories, have reduced the number of new infections. This has put Australia in an enviable position compared to other countries, and we must not squander that success.

We recognise the measures taken to date have come at a cost to economic activity and jobs, but believe these are far outweighed by the lives saved and the avoided economic damage due to an unmitigated contagion. We believe strong fiscal measures are a much better way to offset these economic costs than prematurely loosening restrictions.

As has been foreshadowed in your public remarks, our borders will need to remain under tight control for an extended period. It is vital to keep social-distancing measures in place until the number of infections is very low, our testing capacity is expanded well beyond its already comparatively high level, and widespread contact tracing is available.

A second-wave outbreak would be extremely damaging to the economy, in addition to involving tragic and unnecessary loss of life.

Sincerely,

Professor Alison Booth, Australian National University

Professor Jeff Borland, University of Melbourne

Professorial Research Fellow Lisa Cameron, Melbourne Institute, University of Melbourne

Professor Efrem Castelnuovo, University of Melbourne

Professor Deborah Cobb-Clark, University of Sydney

Assistant Professor Ashley Craig, University of Michigan

Professor Chris Edmond, University of Melbourne

Professor Nisvan Erkal, University of Melbourne

Professor John Freebairn, University of Melbourne

Professor Renée Fry-McKibbin, Australian National University

Professor Joshua Gans, University of Toronto

Professor Jacob Goeree, UNSW Business School

Professor Quentin Grafton, Australian National University

Professor Simon Grant, Australian National University

Professor Pauline Grosjean, UNSW Business School

Distinguished Professor Jane Hall, University of Technology Sydney

Assistant Professor Steven Hamilton, George Washington University

Professor Ian Harper, Melbourne Business School

Professor Richard Holden, UNSW Business School

Professor David Johnston, Monash University

Professor Flavio Menezes, University of Queensland

Professor Warwick McKibbin, Australian National University

Assistant Professor Simon Mongey, University of Chicago

Professor James Morley, University of Sydney

Professor Joseph Mullins, University of Minnesota

Professor Abigail Payne, Melbourne Institute, University of Melbourne

Professor Bruce Preston, University of Melbourne

Emeritus Professor Sue Richardson, Flinders University

Professor Stefanie Schurer, University of Sydney

Professor Kalvinder Shields, University of Melbourne

Professor John Quiggin, University of Queensland

Associate Professor Simon Quinn, Oxford University

Economic Advisor James Vickery, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

Professor Tom Wilkening, University of Melbourne

Professor Justin Wolfers, University of Michigan

Professor Yves Zenou, Monash University

Full list of signatories available on the economists open letter website.

– ref. Open letter from 118 Australian economists: don’t sacrifice health for ‘the economy’ – https://theconversation.com/open-letter-from-118-australian-economists-dont-sacrifice-health-for-the-economy-136686

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lindsay Kelley, Lecturer, Art & Design, UNSW

The plan was to land in Sydney from an overseas trip on a Friday morning and immediately bake Anzac biscuits to bring along to the Country Women’s Association Tea Room at the Royal Easter Show on Saturday. Then everything changed, except the baking ingredients I’d stocked up before leaving for Canada.

Events were cancelled, my grocery delivery orders failed to supply pasta or toilet paper, and 14 days of self-isolation loomed. My cupboard of classic Anzac biscuit ingredients – oats, coconut, butter, flour, bicarb and, of course, golden syrup – seemed more poignant and significant.

Anzac biscuits just might be the perfect Australasian comfort food to bake in COVID-19 isolation. Our national stories of Anzac biscuits emerge from another world-changing crisis, the first world war. Shortages and rationing were common when Australia and New Zealand identities were baked into being.

Read more: Before the Anzac biscuit, soldiers ate a tile so hard you could write on it

A different battle

COVID-19 is not a military threat, and military metaphors do more harm than good when civic responsibility and solidarity should be our priority. Even though our focus has changed, Anzac biscuits were developed during trying times that speak to current conditions.

Scholars and historians debate every aspect of the Anzac biscuit’s history.

The idea that Anzac biscuits were sent to the front in Gallipoli, let alone made there, has been thoroughly debunked. Yet, origin stories for the recipe remain complex. Just as many roads and buildings in Australia and New Zealand were renamed “Anzac” after the Australia New Zealand Army Corps, a group of popular biscuit recipes arose, coalesced, and were named “Anzac” in the decade following Gallipoli.

There is also division over the ingredients and preparation methods for Anzac biscuits.

Sociologist Sian Supski finds Anzac biscuit ancestors in Scottish oatcakes. “Culinary detective” Allison Reynolds starts her biscuits by melting butter and golden syrup together, a method that traces Anzac genealogy back to ginger biscuits and parkins sticky ginger cakes.

Australian War Memorial curator Dianne Rutherford has experimented with baking early Anzac biscuit recipes and found the results were far removed from contemporary understandings of Anzac biscuits: one recipe even includes icing.

Biscuits and baking together

Last year, I participated in the Cementa Contemporary Arts Festival in Kandos, NSW. In collaboration with the Kandos Country Women’s Association (CWA), I ran two workshops devoted to Anzac biscuits under the auspices of Tasting History, a three-year research project devoted to “biscuits, culture, and national identity”. Festival-goers joined locals to bake Anzac biscuits in groups across two days. The results were sold to raise funds for CWA community projects.

Our gathering in the CWA rooms in Kandos seems unfathomable today. Groups of strangers stood shoulder-to-shoulder rolling out balls of dough and assisting each other with measuring ingredients.

But in many ways, our experience in Kandos is as relevant as ever. Now we long for the community that baking together provides. Belgian author and baker Regula Ysewijn started the hashtag #bakecorona, declaring that if “we bake it, we will beat it”. Thousands of home bakers have joined her on Instagram, posting everything from cupcakes to hot cross buns.

Ysewijn and #bakecorona reflect an uptick in baking since the start of the pandemic.

Our collective stress baking has given us the toilet paper cake, minimalist approaches to classic recipes, and a surge in celebrity bakers and chefs broadcasting from their home kitchens.

With our Anzac Day gatherings cancelled or televised, Anzac biscuits are poised to have their own #bakecorona moment.

Tea, biscuits and chat

An online event this Thursday, Bake Together: Anzac Biscuits Live, aims to help families across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand prepare for a stay-at-home Anzac Day. Home bakers can join cookery teacher and culinary historian Allison Reynolds and myself for a quick demonstration of the basic Anzac biscuit recipe, followed by tea and conversation while our biscuits are in the oven. Like many bakers and friends connecting in isolation, we will be meeting online, hosted by Cementa’s Zoom account.

With their long shelf life and simple ingredients, Anzacs are a biscuit of survival and resilience, making them the quintessential comfort food for Australians and New Zealanders at this time. They remind us of Australia and New Zealand’s past, and invite us to imagine a collective future after COVID-19, when we can share a cup of tea and a biscuit in person.

Bake Together: Anzac Biscuits Live is scheduled for Thursday 23 April at 2pm AEST. Allison Reynolds shares her classic recipe here.

– ref. Anzac biscuits, battles and a great Australian isolation bake-off – https://theconversation.com/anzac-biscuits-battles-and-a-great-australian-isolation-bake-off-135948

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

The government has told the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to develop a mandatory code of conduct to address bargaining power imbalances between media companies and digital platforms such as Facebook and Google – and the question of payment for content.

Earlier the ACCC was directed by the government to facilitate a voluntary code. But slow progress and the impact on the media of the coronavirus have convinced the government of the need for more urgent and compulsory action.

In its Digital Platforms Inquiry report of last year, the ACCC identified a bargaining power imbalance between news media organisations and these large digital platforms, and recommended codes of conduct to govern commercial relationships.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Communications Minister Paul Fletcher have said in a statement the timeframe needs to be accelerated.

“The Australian media sector was already under significant pressure – that has now been exacerbated by a sharp decline in advertising revenue driven by coronavirus,” the ministers say.

“At the same time, while discussions between the parties have been taking place, progress on a voluntary code has been limited, according to recent advice provided by the ACCC”.

The ministers say the ACCC considers it unlikely any voluntary agreement would be reached on the key issue of payment for content.

The code will cover data sharing, ranking and display of news content, and the monetisation and the sharing of revenue generated from news. It will also include enforcement, penalty and binding dispute resolution mechanisms.

The ACCC will release a draft before the end of July, and the government wants the code finalised soon after that.

The University of Canberra’s 2019 Digital News Report said the majority of surveyed consumers who access news online get this news via indirect methods, such as social media, news aggregators, email newsletters and mobile alerts.

According to Nielsen Panel Data for February 2019, Google search had a unique audience of 19.7 million in Australia, and Facebook had a unique audience of 17.6 million.

– ref. Government orders mandatory code of conduct for Google, Facebook – https://theconversation.com/government-orders-mandatory-code-of-conduct-for-google-facebook-136694

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

With nice irony, Malcolm Turnbull’s publisher was in a stoush at the weekend with Scott Morrison’s office over its leaking of the former prime minister’s autobiography, A Bigger Picture.

Hardie Grant Books revealed a Morrison staffer had distributed the Turnbull tome electronically to numerous people. In a sharp letter the publisher’s law firm ordered the staffer to “cease and desist” and threatened legal action.

On Sunday night – the eve of the book’s official publication – a spokesman for Morrison said: “The Prime Minister’s office will not comment on legal proceedings. Staff have been reminded of their obligations under copyright law, and of the high standards of conduct expected of them.”

The PMO staff member, Nico Louw, is said to have received an “unsolicited” copy of the book, and then sent it to a number of others. He has subsequently apologised.

Indeed the book has been scattering around like confetti.

Last Thursday The Australian, under the byline of national affairs editor Simon Benson, published an extensive report from the book.

Obtaining leaks is part of what journalists do and we can’t know where Benson got this one. The newspaper delighted in pre-empting Nine, that had rights to the book, and in raining on Turnbull’s parade which, given the unfortunate release time, in the middle of a pandemic, presents more challenges than the usual book tour.

In his nearly 700-page tell-all (perhaps not quite “all”) story, Turnbull offers his insight on Morrison as a political operator, drawn especially from their days as prime minister and treasurer between 2015 and 2018.

Turnbull highlights Morrison’s penchant for leaks and selective briefings, labelling them “serial indiscretions”.

“Scott, like many other politicians, used leaks to ingratiate himself with journalists and newspapers – especially News Corporation’s Simon Benson and editors like Chris Dore and Paul Whittaker,” Turnbull writes.

“In return for a drip of good political stories, he’d be rewarded with favourable coverage.”

Morrison also, Turnbull says, “used leaks to front-run government decisions in the hope that by giving them a head of steam in the media, his colleagues couldn’t push back”.

As treasurer Morrison tried his tactic in a push to get changes to the GST, but went too far, infuriating Turnbull, and ended up embarrassed.

Morrison “unfortunately nobbled any chance of GST reform becoming a reality by front-running policy options in the media. Time and again he’d float ideas on the front page and monitor the public reaction before determining whether it was good policy or bad policy”.

Turnbull’s description of Morrison’s media style of favouritism is not a revelation to people within the Canberra beltway, whether they’re in government, the bureaucracy, or the press gallery.

Read more: Grattan on Friday: Intergenerational fairness puts COVID-19 obligation on older people

Indeed it has become something of a joke. Even Morrison is known to have quipped about it at an off-the-record occasion.

In the picture he paints, Turnbull is ambivalent about Morrison, the man whose rise to the prime ministership he ultimately facilitated to stymie Peter Dutton.

The two were not serious rivals, because Turnbull was always going to reach the top job before Morrison, regardless of the latter’s ambition.

“We developed into a successful partnership” as PM and treasurer, Turnbull writes. Despite being irritated by Morrison’s behaviour, including the way he rubbed colleagues up the wrong way (especially Finance Minister Mathias Cormann), the two worked closely together, with Turnbull clipping Morrison over the ears from time to time in the wake of leaks.

But Turnbull goes out of his way in his book to nail Morrison’s games, and those of his office.

One incident was a story in The Australian quoting Liberal backbenchers suggesting a company tax cut should not be passed on to the big banks, linking this to the appointment of former Queensland Labor premier Anna Bligh as CEO of the Australian Banking Association.

The Bligh appointment had sent Morrison into a rage – his staffer Sasha Grebe had wanted the job.

Morrison told Turnbull he had never heard of the proposal to refuse the banks a tax cut until his office had been called for comment. A suspicious Turnbull then did some sleuthing; he traced the story’s origin back to Grebe.

“Scott denied Grebe was acting on his instructions and said he was devastated by his conduct,” Turnbull writes.

They then had a “very tough discussion” over the matter. According to Turnbull he told Morrison he and his office “were simply not trusted to be discreet by colleagues who believed he would independently enlist his friends in the media to advance his own agenda”.

Turnbull writes that after one lot of leaking, “Mathias and I were at our wits’ end as to how to manage Scott. As Mathias said, ‘We have a Treasurer problem’. And the problem was one of trust”.

In relation to another leak, “Scott adamantly denied any responsibility, but regrettably nobody believed him”.

After he was deposed by Turnbull in 2015 Tony Abbott was furious with Morrison, believing he’d been part of the plot. In a much remembered radio interview, shock jock Ray Hadley demanded Morrison swear on a bible (which Morrison couldn’t locate in the studio) that he had not betrayed Abbott.

Turnbull records Morrison had revealed early on that he saw himself as a replacement for Abbott if the then PM continued to under-perform.

He writes that at a dinner they had in December 2014, Morrison indicated he felt Abbott “would have to go by the middle of 2015 if his performance didn’t improve.

“He was closely in touch with the key figures in News, he told me, and said they were getting ready to dump Abbott. And he made it clear he saw himself as the successor”.

In the September 2015 coup that installed Turnbull, Morrison was “working actively to assist me. We collaborated closely … Morrison’s public position, of course, was that he supported Abbott, but few insiders were taken in by that”.

During the first vote of the 2018 coup week that ended Turnbull’s prime ministership, “Morrison sent me a note while the ballots were being distributed … Turnbull is on my ballot”.

“Subsequent accounts of these events indicate that [Morrison backers] Stuart Robert and Alex Hawke had organised about half-a-dozen of them to vote for Dutton – enough to lift his numbers up to a level that damaged me but didn’t get Dutton over the line. If Morrison’s friends had voted the way he said he did, the Dutton insurgency would have been utterly dead that morning”.

After he and his supporters had played fast and loose in coups, as prime minister Morrison secured a change of party rules to protect himself (and subsequent Liberal prime ministers) for the future.

Turnbull is grudging about Morrison’s election win, acknowledging his successor’s understanding of “marketing and messaging” but arguing “the truth is that Labor lost the election that the Coalition, after the August coup, didn’t deserve to win”.

Morrison is now confronted with a crisis which puts the challenge of that election in the shade. Turnbull must rehearse in his mind how he would be performing in today’s circumstances.

In this new world, the Abbott and Turnbull governments seem a long time ago. But Turnbull, a former journalist, is a skilled writer and his book – which also deals with solid policy matters – is a readable and racy account of a period that saw a lot of bad behaviour by Coalition figures, including the author himself.

As for those players who say they won’t read the book – they’ll certainly be scanning its ample index.

– ref. View from The Hill: Malcolm Turnbull gives his very on-the-record account of Scott Morrison – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-malcolm-turnbull-gives-his-very-on-the-record-account-of-scott-morrison-136693

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

Michelle Grattan talks with Assistant Professor Caroline Fisher (remotely) about the week in politics, including Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s strong stance on the issue of schools, the government’s rejection of a course of elimination, and the prospects of community support for a voluntary contact tracing app.

– ref. VIDEO: Michelle Grattan on Australia’s ‘new normal’, education, and coronavirus elimination – https://theconversation.com/video-michelle-grattan-on-australias-new-normal-education-and-coronavirus-elimination-136698

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Coates, Program Director, Household Finances, Grattan Institute

We knew it would be bad. But we’d hoped it wouldn’t be quite this bad.

Over the past few weeks, we at Grattan Institute have been working on ways to estimate the impact of the COVID-19 shutdown on jobs in Australia.

It’s a complex task, with few obvious precedents.

The results, detailed in our new working paper, Shutdown: estimating the COVID-19 employment shock, are worrying.

Our estimate is that between a sixth and a quarter of Australia’s workforce is likely to be out of work because of the COVID-19 shutdown and social distancing.

It derives from two sources of information.

The first is data from the United States on the extent to which each occupation requires workers to be near other people.

Read more: Which jobs are most at risk from the coronavirus shutdown? 

The “physical proximity” requirements of a job are generally likely to be a good guide to how likely it is the job can continue during the shutdown.

The second source of information is a set of estimates by Grattan researchers of the extent to which jobs are under threat in each of 88 industries in Australia.

Our preferred method for estimating the hit to jobs combines both these sources.

We also use two alternative methods, each of which relying on a single source of data, which are outlined in our working paper.

Our preferred method finds that about 26% of workers – 3.4 million Australians – could be thrown out of work as a direct result of the shutdown and social distancing.

The alternative methods produce figures that are lower, but still distressingly high.

Unsurprisingly, we find the hospitality industry will be hardest hit. More than half of workers in the “accommodation and food services” industry are likely to be out of work as a result of this crisis.

The “arts and recreation services” industry is not far behind.

A range of professional industries – where people are more likely to be able to work from home – are much less likely to shed jobs in the weeks and months ahead.

People on low incomes will be hardest hit, because the jobs in hospitality, retailing and the arts tend to pay less than the sort of professional jobs people can do from home.

Those in the lowest income are likely to be off work during this crisis. They are more than as likely to be without work as the highest-income workers.

As a general rule, the higher your income, the lower your chance of being affected by the crisis.

There is of course considerable uncertainty around our estimates of the job losses from COVID-19, especially by industry.

In some cases, the ‘preferred method’ yields results that are likely an over-estimate of the proportion of people who will lose work, such as in the finance and mining industries. In others, such as hospitality, the ‘preferred method’ figures may be too low.

Nonetheless our estimates strongly correlate with the share of firms which report that they have reduced worker hours in response to COVID-19.

If all of those 3.4 million Australians moved from being “employed” to “unemployed”, the unemployment rate would spike to 30%.

But this extreme outcome won’t happen, because not everyone who loses work will cease being categorised as “employed”, and not everyone who ceases being “employed” will become “unemployed” – some will stop looking for work.

Some workers thrown out of work by the COVID-19 shutdown will still be classified by the Bureau of Statistics as “employed”.

Read more: Australia’s $130 billion JobKeeper payment: what the experts think

Why? Because they may only be laid off for a short period. And because some people who lose work will continue to get paid thanks to the government’s A$130 billion JobKeeper program, and if you’re still being paid by your employer the Bureau of Statistics counts you as still “employed”.

Our expectation is that only about half of the people out of work will cease being “employed”. And of those who do completely lose their jobs – that is, stop being paid by their employer – about half will give up looking for jobs and not be counted as unemnployed, perhaps because they have “retired” or decided to concentrate on home duties.

If these assumptions are right, the unemployment rate will climb to about 12% in the June quarter encompassing April, May and June – the highest rate since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Read more: How will the coronavirus recession compare with the worst in Australia’s history?

Under a more optimistic scenario in which more people continue being paid by their employers, the rate will still climb to about 10%, in line with treasury forecasts.

Under a more pessimistic scenario, the unemployment rate will leap to 15%.

Whichever assumptions are made, whatever methods are used, it is clear Australia now confronts one of the worst employment shocks in its history.

– ref. The charts that show coronavirus pushing up to a quarter of the workforce out of work – https://theconversation.com/the-charts-that-show-coronavirus-pushing-up-to-a-quarter-of-the-workforce-out-of-work-136603

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Willis, Lecturer and Researcher, School of Education, University of the Sunshine Coast

As children learn from home, parents are effectively running two schedules – work and school. Some children may not be able to get through all the work their school assigns in the time they have, which can leave parents feeling guilty.

It’s important for parents to note they are not replacement teachers, nor is it possible to hold down a full time job while helping their children learn full time. Something’s got to give.

These are unusual times and schools themselves don’t expect children to cover all the content they provide, especially when it comes to children in primary school.

In a newsletter to parents the principal of Bondi Public school said

Some days your children will submit outstanding work and other days they will submit nothing at all. I want you to know that this is OK. Our students very rarely work at the same level or at the same pace, so try not to compare yourselves with other families.

There’s more to learning than content

There is much more to education than just getting through content. Schools struggle to cover all content in the Australian Curriculum under normal circumstances.

What education provides is the skills to be able to pick up content, or catch up on it when need be.

I research children’s learning in conflict-affected contexts, where school is often disrupted due to disease, poverty or war, and the responsibility of education lands back with families.

This research has shown me that the children most able to catch up on content when they return to school are those whose families or communities promote literacy, numeracy and social skills.

In his research among European refugees during and after the second world war, Professor Reuven Feuerstein observed that children whose mothers believed in them and invested in their learning skills were more likely to overcome trauma and progress their learning.

So the best thing you can do is believe in your children, and help them maintain their love of learning, as well as their basic literacy, numeracy and social skills.

1. Get your kids to read

The more words children have at their disposal, the more they can make sense of the world.

One of the most effective ways to build vocabulary is reading. If you’re having a bad school day at home but you manage for your child to fit in ten minutes of reading, then you’ve had a win.

Reading books helps children develop cognition and sets them up for improved academic achievement. OECD research correlates reading with the achievement of future goals and work success.

Building vocabulary is also important for helping children overcome trauma and stress. When children can make sense of their experiences, it frees up their thinking resources for learning and development.

If your child is a resistant reader, try to build their reading stamina. Start with five minutes per day, then incrementally add one minute each day. Explain to them stamina is like building muscle. Choose material they like to read – and celebrate the wins.

Read more: Love, laughter, adventure and fantasy: a reading list for teens

If reading is an uphill battle, don’t feel like you have to conquer dense texts – reading comics and joke books is better than no reading at all. Try light-hearted humorous books like Andy Griffith’s Treehouse series or The Day My Bum Went Psycho.

Also, tell your children stories. Sharing stories gives us a sense of belonging and possibility. In my study of children’s learning in conflict-affected Northern Uganda many teachers lamented the loss of generational stories due to the loss of parents and grandparents.

Stories give children connections to culture and points of reference that show adversity can be overcome. If all your child manages to do during this difficult time is read and tell or write stories, they’ll be well positioned with literacy skills for later recovery.

2. Build their maths stamina

The Australian Mathematics Curriculum sets out three strands: numbers and algebra, measurement and geometry, and statistics and probability.

These strands are covered at every grade level and spiral up in complexity. As a parent, you don’t need to unpack and interpret the curriculum, your child’s school has already done this for you.

Try to keep to the school’s plan. But if your child is finding it hard to cover everything, just focus on them doing at least some maths every day. It is a skill better practised frequently (10-15 minutes per day) than doing all on one day (and then forgotten by next week).

Read more: Teaching maths – what does the evidence say actually works?

If your child is resistant to doing maths, ten minutes per day is better than zero minutes. And those ten minutes day by day build momentum.

Help them to build that stamina rather than just getting through the material. The clock is your friend – set a timer – see how many problems can be done in ten minutes, and gradually build up this time.

Numeracy is more than doing maths problems. It involves problem solving, sense making and critical judgement. To keep our children numerate while at home, we should keep them counting, measuring, calculating, comparing and estimating.

Online programs like Mathletics may be just what a busy parent with primary schoolers needs, but practical activities like cooking, telling the time or doing a basic budget are also great learning opportunities.

3. Social skills

Educational research places social and emotional skills as considerably important for children’s development and well-being.

Social skills don’t come naturally to all children, and often need to be explicitly taught. These skills include manners, self-regulation and hygiene. The best place to teach these is in families.

The Growing Up in Australia survey shows safe and supportive family environments are key to positive future outcomes for children.

Help your children build social skills into their daily routine: for example, get dressed, brush your hair and clean your teeth every morning by 8 am; insist on manners around food, and create a cool-down space to help with self-regulation.

Although it may sound simplistic, understanding not all people are the same is key to a child’s educational development.

When young people understand people have different backgrounds, experiences, and views, they are more likely to question their own assumptions and listen to the views of others. This extended time at home might be a wonderful opportunity to view documentaries or read stories about other people places and ways of living.

Read more: 5 Australian books that can help young people understand their place in the world

If your children can sustain these three learning skills – literacy, numeracy and social skills – they will be well positioned to go forward, as they can be applied in every subject area.

– ref. Students won’t get through all school content while learning at home: here are 3 things to prioritise – https://theconversation.com/students-wont-get-through-all-school-content-while-learning-at-home-here-are-3-things-to-prioritise-134539

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Berka, Professor of Macroeconomics, Head of School of Economics and Finance, Massey University

New Zealand has the most stringent COVID-19 policy restrictions in the world, matched only by Israel and India, according to Oxford University’s coronavirus government response tracker.

The current level 4 restrictions have brought the number of cases down, and I am delighted the government acted quickly and strongly. But the newly announced level 3 conditions remain stringent, with ongoing border controls, limited domestic travel, and continued closures in many business sectors, including retail and hospitality.

On Monday, the government will announce whether New Zealand will remain in level 4 lockdown for longer, or move to level 3. The obvious trade-off lies between the loss of economic opportunities and the preservation of life.

Based on a combination of international and local data, I argue that New Zealand should go ahead and step back its restrictions from Thursday, because level 3 provides sufficient health outcomes without the worst economic impacts of level 4.

Read more: New Zealand’s coronavirus elimination strategy has united a nation. Can that unity outlast lockdown?

NZ’s world-leading COVID-19 death rate

As the table below shows, New Zealand boasts the lowest mortality rate (0.1%, as of April 8) and ranks among the lowest on the number of confirmed cases per 100,000 people. New Zealand’s government can be proud of these health outcomes.

The Oxford tracker calculates a policy stringency index by combining 13 policy indicators, including school and workplace closures, travel bans, as well as fiscal policy measures.

The links between the stringency index, the number of confirmed cases and case mortality, are complex. In the case of New Zealand, good health outcomes are largely the result of stringent policy. In Italy, the reverse is the case as policy stringency followed rapidly deteriorating health outcomes.

From an economic point of view, the key difference is that while many countries required workplaces to shut down, New Zealand went further; its closures during level 4 have extended to every non-essential business, leaving only supermarkets and pharmacies open.

Read more: Five ways New Zealanders’ lives and liberties will be heavily controlled, even after lockdown eases

Scenarios of COVID-19 impacts

This week, the New Zealand Treasury released a report with five different scenarios of economic impacts from COVID-19.

In one of the worst case scenarios, in which New Zealand stays at level 4 lockdown for six months, followed by another six months of level 3 restrictions, treasury forecast an unemployment rate of around 26% and a drop in GDP by 37%. This would be unprecedented in New Zealand history (the worst real annual GDP growth rate since 1860 was -7.07% in 1932, and the highest unemployment since 1970 at 11% in 1991). This scenario is very unlikely to happen, given no one in the government has been talking about staying at level 4 for that long.

In the most positive scenario, New Zealand would end its current level 4 lockdown after one month, followed by another month of level 3 and ten months at levels 2 and 1. In this case, treasury estimates GDP would drop by around 5% and unemployment would peak at around 8%, but only because of the government’s NZ$12 billion rescue package. This may seem more palatable, but is still far worse than the recession that followed the 2008 global financial crisis, when New Zealand’s GDP declined by 2.2% and unemployment peaked at 6.9%.

The government’s unprecedented fiscal response will protect employment, but it offers limited protection from a drop in GDP. This is because the government is effectively paying workers to not work. This protects incomes, but because most aren’t actually allowed to work, GDP drops more than employment.

Read more: The psychology of lockdown suggests sticking to rules gets harder the longer it continues

Putting a value on lives lost

We rightfully feel repulsed by the notion of putting a price tag on life. But every government uses estimates of a “value of statistical life” in designing its health care policies and decisions about which life-saving drugs to fund.

There are hundreds of such estimates in the academic and policy literature. For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency uses a value estimate of around US$10 million per life, the Australian government indicates A$3.5 million, and the European Commission estimates €1-2 million.

If we assume value of statistical life of NZ$5 million (similar to the estimates in this report for the New Zealand Fire Service Commission), a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests the policies in the tougher treasury scenario outlined above – of staying at level 4 lockdown for six months – would need to save at least 16,800 lives, statistically speaking, to have been worth it.

These unpalatable “trade-offs” are nevertheless what government officials consider when deciding when to open up the economy, aware that moving to level 3 will likely cost lives.

Additional costs of level 4 restrictions

Having the most stringent policy stance has resulted in an enviable decline in new confirmed coronavirus cases in New Zealand and prevented overloading the healthcare system.

But treasury estimates that if level 4 were to continue for a year, GDP would drop by 15% compared to level 3. In nominal terms, this means around NZ$45.5 billion per year.

The drop in GDP may seem surprising as the differences between the two levels is minor. At level 3, borders remain tightly controlled, people have to keep working from home if possible, and only companies that can implement physical distancing measures are allowed to resume production. Hospitality, retail, tourism and entertainment sectors remain largely closed, except for digital transactions. But these and other services comprise most of the GDP in advanced economies.

This cost also ignores long-term effects of unemployment. Young people will likely be on permanently worse-off earnings paths if we head into a multi-year recession. Poor people will be harder hit because they lack an economic “cushion”.

The clearest path forward from next week

I think a strong economic and humane case can be made to relax the rules to level 3 at the end of the current four-week level 4 lockdown, starting from next Thursday.

International epidemiological policy models of COVID-19 predict that countries will go through cycles of easing and tightening restrictions.

It is practically impossible to eliminate COVID-19 in the short term without major social upheaval caused by an economic depression. Level 4 is no longer an optimal policy because it ignores the livelihoods of almost the entire New Zealand population. Nobody is suggesting to open up the economy completely, but I argue that level 3 restrictions are strict enough to protect lives, while also helping people recover their livelihoods.

New Zealand’s level 3 rules are more stringent than Singapore, Hong Kong or South Korea, and could still cause an unprecedented recession. New Zealand shouldn’t return to level 4 unless there’s a threat of our health system being overrun.

– ref. Protecting lives and livelihoods: the data on why New Zealand should relax its coronavirus lockdown from Thursday – https://theconversation.com/protecting-lives-and-livelihoods-the-data-on-why-new-zealand-should-relax-its-coronavirus-lockdown-from-thursday-136242

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Claire Brown, National Director, AVID Australia, Victoria University

Effective learning is a two-way process between the teacher and students, meaning both need to engage.

If a student simply sits and listens to new information without engaging or applying it, it’s called passive learning. Active learning is where students engage with new learning making connections to concepts they have learned previously.

According to one of the world’s leading university educators, Harvard University’s Professor Eric Mazur, “interactive learning triples students’ gains in knowledge”.

Here are six things students can do while studying online to ensure they are learning actively and and making gains.

1. Organise a learning space and dress for learning

Balancing a laptop on your knees on your bed, or with the television on in the background, is not the best way to study. Students learn best when their learning space minimises distractions.

A good learning space has a table and chair, good lighting, good air flow, is away from distractions like television and noise, has good connectivity for digital devices, and is organised with the usual things students have at school such as pens, paper, calculator and others study materials.

Learning online is like being at school in that you need to be physically and mentally prepared to learn. One study suggests what you wear can affect your attention to a task. So it might help not to be in your pyjamas even if your study space is in your bedroom.

2. Organise your learning time

Students with good time management skills tend to do better academically.

There is no easy answer to how long students should be studying at home each day. Students should plan a study timetable dividing their day into learning, revision and rest blocks.

“Zoom fatigue” has been identified as an emerging problem with online studying and meetings caused by the different ways our brains process information delivered online. One suggestion is an online session should be no longer than 45 minutes with a 15-minute break.

Read more: Trying to homeschool because of coronavirus? Here are 5 tips to help your child learn

Back-to-back sessions should be avoided and the time between sessions should be used to step away from the computer to rest your brain, body and eyes. It is important to stand up and move around every 30 minutes.

Students should work with teachers to revise their schedule each day and stick to what works for them.

3. Manage distractions

Because students will be studying in an different space, they may get distracted by what other people are doing. If you can, share your study timetable with others in the house, and ask for their help to keep focused.

When you’re in a learning block of time, turn off social media and close browser tabs you don’t need. If you’re using the Google Chrome browser, it has an extension called Stay Focusd. Students can use this to set the period of time to block potential distractions like notifications from Instagram, Snapchat and other applications.

If you are sharing a digital device with other family members, try to agree on a roster that fits with everyone’s timetables. Work out who needs the device at specific times and put that time on a master timetable that is shared by everyone.

4. Take notes

Our memories are not stable and we frequently overestimate how much we can remember. We forget at least 40% of new information within the first 24 hours of first reading or hearing it. That’s why it’s important to take notes.

Research is unclear about whether it is better to take notes digitally or by hand. Some researchers think it is a matter of preference.

The most important thing is to follow a good note-taking process. This involves:

• writing an essential question that captures the key learning points of the topic

• revising your notes. Use different colours and highlighters to make connections between chunks of information; add new ideas and write study questions in the margin. Compare notes with a study buddy to improve and learn from each other

• writing a summary that links all the information together and answers the essential question you wrote down initially

• revising your notes within 24 hours, seven days, and then each month until you are tested on that knowledge.

Read more: What’s the best, most effective way to take notes?

5. Adopt a growth mindset

In the 1990s, American psychologist Carol Dweck developed the theory of the growth mindset.

It grew out of studies in which primary school children were engaged in a task, and then praised either for their existing capacities, such as intelligence, or the effort they invested in the task.

The students who were praised for their effort were more likely to persist with finding a solution to the task. They were also more likely to seek feedback about how to improve. Those praised for their intelligence were less likely to persist with the more difficult tasks and to seek feedback on how their peers did on the task.

Read more: You can do it! A ‘growth mindset’ helps us learn

The growth mindset assumes capacities can be developed or “grown” through learning and effort. So if you don’t understand something straight away, working at it will help you get there.

If you are engaging in negative self-talk, change the words. For example, instead of saying, “This is too hard”, try saying, “What haven’t I tried yet to figure this out?”

6. Ask questions and collaborate

Ask teachers questions about anything that is unclear as soon as possible. Give teachers frequent feedback. Teachers appreciate suggestions that help improve student learning.

Set up online study groups. Learning is a social activity. We learn best by learning with others, and when learning is fun. Studying with friends helps clarify new concepts and language, and stay connected.

– ref. So you’re going to school online – here are 6 ways to make the most of it – https://theconversation.com/so-youre-going-to-school-online-here-are-6-ways-to-make-the-most-of-it-135215

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katherine Gibney, NHMRC early career fellow, The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity

The unprecedented restrictions Australians are living with are working, so far, to curb the rise in new COVID-19 cases.

Nationally, on average around 50 new COVID-19 cases were reported each day in the week leading up to April 15, compared with a peak of 460 on March 28.

Fewer people are testing positive, and these cases are infecting fewer additional people, as we close international borders, work and study from home, keep 1.5m apart and limit unnecessary travel.

New modelling indicates ten people with the virus now infect only five others.

So many people are asking when physical distancing measures can be relaxed.

Read more: Latest coronavirus modelling suggests Australia on track, detecting most cases – but we must keep going

When can life go back to normal?

The simple answer is, life as normal cannot resume anytime soon. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has said current restrictions will be in place for at least the next four weeks.

COVID-19 remains highly infectious, and our population is still almost entirely susceptible to catching it.

Most people won’t have been exposed to the virus and won’t have built up immunity to it. And we’re unlikely to have a vaccine for at least the next 12–18 months.

This means we need to continue to modify the way we work, socialise and travel to minimise the chance of catching the virus.

What might trigger a return to ‘normal’?

When we know who’s immune

Serosurveys survey the population for antibodies in blood that protect against COVID-19. These can indicate the proportion of the population with natural immunity after COVID-19 infection.

These studies are underway internationally, including in the United States, and are planned for Australia.

Eventually they could inform who gets vaccinated and guide decisions around lifting restrictions. But these results are still likely to be some time away.

Read more: Here’s why the WHO says a coronavirus vaccine is 18 months away

Few new unexplained local cases for at least two weeks

The widespread physical distancing measures in place in Australia aim to prevent community transmission of COVID-19. This is distinct from border measures, which are designed to prevent the introduction of new cases from overseas.

As the restrictions on daily life have important health, social and economic ramifications beyond COVID-19, we will need to begin to roll them back before the Australian population is COVID-19 immune (and before we have results from serosurveys to confirm this).

These changes could begin when the number of locally acquired cases, particularly those transmitted in the community without a known source, is very low for a sustained period. This would need to be longer than the incubation period (the time from infection to symptoms showing), which for COVID-19 can be up to two weeks.

Now is an appropriate time to develop this “exit plan”, but we need to be cautious and responsive in doing so.

More testing, tracing and quarantine

First, we need an even stronger capacity to identify and isolate cases, and to trace and quarantine contacts.

As we’ve increased testing capacity in Australia, we’ve also expanded testing criteria. While initially restricted to returned travellers and contacts of a known case, some jurisdictions are now testing all people with COVID-19 symptoms – regardless of their travel or contact history – to determine the extent of community transmission.

Testing should continue to identify geographical areas or sub-populations with ongoing (or new) transmission, to pave the way for rapid and targeted public health responses.

Read more: More testing will give us a better picture of the coronavirus spread and its slowdown

Once a case is identified, a network of thousands of contact tracers work to to identify their contacts and provide advice around quarantine requirements.

Many countries have employed technological solutions such as contact tracing apps, and Australia is looking to follow suit. But such an app will be effective only if uptake is high.

Fewer than one-fifth of Singapore’s population had downloaded their TraceTogether contact tracing app by April 1, well short of their target.

When we know more about people with mild or no symptoms

Social distancing measures minimise the risk a person will transmit the virus to others when that person doesn’t know they’re infected. So before we consider relaxing them, we need to better understand the relative infectiousness of people with no or mild symptoms.

Studies currently underway are following families and close contacts of cases to see who develops typical COVID-19 symptoms, who is infected with mild or no symptoms, and who is not infected.

Likewise, understanding the role of children in transmitting infection is essential to support reopening schools, with appropriate social distancing in place. Research is similarly underway to attempt to answer this question.

We will likely see restrictions lifted in stages

While returning children to classrooms and opening businesses will be a priority, restrictions around international travel are likely to be in place for many months. Isolation of cases and quarantine of contacts are likely to be ongoing.

While Australia is developing its “exit plan”, other countries have revealed theirs. Iceland has announced physical distancing restrictions will be gradually lifted starting on May 4, including increasing the limit for gatherings from 20 to 50 people, and re-opening schools and universities.

Likewise, Norway is planning to re-open kindergartens, primary schools and certain businesses from April 20.

Read more: The coronavirus contact tracing app won’t log your location, but it will reveal who you hang out with

Even the best-laid plans might not eventuate. Physical distancing measures had been relaxed in Singapore, Japan and South Korea after flattening the curve, but were recently re-introduced following a surge in cases.

No-one knows how the coming months will play out, but this is a marathon, not a sprint. We’ll need to carefully manage the risks that come with easing restrictions. But Australia is well-placed to do this, having successfully navigated the COVID-19 journey so far.

– ref. What might trigger a return to ‘normal’? Why our coronavirus exit strategy is … TBC – https://theconversation.com/what-might-trigger-a-return-to-normal-why-our-coronavirus-exit-strategy-is-tbc-136047

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Berka, Professor of Macroeconomics, Head of School of Economics and Finance, Massey University

New Zealand has the most stringent COVID-19 policy restrictions in the world, matched only by Israel and India, according to Oxford University’s coronavirus government response tracker.

The current level 4 restrictions have brought the number of cases down, and I am delighted the government acted quickly and strongly. But the newly announced level 3 conditions remain stringent, with ongoing border controls, limited domestic travel, and continued closures in many business sectors, including retail and hospitality.

On Monday, the government will announce whether New Zealand will remain in level 4 lockdown for longer, or move to level 3. The obvious trade-off lies between the loss of economic opportunities and the preservation of life.

Based on a combination of international and local data, I argue that New Zealand should go ahead and step back its restrictions from Thursday, because level 3 provides sufficient health outcomes without the worst economic impacts of level 4.

Read more: New Zealand’s coronavirus elimination strategy has united a nation. Can that unity outlast lockdown?

NZ’s world-leading COVID-19 death rate

As the table below shows, New Zealand boasts the lowest mortality rate (0.1%, as of April 8) and ranks among the lowest on the number of confirmed cases per 100,000 people. New Zealand’s government can be proud of these health outcomes.

The Oxford tracker calculates a policy stringency index by combining 13 policy indicators, including school and workplace closures, travel bans, as well as fiscal policy measures.

The links between the stringency index, the number of confirmed cases and case mortality, are complex. In the case of New Zealand, good health outcomes are largely the result of stringent policy. In Italy, the reverse is the case as policy stringency followed rapidly deteriorating health outcomes.

From an economic point of view, the key difference is that while many countries required workplaces to shut down, New Zealand went further; its closures during level 4 have extended to every non-essential business, leaving only supermarkets and pharmacies open.

Read more: Five ways New Zealanders’ lives and liberties will be heavily controlled, even after lockdown eases

Scenarios of COVID-19 impacts

This week, the New Zealand Treasury released a report with five different scenarios of economic impacts from COVID-19.

In one of the worst case scenarios, in which New Zealand stays at level 4 lockdown for six months, followed by another six months of level 3 restrictions, treasury forecast an unemployment rate of around 26% and a drop in GDP by 37%. This would be unprecedented in New Zealand history (the worst real annual GDP growth rate since 1860 was -7.07% in 1932, and the highest unemployment since 1970 at 11% in 1991). This scenario is very unlikely to happen, given no one in the government has been talking about staying at level 4 for that long.

In the most positive scenario, New Zealand would end its current level 4 lockdown after one month, followed by another month of level 3 and ten months at levels 2 and 1. In this case, treasury estimates GDP would drop by around 5% and unemployment would peak at around 8%, but only because of the government’s NZ$12 billion rescue package. This may seem more palatable, but is still far worse than the recession that followed the 2008 global financial crisis, when New Zealand’s GDP declined by 2.2% and unemployment peaked at 6.9%.

The government’s unprecedented fiscal response will protect employment, but it offers limited protection from a drop in GDP. This is because the government is effectively paying workers to not work. This protects incomes, but because most aren’t actually allowed to work, GDP drops more than employment.

Read more: The psychology of lockdown suggests sticking to rules gets harder the longer it continues

Putting a value on lives lost

We rightfully feel repulsed by the notion of putting a price tag on life. But every government uses estimates of a “value of statistical life” in designing its health care policies and decisions about which life-saving drugs to fund.

There are hundreds of such estimates in the academic and policy literature. For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency uses a value estimate of around US$10 million per life, the Australian government indicates A$3.5 million, and the European Commission estimates €1-2 million.

If we assume value of statistical life of NZ$5 million (similar to the estimates in this report for the New Zealand Fire Service Commission), a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests the policies in the tougher treasury scenario outlined above – of staying at level 4 lockdown for six months – would need to save at least 16,800 lives, statistically speaking, to have been worth it.

These unpalatable “trade-offs” are nevertheless what government officials consider when deciding when to open up the economy, aware that moving to level 3 will likely cost lives.

Additional costs of level 4 restrictions

Having the most stringent policy stance has resulted in an enviable decline in new confirmed coronavirus cases in New Zealand and prevented overloading the healthcare system.

But Treasury estimates that if level 4 were to continue for a year, GDP would drop by 15% compared to level 3. In nominal terms, this means around NZ$45.5 billion per year.

The drop in GDP may seem surprising as the differences between the two levels is minor. At level 3, borders remain tightly controlled, people have to keep working from home if possible, and only companies that can implement physical distancing measures are allowed to resume production. Hospitality, retail, tourism and entertainment sectors remain largely closed, except for digital transactions. But these and other services comprise most of the GDP in advanced economies.

This cost also ignores long-term effects of unemployment. Young people will likely be on permanently worse-off earnings paths if we head into a multi-year recession. Poor people will be harder hit because they lack an economic “cushion”.

The clearest path forward from next week

I think a strong economic and humane case can be made to relax the rules to level 3 at the end of the current four-week level 4 lockdown, starting from next Thursday.

International epidemiological policy models of COVID-19 predict that countries will go through cycles of easing and tightening restrictions.

It is practically impossible to eliminate COVID-19 in the short term without major social upheaval caused by an economic depression. Level 4 is no longer an optimal policy because it ignores the livelihoods of almost the entire New Zealand population. Nobody is suggesting to open up the economy completely, but I argue that level 3 restrictions are strict enough to protect lives, while also helping people recover their livelihoods.

New Zealand’s level 3 rules are more stringent than Singapore, Hong Kong or South Korea, and could still cause an unprecedented recession. New Zealand shouldn’t return to level 4 unless there’s a threat of our health system being overrun.

– ref. Protecting lives and livelihoods: the data on why New Zealand should relax its strict lockdown from Thursday – https://theconversation.com/protecting-lives-and-livelihoods-the-data-on-why-new-zealand-should-relax-its-strict-lockdown-from-thursday-136242

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Berka, Professor of Macroeconomics, Head of School of Economics and Finance, Massey University

New Zealand has the most stringent COVID-19 policy restrictions in the world, matched only by Israel and India, according to Oxford University’s coronavirus government response tracker.

The current level 4 restrictions have brought the number of cases down, and I am delighted the government acted quickly and strongly. But the newly announced level 3 conditions remain stringent, with ongoing border controls, limited domestic travel, and continued closures in many business sectors, including retail and hospitality.

On Monday, the government will announce whether New Zealand will remain in level 4 lockdown for longer, or move to level 3. The obvious trade-off lies between the loss of economic opportunities and the preservation of life.

Based on a combination of international and local data, I argue that New Zealand should go ahead and step back its restrictions from Thursday, because level 3 provides sufficient health outcomes without the worst economic impacts of level 4.

Read more: New Zealand’s coronavirus elimination strategy has united a nation. Can that unity outlast lockdown?

NZ’s world-leading COVID-19 death rate

As the table below shows, New Zealand boasts the lowest mortality rate (0.1%, as of April 8) and ranks among the lowest on the number of confirmed cases per 100,000 people. New Zealand’s government can be proud of these health outcomes.

The Oxford tracker calculates a policy stringency index by combining 13 policy indicators, including school and workplace closures, travel bans, as well as fiscal policy measures.

The links between the stringency index, the number of confirmed cases and case mortality, are complex. In the case of New Zealand, good health outcomes are largely the result of stringent policy. In Italy, the reverse is the case as policy stringency followed rapidly deteriorating health outcomes.

From an economic point of view, the key difference is that while many countries required workplaces to shut down, New Zealand went further; its closures during level 4 have extended to every non-essential business, leaving only supermarkets and pharmacies open.

Read more: Five ways New Zealanders’ lives and liberties will be heavily controlled, even after lockdown eases

Scenarios of COVID-19 impacts

This week, the New Zealand Treasury released a report with five different scenarios of economic impacts from COVID-19.

In one of the worst case scenarios, in which New Zealand stays at level 4 lockdown for six months, followed by another six months of level 3 restrictions, treasury forecast an unemployment rate of around 26% and a drop in GDP by 37%. This would be unprecedented in New Zealand history (the worst real annual GDP growth rate since 1860 was -7.07% in 1932, and the highest unemployment since 1970 at 11% in 1991). This scenario is very unlikely to happen, given no one in the government has been talking about staying at level 4 for that long.

In the most positive scenario, New Zealand would end its current level 4 lockdown after one month, followed by another month of level 3 and ten months at levels 2 and 1. In this case, treasury estimates GDP would drop by around 5% and unemployment would peak at around 8%, but only because of the government’s NZ$12 billion rescue package. This may seem more palatable, but is still far worse than the recession that followed the 2008 global financial crisis, when New Zealand’s GDP declined by 2.2% and unemployment peaked at 6.9%.

The government’s unprecedented fiscal response will protect employment, but it offers limited protection from a drop in GDP. This is because the government is effectively paying workers to not work. This protects incomes, but because most aren’t actually allowed to work, GDP drops more than employment.

Read more: The psychology of lockdown suggests sticking to rules gets harder the longer it continues

Putting a value on lives lost

We rightfully feel repulsed by the notion of putting a price tag on life. But every government uses estimates of a “value of statistical life” in designing its health care policies and decisions about which life-saving drugs to fund.

There are hundreds of such estimates in the academic and policy literature. For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency uses a value estimate of around US$10 million per life, the Australian government indicates A$3.5 million, and the European Commission estimates €1-2 million.

If we assume value of statistical life of NZ$5 million (similar to the estimates in this report for the New Zealand Fire Service Commission), a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests the policies in the tougher treasury scenario outlined above – of staying at level 4 lockdown for six months – would need to save at least 16,800 lives, statistically speaking, to have been worth it.

These unpalatable “trade-offs” are nevertheless what government officials consider when deciding when to open up the economy, aware that moving to level 3 will likely cost lives.

Additional costs of level 4 restrictions

Having the most stringent policy stance has resulted in an enviable decline in new confirmed coronavirus cases in New Zealand and prevented overloading the healthcare system.

But Treasury estimates that if level 4 were to continue for a year, GDP would drop by 15% compared to level 3. In nominal terms, this means around NZ$45.5 billion per year.

The drop in GDP may seem surprising as the differences between the two levels is minor. At level 3, borders remain tightly controlled, people have to keep working from home if possible, and only companies that can implement physical distancing measures are allowed to resume production. Hospitality, retail, tourism and entertainment sectors remain largely closed, except for digital transactions. But these and other services comprise most of the GDP in advanced economies.

This cost also ignores long-term effects of unemployment. Young people will likely be on permanently worse-off earnings paths if we head into a multi-year recession. Poor people will be harder hit because they lack an economic “cushion”.

The clearest path forward from next week

I think a strong economic and humane case can be made to relax the rules to level 3 at the end of the current four-week level 4 lockdown, starting from next Thursday.

International epidemiological policy models of COVID-19 predict that countries will go through cycles of easing and tightening restrictions.

It is practically impossible to eliminate COVID-19 in the short term without major social upheaval caused by an economic depression. Level 4 is no longer an optimal policy because it ignores the livelihoods of almost the entire New Zealand population. Nobody is suggesting to open up the economy completely, but I argue that level 3 restrictions are strict enough to protect lives, while also helping people recover their livelihoods.

New Zealand’s level 3 rules are more stringent than Singapore, Hong Kong or South Korea, and could still cause an unprecedented recession. New Zealand shouldn’t return to level 4 unless there’s a threat of our health system being overrun.

– ref. Protecting lives and livelihoods: the data on why New Zealand should relax its strict lockdown next week – https://theconversation.com/protecting-lives-and-livelihoods-the-data-on-why-new-zealand-should-relax-its-strict-lockdown-next-week-136242

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Margarietha de Villiers Scheepers, Senior Lecturer Entrepreneurship and Innovation, University of the Sunshine Coast

At face value, Apple’s decision to launch the second-generation iPhone SE with a recession looming may not make sense. But there’s likely more to this move than meets the eye.

Targeted at price-conscious customers amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the release of the conspicuously lower-priced iPhone SE has raised eyebrows among fans and critics alike.

It’s not common for the company to go against its traditional upmarket brand image. Is this a desperate attempt to cope during crisis, or perhaps a strategy that’s been in the works longer than we realised?

The cheapest iPhone yet

Launching products, or even businesses, during an economic downturn isn’t new. In his book The Silver Lining, author and business consultant Scott Anthony argues “customer problems don’t fade in tough economic times; in fact previously hidden problems are highlighted and old problems intensify”.

Apple’s previously “hidden problems” include increasing competition and a relative decline in smartphone demand since 2018.

In less than a decade smartphones have become very expensive, with incremental product improvements that add little value from one generation to the next. So, when the previous iPhone SE was launched in 2016, its popularity in the mid-range market wasn’t surprising.

Read more: Apple’s iPhone 11 Pro wants to take your laptop’s job (and price tag)

Like its predecessor, the new SE is small. It’s identical in design to the iPhone 8. And although it’s the cheapest iPhone to date, it packs a range of advanced features that mirror the iPhone 11, including an A13 bionic chip.

The SE brand has raised curiosity, as the product range signals a deviation from Apple’s traditional high-end branding. The SE has left fans pondering the price tag of more expensive iPhones over a cheaper option with many of the same features.

Coping under duress

With already slowing sales and fierce competition, it makes sense for Apple to diversify its product portfolio. Analysis by research advisory firm Gartner showed a global 1.7% decline in smartphone sales in the second quarter of 2019.

Apple and Xiaomi were the only brands to achieve even meagre growth in the fourth quarter of 2019, whereas Huawei, OPPO and others experienced decline. A fierce battle between Samsung and Apple persists, with Samsung holding the most market share at 17.3%.

Such competitive pressures are compounded by the looming global coronavirus economic recession and a weak market outlook. Unemployment projections indicate consumers simply won’t have the disposable income they once did. And those in the market for a new smartphone will be more cautious with their spending.

Read more: How will the coronavirus recession compare with the worst in Australia’s history?

Preppy vs purposeful products

Some argue Apple’s lacklustre iPhone sales performance in a competitive market fulfils the “haunted empire” thesis – popularised by former Wall Street Journal reporter Yukari Iwatani Kane in her book of the same name – which suggests the giant lost its way after Steve Jobs’s death. But we think the answer is simpler.

Read more: Channelling Steve Jobs in Apple’s ‘Haunted Empire’

Apple, once a market leader, is now facing the “innovator’s dilemma” described by the late US academic Clayton Christensen. He explained how market leaders are disrupted by smaller, nimbler companies that start by offering cheaper, lower-quality products to low-end customers. These products serve their purpose and eventually these companies – such as OPPO, Xiaomi, and Huawei – improve their offerings to attract a more affluent market.

Apple probably realises it now needs to adapt its strategy to deal with competitive pressure and changing market conditions. It must diversify its product range to offer more value to consumers across the market spectrum.

The decision to launch the new iPhone SE is a much-needed break from tradition. It leaves customers in a winning position by providing more value at a lower price. This is evident in the removal of features such as Face ID and a large screen. The focus is instead on essential features such as a fast processing chip and high-quality camera.

While it may seem like the tech giant is turning its back on the upmarket brand image it once prided itself on, this shift may be favourable for Apple and help it win fans from a wider range of demographics.

Evolving in a tough market

Smartphone market penetration is already at more than 85% in several countries, and these countries are generally “richer”. This means the space left for smartphone sales is in emerging economies where people are more price-sensitive.

As high-end market demand continues to shrink, Apple’s future will likely be in software and services such as music, games, apps, Apple Pay and subscriptions. However, this market is also crowded. While services and software sometimes have higher profit margins, they won’t provide Apple the level of growth hardware originally did.

Extending, not ending, its brand

The first SE’s release in 2016 marked the beginning of Apple’s diversification from its upmarket smartphone strategy.

That said, the company’s iconic brand maintains a loyal following as it connects with customers emotionally, and provides an unmatched ecosystem of products and services. It continues to explore other market options, such as 5G supported smartphones (but progress with this is halted by the pandemic).

With a reported value of about US$140.5 billion, Apple’s brand is still among the world’s most valuable. And providing a lower-cost alternative to customers during a period of economic stress is likely to strengthen, rather than weaken its brand.

– ref. The new iPhone SE is the cheapest yet: smart move, or a premium tech brand losing its way? – https://theconversation.com/the-new-iphone-se-is-the-cheapest-yet-smart-move-or-a-premium-tech-brand-losing-its-way-136507

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mary Anne Kenny, Associate Professor, School of Law, Murdoch University

The Sri Lankan family that had been living in Biloela, Queensland, before being held in detention on Christmas Island has had a partial victory in the Federal Court, with a ruling that the youngest child was not granted “procedural fairness”.

This is not yet a decision about whether the family will be allowed back into the community, but leaves the way open for the family to continue its bid to stay in Australia.

What was the judgment?

The case involves a two-year-old girl, Tharunicaa, born in Australia to Sri Lankan Tamil parents. (The couple also has a four-year-old daughter, Kopika.) The family have been in immigration detention on Christmas Island since a dramatic injunction stopped their deportation back to Sri Lanka in August 2019.

The judgment made today by Justice Moshinsky found Tharunicaa was not given “procedural fairness” when her request for permission to apply for a protection visa was rejected.

Read more: How the Biloela Tamil family deportation case highlights the failures of our refugee system

Tharunicca’s parents and sister had previously had their claims for protection refused. Appeals to the courts about the fairness of the process in their cases were not successful.

Tharunicaa was born after her parents had made their visa application. Even though she was born in Australia, her parents’ arrival in Australia by boat as asylum seekers means the law designates her to be an “unauthorised maritime arrival”. Legally, this means she is not able to make an application for a protection visa unless the minister for immigration personally allows her to under section 46A of the Migration Act.

Lawyers for Tharunicca argued the minister should allow her to make that application and have her own claims for asylum considered as there were significant concerns she and her family would face persecution if returned to Sri Lanka.

In exercising the section 46A power, the judge stated, the minister has to consider whether to exercise his power to “lift the bar” to allow her to apply. The question in this case was whether he had to observe procedural fairness in carrying out that power.

Read more: View from The Hill: Morrison and Dutton block their ears and grit their teeth over Tamil family

Evidence provided by the Department of Home Affairs and lawyers for Tharunicaa was examined in detail.

The judge found the department had prepared a detailed 11-page brief on the family’s background and claims for protection, which was given directly to Immigration Minister David Coleman in May 2019. The brief provided the minister with several options for him to circle. However, this was not done.

The judge found the minister had made no clear final decision on that brief. However, even though no decision was made, the minister was clearly still considering whether to allow the child to make a visa application.

In August 2019, an officer in the Department of Home Affairs wrote to the lawyers that the request for ministerial intervention had been assessed and the request did not meet the guidelines required for a referral to the minister. The department then “finalised this request without referral”.

Justice Moshinky found the department had not afforded “procedural fairness” to the child, in that it had not allowed her lawyers the opportunity to provide any evidence or submissions on her behalf.

The judge has asked the lawyers for the government and the family to discuss and agree on what orders should be made to allow Tharunicaa’s request to be considered properly.

What does it mean for the family?

The decision means the case is ongoing. The injunction preventing the removal of the family will continue.

The judge has asked that the parties agree on orders within seven days. If they can’t agree on the orders, he has asked them to provide separate submissions to him within 14 days. He will make orders after that.

– ref. Explainer: what does the Federal Court decision on the Tamil asylum-seeker family mean? – https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-does-the-federal-court-decision-on-the-tamil-asylum-seeker-family-mean-136504

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caroline Fisher, Assistant Professor in Journalism, University of Canberra

The COVID-19 global pandemic has seen news consumption rise in Australia. Audiences for TV news are up and Australians are spending more time on news websites seeking reliable information about the virus and the social and economic consequences of our policy responses.

This makes trust in the media more imperative than ever.

Researchers at the Queensland University of Technology and the University of Canberra have undertaken a survey of 1,045 Australians to gauge levels of trust and mistrust in news and what influences it.

Read more: A matter of trust: coronavirus shows again why we value expertise when it comes to our health

The most trusted voices in news

We found people trust the news they personally consume more than the news in general, and that trust in news was higher than trust in business or government, although lower than trust in friends and educational institutions.

Our participants deemed television the most credible source of information that provides good analysis of current events. Online news sources (including online only and mainstream media) were not viewed to be as credible or professional as traditional offline media.

Some brands were more trusted than others. Trust in established news brands and public broadcasters was highest. Measured on a scale of 1-5 with 5 being the highest, ABC TV (3.92) and radio (3.90) ranked highest, followed by SBS TV (3.87).

Among commercial media, the most trusted news brand was The Australian Financial Review (3.74), followed by The Age (3.69) and The Australian (3.69). More recently established brands had lower levels of trust, with Guardian Australia (3.45) being the most trusted.

Declaring conflicts of interest is important

To find out why people do or don’t trust the news, we asked them to rank a range of possible influences.

Factors that promoted mistrust in news included a past history of inaccurate stories, opinionated journalists or presenters, a lack of transparency, sensationalism and excessive advocacy on behalf of particular points of view.

Factors that promoted trust included depth of coverage, the reputation of the news brand, the reputation of particular journalists or presenters, and openness to comments and feedback from audiences.

The single most significant measure that would restore trust in news brands was journalists declaring any conflicts of interest or biases with regards to particular stories. These measures were supported most by both trusters and mistrusters of news.

The negative impact of perceived bias and conflicts of interest appears consistently in studies about trust in news. News outlets need to take this seriously.

Read more: Accurate. Objective. Transparent. Australians identify what they want in trustworthy media

Hiring more journalists and social media are not the answers

Our research also reveals some interesting contradictions in how to improve trust in the media.

On the one hand, there was a clear desire for more in-depth reporting. However, most respondents simultaneously showed less support for media outlets employing more journalists. This suggests audiences want better-quality journalism, but not necessarily more of it.

Read more: On an average day, only 1% of Australian news stories quoted a young person. No wonder so few trust the media

In fact, employing more journalists and being more active on social media were deemed the least likely to increase public trust in media – two approaches that feature prominently in the business models of most news organisations.

As with institutional trust more generally, there is also a “trust divide” between educated elites and the wider population when it comes to the news media. Older people also have higher trust in news than younger people.

Trust in news is hard to restore

Importantly, our findings show that people who don’t trust the news are less supportive of ways to improve it. In contrast, people who do trust the news are more enthusiastic about options to boost it further.

In particular, mistrusters do not see employing more journalists or reporters using more social media as a way to boost trust. Doing either of those things would only increase the circulation of news they already mistrust.

This suggests it is harder to improve trust of those who are already sceptical and mistrustful of news. This is an important message for news outlets to take on board. Once lost, trust in news is harder to restore.

– ref. How can we restore trust in media? Fewer biases and conflicts of interest, a new study shows – https://theconversation.com/how-can-we-restore-trust-in-media-fewer-biases-and-conflicts-of-interest-a-new-study-shows-135680

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joseph Schubert, Entomology/Arachnology Registration Officer, Museums Victoria

After I found my first peacock spider in the wild in 2016, I was hooked. Three years later, I was travelling across Australia on a month-long expedition to document and name new species of peacock spiders.

Peacock spiders are a unique group of tiny, colourful, dancing spiders native to Australia. They’re roughly between 2.5 and 6 millimetres, depending on the species. Adult male peacock spiders are usually colourful, while female and juvenile peacock spiders are usually dull brown or grey.

Read more: The spectacular peacock spider dance and its strange evolutionary roots

Like peacocks, the mature male peacock spiders display their vibrant colours in elegant courtship displays to impress females. They often elevate and wave their third pair of legs and lift their brilliantly coloured abdomens – like dancing.

Up until 2011, there were only seven known species of them. But since then, the rate of scientific discovery has skyrocketed with upwards of 80 species being discovered in the last decade.

Thanks to my trip across Australia and the help from citizen scientists, I’ve recently scientifically described and named seven more species from Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria. This brings the total number of peacock spider species known to science up to 86.

Spider hunting: a game of luck

Citizen scientists – other peacock spider enthusiasts – shared photographs and locations of potentially undocumented species with me. I pulled these together to create a list of places in Australia to visit.

I usually find spider hunting to be a relaxing pastime, but this trip was incredibly stressful (albeit amazing).

The thing about peacock spiders is they’re mainly active during spring, which is when they breed. Colourful adult males are difficult – if not impossible – to find at other times of year, as they usually die shortly after the mating season. This meant I had a very short window to find what I needed to, or I had to wait another year.

Even when they’re active, they can be difficult to come across unless weather conditions are ideal. Not too cold. Not too rainy. Not too hot. Not too sunny. Not too shady. Not too windy. As you can imagine, it’s largely a game of luck.

The wild west

I arrived in Perth, picked up my hire car and bought a foam mattress that fitted in the back of my car – my bed for half of the trip. I stocked up on tinned food, bread and water, and I headed north in search of these tiny eight-legged gems.

My first destination: Jurien Bay. I spent the whole day under the hot sun searching for a peculiar, scientifically unknown species that Western Australian photographer Su RamMohan had sent me photographs of. I was in the exact spot it had been photographed, but I just couldn’t find it!

The sun began to lower and I was using up precious time. I made what I now believe was the right decision and abandoned the Jurien Bay species for another time.

I spent days travelling between dramatic coastal landscapes, the rugged inland outback, and old, mysterious woodlands.

I hunted tirelessly with my eyes fixed on the ground searching for movement. In a massive change of luck from the beginning of my trip, it seemed conditions were (mostly) on my side.

With the much-appreciated help of some of my field companions from the University of Hamburg and volunteers from the public, a total of five new species were discovered and scientifically named from Western Australia.

The Little Desert

Two days after returning from Western Australia, I headed to the Little Desert National Park in Victoria on a Bush Blitz expedition, joined by several of my colleagues from Museums Victoria.

I’d thought the landscape’s harsh, dry conditions were unsuitable for peacock spiders, as most described species are known to live in temperate regions.

To my surprise, we found a massive diversity of them, including two species with a bigger range than we thought, and the discovery of another species unknown to science.

This is the first time two known species – Maratus robinsoni and Maratus vultus – had been found in Victoria. Previously, they had only been known to live in eastern New South Wales and southern Western Australia respectively.

Read more: Don’t like spiders? Here are 10 reasons to change your mind

Our findings suggest other known species may have much bigger geographic ranges than we previously thought, and may occur in a much larger variety of habitats.

And our discovery of the unknown species (Maratus inaquosus), along with another collected by another wildlife photographer Nick Volpe from South Australia (Maratus volpei) brought the tally of discoveries to seven.

What’s in a name?

Writing scientific descriptions, documenting, and naming species is a crucial part in conserving our wildlife.

Read more: Spiders are a treasure trove of scientific wonder

With global extinction rates at an unprecedented high, species conservation is more important than ever. But the only way we can know if we’re losing species is to show and understand they exist in the first place.

• Maratus azureus: “Deep blue” in Latin, referring to the colour of the male.

• Maratus constellatus: “Starry” in Latin, referring to the markings on the male’s abdomen which look like a starry night sky.

• Maratus inaquosus: “Dry” or “arid” in Latin, for the dry landscape in Little Desert National Park this species was found in.

• Maratus laurenae: Named in honour of my partner, Lauren Marcianti, who has supported my research with enthusiasm over the past few years.

• Maratus noggerup: Named after the location where this species was found: Noggerup, Western Australia.

• Maratus suae: Named in honour of photographer Su RamMohan who discovered this species and provided useful information about their locations in Western Australia.

• Maratus volpei: Named in honour of photographer Nick Volpe who discovered and collected specimens of this species to be examined in my paper.

These names allow us to communicate important information about these animals to other scientists, as well as to build legislation around them in the case there are risks to their conservation status.

I plan on visiting some more remote parts of Australia in hopes of finding more new peacock spider species. I strongly suspect there’s more work to be done, and more peacock spiders to discover.

– ref. I travelled Australia looking for peacock spiders, and collected 7 new species (and named one after the starry night sky) – https://theconversation.com/i-travelled-australia-looking-for-peacock-spiders-and-collected-7-new-species-and-named-one-after-the-starry-night-sky-135201

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Connell, Research Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

A report released today investigating how states share water in the Murray Darling Basin describes a fascinating contrast between state cultures – in particular, risk-averse South Australia and buccaneering New South Wales.

Perhaps surprising is the report’s sparse discussion of the Murray Darling Basin Plan, which has been the focus of irrigators’ anger and denunciation by National Party leaders: Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack and NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro.

In general terms, the Murray Darling Basin Plan was originally intended to make water management in the Murray Darling Basin more environmentally sustainable. Its critics see it as a restraint on development, and complain it has taken water away from irrigators during a time of extreme drought.

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

In response to McCormack and Barliaro’s criticisms of the plan in late 2019, federal water minister (and senior National Party figure) David Littleproud commissioned Mick Keelty as Interim Inspector General of MDB Water Resources.

For the new report, Keelty investigated the changing distribution of “inflows” – water flowing into the River Murray in the southern states.

Climate change has brought the inflow to just a trickle. This dramatic reduction over the past 20 years is what Keelty has described as “the most telling finding”.

Read more: The Murray-Darling Basin scandal: economists have seen it coming for decades

He also investigated the reserve policies under which the three states choose – or don’t choose – to hold back water in Hume and Dartmouth Dams to manage future droughts.

Keelty says there’s little transparency or clarity about how much water states are allocated under the Murray Darling Basin Agreement (the arrangement for sharing water between the states which underpins the Basin Plan). This failure in communication and leadership across such a vital system must change.

Sharing water across three states

One major finding of Keelty’s inquiry is that the federal government has little power to change the MDB Agreement between the three states, which was first approved in 1914-15. Any amendment requires the approval of all three governments.

To increase the volume of water provided to NSW irrigators, South Australia and Victoria would need to agree to reduce the volumes supplied to their own entitlement holders. That will not happen.

Why has the agreement lasted so long?

Over the past century it has proved robust under a wide range of conditions. Its central principle is to share water with a proportion-of-available-flow formula, giving each state a percentage of whatever is available, no matter whether it’s a lot, or not much.

After receiving its share of the River Murray flows, each state is then free to manage its allocation as it wishes.

Read more: Is the Murray-Darling Basin Plan broken?

Historically, South Australia and Victoria have chosen to reserve or hold back a larger proportion of their shares each year in Hume and Dartmouth dams to use in future droughts, compared with New South Wales.

In part this difference derives from the long-term water needs of orchards and vines in South Australia and Victoria, in contrast to annual crops such as rice and cotton in New South Wales.

As a result, South Australia and Victoria have a higher proportion of high security entitlements. That means they receive 100% most years. Only in extreme drought years is their allocation reduced.

NSW, on the other hand, has a higher proportion of low security general entitlements. In dry and normal years they receive a proportion of their entitlements. Only in wet years do they get the full 100%. (These differences in reliability are reflected in the cost of entitlements on the water market.)

Reliability of water supply

What’s more, each state makes its own decision about how its state allocation is shared between its entitlement holders (95% of water goes to irrigators the rest supplies towns and industry).

South Australia chooses to distribute a much smaller proportion to its entitlement holders than New South Wales. It also restricted the number of licences in the 1970s. That combination ensures a very high level of reliability in supply. Victoria took a similar approach.

Read more: 5 ways the government can clean up the Murray-Darling Basin Plan

But New South Wales did not restrict licences until the 1990s. It also recognised unused entitlements, so further reducing the frequency of years in which any individual would receive their full allocation of water.

When climate change is taken into account these differences between the three states result in their irrigators having significantly different risk profiles.

The climate change threat to the basin is very real

Despite climate denial in the National Party, the threat is very real in the MDB. The report describes a massive reduction in inflows over the past 20 years, approximately half compared with the previous century. One drought could be an aberration, but two begins to look like a pattern.

The report also suggests that in many cases irrigator expectations of what should be normal were formed during the wet period Australia experienced between the second world war and the 1990s.

Added to this have been business decisions by many irrigators to sell their entitlements and rely on the water market, a business model based on what now seems like unrealistic inflow expectations.

Read more: Don’t blame the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It’s climate and economic change driving farmers out

In effect, successive New South Wales governments – a significant part of the state’s irrigation sector in the southern part of the state and the National Party – gambled against the climate and are now paying a high price.

In desperation, they’re focusing on alternative sources. This includes the water in Hume and Dartmouth held under the reserves policy of the two other states; environmental entitlements managed by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder; the very large volume of water lost to evaporation in the lower lakes in South Australia; and the possibility of savings resulting from changes to management of the system by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.

Failure in leadership and communication

For reasons already outlined, the state reserves policy is not likely to change and use of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder environmental water entitlements would not be permitted under current legislation.

Management of the lower lakes is being reviewed through another investigation so is not discussed in the report. The report also states that management of the MDB Authority is subject to regular detailed assessment by state governments, and they have assessed its performance as satisfactory.

Read more: A referendum won’t save the Murray-Darling Basin

However the report was critical of the performance of all MDB governments with regard to leadership and communications suggesting that failures in those areas were largely responsible for the public concern which triggered its investigation.

– ref. No water, no leadership: new Murray Darling Basin report reveals states’ climate gamble – https://theconversation.com/no-water-no-leadership-new-murray-darling-basin-report-reveals-states-climate-gamble-136514

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Donna Lee Brien, Professor, Creative Industries, CQUniversity Australia

Being in isolation might be a great time to try something new. In this series, we get the basics on hobbies and activities to start while you’re spending more time at home.

Pickling foods in vinegar or fermenting them in brine is one of the oldest food preservation methods. The earliest archeological evidence comes from Ancient Mesopotania and the Tigris River Valley more than 4,000 years ago.

Pre-refrigeration, pickling allowed vegetables and fruits to be eaten long after they were in season, and meats such as salt pork to be carried on long journeys and into wars. Pickling soon spread around the world: pickles are mentioned by Aristotle, in the Bible and in Shakespeare’s plays. Cleopatra and Queen Elizabeth I were prominent proponents of their health properties.

Read more: How sauerkraut is leading a food revolution

The wide adoption of electrical refrigeration in the 20th century meant pickling was no longer necessary for preserving food, but by then pickles were appreciated for their taste, and so the method has lasted.

The 1893 edition of Mrs Beeton’s Every-day Cookery and Housekeeping Book has a number of inspiring and achievable recipes ranging from gherkins and herrings to nasturtiums as an alternative to capers.

Mrs Beeton also includes a warning against purchasing “inferior” commercially produced pickles, as copper sulphate was used to give a vivid, but unfortunately quite toxic, colour. Anxiety over food adulteration reached dizzying heights in the Victorian age, with dangerous and even poisonous substances added to foods to enhance colour and flavour, or eke out more expensive ingredients.

The Country Women’s Association Cookery Book from 1936 compiles “tried-and-true” members’ recipes, with a pickled beetroot recipe using a thin layer of melted fat to form an airtight seal on the cooled jar. Such vacuum sealing was essential for unrefrigerated storage.

In New Zealand, the 1968 edition of The Aunt Daisy Cookbook contains an entire chapter on pickles and chutney, including pickled figs, peaches and pears. One recipe suggests steeping blackberries in sugar overnight, boiling in vinegar, then spicing with ground ginger and allspice.

Reflecting Australians’ increasing interest in other cuisines, Margaret Fulton’s Encyclopedia of Food and Cookery (1983) used a number of Asian flavours, such as her curried aubergine pickle with fresh ginger and chilli. Fulton was also aware of how pickling can turn waste destined for the green bin or compost into a crunchy condiment, as in her recipe for pickled watermelon rind.

Read more: Vale Margaret Fulton: a role model for generations of Australian food writers

Easy recipes to try at home

Almost Instant Cucumber Pickle

“Quick” or “refrigerator” pickles provide an easy way into pickling. The below is barely a recipe, but it is both reliable and totally adjustable to taste.

• 1 tablespoon vinegar (apple cider, white wine or rice)
• 1 tablespoon cold water
• 2 teaspoons sugar (white, raw or soft brown)
• ¼ teaspoon salt
• 1 cucumber, washed (peeled, or not, depending on variety)

Mix vinegar and water in a bowl, and stir in sugar and salt until dissolved.

Thinly slice in the cucumber. Stir gently.

An even more instant result is obtained by marinating the cucumber slices in some liquid from a jar of pickles.

Finely chopped dill, mint or chives can be added. More (or less) vinegar, water, sugar or salt can be used to taste.

This can be made during the day and refrigerated, covered, until dinner, or assembled while the rest of the meal is being prepared. Drained, these crunchy slices can be used on burgers and in sandwiches and salads, or just enjoyed on their own. They can be stored in the fridge for a few days, but become softer.

This is also a delicious way of pickling a thinly sliced red onion. When left for a couple of hours, it emerges from the solution not only soft and sweet, but a gorgeous pink.

Cauliflower Pickle

This recipe adapts elements from Aunt Daisy and Margaret Fulton. It requires some patience waiting for the flavours to develop, but not too long. Nervous about food hygiene, I keep this in the refrigerator.

• 1 medium cauliflower, broken into florets
• 1 onion, peeled and cut into 8 wedges (about a cup)
• ⅓ cup salt
• 5 cups vinegar (white)
• ¾ cup sugar (white or raw) or ½ cup golden syrup
• 1 teaspoon turmeric
• 1½ tablespoons mustard seeds (or coriander seeds, or a mixture)
• 2 red chillies, halved lengthwise
• glass jars with plastic-plated lids (I reuse medium-sized, 450g pickle jars)

Put cauliflower and onion in a large non-reactive glass or stainless-steel bowl.

Sprinkle with salt, stir a few times and leave in a cool place for three hours.

Wash glass jars and their lids in hot, soapy water. Rinse and place in a warm oven, about 140°C to sterilise.

Drain vegetables.

Mix vinegar, sugar or syrup, turmeric, seeds and chilli, and bring to the boil.

Add vegetables and cook gently for about 5 minutes. This depends on the size of the florets. They need to be just cooked through, not mushy.

Using a slotted spoon or soup ladle, put vegetables (not liquid) into hot jars.

Bring spiced vinegar up to the boil again and pour into jars to cover the cauliflower and onion.

Seal the jars. Let cool and then store in refrigerator for at least a week.

This makes about three jars, depending on the size of the cauliflower, onion and jars.

– ref. Great time to try: pickling – https://theconversation.com/great-time-to-try-pickling-135052

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Fankhauser, Deputy Chair, Aviation Department, Faculty of Science, Engineering & Technology, Swinburne University of Technology

With commercial airline fleets grounded due to lack of demand, the Australian government will pay the nation’s two biggest airlines, Qantas and Virgin Australia, $A165 million to ensure they keep flying critical metropolitan and regional routes over the next two months.

This measure comes on top of a A$198 million assistance package for regional airlines and the waiver of A$715 million in fees and charges for domestic airlines.

Read more: Government funding to Qantas and Virgin to ensure air services on key routes

It’s particularly important for the cash-strapped Virgin Australia. The company this week asked the Australian Stock Exchange to suspend trading of its shares after the federal government rebuffed its request for a $A1.4 billion loan.

Without a significant cash injection, industry experts say, the airline will collapse within six months. Prior to the government’s latest announcement there were reports it could go into administration within weeks.

Virgin Australia is 90% owned by five international companies – Etihad Airways, Singapore Airlines, China’s Nanshan Group and HNA, and Richard Branson’s Virgin Group. Facing their own difficulties, they have signalled they will not inject further capital.

This funding package gives the airline more time to find other investors. But its longer-term future remains up in the air.

Desperately seeking $1.4 billion

While the US government has agreed to provide US$50 billion in loans and grants to its ten biggest domestic airlines, with the option to take equity stakes, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said this week the Australian government was “not in the business of owning an airline”.

Having two major airlines had served Australia well, he said, but “our approach has been sector-wide support”.

Complicating that type of support has been disagreement between Virgin Australia and Qantas.

Qantas chief Alan Joyce has argued for “survival of the fittest” and against assistance to “badly managed” businesses. His airline did not need government support, Joyce said this week. But if the government loaned Virgin Australia A$1.4 billion, he wanted A$4.2 billion.

To bail or not to bail

The federal government’s dilemma is whether it is better to bail out Virgin Australia or allow commercial forces to rule, as it has done in the past.

Its interest in sector-wide support reflects the fact the entire domestic aviation industry is hurting.

Freight and logistics, aircraft maintenance and repair, flight training and simulation, component manufacturing and research and design operations are all bundled together into a tightly bound sector.

All up, the industry’s five subsectors – domestic commercial aviation, international commercial aviation, general aviation, freight transport and aviation support infrastructure – have provided employment for about 90,000 Australians across 1,900 businesses. So it’s not just the 10,000 people employed by Virgin Australia the government needs to think about.

Systems shocks are nothing new

History is also a factor. The global aviation industry is no stranger to “system shocks”. These have included the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, the SARS outbreak in 2003, the World Trade Centre attacks in 2001, the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 and the oil shocks of the 1970s.

Typically the sector has “bounced back” within a year.

The last big shakeup of the Australian airline industry was in 2001. Just days after the September 11 terrorist attacks, Ansett Airlines – flying since 1935 – went into administration.

After Ansett’s collapse, Virgin Blue (established in 2000) saw explosive growth and former Ansett employees helped create regional operator Rex in 2002.

So from the rubble of failure new enterprises and forms of aviation business can grow, just as Virgin Australia has taken Ansett’s place as the nation’s second major domestic carrier.

Of course, the extent of the crisis is somewhat different this time.

With domestic travel restrictions likely in place for at least six months, and international flight restrictions set to continue even longer, the sector will be changed forever.

Read more: Once the pandemic is over, we will return to a very different airline industry

But history shows Australia can support two major airlines. We have extensive domestic aviation routes that will enable an early recovery compared with airlines in other parts of the world that rely on international routes.

– ref. Virgin Australia gets a lifeline, but will it be enough? – https://theconversation.com/virgin-australia-gets-a-lifeline-but-will-it-be-enough-136399