Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sven Gallasch, Lecturer in Law, Swinburne University of Technology

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion,” wrote Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (published in 1776), “but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

With the coronavirus crisis, though, Australia’s competition watchdog has decided a little more conversation is in the public interest.

Read more: Morrison tells big business to show ‘patriotism’ as COVID-19 threatens to hit harder than GFC

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is lightening up on its normal competition rules by giving interim authorisation for competitors to cooperate.

On Wednesday the regulator authorised the NBN Co and the five biggest telcos (Telstra, Optus, Vodafone Hutchison, TPG and Vocus) to “work together to take measures necessary to keep Australia’s telecommunications networks operating effectively”.

On Tuesday it authorised wholesalers of medicines “to co-operate to facilitate distribution of essential medication and pharmacy products.

On Monday it authorised banks “to co-operate to provide supplementary relief packages for individuals and businesses”.

And last week it authorised the major supermarket chains (Woolworths, Coles, Aldi and IGA/Metcash) to coordinate their activities to ensure the supply of retail products, particularly those in short supply.

What is cartel conduct

Normally a competition watchdog guards against any collaboration or collusion between competitors. There are hefty fines and even criminal penalties to deter competitors talking to each other.

Cartel conduct – agreements to fix prices, share markets, rid bids or control the amount of goods and services available to buyers – is arguably the biggest threat to a well-functioning competitive market.

Rather than competing on product quality, price and service, cartels maximise profits by agreeing to charge consumers more, pay suppliers less and putting the squeeze on other competitors. Competition officials have described cartels as “cancers on the open market economy”.

Read more: Cartels caught ripping off Australian consumers should be hit with bigger fines

But these are not normal times. The normal behaviour that allows markets to function has been thrown into flux. Panic buying of toilet paper, hand sanitiser, pasta and other staples has led to significant supply shortages. Video conferencing and streaming has led to a surge in broadband data use.

In these “unprecedented circumstances”, the watchdog has decided the benefits of permitting competitors to cooperate to secure the supply of essentials goods outweigh the risks.

Different times, different conditions

History shows cartel conduct is tempting to companies in hard economic times. In fact, it’s even tempting to regulators.

In 1933 the United States legalised cartel conduct with the National Industrial Recovery Act. The intention was to assist recovery from the Great Depression. Agreements to restrict output and fix prices were seen as a short-term solution to keep businesses afloat. It has since been argued the US law actually slowed the recovery by converting “otherwise competitive industries into highly regulated, cartelised, and often inefficient industries”.

The US government’s mistake is not one the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is making.

Its interim authorisations allow officials from the regulator and the federal government to monitor discussions. Every arrangement must be approved by the regulator. Everything is “out in the open”, eliminating a key feature for any cartel arrangement to succeed – secrecy.

Conditions now are also very different to those in 1930s America.

Then the issue was over-supply. Now it’s mostly a problem of undersupply, due to demand surges.

Read more: There’s plenty of toilet paper – so why are people hoarding it?

This is not a situation in which supermarkets, pharmaceutical companies and broadband providers have anything to gain through restricting supply.

They might have an interest in increasing prices. But the competition watchdog has expressly forbidden talk about retail prices.

A tight leash needed

European regulators are taking a similar approach to Australia. The European Commission has declared it will not actively intervene against “necessary and temporary measures” to avoid supply shortage:

“Considering the current circumstances, such measures are unlikely to be problematic, since they would either not amount to a restriction of competition […] or generate efficiencies that would most likely outweigh any such restriction.”

Even so, there are risks. There are anti-cartel laws for good reason. The longer competitors spend working together, as Adam Smith noted, the greater the risk of conspiracy.

The competition watchdog will need to keep talks on a tight leash. Apart from price, it needs to ensure companies do not share information about operations and processes that would allow them to act independently in a mutually beneficial manner. This would give us exactly what cartel laws are meant to stop – higher prices.

Australia’s competition watchdog is arguably better equipped for this task than its European counterparts. But with more industry requests for competitors to cooperate likely, it will need to stay vigilant, making full use of its powers to monitor talks and ensure cooperation only goes on for as much, and as long, as absolutely necessary.

– ref. Look who’s talking: Australia’s telcos, banks and supermarkets granted exemption to cartel laws – https://theconversation.com/look-whos-talking-australias-telcos-banks-and-supermarkets-granted-exemption-to-cartel-laws-135303

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

Getting a good night’s sleep can be difficult at the best of times. But it can be even harder when you’re anxious or have something on your mind – a global pandemic, for example.

Right now though, getting a good night’s sleep could be more important than ever.

Sleep is essential for maintaining our health and mood. Sleep can also boost our immune function and help us deal with stress.

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

How much do we need?

Social distancing has many of us spending more time at home. This may mean more sleep for some people – suddenly you’ve got time to sleep in and even have a nap in the afternoon.

For others, falling out of your usual routine may mean less sleep. Instead of going to bed when you normally would, you might be staying up late watching Netflix, scrolling social media or glued to coronavirus news.

For adults, achieving between seven and nine hours of sleep per night is the goal. If you know you’re a person who needs more or less, finding that perfect amount of sleep for you and aiming to achieve that consistently is key.

Sleep and our circadian system (or internal body clock) are essential for regulating our mood, hunger, recovery from illness or injury, and our cognitive and physical functioning.

Shifting our bed or wake times from day-to-day may affect all of these functions. For example, higher variability in night-to-night sleep duration has been linked to increased depression and anxiety symptoms.

Long-term consequences of sleep problems can include obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure.

Sleep and immune function

Declines in the quality and/or quantity of sleep can affect our immunity, leaving us more susceptible to illnesses including viruses.

During sleep, the immune system releases proteins called cytokines. Certain cytokines are important for fighting infections and inflammation, and help us respond to stress. But when we don’t get enough sleep or our sleep is disrupted, our bodies produce fewer of these important cytokines.

Read more: Coronavirus: Social distancing may be a rare chance to get our sleep patterns closer to what nature intended

In one study, participants were exposed to the common cold (rhinovirus). Those who slept less than seven hours per night were almost three times more likely to develop a cold than those who slept eight hours per night or more.

Another study indicated that a single night of no sleep may delay our immune response, slowing our body’s ability to recover.

While we don’t have any research yet on the relationship between sleep and the coronavirus, we could expect to see a similar pattern.

Sleep and stress: a vicious cycle

You’ve probably heard the phrase “to lose sleep over” something. We have this saying because stress can negatively affect sleep quality and quantity.

Lack of sleep also causes a biological stress response, boosting levels of stress hormones such as cortisol in our bodies the next day.

Cortisol levels typically peak in the morning and evenings. Following a poor night’s sleep, you might feel more stressed, have trouble focusing, be more emotional, and potentially have trouble falling asleep the next night.

Prolonged sleep loss can make us more vulnerable to experiencing stress and less resilient at managing daily stressors.

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

Think of sleep as your “shield” against stress. A lack of sleep can damage the shield. When you don’t get enough sleep the shield cracks and you are more susceptible to stress. But when you get enough sleep the shield is restored.

It’s important to stop this cycle by learning to manage stress and prioritising sleep.

Tips for healthy sleep

To allow yourself the opportunity to get enough sleep, plan to go to bed about eight to nine hours before your usual wake-up time.

This may not be possible every night. But trying to stick to a consistent wake-up time, no matter how long you slept the night before, will help improve your sleep quality and quantity on subsequent nights.

Think about your environment. If you’re spending a lot of time at home, keep your bed as a space for sex and sleep only. You can also enhance your sleep environment by:

• keeping your lights dim in the evening, especially in the hour before sleep time
• minimising noise (you might try using earplugs or white noise if your bedroom gets a lot of noise from outside)
• optimising the temperature in your room by using a fan, or setting a timer on your air conditioning to ensure you’re comfortable.

Create a routine before bedtime to mentally relax and prepare for sleep. This could include:

• setting an alarm one hour before bed to signal it’s time to start getting ready
• taking a warm shower or bath
• turning off screens or putting phones on airplane mode an hour before bed
• winding down with a book, stretching exercises, or gentle music.

Read more: Explainer: how much sleep do we need?

Some other good ways to reduce stress and improve sleep include:

• exercising daily. To maximise the benefits for sleep, exercise in the morning in natural light
• incorporating relaxation into your daily life
• limiting caffeine, alcohol and cigarettes, particularly in the hours before bed.

Some nights will be better than others. But to boost your immunity and maintain your sanity during this unprecedented time, make sleep a priority.

– ref. Sleep won’t cure the coronavirus but it can help our bodies fight it – https://theconversation.com/sleep-wont-cure-the-coronavirus-but-it-can-help-our-bodies-fight-it-134674

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charles Foster, Postdoctoral Research Associate, University of Sydney

Our earliest vertebrate (animals with backbones) ancestors laid eggs, but over millions of years of evolution, some species began to give birth to live young.

There is a traditional dichotomy in vertebrate reproduction: species either lay eggs or have live births. However, as is often the case in biology, things aren’t as simple as they first appear, and there are a handful of vertebrate animals that do both.

One of these is the three-toed skink (Saiphos equalis). Our recent research suggests the egg-laying S. equalis may currently be in the process of transitioning from egg-laying to giving live birth.

Studying them gives us a unique opportunity to watch evolution in action.

From eggs to babies, and back again?

There are two main reproductive strategies in vertebrates.

Animals that lay eggs are called “oviparous”. For instance, many fish species spawn eggs that are fertilised externally. In other oviparous species, including birds and some lizards and snakes, eggs are fertilised inside the mother, an eggshell is added, and then eggs are laid.

Depending on the species, much or all of the nutrition needed to grow a healthy baby is supplied in the egg yolk.

In contrast, “viviparous” animals carry embryos internally until they are fully developed. The embryos can rely entirely on yolk for nutrition, or the parents can provide supplementary nutrition, sometimes via a placenta (as in humans).

There is strong evidence that egg-laying is ancestral to live birth, meaning it came first. Many physiological changes were necessary for live birth to have evolved from egg-laying. With this transition, some structures were lost, including the hard outer eggshell. Other mechanisms were gained to ensure embryonic survival within the parent, including the supply of adequate oxygen and water during development.

The evolution of live birth has occurred frequently, including at least 121 times in independent groups of reptiles.

Evolutionary “reversals” to egg-laying are much rarer, probably because regaining the physiological machinery for producing eggshells would be exceptionally difficult.

¿Por que no los dos?

Despite the vast differences between egg-laying and live birth, some species can do both. This phenomenon called “bimodal reproduction” is exceptionally rare. There are more than 6500 species of lizards worldwide, but only three exhibit bimodal reproduction.

Read more: Lizards help us find out which came first: the baby or the egg?

We’re lucky enough to have two of these in Australia. Our research group at the University of Sydney studies the bimodally reproductive three-toed skink, in the hope of understanding how live birth evolved.

In northern NSW, the three-toed skink gives birth to live young, but near Sydney, they lay eggs. Even though they reproduce differently, previous research has shown these lizards are a single species.

Even the egg-laying members of the species are odd, as the eggs are retained within the mother for a relatively long time. After being laid, ordinary skink eggs are incubated for at least 35 days before they hatch, but some three-toed skink eggs hatch in as few as five days after being laid.

One female even laid eggs and gave birth to a live baby in the same litter.

Read more: The first known case of eggs plus live birth from one pregnancy in a tiny lizard

The genetics behind different reproductive modes

Most aspects of an animal’s development are controlled by its genes, but not every gene is always active. Genes can be expressed (switched on) to different degrees, and gene expression can stop when not needed.

An egg-laying skink uterus undergoes only a couple of genetic changes between being empty and holding an egg.

A live-bearing skink uterus is different. It undergoes thousands of genetic changes to help support the developing baby, including genes that probably help provide oxygen and water, and regulate the mother’s immune system to keep the baby safe from immunological attack.

Unexpected similarities between the egg-laying and the live-bearing

Our research measured changes in gene expression between egg-laying and live-birth in the three-toed skink. We investigated how the expression of all genes in the uterus differed between when the uterus was empty and when it held an egg or embryo.

As expected, live-bearing S. equalis, undergo thousands of genetic changes during pregnancy to produce a healthy baby.

But surprisingly, when we looked at the uterus of the egg-laying S. equalis, we found these also undergo thousands of genetic changes, many of which are similar to those in their live-bearing counterparts.

Some of the most important genetic changes in gene expression in egg-laying S. equalis allow embryos to develop within the mother for a long time. These genes also seem to allow the uterus to remodel to accommodate a growing embryo, and drive the same kinds of functions required for the embryonic development in live-birthing three-toed skinks.

Are ‘reversals’ to egg-laying easier than previously thought?

Our findings are important because they demonstrate that egg-laying three-toed skinks are an evolutionary intermediate between “true” egg-laying and live birth.

We now know that uterine gene expression in egg-laying S. equalis mirrors live-bearing skinks much more closely than true egg-laying skinks. These results may explain why it’s possible for a female three-toed skink to lay eggs and give birth to a live baby in a single pregnancy.

The similarities in gene expression between egg-laying and live-bearing three-toed skink uteri might also mean “reversals” from live birth back to egg-laying could be be easier than previously thought. However, this may be restricted to species in which live-birth has evolved recently, such as the three-toed skink.

Read more: Why we’re not giving up the search for mainland Australia’s ‘first extinct lizard’

– ref. This lizard lays eggs and gives live birth. We think it’s undergoing a major evolutionary transition – https://theconversation.com/this-lizard-lays-eggs-and-gives-live-birth-we-think-its-undergoing-a-major-evolutionary-transition-133630

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charles Foster, Postdoctoral Research Associate, University of Sydney

Our earliest vertebrate (animals with backbones) ancestors laid eggs, but over millions of years of evolution, some species began to give birth to live young.

There is a traditional dichotomy in vertebrate reproduction: species either lay eggs or have live births. However, as is often the case in biology, things aren’t as simple as they first appear, and there are a handful of vertebrate animals that do both.

One of these is the three-toed skink (Saiphos equalis). Our recent research suggests the egg-laying S. equalis may currently be in the process of transitioning from egg-laying to giving live birth.

Studying them gives us a unique opportunity to watch evolution in action.

From eggs to babies, and back again?

There are two main reproductive strategies in vertebrates.

Animals that lay eggs are called “oviparous”. For instance, many fish species spawn eggs that are fertilised externally. In other oviparous species, including birds and some lizards and snakes, eggs are fertilised inside the mother, an eggshell is added, and then eggs are laid.

Depending on the species, much or all of the nutrition needed to grow a healthy baby is supplied in the egg yolk.

In contrast, “viviparous” animals carry embryos internally until they are fully developed. The embryos can rely entirely on yolk for nutrition, or the parents can provide supplementary nutrition, sometimes via a placenta (as in humans).

There is strong evidence that egg-laying is ancestral to live birth, meaning it came first. Many physiological changes were necessary for live birth to have evolved from egg-laying. With this transition, some structures were lost, including the hard outer eggshell. Other mechanisms were gained to ensure embryonic survival within the parent, including the supply of adequate oxygen and water during development.

The evolution of live birth has occurred frequently, including at least 121 times in independent groups of reptiles.

Evolutionary “reversals” to egg-laying are much rarer, probably because regaining the physiological machinery for producing eggshells would be exceptionally difficult.

¿Por que no los dos?

Despite the vast differences between egg-laying and live birth, some species can do both. This phenomenon called “bimodal reproduction” is exceptionally rare. There are more than 6500 species of lizards worldwide, but only three exhibit bimodal reproduction.

Read more: Lizards help us find out which came first: the baby or the egg?

We’re lucky enough to have two of these in Australia. Our research group at the University of Sydney studies the bimodally reproductive three-toed skink, in the hope of understanding how live birth evolved.

In northern NSW, the three-toed skink gives birth to live young, but near Sydney, they lay eggs. Even though they reproduce differently, previous research has shown these lizards are a single species.

Even the egg-laying members of the species are odd, as the eggs are retained within the mother for a relatively long time. After being laid, ordinary skink eggs are incubated for at least 35 days before they hatch, but some three-toed skink eggs hatch in as few as five days after being laid.

One female even laid eggs and gave birth to a live baby in the same litter.

Read more: The first known case of eggs plus live birth from one pregnancy in a tiny lizard

The genetics behind different reproductive modes

Most aspects of an animal’s development are controlled by its genes, but not every gene is always active. Genes can be expressed (switched on) to different degrees, and gene expression can stop when not needed.

An egg-laying skink uterus undergoes only a couple of genetic changes between being empty and holding an egg.

A live-bearing skink uterus is different. It undergoes thousands of genetic changes to help support the developing baby, including genes that probably help provide oxygen and water, and regulate the mother’s immune system to keep the baby safe from immunological attack.

Unexpected similarities between the egg-laying and the live-bearing

Our research measured changes in gene expression between egg-laying and live-birth in the three-toed skink. We investigated how the expression of all genes in the uterus differed between when the uterus was empty and when it held an egg or embryo.

As expected, live-bearing S. equalis, undergo thousands of genetic changes during pregnancy to produce a healthy baby.

But surprisingly, when we looked at the uterus of the egg-laying S. equalis, we found these also undergo thousands of genetic changes, many of which are similar to those in their live-bearing counterparts.

Some of the most important genetic changes in gene expression in egg-laying S. equalis allow embryos to develop within the mother for a long time. These genes also seem to allow the uterus to remodel to accommodate a growing embryo, and drive the same kinds of functions required for the embryonic development in live-birthing three-toed skinks.

Are ‘reversals’ to egg-laying easier than previously thought?

Our findings are important because they demonstrate that egg-laying three-toed skinks are an evolutionary intermediate between “true” egg-laying and live birth.

We now know that uterine gene expression in egg-laying S. equalis mirrors live-bearing skinks much more closely than true egg-laying skinks. These results may explain why it’s possible for a female three-toed skink to lay eggs and give birth to a live baby in a single pregnancy.

The similarities in gene expression between egg-laying and live-bearing three-toed skink uteri might also mean “reversals” from live birth back to egg-laying could be be easier than previously thought. However, this may be restricted to species in which live-birth has evolved recently, such as the three-toed skink.

Read more: Why we’re not giving up the search for mainland Australia’s ‘first extinct lizard’

– ref. This lizard lays eggs and gives live birth. We think it’s undergoing major evolutionary transition – https://theconversation.com/this-lizard-lays-eggs-and-gives-live-birth-we-think-its-undergoing-major-evolutionary-transition-133630

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kevin John Brophy, Emeritus Professor of Creative writing, University of Melbourne

“Katrina, I had in mind a prayer, but only this came,” Bruce Dawe wrote to his infant daughter, new-born, in intensive care, her life in the balance, declaring as poets must that their poems are the best and only real gift they can give.

I did not know Dawe, who died aged 90 on Wednesday, but I knew his poetry from my first years of reading poems. For decades, the first contemporary poems many Australians read were his.

Born in 1930 in Fitzroy, a failed student after attending seven schools, he worked as a labourer like his father, a farmhand, a postman, and spent a year on the University of Melbourne campus where he became a poet and a Catholic. He joined the RAAF in 1959.

As well as publishing a growing list of books, he studied part time until he achieved a PhD. His teaching life at the Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education and the University of Southern Queensland lasted from 1969 until 1993. By then he was easily Australia’s most well-read and well-loved poet. His death this week is a significant moment for poets and readers of poetry.

A skilled mate

We know that poetry is somehow central to our nation’s soul, but mostly we like to keep its presence at the margins. In living memory, Les Murray and Dorothy Porter managed to bring poetry to wide audiences, but neither of them so broadly, neither of them prompting the passion of Dawe’s many readers.

When it comes to poetry, readers know pretty quickly what is authentic. Dawe’s poems are real enough to talk to you with one arm over your shoulder, or sit beside you, inviting you to look with them at what this whole damned creation is doing now.

But he couldn’t have survived as a poet by simply being genial. His poetry always held a deep steadiness of purpose in its gaze. This was his special skill. He was able to bring us in to seeing for instance how “the spider grief swings in his bitter geometry” (from Homecoming) when dead soldiers are freighted home.

He was uncannily capable of making poetry that talked plainly but still mysteriously about the most extreme of our experiences: funerals and suicides, drowned children, a mother-in-law’s glorious death falling out of her chair at a barbecue, the last nail being driven into the body of Christ (“the iron shocking the dumb wood”), the 1995 massacre at Srebrenica, or the hanging of Ronald Ryan.

You cannot read his poems without finding some personal connection to them too; my grandmother who once held a telegram announcing her son’s wartime death, and whose home was opposite Ronald Ryan’s bloody shootout on Sydney Road, had seemed to me to have had her life marked by images in Dawe’s poems.

In Australia, we know there’s another job requirement for any poet worth their salt, and that is a dry and thoroughly demotic wit. Dawe’s hilarious At Shagger’s Funeral is just one gem that Lawson would have been proud to have chiselled out.

Tests of time

New themes of gender, ethnicity, identity politics, the explosion of poetry since the avant-garde experiments of Fluxus might seem to leave Dawe’s poetry suspended in a historical moment, but this is to say no more than what happens to every strong and distinctive poet.

No one wrote poetry quite like Dawe. Lots of poets took inspiration from him too, many without realising it – the vibrant “street poetry” movement in Melbourne through the 1970s and 80s, morphing into performance poetry and spoken word – each take their impulse from Dawe’s confidence in poetry’s place as a voice for, about, and from life as it’s lived by the most desperate and the most ordinary of us.

The bravery of his poetry, its wit and sensitivity to the world are there in one of the most stark and touching love poems you could imagine reading:

Hearing the sound of your breathing as you sleep,

with the dog at your feet, his head resting

on a shoe, and the clock’s ticking

Like water dripping in a sink

– I know that, even if reincarnation were a fact,

given the inherent cruelty of the world

where beautiful things and people

are blasted apart all the day long,

I would never want to come back, knowing

I could never be this lucky twice …

(from You and Sarajevo: for Gloria)

He has been praised for the technical achievement of blending the colloquial with the lyrical, something he often got “right”. But beyond this deftness, his poems always reach towards our most humane responses to the world.

We know from our present troubles as a nation, as a planet, and as a species, that we need poets as right and true as Bruce Dawe to continue this sometimes visionary and sometimes laughably inadequate work.

– ref. Vale Bruce Dawe, Australia’s ‘Poet of Suburbia’ – https://theconversation.com/vale-bruce-dawe-australias-poet-of-suburbia-135438

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Glikson, Earth and paleo-climate scientist, Australian National University

At several points in the history of our planet, increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have caused extreme global warming, prompting the majority of species on Earth to die out.

In the past, these events were triggered by a huge volcanic eruption or asteroid impact. Now, Earth is heading for another mass extinction – and human activity is to blame.

I am an Earth and Paleo-climate scientist and have researched the relationships between asteroid impacts, volcanism, climate changes and mass extinctions of species.

Read more: Here’s what the coronavirus pandemic can teach us about tackling climate change

My research suggests the current growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions is faster than those which triggered two previous mass extinctions, including the event that wiped out the dinosaurs.

The world’s gaze may be focused on COVID-19 right now. But the risks to nature from human-made global warming – and the imperative to act – remain clear.

Past mass extinctions

Many species can adapt to slow, or even moderate, environmental changes. But Earth’s history shows that extreme shifts in the climate can cause many species to become extinct.

For example, about 66 million years ago an asteroid hit Earth. The subsequent smashed rocks and widespread fires released massive amounts of carbon dioxide over about 10,000 years. Global temperatures soared, sea levels rose and oceans became acidic. About 80% of species, including the dinosaurs, were wiped out.

And about 55 million years ago, global temperatures spiked again, over 100,000 years or so. The cause of this event, known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, is not entirely clear. One theory, known as the “methane burp” hypothesis, posits that a massive volcanic eruption triggered the sudden release of methane from ocean sediments, making oceans more acidic and killing off many species.

So is life on Earth now headed for the same fate?

Comparing greenhouse gas levels

Before industrial times began at the end of the 18th century, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere sat at around 300 parts per million. This means that for every one million molecules of gas in the atmosphere, 300 were carbon dioxide.

In February this year, atmospheric carbon dioxide reached 414.1 parts per million. Total greenhouse gas level – carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide combined – reached almost 500 parts per million of carbon dioxide-equivalent

Carbon dioxide is now pouring into the atmosphere at a rate of two to three parts per million each year.

Using carbon records stored in fossils and organic matter, I have determined that current carbon emissions constitute an extreme event in the recorded history of Earth.

My research has demonstrated that annual carbon dioxide emissions are now faster than after both the asteroid impact that eradicated the dinosaurs (about 0.18 parts per million CO2 per year), and the thermal maximum 55 million years ago (about 0.11 parts per million CO2 per year).

The next mass extinction has begun

Current atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are not yet at the levels seen 55 million and 65 million years ago. But the massive influx of carbon dioxide means the climate is changing faster than many plant and animal species can adapt.

A major United Nations report released last year warned around one million animal and plant species were threatened with extinction. Climate change was listed as one of five key drivers.

The report said the distributions of 47% of land-based flightless mammals, and almost 25% of threatened birds, may already have been negatively affected by climate change.

Read more: Curious Kids: What effect did the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs have on plants and trees?

Many researchers fear the climate system is approaching a tipping point – a threshold beyond which rapid and irreversible changes will occur. This will create a cascade of devastating effects.

There are already signs tipping points have been reached. For example, rising Arctic temperatures have led to major ice melt, and weakened the Arctic jet stream – a powerful band of westerly winds.

This allows north-moving warm air to cross the polar boundary, and cold fronts emanating from the poles to intrude south into Siberia, Europe and Canada.

A shift in climate zones is also causing the tropics to expand and migrate toward the poles, at a rate of about 56 to 111 kilometres per decade. The tracks of tropical and extra-tropical cyclones are likewise shifting toward the poles. Australia is highly vulnerable to this shift.

Uncharted future climate territory

Research released in 2016 showed just what a massive impact humans are having on the planet. It said while the Earth might naturally have entered the next ice age in about 20,000 years’ time, the heating produced by carbon dioxide would result in a period of super-tropical conditions, delaying the next ice age to about 50,000 years from now.

During this period, chaotic high-energy stormy conditions would prevail over much of the Earth. My research suggests humans are likely to survive best in sub-polar regions and sheltered mountain valleys, where cooler conditions would allow flora and fauna to persist.

Earth’s next mass extinction is avoidable – if carbon dioxide emissions are dramatically curbed and we develop and deploy technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But on the current trajectory, human activity threatens to make large parts of the Earth uninhabitable – a planetary tragedy of our own making.

Read more: Anatomy of a heatwave: how Antarctica recorded a 20.75°C day last month

– ref. While we fixate on coronavirus, Earth is hurtling towards a catastrophe worse than the dinosaur extinction – https://theconversation.com/while-we-fixate-on-coronavirus-earth-is-hurtling-towards-a-catastrophe-worse-than-the-dinosaur-extinction-130869

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Strangio, Associate Professor of Politics, Monash University

One of Australia’s preeminent historians, Stuart Macintyre, once observed of John Curtin, the Labor Party leader revered for navigating this nation through the dangers of the second world war, that he

would have made a timid and mediocre prime minister in peacetime; in war he assumed duties no one else could discharge. The occasion found the man.

Scott Morrison is no John Curtin. Yet, because of his incumbency coinciding with what is the most perilous peacetime challenge the country has faced in living memory, Morrison now seems destined to be a significant Australian prime minister.

Remember this is the “accidental” prime minister, who obtained the office almost by default after Liberal Party conservatives botched their assault on Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership in August 2018. He then miraculously survived the May 2019 election largely courtesy of Bill Shorten’s chronic unpopularity and Labor’s poorly calculated campaign.

Read more: Coronavirus shines a light on fractured global politics at a time when cohesion and leadership are vital

Fresh from that victory, Morrison’s government spent the following months frittering away the public’s goodwill. It appeared bereft of a discernible policy program, was divided over climate policy, and tainted by the scandal over its pre-election pork-barrelling of community sport funding grants.

Then there was Morrison’s mishandling of the summer bushfires calamity. Put together, it was a record that had the hallmarks of him joining the ranks of the beleaguered set of post-John Howard prime ministers who have each struggled to leave a substantial imprint on the nation.

But now that unflattering history seems like it dates from another age. In the new all-encompassing COVID-19 reality, Morrison has recovered if not the public’s trust, at least its ear, as he has presided over a series of momentous health and economic related responses to the pandemic – the latest among them the gargantuan $130 billion “JobKeeper” payment. The pace and scale of these actions arguably even puts in the shade the policy pyrotechnics of the famed first fortnight of Gough Whitlam’s government in December 1972.

Timing, in short, can be everything in politics.

It has long been recognised that crises present both an opportunity and a danger for leaders. As Macintyre’s observation suggests, Curtin’s reputation – he is commonly lauded as Australia’s greatest prime minister – sprang from a fortuitous congruence between the challenges he met during 1941-45 and his own leadership repertoire.

On the other hand, James Scullin, another Labor leader who was ostensibly equally gifted as Curtin, had his prime ministership broken by the crisis of the Great Depression. Powerless to arrest the country’s descent into economic freefall, Scullin is typically ranked at the bottom of the heap of Australia’s national leaders.

Read more: How Australia’s response to the Spanish flu of 1919 sounds warnings on dealing with coronavirus

In other words, while Morrison’s prime ministership seems fated to have an import that was unimaginable only weeks ago, this is no guarantee that it will be remembered as a success. How skilfully his government manages the crisis and the recovery phase will be the true test. It will be months, perhaps even years, before we will be able to fully measure whether Morrison was the appropriate leader for this time.

The political science literature suggests that in a crisis a leader has to perform at least three essential tasks. The first is to authoritatively interpret the causes, dynamics and consequences of the unfolding crisis. The second is to mobilise and coordinate and, where required, recalibrate existing governing systems to facilitate an appropriate response. Thirdly, it must persuasively explain the crisis to the public and the nature of the government’s actions.

Against these benchmarks, the jury is still out regarding Morrison’s response to the COVID-19 emergency. At least initially, and to be fair in common with most of his counterparts internationally, Morrison appeared slow to fathom the gravity of the threat. There are legitimate questions about whether his government’s actions were sufficiently expeditious and proportionate.

In terms of tweaking governing systems, a “national cabinet” (COAG by another name) has been established as the key decision-making forum for dealing with the crisis, and an advisory network of health bureaucrats and medical experts created.

There are also reports of a heavy reliance on treasury officials, the government seeking counsel from an informal group of business leaders, and the prime minister has also brought on board the former Rudd government minister and ACTU chief, Greg Combet, to provide a conduit to the trade union movement. Indeed, it has been striking to note how willingly Morrison has leaned on public service advice in all this. It is a sharp contrast with a prime minister who had hitherto spoken disdainfully of the “Canberra bubble” and also a far cry from his government’s bloody-minded reluctance to heed expert opinion on climate change.

When it comes to public communication, Morrison early on sent out too many mixed messages. He resorted to hectoring rather than informing and calming. But those tendencies have been less evident in recent days, and he appears to be doing much better than during the bushfires crisis when he lost control of the narrative at the beginning and never recovered it.

Read more: Grattan on Friday: Which leaders and health experts will be on the right side of history on COVID-19 policy?

There will be other things that will help determine Morrison’s effectiveness in dealing with the current crisis, not least his own psychological resilience and the robustness of the personal support network that he has around him. For most of us, the relentless pressures that Morrison and other leaders internationally are enduring at this time are nigh on unthinkable. Part of the legend of the naturally pensive Curtin is that, worn down by the tribulations of governing during war, he literally worried himself into an early grave.

There will also be a question of how Morrison readapts once the worst of the crisis is behind us. Like what happened to Kevin Rudd following the Global Financial Crisis, a potential danger for the future harmony of Morrison’s government is that he will have become habituated to small-circle decision making.

“Events, dear boy, events”, is what the British post-war prime minister, Howard Macmillan, is reputed to have replied when asked by a journalist what he feared most as a leader. Yet unanticipated events can make as well as break a leader. Morrison is currently finding that out – as are we, anxiously looking on.

– ref. Thanks to coronavirus, Scott Morrison will become a significant prime minister – https://theconversation.com/thanks-to-coronavirus-scott-morrison-will-become-a-significant-prime-minister-135314

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Geoff Hanmer, Adjunct Professor of Architecture, University of Adelaide

New research the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that SARS CoV 2, which causes the disease known as COVID-19 coronavirus, is more stable on plastic and stainless steel than on cardboard or copper:

The longest viability of both viruses was on stainless steel and plastic; the estimated median half-life of SARS-CoV-2 was approximately 5.6 hours on stainless steel and 6.8 hours on plastic”

This is disquieting news for building designers and the manufacturers of door hardware and taps, who have traditionally used stainless steel or chromed brass under the common (but incorrect) impression that they provide an unfriendly environment for bacteria and viruses.

They are certainly relatively easy to clean, at least visually, but taps and door pulls in public toilets and door hardware in apartment common spaces and lift buttons are not cleaned between every use.

With this in mind, it is concerning to see just how many doctor’s surgeries and dedicated coronavirus facilities in Australia and elsewhere still appear to be equipped with manual hinged doors with stainless steel or chromed brass handles and push plates, both inside and out.

Doctor’s surgeries have door handles

It is clear from the available research that this type of touch point poses a risk of transmission, particularly in placers where a significant proportion of users will be ill with a virus, if not SARS CoV 2.

Door handles, door pushes, lift buttons, flush buttons, taps and hand dryer buttons are all typically made from hard materials including stainless steel and plastic.

While SARS CoV 2 is a uniquely hazardous bug, other common viruses and bacteria, including the common cold and the rotaviruses that cause gastro-intestinal infections are also transferred by touch points in buildings.

This is completely unnecessary given that we have simple technology available to obviate the problem.

Automatic doors are cheap and safe

While the lifts and reinforced concrete were probably the most significant technical developments for buildings in the nineteenth century, the development of a reliable automatic door was, alongside mechanical air conditioning, among the two most significant technical developments for buildings in the twentieth century.

Similarly, we now have reliable technology to automatically flush toilets, dispense hand wash and operate taps.

Even if we can’t afford an automatic door on the outer doors of public toilets, the least we can do is plan the doors to open outwards so the doors can be opened with our elbows, or eliminate the doors entirely by making the entrances U-shaped.

Our reluctance to install them is odd

In the current crisis, we ought to be consider propping open high-traffic doors in public buildings, retrofitting powered door openers or simply removing them. We can use keys, pens and elbows to operate lift buttons.

The fact that sliding automatic doors are not more widespread is odd. They are moderately priced by comparison with many other components of buildings and often more durable in high traffic areas than hinged doors.

They are also safer than hinged doors because they are unlikely to clobber people or crush fingers, and they are far friendlier to people with children and people carrying boxes of files or trays of donuts.

Some architects don’t like the look of them, but this is hardly a sufficient reason not to mandate them given their benefits.

Read more: To restore public confidence in apartments, rewrite Australia’s building codes

It is astonishing that it is still possible under the National Construction Code to build medical facilities meant for people who are more likely than most to have infectious illnesses without mandating the use of automatic doors, automatic flushing devices, automatic taps and automatic handwash dispensers.

And it is hard to believe that the same rules should not be applied to all high traffic locations, such as common spaces in large apartments, airports, bus stations and train stations.

And there’s a problem with air conditioners

A related problem highlighted in the new research is that SARS CoV 2 appears to be able to continue to live in the air. The time it took for half of the virus particles to become inactive was just over an hour. If the research is correct, airborne transmission is possible.

Many air conditioning systems recirculate air throughout a floor or a whole building, typically at around eight air changes per hour.

Research from Purdue Universityand the National Centre for Infectious Diseases in Singapore suggests that recirculating air conditioning systems could spread SARS CoV 2, although we are not sure how likely it is.

Some air conditioning systems, including in parts of some hospitals, are equipped with High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters which appear to be effective in capturing SARS CoV 2, even though it is about three times smaller than the smallest opening in a HEPA filter.

Most conventional air conditioning filters won’t do it.

Read more: Our buildings aren’t made to keep out bushfire smoke. Here’s what you can do

It might be wise to operate using recirculating air conditioning systems that lack HEPA filters in full fresh-air mode where this is possible, which is the case in many recently-built office buildings.

If people who may have the disease are confined in a building without openable windows, such as a hotel, those in the building could face problems. Most recent hotels have a system which confines recirculated air to one room and should be safe, but not all do.

Openable windows and natural ventilation are probably the safest option, providing a good reason for many of us to stay at home.

Domestic split system air conditioners, which simply recirculate air within one house, or systems that rely on 100% outside air, are safe, providing those of us in homes aren’t already infected.

– ref. Automatic doors: the simple technology that could help stop coronavirus spreading – https://theconversation.com/automatic-doors-the-simple-technology-that-could-help-stop-coronavirus-spreading-135420

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Holden, Professor of Economics, UNSW

The Australian government’s JobKeeper wage subsidy, estimated to cost A$130 billion, is a crucial measure to help keep the economy from completely cratering.

But, even if COVID-19 is sufficiently under control for the economy to return to semi-normality in six months, the plan is unlikely to be sufficient and will need to be increased. To paraphrase the famous line in Jaws, we’re going to need a bigger boat.

Perhaps even more importantly, the Australian narrative around “debt and deficits” will have to change.

A welcome change of direction

First, let’s give the Morrison-Frydenberg government credit for discarding its core political narrative about balancing budgets and enacting a plan that blows a massive hole in the budget. This, granted, was the only responsible course of action, but it still shows a willingness to put the national interest above tribal politics. That’s something we haven’t seen in this country for a long time.

The A$130 billion JobKeeper program, paying up to A$1,500-per-fortnight to six million Australians for six month, is by far the costliest of the Australian government’s spending measures in response to the coronavirus crisis. By comparison, the extra payments to welfare recipients, including doubling of the new Jobseeker payment, will cost a mere A$24 billion.

Read more: JobKeeper payment: how will it work, who will miss out and how to get it?

On the plus side, the JobKeeper program covers full-time and part-time workers, sole traders, and not-for-profits. It’s good that it encourages employers to retain workers. It minimises both the economic and social disruption that would deepen the crisis and slow recovery. The delivery of payments, via employer payrolls, is likely to be vastly more efficient than Centrelink processes.

On the minus side, the fact it is a flat subsidy – every worker gets $1,500 a fortnight regardless of what they had been earning – overcompensates some workers and undercompensates others. This creates employer incentives to retain the lowest-paid workers at the expense of better-paid workers. An employer could, for example, keep on workers paid less than A$1,500 a fortnight, because now that labour is effectively free, while retrenching higher skilled workers they would have to pay partially out of their own pockets.

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

Undercompensation of some workers will come back to bite. People have financial commitments – mortgages and rents being the most significant – based on what they earn. Undercompensation means some workers won’t be able to ride out the economic crisis without being forced to sell assets, going into significant personal debt or defaulting on rent or mortgage payments.

That will reverberate throughout the rest of the economy. It will put pressure on landlords and banks, among other parties to whom these workers have made financial commitments.

So quibbles can be made about the details of the JobKeeker payment. It would have been far better to do a 100% wage replacement up to some cap (perhaps double the current A$1,500 a fortnight).

That would cost more, but it would be better targeted and have fewer adverse flow-on effects.

A new narrative on debt and deficits

But at least the government is prepared to spend more.

“The first revolution,” said jazz poet Gil Scott Heron, “is when you change your mind about how you look at things.”

It is good see the Morrison government change its mind on the concept of a budget deficit. We now need a bigger revolution in our national thinking about debt and deficits.

Even now the overwhelming narrative among many commentators across the political spectrum is along the lines of “we need to do this and the debt will take a long time to pay back”. We must stop thinking like that.

Australia entered this crisis with a projected net debt of about A$361 billion – 18% of GDP. As a thought experiement – although it might end up a grim reality – imagine the economy operates at two-thirds capacity for 18 months (the likely time before a vaccine becomes widely avaiable, according Australia’s deputy-chief medical officer).

And suppose the government completely compensates for that lost GDP with stimulus payments of one kind or another. That would leave us with net debt of about 70% of GDP post-crisis.

That compares to the 107% the United States had entering the crisis.

Setting aside the important practical matters of how we issue government bonds and implement that debt level, let’s focus on the servicing cost.

Right now the ten-year government bond rate is 0.78%. That moves up and down, so let’s make it 1% for simplicity. With a A$2 trillion economy and 70% net debt to GDP, that would mean A$14 billion a year in interest payments.

That’s seems a lot when compared with the roughly A$60 billion the nation spends on primary and secondary education.

Read more: Vital Signs: Australia’s nation-building opportunity held hostage by the deficit daleks

But it’s not that big a price to get through a once-in-a-century event. It’s smaller than the A$17 billion collected from the tobacco excise. It’s about $560 a year for each Australian.

We need to start thinking about a national debt that gets shrunk away as a percentage of GDP rather than gets paid back. That’s what happened after World War II.

The idea we should have zero net-debt to GDP has to change. If we continue to think of fiscal responses to this crisis as loans that need to be paid back on a short clock, we will do too little on the fiscal front. We will damage the ability of the economy to come out this crisis healthy enough to grow away the debt.

– ref. Vital Signs: Scott Morrison is steering in the right direction, but we’re going to need a bigger boat – https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-scott-morrison-is-steering-in-the-right-direction-but-were-going-to-need-a-bigger-boat-135209

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gordon Menzies, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Technology Sydney

During this pandemic, our twin health and economic crises require two different types of concern, and they operate differently.

For the health crisis, a high level of concern is necessary. Saving lives demands nothing less than full compliance with unprecedented restrictions.

For the economic crisis, it is logical to be worried. Elsewhere, I have distinguished between economic wants and needs, and right now the provision of needs is under threat.

On the other hand, extreme pessimism about the economy is dangerous.

The #CoronaEconomy is different to the normal economy and interpreting it is subject to distortion from confirmation bias, which is the tendency for people to process information in a way that screens out things that don’t accord with the narrative they have adopted.

The world faces a crisis, and so it is entirely appropriate that many people have adopted a crisis narrative. But if confirmation bias turns it into a view that “nothing good can happen in the economy” it will have gone too far.

Read more: When a virus goes viral: pros and cons to the coronavirus spread on social media

As the pandemic spreads, the worldwide media will have up to 195 countries and more than a dozen major stock exchanges to confirm that view.

This is unfortunate. Just as panic buying can create a crisis in supply chains that needn’t be there, undue pessimism can create a needless crisis in the economy.

If those who remain relatively well off through the crisis decide not to spend merely because they are worried about a downturn – the financial equivalent of hoarding – it will make the downturn they are worried about even bigger.

In turn it will further threaten people’s employment, accommodation, and their ability to fulfil their basic needs.

Read more: Psychology can explain why coronavirus drives us to panic buy. It also provides tips on how to stop

There is genuine bad news. The pandemic has endangered access to health care, shut down industries, pushed people out of jobs and made it hard to spend. And Australia is taking a huge hit in external income as commodity prices fall.

Fortunately there’s also good news.

• Voluntary transfer payments are emerging. People and groups are giving away money to meet the unfolding challenges. Some managers at firms such as Qantas are forgoing pay while others are giving up their jobs.

• Some workers are taking fictional leave, which amounts to a gift to their employer, or sharing around reduced working hours, which amounts to a gift to the employee most likely to miss out otherwise.

• Coles, Woolworths, and some other employers are expanding. Even “panic buying”, whether justifiable or not, can generate employment.

• As in the global financial crisis, government stimulus payments can help cushion unemployment, even though not every initiative will operate perfectly.

• The movement online of what used to be face-to-face activity will make some businesses more productive when the crisis is over, giving them room to grow and provide products and services more cheaply.

Best of all, our country’s exposure to commodity price downturns is limited by our floating exchange rate.

More than half our exports are resource-based or rural, meaning large falls in world demand could be expected to wreak havoc with employment.

But our floating exchange rate cushions these shocks, as it did during the 1990s Asian financial Crisis, the 2000s global financial crisis and at the end of the mining boom.

The latest depreciation is a big one, and will help us.

Trade-weighted Australian dollar exchange rate since float

In 1948 the English author CS Lewis, wrote an essay, Living in the Atomic Age, about coping with an ever-present existential threat.

His context was different. It was about the atomic bomb. But the message was that the best way to deal with an overwhelming concern was simply to be the best of ourselves.

If we are all going to be destroyed by an atomic bomb, let that bomb when it comes find us doing sensible and human things — praying, working, teaching, reading, listening to music, bathing the children … not huddled together like frightened sheep and thinking about bombs.

It would help right now if we recognised that extreme concern, while entirely appropriate as a means to protect health, isn’t helpful as a means of protecting the economy.

There’s no point huddling together like economically-frightened sheep. It blinds us to the good that’s around us now, and the good that is to come.

– ref. It is necessary to worry about health, but pessimism about the economy will hurt us – https://theconversation.com/it-is-necessary-to-worry-about-health-but-pessimism-about-the-economy-will-hurt-us-135421

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Harriette Richards, University of Melbourne

Times of instability and crisis produce increased nostalgia for the past. We long for a time that no longer exists, or never existed. Like melancholy, nostalgia is a sentiment of loss – one that’s particularly familiar to us today – for an imagined way of life that has disappeared.

It is, as Svetlana Boym put it in The Future of Nostalgia, “a romance with one’s own fantasy”.

Nostalgia is central to fashion. Every season, the fashion industry reaches into the archives with cyclical predictability, echoing historical trends and stimulating nostalgic feelings through marketing that makes the consumer “miss things that never were”. At the same time, fashion reflects present culture, mirroring the social imagining of the moment.

One recent trend to cycle through this system – and stick – are “mom jeans”.

‘Not a woman anymore’

These high-rise, loose-fitting, straight-legged blue jeans are nonchalantly reminiscent of the original Levi’s 501s, representative of mid-century ranch wear, 1990s grunge and early 2010s normcore, yet also distinctly current.

In a 2003 Saturday Night Live sketch, Rachel Dratch, Tina Fey, Maya Rudolph and Amy Poehler famously satirised mom jeans.

As the very antithesis of the popular low-slung, hip- and midriff-baring styles of the time, popularised by pop stars like Britney Spears, mom jeans were the opposite of cool. They were frumpy, drab, dowdy – everything a mom apparently represents. The sketch, styled as a JCPenney advertisement, includes a voiceover that suggests the jeans are a garment that say: “I’m not a woman anymore, I’m a mom”.

Despite the fact that high-waisted, straight-legged styles had been the norm for much of the 20th century, they were suddenly deeply conservative in comparison to the tight jeans young women were wearing in the early 2000s. The pejorative term “mom jeans” cemented this perception.

Like other stereotypes that have long served to desexualise mothers, the jeans symbolised a sense of modesty that separated womanhood from motherhood. As Ashley Fetters wrote in her article about mom jeans in The Atlantic last year: “the stereotype is so powerful that linking something to motherhood can extinguish its sex appeal pretty quickly”.

In this case, it was not only sex appeal that was being extinguished but the entirety of a woman’s identity.

‘The 90s are back, baby!’

Over a decade after the sketch first aired, the social and political mood in the United States was steadily sobering. This was reflected in fashion, which moved away from the body-conscious styles of the early 2000s to become looser, oversized, more gender-neutral.

Mom jeans, differing only slightly from their close cousin “dad jeans”, fit within this shift.

While the early 2000s were epitomised by Spears and her ilk in low-slung jeans, the post-#MeToo era is embodied in celebrities like 18-year-old Billie Eilish, known for favouring oversized designer garments and speaking out against the impossible beauty standards imposed on women.

Fast fashion trend arbiters such as Zara, ASOS and H&M have been selling denim labelled “mom jeans” since at least 2015. A recent campaign for mom jeans at Big W proclaiming “The 90s are back, baby!” might indicate their penetration into the fashion landscape in Australia.

This mainstream popularity of mom jeans does not call for a return to 90s sexual politics, nor to ideas of motherhood as separate from womanhood. Rather, the nostalgia represented in this style recalls an imagined time, when things were simpler, calmer, easier.

‘The vintage fit that’s reached cult status’

In the fast fashion landscape, beset by issues of ethics and sustainability, the trend is unique in its staying power.

Cotton On advertising for their “authentic look” mom jeans spuiks them as a “vintage fit that’s reached cult status”. As such, this nostalgic fashion trend is an apt metaphor for our current moment. It demonstrates a collective utopian vision of the past while we are marooned in the dystopian present.

When the future is uncertain, we turn to speculating on the past, using nostalgia to think through our now. In evoking an imagined past and reflecting a sombre cultural present, mom jeans are far more than a garment that symbolises parental status. They are a garment that locates women in place and time, politically and materially.

A roomy fit of one’s own

The homesickness of nostalgic longing means we find comfort in the familiarity of the past, no matter how recent. In response to today’s COVID-19 crisis, we are turning to old movies, letter writing and vintage fashion trends more than ever. Nostalgia is a defence mechanism against upheaval.

Mom jeans, recalling a history of denim that has influenced fashion since the development of the Levi’s 501 in the late 19th century, epitomise this affective yearning. Thankfully, in this time of physical distancing and self-isolation, their roomy fit also makes them perfect for working from home.

– ref. Friday essay: mom jeans and nostalgia in a time of uncertainty – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-mom-jeans-and-nostalgia-in-a-time-of-uncertainty-133510

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

As the COVID-19 transforms our individual lives, we are learning a few new things about ourselves as a society.

We’ve known Australians suspect authority and, like other Western countries, have come to trust government less and less – right? One goes to our historical narrative; the other is borne out by quantitative research. And we don’t need a survey to know our political system is highly, often gratingly, adversarial.

But the coronavirus has challenged these truisms, for now.

First, stringent restrictions are being accepted and indeed approved in a way inconceivable a couple of months ago.

Yes, there was early flouting of social distancing and later we’ve had argument and push back around the edges (Victoria had to drop a silly prohibition on visiting a partner who lives separately).

But in the main the clamps are working without creating outrage, though we might wonder how it will be months on, in winter’s depth. Will people adjust to this peculiar lifestyle, or will nerves and tempers explode?

The long haul ahead makes it all the more vital measures are fine-tuned for sustainability and administered sensibly.

Second, we see an interesting twist on the “trust” issue. There was much media and other criticism of the government’s earlier mixed messaging, but the Essential poll published this week indicates a substantial level of trust in what the government says and does.

The poll asked whether people agreed or disagreed with the statement “I trust the government to provide honest and objective information about the COVID-19 outbreak”. Some 56% trusted the government – the same figure as in the previous week’s poll.

When people were asked how they rated the government’s response to the outbreak, 45% said it was good – not a majority but well above those who rated it as poor (31%).

It’s early days. But we can hypothesise that while Australians generally have a low level of trust in government – research from the “Democracy 2025” project shows Australia is very low among mature democracies – the situation is different in a major crisis, when people may be more inclined to turn to traditional institutions (as well as to the experts they already trust).

Third, politicians and other political players have been able to go from fighting like alley cats over the most minor matters to cooperating on an extraordinary range of unprecedented initiatives.

Read more: We should listen to coronavirus experts, but local wisdom counts too

Labor has – quite reasonably – argued at the margin especially by getting out in front of the government. But it has passed two economic packages, and will do the same with the third, with minimum quibbling and maximum alacrity. Federal and state leaders have worked effectively together, across party lines, through the national cabinet, despite some significant differences.

A community thoroughly tired of knee jerk political aggression might ask: after the crisis is over, could we retain some of this more productive approach?

Sharp conflicts will return, and that’s appropriate. But it would be a positive legacy if what in recent years has become destructive and debilitating hyper-partisanship remained dialled down.

While the current drastic measures are necessary to try to stop COVID-19’s steady trot breaking into a full gallop, their nature does raise some concern.

Police cars patrolling parks; drones in the sky; the power to electronically monitor people in quarantine; soldiers walking the streets.

Remember the recurring debates over draconian provisions when anti-terrorism laws were proposed? Unsurprisingly, there has been much less questioning of tough measures in current circumstances, although the police are having to defend certain actions, which is good – “the Australian way,” as Scott Morrison might say.

When this is over, there must be a clear end to such incursions into civil liberties. The Australian Industry Group says all measures need dates for review. The Ai Group is focusing on business requirements, but the point applies on civil liberty grounds as well.

The crisis has also told us a good deal about Morrison.

We’ve always known he’s highly pragmatic; now we see this pragmatism on steroids. He’s willing to adopt policies that, for his side of politics, go completely against the grain.

The politician who harped endlessly about how Labor overspent to keep Australia out of recession in the global financial crisis this week unveiled a mind-boggling $130 billion package aimed at stopping Australia falling into depression.

The package embraced a wage subsidy to cushion businesses and workers – a measure the government had initially dismissed when it was promoted by Labor and the unions.

As in the GFC, when Treasury secretary Ken Henry was a driving force, so the current Treasury secretary, Steven Kennedy, was a key figure in the preparation of this week’s package.

He is the right man in the right place at the right time.

Despite the exceptional circumstances, for Kennedy there’s an element of deja vu. He was in Kevin Rudd’s office during the GFC.

Moreover, Kennedy (who incidentally trained as a nurse), had long ago thought about prescriptions for handling a pandemic.

In a 2006 paper, titled “A primer on the macroeconomic effects of an influenza pandemic”, which examined “the pathways through which a pandemic might affect the Australian economy”, he wrote: “policies that restore confidence and consumption, support business in the short term, and promote a quick return to work are likely to be most effective in offsetting the adverse economic consequences of a pandemic”.

An insider describes Kennedy as forceful, “not afraid to speak up, to put his view.” Another source notes “we’re back to a world where Treasury is influential. Treasury is central – in the days of [former secretary John] Fraser it wasn’t, because he was so erratic”.

So far Morrison has been able to maintain a united party behind measures some of its members would hate, and others be shocked by. There is probably a good deal of biting of tongues.

While the desirable exit strategy on the social distancing side is clear – stop the measures as soon as it’s safe to do so – what will have to be done longer term with the economy and the budget is unfathomable.

The questions, however, are numerous.

The most obvious is: to what extent will the mega package be effective in keeping businesses in “hibernation”?

Read more: ‘Go now, go hard and go smart’: the strategy Group of Eight universities experts urged the government to take

Morrison and Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe promote the imagery of crossing a bridge to “the other side”, when the economy can bounce back. This is the optimistic scenario. What happens if, despite the government’s efforts, many businesses simply die on the journey over?

And the future won’t be just or even mainly in Australia’s hands – the state of the world economy and particularly China will be crucial.

Amid all the international chaos, one bright spot is that commodity markets, on which Australian exports so depend, have not at this point been significantly affected.

There will be some major changes in attitudes coming out of the crisis.

Internationally and in Australia, there is likely to be a rise in the advocacy of protectionism.

We can expect increased concern about our dependence on China. For the duration of the crisis, applications for foreign investment in Australia are being more extensively scrutinised; post crisis, there is likely to be a feeling we have become too deeply in hock to China.

On the budget’s future, there is already speculation about cuts, and a possible winding back of the legislated tax relief.

But when the delayed budget is brought down in October, the outlook will still be uncertain, making it very difficult to frame.

Undoing the new generous measures will be a political nightmare. Morrison talks about “snap back” provisions. That goes against all experience of attempting to take away what people have. Good luck with removing free child care, welfare payment increases and much else, and then facing an election.

Morrison says Labor’s GFC measures had a long tail of cost. But the nature of the programs – home insulation, school halls – made them much easier to stop, compared with free child care and the like.

The debate about “debt and deficit” which, like the corporates, is in hibernation for the moment, will become a generational one, with surpluses beyond a telescope’s reach.

The Liberal party’s Back in Black mugs are now heirlooms for the grandkids.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Imagine if we could extract a permanent vaccine against hyper-partisanship from COVID-19 – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-imagine-if-we-could-extract-a-permanent-vaccine-against-hyper-partisanship-from-covid-19-135450

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

In this special hour long podcast presented by Mark Evans, professor of governance and director of Democracy 2025, the panel discusses Australian democracy with Emeritus Professor Ian Chubb and Michelle Grattan.

The panel dissects the Australian trust in government, compared with other modern democracies around the world. Drawing on the world values survey, the report (available here) notes the sharp focus on the quality of democratic governance, especially in the time of global crisis caused by coronavirus.

– ref. Democracy 2025 – How does Australia compare: what makes a leading democracy? With Michelle Grattan, Mark Evans and Ian Chubb – https://theconversation.com/democracy-2025-how-does-australia-compare-what-makes-a-leading-democracy-with-michelle-grattan-mark-evans-and-ian-chubb-135440

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

The government will provide free child care in a move aimed at ensuring parents, especially in essential services, are able to keep working.

More than 945,000 families with 1.3 million children will benefit.

The new arrangement will scrap, after Sunday, the present funding system – including the means test and the activity test – and instead the government will pay half the sector’s revenue up to the existing hourly rate cap.

The plan will cost the government $1.6 billion over three months – compared with $1.3 billion if current revenues and subsidies had continued, based on the existing system and the big reductions in enrolments that have taken place.

The funding will be paid direct to the centres, with the condition they remain open, so parents do not have the disruption of having to seek out another provider. There are some 13,000 childcare and early leaning services. The new arrangements will also extend to after school and school holiday services.

Priorities will be set for access, with the first in line being working parents, vulnerable and disadvantaged children, and parents with existing enrolments.

Centres should “re-engage with those parents who have taken their children out of care, to see whether they can be accommodated as necessary as well,” Education Minister Dan Tehan said.

“But there is a clear priority list that we want centres to take into account, and the most important of those are those essential workers and the vulnerable children.”

Scott Morrison said: “In this ‘new normal’ that we’re living in, it’s no longer about entitlement. It’s about need.

“And we’re calling on all Australians to think about what they need, and to think about the needs of their fellow Australians who may have a greater need when it comes to calling on the many things that are being provided.”

For parents who have removed their children from childcare, centres can waive the gap fee, dating back to March 23.

The payment to centres will start to be made in a week’s time, and will run initially for three months, after which it may be extended.

Morrison and Tehan said in a statement the plan would provide “planning certainty to early childhood education and care services at a time where enrolments and attendance are highly unpredictable”.

Childcare centres can also get assistance under the JobKeeper program announced this week and the cash and loan schemes also available for businesses.

The Australian Childcare Alliance, the peak body for early learning services, welcomed the announcement as “extraordinary”. It said an overnight survey it had done had shown 30% of providers “faced closure this week due to as massive, shock withdrawal of families – either from fear or unemployment – and another 25% were not sure they could ever recover, even once the virus crisis has passed”.

But with the new financial measures , plus the JobKeeper payment and other existing support mechanism the early learning sector should be able to continue to play its essential role, ACA said.

– ref. Free child care to help nearly one million families, especially workers in essential services – https://theconversation.com/free-child-care-to-help-nearly-one-million-families-especially-workers-in-essential-services-135439

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jen Jackson, Education Policy Lead, Mitchell Institute, Victoria University

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has announced free childcare for more than one million families, with a funding boost that aims to keep more than 13,000 childcare services across Australia open.

In doing so, the government has backed its earlier recognition of early childhood education and care being an essential service.

Estimates suggest about 650 early childhood education and care services have already closed in Australia due to falling enrolments.

The government plans to pay 50% of the sector’s revenue up to the existing hourly rate cap, based on the enrolment numbers before parents started withdrawing their children because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

It will only do this so long as services remain open and do not charge families for care.

Read more: Free child care to help nearly one million families, especially workers in essential services

The funding will apply from April 6 based on the number of children who were in care during the fortnight leading into March 2, whether or not they are attending services.

The plan will cost A$1.6 billion over the coming three months.

What this means

Today’s announcement is a much needed lifeline for the early education and care sector, which was on the brink of collapse.

By last week, drops in occupancy at childcare centres were estimated to be between 15% and 50%.

Normally, the childcare subsidy is paid directly to early childhood services, which then pass it on to families as a fee reduction. Today’s announcement effectively increases the fee reduction to result in zero fees.

Read more: Quality childcare has become a necessity for Australian families, and for society. It’s time the government paid up

Last month, the government also increased the time families can stay away from childcare without losing their access to subsidies, from 42 days to 62 days. The new plan waives gap fees, so families don’t face costs for keeping children at home.

Previously, families would face fees even when their child was absent from childcare, so services could keep operating. While this made sense in the pre-COVID world, many families discontinued enrolment when they were not sure when their children would return to care.

Federal education minister Dan Tehan said families that discontinued their enrolment since February 17 were encouraged to re-enrol their child:

Re-starting your enrolment will not require you to send your child to child care and it certainly won’t require you to pay a gap fee. Re-starting your enrolment will, however, hold your place for that point in time when things start to normalise, and you are ready to take your child back to their centre.

Finding a place in quality childcare remains a struggle for many Australian families, so support to stay enrolled is a significant benefit.

The funding boost means many centres can stay open and early childhood educators (including the 72% who are part-time or casual workers) will be able to keep working.

Read more: COVID-19: what closing schools and childcare centres would mean for parents and casual staff

JobKeeper payments will be available for those who cannot keep working. This is welcome respect from government for the importance of these workers, who are risking their health to give children continuity of care.

Where are the gaps?

The announcement caused initial confusion about whether free childcare would apply to all families. Education minister Dan Tehan asked that services prioritise vulnerable families and those who can’t care for their children safely at home.

The Prime Minister said “working parents” would be prioritised, not just those working in the most critical jobs.

Tehan later clarified that the support applies to all families who have an existing relationship with a childcare centre.

While families struggling to care for young children while working from home will welcome this announcement, it still leaves uncertainty about how “prioritisation” will occur.

It is also not clear whether the call for prioritisation was expected to limit the number of families using childcare services, to allow educators to implement strategies like extra cleaning and physical distancing to protect children and staff from infection.

Benefits for children’s learning are also largely missing in the political spin. The Prime Minister is right that “children need as much familiarity and continuity as we can help provide”, but early childhood services do more than provide familiar spaces for children.

When it comes to school education, the global focus has remained on keeping children learning, even for those not at school. But research shows learning is even more important in the early years, so governments also need a plan to support educators and families to keep early education going.

Read more: Preschool benefits all children, but not all children get it. Here’s what the government can do about that

Another glitch is that Goodstart Early Learning, Australia’s largest early childhood service provider, is technically ineligible for the government support announced so far. The company’s annual revenue is just above the A$1 billion eligibility limit for access to the new package.

Goodstart itself was born from the last major crisis in Australian childcare, when ABC Learning went bankrupt, placing more than 1,000 services at risk of closure. Goodstart, a not-for-profit social enterprise, was created from a consortium of community organisations and government support, to provide a new model of childcare that prioritised learning over profit.

It would be a cruel twist of fate if the solution to the last childcare crisis was left out of the solution to the current one.

Beyond the band-aid

Education minister Dan Tehan has described today’s reforms as “turning off the old system” of childcare funding. When Australia reaches the other side of the crisis, governments will face tough decisions about whether the clunky pre-COVID system – with childcare funding pieced together from a complex mix of government funding and vastly variable fees – should ever be turned back on.

A broken system will crumble to pieces at the first sign of crisis. Australia has seen childcare come close to the brink of collapse twice now in just over a decade. Governments owe it to children and families to never let it happen again.

– ref. Morrison has rescued childcare from COVID-19 collapse – but the details are still murky – https://theconversation.com/morrison-has-rescued-childcare-from-covid-19-collapse-but-the-details-are-still-murky-134798

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, La Trobe University

To control the spread of COVID-19 we need to identify as many people with the virus as possible. If we know who has it, we can isolate them so they can’t infect others and quarantine their close contacts in case they’ve already been infected.

But some experts are concerned we’re not testing enough. Because of restrictions on who can be tested, they argue, we’re only seeing the tip of the iceberg. Beneath the surface, the virus could be spreading much more than we think.

Read more: To get on top of the coronavirus, we also need to test people without symptoms

The federal government recently expanded its testing guidelines and now allows states and territories to set their own rules for testing. But before we get to what they say, let’s look at the symptoms.

What are the symptoms of COVID-19?

Colds, influenza and COVID-19 are all respiratory illnesses and share many of the same symptoms.

For COVID-19, the most common symptoms are fever and a dry cough. Other symptoms might include fatigue, the production of phlegm, shortness of breath, a sore throat and a headache.

But some people experience no, or mild, symptoms.

What is Australia’s testing criteria?

Across Australia, if you develop a respiratory illness, with or without a fever, you can be tested for coronavirus if you:

• have returned from overseas in the past 14 days or spent time on a cruise ship

• have been in close contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case in the past 14 days

• have severe community-acquired pneumonia and there is no clear cause.

Read more: Coronavirus: how long does it take to get sick? How infectious is it? Will you always have a fever? COVID-19 basics explained

If you have a fever or a respiratory illness, you can be tested (and in some cases, must be tested), if you:

• work in health care, aged care or other residential care sectors

• have spent time in a location with elevated levels of community transmission

• have spent time at a “high-risk” location where there are two or more linked cases of COVID-19. This could be an aged care facility, a remote Aboriginal community, a correctional facility, a boarding school, or a military base with live-in accommodation.

Who else can get tested?

Australians in all states and territories can get tested if they meet the criteria above, but some states have expanded their criteria.

In Western Australia, if you have fever of 38℃ and over and have signs of a respiratory infection, you may be tested.

In New South Wales, GPs have discretion to test anyone who has symptoms of COVID-19. People in who identify as Aboriginal in rural and remote communities may also be tested, as can people who live in communities with local transmission.

South Australia has had a cluster of cases among airport baggage handlers. Therefore, anyone who has symptoms of COVID-19 and has been at the airport in the past 14 days, including the carpark or terminal, should also present.

Queensland will offer testing for people who have symptoms consistent with COVID-19 and live in a Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander communities, as Indigenous Australians are more vulnerable to COVID-19.

Read more: Coronavirus will devastate Aboriginal communities if we don’t act now

Victoria has introduced random testing at screening centres, testing every fifth person who presents. This should provide a snapshot of the spread of the virus among a broader section of the community.

The ACT, Northern Territory and Tasmania are following the national guidelines and haven’t included any other groups or situations in which someone can be tested.

So what if you think you have COVID-19?

If you think you have symptoms of COVID-19, call your your GP and advise them of your symptoms and other relevant details, such as travel or contact with a known case.

If you don’t have a usual GP or want to discuss your concerns, call the National Coronavirus Helpline on 1800 020 080. You will be given information on where the closest COVID-19 testing clinic is and detailed advice on whether you should be tested.

If you’re asked to come to a COVID-19 clinic, you’ll need to take precautions. These include driving yourself if possible, wearing a mask if you have one, staying at least 1.5 metres from other people and coughing or sneezing into your elbow.

– ref. Who can get tested for coronavirus? – https://theconversation.com/who-can-get-tested-for-coronavirus-135422

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

The catastrophic bushfire season is officially over, but governments, agencies and communities have failed to recognise the specific and disproportionate impact the fires have had on Aboriginal peoples.

Addressing this in bushfire response and recovery is part of Unfinished Business: the work needed for Indigenous and non-Indigenous people to meet on more just terms.

In our recent study, we found more than one quarter of the Indigenous population in New South Wales and Victoria live in a fire-affected area. That’s more than 84,000 people. What’s more, one in ten infants and children affected by the fires is Indigenous.

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

But in past bushfire inquires and royal commissions, Aboriginal people have been mentioned only sparingly. When referenced now, it’s only in relation to cultural burning or cultural heritage. This must change.

Bushfire residents

Indigenous people comprise only 2.3% of the total population of NSW and Victoria. But they make up nearly 5.4% of the 1.55 million people living in fire-affected areas of these states.

And of the total Indigenous population in fire-affected areas, 36% are less than 15 years old. This is a major concern for delivering health services and education after bushfires have struck.

Importantly, where Indigenous people live has a marked spatial pattern.

There are 22 discrete Aboriginal communities in rural fire-affected areas. Of these, 20 are in NSW, often former mission lands where people were forcibly moved or camps established by Aboriginal peoples.

Ten per cent of Indigenous people in fire-affected areas in NSW and Victoria live in these communities.

And those living in larger towns and urban areas aren’t evenly distributed. For example, Indigenous people comprise 10.6% of residents in fire-affected Nowra–Bomaderry, compared with 1.9% of residents in fire-affected Bowral–Mittagong.

These statistics are steeped in histories and geographies that need to directly inform where and how services are delivered.

Indigenous rights and interests

Aboriginal people hold significant legal rights and interests over lands and waters in the fire-affected areas. These are recognised by state, federal or common law. This includes native title, land acquired through the NSW Aboriginal Land Rights Act or lands covered by Registered Aboriginal Parties in Victoria.

Even where there’s no formal recognition, all fire-affected lands have Aboriginal ownership held and passed down through songlines, languages and kinship networks.

The nature of these legal rights and interests means the bushfires have different consequences for Aboriginal rights-holders than for non-Indigenous landowners.

Many non-Indigenous land-owners in the fire-affected areas face the difficult decision of whether to stay and rebuild, or sell and move on. Traditional owners, on the other hand, are in a far more complex and unending situation.

Traditional owners carry inter-generational responsibilities, practices and more that have been formed with the places the know as their Country.

They can leave and live on someone else’s Country, but their Country and any formally recognised communal land and water rights remain in the fire-affected area.

Relegated to the past

Clearly, Aboriginal people have unique experiences with bushfire disasters, but Aboriginal voices have seldom been heard in the recovery processes that follow.

Read more: Our land is burning, and western science does not have all the answers

The McLeod Inquiry, which followed the 2003 Canberra bushfires and the 2009 Black Saturday Royal Commission – were critical processes of reflection and recovery for the nation. Even in these landmark reports, references to Aboriginal people are almost completely absent.

There were only four brief mentions across three volumes of the Black Saturday Royal Commission. Two were cultural heritage protections discussions in relation to pre-bushfire season preparation, and two were historical references to past burning practices.

In other words, Aboriginal people – their cultural practices, ways of life and land management techniques – are relegated to the past.

This approach must change to acknowledge that Aboriginal people are present in contemporary society, and have distinct experiences with bushfire disasters.

More than cultural burning

This year, we’ve seen strong interest in Aboriginal people’s fire management, including in the early months of the federal royal commission, and in NSW and Victoria state inquiries.

But including Aboriginal voices only in regards to cultural burning is deeply problematic. Yet, it’s an emerging trend – not only in these official responses, but in the media.

This narrowly defined scope precludes the suite of concerns Aboriginal people bring to bushfire risk matters. Their concerns go across the natural hazard sector’s spectrum of preparation, planning, response and recovery.

Aboriginal people need to be part of the broad conversation that bushfire decision-makers, researchers, and the public sector are having.

Amplifying Aboriginal voices

To date, Victoria offers the most substantial effort to include Aboriginal voices by establishing an Aboriginal reference group to work alongside the bushfire recovery agency. But Aboriginal people require a much stronger presence in every facet of these state and national inquiries.

We identify three foundational steps:

1. acknowledge that Aboriginal people have been erased, made absent and marginalised in previous bushfire recovery efforts, and identify and address why this continues to happen

2. establish non-negotiable instructions for including Aboriginal people in the terms of reference and membership of post-bushfire inquiries

3. establish Aboriginal representation on relevant government committees involved in decision-making, planning and implementation of disaster risk management.

Read more: Friday essay: this grandmother tree connects me to Country. I cried when I saw her burned

The continued marginalisation of Aboriginal people diminishes all of us – in terms of our values in living within a just society.

It was never acceptable to silence Aboriginal people in responses to major disasters. It’s incumbent upon us all to ensure these colonial practices of erasure and marginalisation are relegated to the past.

– ref. 1 in 10 children affected by bushfires is Indigenous. We’ve been ignoring them for too long – https://theconversation.com/1-in-10-children-affected-by-bushfires-is-indigenous-weve-been-ignoring-them-for-too-long-135212

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Jin Kang, Lecturer, Edith Cowan University

With #StayAtHome and social distancing now becoming a way of life, an increasing number of people are relying on the internet for work, education and entertainment. This has placed greater demand on our network infrastructure, reducing the bandwidth available for each user, and is leaving people frustrated at seemingly slow internet speeds.

While internet service providers such as TPG or Telstra may not be able to instantly respond to these changes, there are a few tricks you can use to boost your home internet’s speed.

Why is your internet slow?

There may be many reasons why your internet speed is slow. Internet use requires a reliable connection between your device and the destination, which may be a server that is physically located on the other side of the world.

Your connection to that server could pass through hundreds of devices on its journey. Each one of these is a potential failure, or weak point. If one point along this path isn’t functioning optimally, this can significantly affect your internet experience.

Web servers in particular are often affected by external factors, including Denial of Service (DOS) attacks, wherein an overload of traffic causes congestion in the server, and impedes proper functioning.

Read more: MyGov’s ill-timed meltdown could have been avoided with ‘elastic computing’

While you may not have control over these things from your home network, that doesn’t mean you don’t have options to improve your internet speed.

Wifi signal boost

The access point (wireless router) in your home network is used to connect your devices to your internet service provider. Most access points provide a wireless signal with limited channels, which can suffer interference from nearby signals, like your neighbour’s. A “channel” is a kind of virtual “pipe” through which data is transferred.

Although your devices are designed to avoid interference by switching channels automatically (there are usually 14 available), it may help to check your router settings, as some are set to a single channel by default. When trying different options to reduce interference, it’s advisable to select channels 1, 6 or 11 as they can help to minimise problems (for 2.4GHz wireless).

What else can you do?

There are further things you can try to improve your wifi signal. If your router supports 5GHz wifi signals, switching to this can provide a faster data rate, but over shorter distances. Reposition your router for best coverage (usually a central position).

The difference between 2.4GHz and 5GHz wifi signals is they have different data transmission speeds. While 5GHz can transfer data faster (with 23 available channels), 2.4GHz provides a wider range. If you want speed, go for 5GHz. For better coverage, choose 2.4GHz.

Some domestic appliances can cause interference with your router. It’s worth checking if using your microwave oven, cordless phone or baby monitor affects your connection, as they may be using the same frequency as your router.

Using a wifi extender can help with coverage by boosting or extending the signal.

Viruses and malware

To avoid computer viruses, make sure you regularly check for updates on your devices and use antivirus software. It’s also worth rebooting your router to clear specific malware (malicious software designed to damage your device or server), such as VPNFilter – a malware that infects more than half a million routers in more than 50 countries.

You should also check the following:

• does your router need to be replaced with a newer model? This may be the case if it has been used for many years. Newer models support enhanced functions and faster internet speeds

• is the firmware of your wireless router updated? You can do this by visiting the device manufacturer’s website. This will help fix problems and allow additional functionality. It’s unlikely this update is done automatically.

Planning your internet usage

If multiple people are streaming video at your home, which often requires ten times the daytime demand, a limited internet connection will soon be fully used.

Try to plan your and family members’ online activities around peak times. Before the pandemic hit, most internet usage was likely oriented around the early evenings, after close of business. With the shift to remote working and schooling, more internet access is likely during the day, with a 10% usage increase overall, and a 30% increase at peak times.

Outside your home, connectivity is likely to be on a “best effort” plan, which shares a fixed bandwidth with other users. In other words, your mobile internet bandwidth is shared with others in your area when they access the internet at the same time. A shared bandwidth results in slower individual speeds.

You can’t control how many people access the internet, but you can manage your own internet activity by downloading large files or content overnight, or outside of peak hours (when there is less traffic).

How to improve your ISP’s network issues

While you can try to fix issues and optimise the setup inside your home, unfortunately you can’t really influence network performance outside of it. Thus, contacting your internet service provider’s call centre and seeking support is your best option.

All of the above considered, it’s important to remember that when using the internet, we’re sharing a limited resource. Just like buying pasta or toilet paper, there are many who need it just as much as you, so use it wisely.

Read more: Vital Signs: NBN’s new price plans are too little, too late

– ref. How to boost your internet speed when everyone is working from home – https://theconversation.com/how-to-boost-your-internet-speed-when-everyone-is-working-from-home-135313

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natalie Klein, Professor, UNSW

The spectre of large ships with people desperate to come ashore is not a new sight in Australia.

In 2001, the MV Tampa infamously sought to enter Australian waters off Christmas Island to discharge more than 400 asylum seekers who had been rescued by the Norwegian vessel.

It is estimated that 15,000 crew members are now stranded on 18 cruise ships floating around Australia, with mounting concerns that coronavirus will take hold and spread.

The circumstances for each ship may vary, but the fundamental rules of international law remain the same.

Duty to render assistance

For those at sea, there is a duty for masters of vessels to render assistance to those in distress. States must fulfill this obligation, too.

Australia could be seen as fulfilling this responsibility with its plan to send doctors to the cruise ships to evaluate sick crew members. An at-sea boarding is challenging, though, and requires the consent and cooperation of those on board.

When the vessel itself is in distress, the international law of the sea allows for it to enter a port of refuge.

Read more: Yes, Australians on board the Diamond Princess need to go into quarantine again. It’s time to reset the clock

Though countries exercise sovereignty over their ports and are entitled to control which vessels enter, an exception exists under customary international law to allow ships in distress to dock.

This is what happened in 2001 when the master of the Tampa issued a distress call to warrant his entry to Christmas Island.

But what counts as distress? Essentially, it is when there is a clear threat to the safety of those aboard the ship.

Traditionally, this related to situations when a vessel had a broken mast, damaged sails or malfunctioning engines or other mechanical failures requiring repair. A vessel could enter into port and seek the repairs needed before continuing on its journey.

The Tampa’s distress, however, was caused by the fact it was carrying an excess number of people who required more food, water and medical attention than the vessel was equipped to provide.

International law protections for crews

What about a cruise liner with a crew of 1,000 who live in close quarters and are exposed to the coronavirus? A situation of distress could well arise on these ships, as well.

International law has minimum requirements for the crew operating a ship. At the moment, it would seem the crew on a cruise liner would be divided between those who are essential for the running of a vessel and those whose jobs are to look after the passengers.

A situation of distress would be more easily established when the crew responsible for the actual running of the vessel are unwell and unable to perform tasks essential for the safety of the ship.

Read more: Coronavirus has seriously tested our border security. Have we learned from our mistakes?

The crew members also have core rights that are set out in the Maritime Labour Convention, which came into force in 2013. It sets the working and living standards for crews working on ships internationally.

Under this convention, seafarers who are in need of immediate medical care are to be given access to medical facilities on shore. Australia is bound by this obligation for vessels located in its territorial waters, regardless of whether those ships are foreign-registered.

Australia has implemented the convention under its own Navigation Act and, most particularly, the Marine Order 11.

That order requires the owners of vessels

put in place measures for the health protection, medical care and essential dental care for seafarers on board.

This obligation extends to ensuring that

seafarers have health protection and medical care as comparable as possible to that available to workers on shore, including prompt access to: (i) necessary medicines, medical equipment and facilities for diagnosis and treatment; and (ii) medical information and expertise.

This order applies to Australian vessels. The question is whether the same rules apply to a foreign-registered vessel.

The Ruby Princess, for example, is registered to the Bahamas. The Bahamas is bound by the Maritime Labour Convention, which sets out similar requirements to those in Australia’s Marine Order.

However, the vessel owners do not have full responsibility for the well-being of crews on board. The Maritime Labour Convention makes clear that Australia is duty-bound to offer medical care to crew on ships in its territorial waters.

Read more: Memories overboard! What the law says about claiming compensation for a holiday gone wrong

The convention does not indicate who has primary responsibility to provide medical assistance in cases like these, but the shipowner does have financial liability under the treaty to defray the expenses of such treatment. What matters is the crew receives the necessary medical care.

For Australia, there is still a balance of rights to be achieved. Under international law, a state might refuse access to its ports for a ship that poses a serious and unacceptable safety, environmental, health or security threat to it. A pandemic would no doubt count in this regard.

Port states have the right to protect their local populations in different ways, consistent with international health regulations put forth by the World Health Organisation and with the International Ship and Port Facility Code.

Yet, the safety of persons on board must be assured, as well.

– ref. Explainer: what are Australia’s obligations to cruise ships off its coast under international law? – https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-are-australias-obligations-to-cruise-ships-off-its-coast-under-international-law-135428

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Holden, Senior Lecturer in Dental Ethics, Law and Professionalism, University of Sydney

The coronavirus pandemic is changing the way we access health care, and dental care is no exception.

Dentists are no longer allowed to provide a raft of care, such as regular check-ups and tooth whitening, to minimise the spread of COVID-19. However, if you’re in a lot of pain, your dentist will be able to treat you.

Here’s how the coronavirus is changing the way we look after our teeth.

Read more: How often should I get my teeth cleaned?

Why are these restrictions in place?

When dentists work on your teeth, they can produce aerosols – droplets or sprays of saliva or blood – in the air.

This happens routinely when your dentist uses a drill or when scaling and polishing, for instance.

And dentists are used to following stringent infection control precautions under normal circumstances to lower the risk of transmission of infectious diseases, whether they are respiratory diseases or blood-borne.

These precautions help keep both patients and dentists safe because it assumes all patients may have an infection, despite the reality that most won’t.

But with the coronavirus pandemic, there is an increased risk of aerosols carrying the virus either directly infecting dental staff, or landing on surfaces, which staff or the next patient can touch.

This transmission may be possible even if you feel perfectly well, as not everyone with the virus has symptoms.

Who’s making these recommendations?

The Australian Health Protection Principal Committee – the key decision-making committee for health emergencies – has recently recommended dentists only provide treatments that do not generate aerosols, or where generating aerosols is limited. And all routine examinations and treatments should be postponed.

This is based on level three restrictions, according to guidance from the Australian Dental Association.

Recommendations of what is and isn’t allowed may change over time.

What does it mean for me? Can I still get a filling?

What’s not allowed?

Non-essential dental care is now postponed. This includes routine check-ups and treatment where there is no pain, bleeding or swelling. So treatments such as whitening and most fillings will have to wait.

Other conditions or treatments that will need to be postponed include:

• tooth extractions (without accompanied pain or swelling)

• broken or chipped teeth

• bleeding or sore gums

• halitosis (bad breath)

• loose teeth (that aren’t a choking hazard)

• concerns about dentures

• crowns and bridges

• clicking/grating jaw joint

• scale and polish

What is allowed?

Some patients will need urgent care for acute problems requiring treatments that produce aerosols. So such procedures have a risk of spreading COVID-19.

Permitted treatments are limited to:

• tooth extractions or root canal treatment when someone is in acute pain caused by damage to, or death of the nerve in the tooth

• where upper front teeth are significantly damaged, for example, in an accident (this is an instance where a filling could be provided)

• management of ulcers or other problems with the lining of the gums and mouth

• providing care for patients with complex medical conditions and where not treating may lead to worsening of their general health

• managing patients who have dental problems linked to social or cultural factors and that will develop quickly if professional care is not given

• where a patient is referred by a doctor for care that is medically necessary.

Can I still go to my regular dentist?

Many dental practices are only open to manage dental problems causing pain, that are urgent or are an emergency.

So check with your usual dentist to see what services they can provide. And be prepared for prearranged treatments to be cancelled.

What if I have COVID-19 or may have it?

If you need urgent dental care and think you may have COVID-19, it’s important to call your dentist to discuss your particular situation.

You may be able to be treated at your usual surgery, where infection control precautions will be stepped up.

But if you have a dental emergency and have been diagnosed with COVID-19, you will be referred to a hospital with appropriate facilities.

What can I do in the meantime?

COVID-19 is going to be with us for many months. So it’s important to look after your oral health by maintaining a healthy diet and oral hygiene routine.

Read more: How to (gently) get your child to brush their teeth

– ref. Can I still go to the dentist? How coronavirus is changing the way we look after our teeth – https://theconversation.com/can-i-still-go-to-the-dentist-how-coronavirus-is-changing-the-way-we-look-after-our-teeth-135300

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philip Roberts, Associate professor (Curriculum Inquiry / Rural Education), University of Canberra

Schools have been progressively moving classes online due to the COVID-19 pandemic and there is uncertainty over what the next months may bring. This has thrown many year 12 students’ lives into chaos.

States and territories are yet to determine what will happen with final year exams. More than 180,000 students are expected to complete their final year certificates across Australia in 2020. This includes around 68,000 in NSW completing the higher school certificate (HSC); and 49,000 completing the Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE).

Victoria’s education minister has said year 12 exams may be moved to later in the year or even early next year. But students will still be able to get their VCE qualifications.

The NSW education department has determined the HSC will also go ahead; and similar statements have been made about the South Australian Certificate of Education (SACE) and other senior certificates across Australia.

A statement from the Education Council of Australia says a decision on exams will be made later this month.

But how will the move to online study, and the disruption of routine, affect students’ abilities to perform and, consequently, their grades? And what does this mean for university entry?

Exams and coursework across the states

In Australia most students finish classes in September, so they are about half way through their courses.

In NSW, students start their final year subjects in term four the previous year and finish classes late in term three, before doing trial HSC exams. Others, like the ACT, use credit systems where students accumulate course credits with no final external exam – again most students would have completed about half their credits in these systems.

In some states, exams can comprise more than half a student’s final score. Schools also tend to have less weighted tasks earlier in a course and higher weighted tasks later. For instance, in NSW half a student’s grade in the HSC comes from the exam held from late September. And up to half a student’s school grade can comes from their trial exams.

Read more: Year 12 can be stressful, but setting strong and healthy goals can help you thrive

Some other states have less heavily weighted external exams. The ACT final score is based on school assessment, some of which might be exams. In South Australia external exams are worth 30% of the final SACE score.

The NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) has given principals or system authorities the power to make decisions for the 2020 HSC in relation to formal assessments.

This essentially means school principals can give students fewer tasks, change when they are due and how much they count towards the final grade.

Similar advice exists in other jurisdictions such as Victoria and the ACT.

How this affects university entry

Once a student has their final year credentials such as the HSC or VCE, they are then ranked for university entry through a scaling system. The scaled grades are then converted into the Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) which is used as the main entry criterion for university.

There are equity issues for students who plan to go to university as students are ranked across the ATAR. Students with access to higher speed internet and devices are at an advantage. This also the case for students whose parents can support them in their subjects, those who have space at home for their study and who can access tutoring.

Read more: What actually is an ATAR? First of all it’s a rank, not a score

When we learn online, especially when we are new to it, we often revert to content transmission – it’s easier to study content than develop structured and interactive learning activities. This changes the nature of what teachers do and what students are prepared for in assessments.

Exam creators will need to ensure questions match this new reality and ask for factual recall. This means students with better online systems and those better at factual recall – a strength for exams – have an advantage in states where exams are weighted higher for their final certificate and the ATAR.

If schools focus more on the material many year 12 students have already covered before the move to online, this may help with the equity problem.

However, many students may feel short changed as they were preparing to give it their all towards the end of the year when the final tasks are weighted more.

Students studying subjects where they produce a major work, such as a piece of furniture or who have performances such as music and drama, will also likely have only had their knowledge components assessed to date. They would be relying on the final score of their major project.

What can we do?

Reducing the breadth of material covered, as a system wide response, is a sensible option – either the detail in each subject or number of options within subjects. The final exams can be reduced in length to accommodate this.

The school year can also be extended and the exams pushed back – although this will mean university entry will need to be delayed.

Major works, performances and vocational education placements are another issue altogether. Many students will need access to specialist resources and rooms in schools to prepare these, as well as transport to and from these spaces.

Seemingly this would be possible by having a trained adult overseeing the space and observing appropriate health protocols. But group tasks such as in drama may need creative solutions such as dialogues at distance and dance pieces without interaction.

Another option may be to cover the content now and the practical components later. This may disadvantage students in subjects with practical components such as art and technology, because they have greater affinity with production and performance than classic academic study.

Read more: Don’t stress, your ATAR isn’t the final call. There are many ways to get into university

We will need to ensure we recognise this change when calculating the overall year 12 grade.

Leaving grade calculations to individual schools could be problematic if schools try to game the system and get their student marks up (by, for instance, expelling low grading students).

There are several ways to mediate this.

All students in the ACT take a general aptitude test, (the AST), which is used to scale student grades.

In South Australia the final SACE grade is moderated by comparing students across subjects without the use of a major external exam such as in NSW.

A move to the ACT or SA approach in other jurisdictions this year can’t be ruled out. A further option is the Special Tertiary Admissions Test (STAT) which is used for university entry for non-school leavers.

This situation could also be the impetus we need to further the debates about the ATAR and if it should be recast for university entry. The current crisis may just show us some avenues to make the current system fairer for everyone.

– ref. COVID-19 has thrown year 12 students’ lives into chaos. So what can we do? – https://theconversation.com/covid-19-has-thrown-year-12-students-lives-into-chaos-so-what-can-we-do-134891

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elizabeth Stephens, ARC Future Fellow and Associate Professor of Cultural Studies, The University of Queensland

Australia’s coronavirus public health messaging has been criticised as confusing during a time when health guidelines and regulations are changing rapidly, and educating the public about health is more vital than ever.

The slow roll-out of its public information campaign of videos and posters, urging people to wash their hands and keep their distance, has also been criticised.

But we’ve known how pandemic public health messaging works since the 1918 influenza pandemic, a largely forgotten, but important historical precedent for the current crisis.

We know from 1918 that pandemic public health messages need to be communicated widely and clearly, and to be consistent with government messaging and policies.

For this, messaging needs to be regulated by centralised, government agencies.

So which lessons has Australia learnt from the past?

Read more: How Australia’s response to the Spanish flu of 1919 sounds warnings on dealing with coronavirus

Communicating widely works

Public health education campaigns have long played a pivotal role in managing public health, especially in moments of crisis.

Public health education, as we know it, is just over a century old. It is a product of the first world war, when more soldiers died of disease than injury.

Many of the earliest public health education campaigns focused on curbing the transmission of infectious diseases, more specifically, using posters to warn about venereal diseases (sexually transmitted infections).

But there are only a handful of posters warning about the influenza pandemic of 1918, which would go on to kill 50-100 million people, many times more than the war itself.

Partly this is because influenza broke out during the final stages of the war, when national resources were stretched thin.

It is also perhaps because it was initially overshadowed by that other great epidemic disease of the 19th century: tuberculosis.

However, as influenza spread around the world with returning servicemen in 1918, efforts were made to slow its transmission through new public health education initiatives, such as distributing information flyers.

The US city of Philadelphia, for instance, distributed 20,000 flyers warning about the transmission of influenza in 1918.

At the same time, however, it also decided to proceed with a large public parade, which attracted 200,000 thousand people.

Within three days, every hospital in Philadelphia was full. By the end of the first week, 2,600 people had died. Six weeks later, over 12,000 were dead.

But the city of St Louis moved quickly to introduce measures like the ones we see today: shutting schools, cinemas, churches, and businesses. Some 700 died.

The difference between Philadelphia and St Louis is one of the most important lessons to learn from the 1918 influenza epidemic: “flattening the curve” works to limit transmission of infectious diseases, minimising the impact on health services.

It’s a message that’s been stressed in the current health messaging, not only by government, but by medical professionals and statistical modellers.

Current public health messaging to “flatten the curve” has had a demonstrable effect on public behaviour, encouraging widespread social distancing and self-isolation.

However, this message was undermined by what many perceived as the government’s slowness in introducing social distancing measures as a containment policy, and mixed messaging around their implementation.

In the middle of March, as events like the Melbourne Grand Prix seemed prepared to go ahead, some feared we were watching another Philadelphia in the making.

Read more: How to flatten the curve of coronavirus, a mathematician explains

Effective government health messaging helps stem misinformation

Before the launch of the Australian government’s public education campaign, a wave of posts from the public on social media urged people to wash their hands for 20 seconds and physically distance from older relatives.

Millions of people watched the video of Arnold Schwarzenegger feeding carrots to a miniature donkey and pony, while encouraging his audience to stay inside.

And in the UK, a 17-year-old boy created a popular online tool that adds 20 seconds of your chosen song lyrics to a poster on hand-washing.

These examples represent something new: public health messages produced and circulated by the public, perhaps one of the most significant legacies of COVID-19, changing a century of practice in public health education.

Read more: We should listen to coronavirus experts, but local wisdom counts too

While such initiatives are doubtlessly well-intentioned, they have moved public health education from government agencies and traditional media online, into a largely unregulated space.

Inevitably, we are seeing the circulation of medical misinformation.

Read more: When a virus goes viral: pros and cons to the coronavirus spread on social media

This was also evident in the unregulated health sector of 1918, with a flourishing market in quack medical treatments, including ones that contained arsenic, camphor or mercury.

One of the key lessons of the 1918 influenza epidemic was, precisely, the importance of efficient and regulated public health communication.

This led directly to the foundation of national health organisations and media outlets. In the UK, the Ministry of Health was established in 1919, the BBC in 1922. In Australia, the Department of Health was established in 1921, the ABC in 1932.

However, with health regulations changing daily and announcements often made late at night, we need to ensure public health communication keeps pace with government health policy, and public messaging about both is clear and consistent.

How about future health campaigns?

The coronavirus is pushing so much of life online and the digital sphere grows more culturally influential.

To stem misinformation, robustly funded and well-resourced government health agencies and government public information campaigns are more important than ever.

During the current crisis, we have the opportunity to learn from the past, while taking advantage of new possibilities.

For instance, government health education can make greater use of social media to explain changing public health policy and regulations.

As Australia prepares for an extended and unprecedented period of mandatory self-isolating, ongoing clear and consistent messaging will be more important than ever.

– ref. We’ve known about pandemic health messaging since 1918. So when it comes to coronavirus, what has Australia learnt? – https://theconversation.com/weve-known-about-pandemic-health-messaging-since-1918-so-when-it-comes-to-coronavirus-what-has-australia-learnt-134797

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chelsea Bond, Senior Research Fellow, School of Social Science, The University of Queensland

Among the latest coronavirus advice from the prime minister was an age-based self-isolation strategy designed to protect those considered most vulnerable in the global health crisis.

The directive was for Indigenous peoples over the age of 50 to self-isolate, while for non-Indigenous Australians, the age cut-off was 70.

It was a stark reminder of the ongoing crisis of Indigenous health, and the increasing threat that COVID-19 poses to Indigenous communities. Just this week, five health workers in the Kimberley region have tested positive for the virus.

As WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus points out,

…COVID-19 is revealing how fragile many of the world’s health systems and services are, forcing countries to make difficult choices on how to best meet the needs of their people.

Public health directives on things such as hygiene, self-isolation and social distancing have been instrumental in minimising the burden on our health system in the current crisis.

While we should heed these directives, we, too, must learn from the lessons of past public health failures. And there really has been no bigger failure in Australian public health than Indigenous health.

Read more: The other Indigenous coronavirus crisis: disappearing income from art

Lack of equity in public health practice

Australia is a world leader across a range of health domains, from tobacco cessation to cervical cancer. But the experiences of Indigenous Australians, including the appalling rate of premature deaths, reveal a damning truth about the limitations of public health in protecting our mob.

Public health has proven more capable of describing the gap in Indigenous health equality and vulnerability than in remedying it. This is a fundamental failure of public health as a discipline, which tends to focus more on quantifying inequalities than in addressing the inequities that cause them.

Read more: Coronavirus will devastate Aboriginal communities if we don’t act now

There is often confusion between the concepts of health equality and health equity. Distinguishing between the two, however, is key to a more effective public health response for those deemed most vulnerable.

According to the Milkin Institute School of Public Health, equity refers to the absence of unfair and avoidable social, economic or environmental differences between groups of people. Lack of equity is what produces inequality in a society.

In order to reduce the health disparities gap, the underlying issues and individual needs of underserved and vulnerable populations must be effectively addressed.

As Maori medical doctor and academic Papaarangi Reid points out, addressing COVID-19 through a lens of equity means thinking about vulnerability in ways that aren’t necessarily limited to age. As she says,

So I think, while we are very worried about our elderly, we are also worried about our precariat, those who are homeless. We are worried about those who are impoverished, the working poor, those who are in prisons and institutions.

Public health failures in the coronavirus response

Australian public health, for the most part, remains bound to a utilitarian logic of “greatest good for the greatest number”. This ironically renders minority populations, such as Indigenous peoples, most vulnerable.

Through this logic, strategies for reducing the threats that minority groups face are often overlooked. They are deemed less important or too resource-intensive.

It is in this environment that our Indigenous health experts are forced to work. Much of their labour is spent appealing for a more equitable public health response, instead of focusing squarely on responding to the health crisis in our communities.

Read more: Why releasing some prisoners is essential to stop the spread of coronavirus

The recently released Management Plan for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Populations, developed by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Group on COVID-19, identifies equity as a core principle.

Failure to implement an equitable response commensurate with the situation will result in significantly poor outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Indigenous Australians know that increased vulnerability doesn’t offer a greater sense of safety or protection from the state.

If it did, we would see those on remand in prisons across the country released during the coronavirus crisis, as called for by a group of health professionals in an open letter to Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt.

We would see increased resourcing for Indigenous housing and Indigenous community-controlled health and social services, as demanded by NACCHO Chair Pat Turner.

If we prioritised equity as a way of reducing vulnerability, we would ensure the poorest were among the biggest beneficiaries of economic stimulus packages.

The introduction of punitive public health measures, such as fines for not complying with social distancing and self-isolation rules, also offers little assurance to Indigenous peoples. It is feared they will be disproportionately targeted, rather than protected, by the increased powers of the state.

Already, we have seen calls to deny Indigenous peoples access to coronavirus stimulus payments in the Northern Territory, along with incidents of overt racism related to coronavirus testing and treatment for Indigenous peoples.

We witnessed a delay in social isolation measures that would benefit Indigenous communities, such as not immediately ending group activities for those in the community development program (CDP) in remote communities.

And we have yet to see the suspension of welfare quarantine programs, which would help vulnerable households better respond to this crisis.

But this is the problem with a public health agenda that is empathetic to Indigenous ill health, but indifferent to equity. It doesn’t inspire transformative action or outcomes.

It simply engenders a kind of helplessness and inevitability to the ongoing crisis in Indigenous health. And it blinds the public and policy makers to the capabilities of Indigenous peoples, cultures and communities, including our leading Indigenous health experts.

Indigenous control is the cure

Indigenous opthamologist Kris Rallah-Baker has referenced the Spanish flu in rightly reminding us this pandemic is not unprecedented.

During that pandemic, Indigenous peoples suffered disproportionately in Australia, accounting for 30% of all deaths in Queensland. However, the extent to which Indigenous people were affected only came to light some 75 years later through the scholarly work of Aboriginal medical doctor Gordon Briscoe.

Alongside every public health failure in Indigenous health there have been Indigenous peoples appealing to be seen and heard, not just counted in death tolls. Indigenous expertise is instrumental to forging a new public health agenda – one that is far more humane and equitable in its commitment to the health of all, rather than the health of most.

But in a nation that steadfastly refuses to meaningfully recognise Indigenous sovereignty, this clearly is a bigger problem than public health and one likely to linger far longer than the coronavirus crisis.

– ref. The answer to Indigenous vulnerability to coronavirus: a more equitable public health agenda – https://theconversation.com/the-answer-to-indigenous-vulnerability-to-coronavirus-a-more-equitable-public-health-agenda-135048

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Donna Maree Cooper, Senior Lecturer QUT Law Faculty, Queensland University of Technology

Separated parents are facing a range of new challenges in the wake of COVID-19. To contain the spread, the government has directed people to stay at home except when carrying out essential activities. But children of separated families will still need to move between households.

When this happens, one parent may have concerns about the safety of children attending school or childcare while in their ex’s care, or whether their former partner will adequately supervise their children’s online schooling.

Parents may also worry their ex may not be following the current guidelines on social distancing or lives with an essential service worker who may be more likely to transmit the virus to the children.

So what can parents to do cope?

Your legal rights

By law, after separation both parents have what is termed “parental responsibility”. This means, unless the court orders otherwise, they are required to consult each other about major long-term decisions such as education and medical treatment.

But each parent can make day-to-day decisions when children are in their care such as what children will eat and what activities they will do each day.

If parents have family court orders or parenting plans that stipulate the time children spend with both parents, they should follow their terms unless they both agree on other arrangements.

If one parent doesn’t feel comfortable with children attending an education provider while spending time with their former partner, they should discuss their concerns with their ex and try to reach an agreement. There may be a range of options depending on whether there are alternate care providers and how geographically close parents live to each other.

Read more: Schools are open during the coronavirus outbreak but should I voluntarily keep my kids home anyway, if I can? We asked 5 experts

Parents may consider adjusting their portions of time or the particular days or weeks on which children spend time with each of them.

Another scenario that has come up in practice is conflict arising between separated parents where one is not following the social distancing guidelines. Children are returning from visits and revealing they have spent time socialising – such as at playgrounds and barbecues.

In this instance the concerned parent should raise their concerns with their ex and see if they can agree on a set of guidelines that take into account government directives.

But what if we don’t agree?

The law states parents must act in the best interests of their children. Where parents cannot agree on what these are, the court has a list of best interests factors that must be considered. These include the benefit of children having a meaningful relationship with both their parents balanced against protection from harm.

The Chief Justice of the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court of Australia has made it clear if parents cannot reach agreement on new arrangements they should generally follow their court orders unless their children’s safety is compromised.

If a parent is seeking to deviate from family court orders due to health concerns the Chief Justice has said such requests:

[…] should be considered sensibly and reasonably. Each parent should always consider the safety and best interests of the child, but also appreciate the concerns of the other parent when attempting to reach new or revised arrangements. This includes understanding that family members are important to children and the risk of infection to vulnerable members of the child’s family and household should also be considered.

The federal government has said children can still attend school and childcare if needed, such as when they are children of essential workers. So within the law, one parent can continue to send children to school or childcare.

If a parent decides to withhold time from their ex because they deem them to be breaching the social-isolation requirements, a court would need to decide if the parent had a “reasonable excuse” for failing to follow court orders.

If a child has pre-existing health issues that make them susceptible to the serious consequences of COVID-19, which can result in respiratory complications for instance, the concerned parent could provide medical evidence to support their actions.

What if I can’t follow the court order?

The current situation may mean some parents can’t follow some aspects of their court orders, such as where changeover is usually at a school or another contact centre which has closed. Parents should come to an agreement on an alternative changeover location or supervision arrangement.

Some parents have arrangements that require them to cross state borders. Queensland, Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory have border restrictions in place that mean, unless you are granted an exemption, you will need to self-isolate for 14 days after crossing the border.

Read more: To fix the family law system, we need to ask parents what really works

In some states, such as Queensland, you can apply for an exemption if you have a family court order or compassionate grounds. In other states, such as in South Australia Tasmania Western Australia and the Northern Territory, there is no explicit exemption for family court orders but there is one for “compassionate grounds”.

The term “compassionate grounds” has not been defined, so check with your local police to see if it includes family court orders and parenting plans.

Everyone is anxious

As the virus continues to spread, we can anticipate disputes where one parent becomes worried their ex has been exposed or come into close contact with someone who has been exposed to COVID-19. If this has occurred, health guidelines direct the exposed person self-isolate for 14 days which would require a temporary suspension of physical time with their children unless they have also come into contact and need to self-isolate.

If after testing the parent has a confirmed case, self-isolation is mandatory. If parents can’t reach agreement, again if the case went to court, the court would consider whether there was a “reasonable excuse” to depart from the court order.

Evidence of the exposure would establish the parent who chose not to follow the order had genuine health concerns.

If one parent is experiencing symptoms and is waiting for test results it would be prudent for children not come into contact with them until the result is received. If a parent clearly has COVID-19 symptoms but is not eligible for a test it would be in the children’s best interests for the parent to self-isolate from them until their symptoms have resolved.

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

Where parents have agreed on new arrangements, they should record these in writing. This will ensure they both understand what changes have been made and have a clear record of the arrangements.

Parents should remember this is stressful for everyone and many children will be feeling anxious. If parents can agree on consistent rules between households and keep conflict to a minimum, it would help their children feel as secure as possible when moving between households.

If parents need help with their discussions they can access mediation services at family relationship centres or consult private mediators. They can also seek legal advice from lawyers.

– ref. Co-parenting in the time of coronavirus: if you and your ex don’t agree, what are your rights? – https://theconversation.com/co-parenting-in-the-time-of-coronavirus-if-you-and-your-ex-dont-agree-what-are-your-rights-134900

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mehmet Ozalp, Associate Professor in Islamic Studies, Director of The Centre for Islamic Studies and Civilisation and Executive Member of Public and Contextual Theology, Charles Sturt University

As the world faces the greatest disruption of our lifetimes, Muslims throughout the world are also grappling with the repercussions of the coronavirus pandemic.

But the Islamic cultural, spiritual and theological dimensions offer Muslims myriad ways of coping.

Adapting to new social norms

Muslims have relatively large families and tend to maintain extended family relations. Prophet Muhammad encouraged Muslims to keep strong family ties. The Quran inspires Muslims to be generous to kin (16:90) and treat the elderly with compassion (17:23).

These teachings have resulted in Muslims either living together as large families or keeping regular weekly visits and gatherings of extended family members. Many Muslims feel conflicted about the need to apply social distancing on one hand and the need to be close to family and relatives for comfort and support. Tighter restrictions on movement in some parts of Australia (NSW and Victoria) mean Muslims, like everyone else, are not allowed to visit extended family anymore.

Read more: What actually are ‘essential services’ and who decides?

One of the first changes brought about by social distancing has been to the Muslim custom of shaking hands followed by hugging (same gender) friends and acquaintances, especially in mosques and Muslim organisations. After a week or two of hesitation in March, the hugging completely stopped, making Muslims feel dismal.

Visiting the sick is considered a good deed in Islam. However, in the case of COVID-19, such visits are not possible. Checking up on those who are sick with phone calls, messages and social media is still possible and encouraged.

Cleanliness is half of faith

One aspect of coronavirus prevention that comes very naturally to Muslims is personal hygiene. Health organisations and experts promote personal hygiene to limit the spread of coronavirus, especially washing hands frequently for at least 20 seconds.

Islam has been encouraging personal hygiene for centuries. The Quran instructs Muslims to keep their clothes clean in one of the earliest revelations (74:4), remarking “God loves those who are clean” (2:222).

More than 14 centuries ago, Prophet Muhammad emphasised “cleanliness is half of faith” and encouraged Muslims to wash their hands before and after eating, bath at least once a week (and after marital relations), brush their teeth daily, and to groom their nails and private parts.

Read more: In spite of their differences, Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God

Additionally, Muslims have to perform a ritual ablution before the five daily prayers. The ablution involves washing hands up to the elbows, including interlacing of fingers, washing the face and feet, and wiping the hair.

While these do not completely prevent the spread of disease, they certainly help reduce the risk.

An interesting detail is that Muslims are required to wash their genitals after using the toilet. Even though Muslims use toilet paper, they are required to finish cleaning with water. This requirement led to some Muslims installing bidet sprayers in their bathrooms.

Closure of mosques and Friday services

Congregational prayers in mosques are important for Muslims in instilling a sense of being in the presence of the sacred, and a sense of being with other believers. Accordingly, they line up in rows with shoulders touching. This arrangement is extremely risky during a pandemic. Australian mosques are now closed because of coronavirus.

Deciding to skip optional daily congregational prayers was not too difficult for Muslims, but stopping Friday prayers has been more challenging. Friday prayer is the only Muslim prayer that has to be performed in a mosque. It consists of a 30-60 minute sermon followed by a five-minute congregational prayer conducted just after noon.

Stopping Friday prayers on a global scale has not occurred since it was introduced by Prophet Muhammad in 622, after he migrated to the city of Medina from the persecution he and his followers endured in Mecca.

Iran was the first to ban Friday prayers on March 4. While countries like Turkey and Indonesia tried to continue Friday prayers with social distancing, it did not work, and soon the entire Muslim world closed mosques for prayer services.

Fortunately for Muslims, the closure of mosques does not mean they stop daily prayers altogether. In Islam, individual prayers and worship play a greater role than communal ones. Muslims can pray five times a day wherever they are, and often home is a place where most praying takes place.

The void left by ending of Friday sermons in mosques has been filled to some extent by Friday sermons offered online.

Effect on Ramadan and the annual pilgrimage to Mecca

Two of the five pillars of Islamic practice are the fasting in Ramadan and the annual pilgrimage to Mecca.

Ramadan is only three weeks away. It starts in the last week of April and goes for a month. During this month, Muslims refrain from eating, drinking and marital relations from dawn to sunset on each day of the month. This part will not be affected by COVID-19.

Read more: Millions of Muslims prepare to perform the hajj amid calls for a boycott

What is affected are the evening breaking of fast dinners (iftar) and daily evening congregational prayers (tarawih). Muslims generally invite their friends and family members to these dinners. In Western countries, the invitations include non-Muslim acquaintances as well. Islamic organisations have already announced the cancellation of iftar dinners.

The three-day end of Ramadan festive celebrations (eid) will also be limited to family that live together.

The impact on pilgrimage is far greater.

The minor (and optional) Islamic pilgrimage (umrah) happens throughout the year, intensifying near Ramadan. With Iran a hot spot for coronavirus, Saudi Arabia suspended entry to Iranian and all other pilgrims as early as February 27.

The main pilgrimage (hajj) season occurs in late July. Although there is the possibility of the spread of the virus slowing by July, a pilgrimage involving more than two million people from just about every country on earth would almost certainly flame the virus into a second wave. Saudi Arabia is likely to cancel the main pilgrimage for 2020.

In the 14 centuries of Islamic history, pilgrimage has not been undertaken several times because of war and roads not being safe. But this is the first time in pilgrimage may be called off due to a pandemic.

As pilgrims reserve their spot and pay the full fee months ahead, the cancellation of hajj would result in losses of savings for millions of Muslims and cause massive job losses in the pilgrimage industry.

The balance between precaution and reliance on God

An early debate in Muslim circles around coronavirus has been a theological one. Muslims believe God created the universe and continues to actively govern its affairs. This would mean the emergence of the virus is an active creation of God.

So like some other religious groups, some Muslims argue that coronavirus was created by God to warn and punish humanity for consumerism, destruction of the environment and personal excesses. This means fighting the pandemic is futile and people should rely (tawakkul) on God to protect the righteous.

Such thinking may help in reducing the sense of fear and panic such a large-scale pandemic poses, but it can also make people unnecessarily complacent.

The vast majority of Muslims counter this fatalistic approach by arguing that while the emergence of the virus was not in human control, the spread of disease certainly is. They remind us that Prophet Muhammad advised a man who did not tie his camel because he trusted in God: “tie the camel first and then trust in God”.

Prophet Muhammad sought medical treatment and encouraged his followers to seek medical treatment, saying “God has not made a disease without appointing a remedy for it, with the exception of one disease—old age”.

Further, Prophet Muhammad advised on quarantine:

If you hear of an outbreak of plague in a land, do not enter it; if the plague outbreaks out in a place while you are in it, do not leave that place.

Sometimes affliction inevitably comes our way. The Quran teaches Muslims to see life’s difficult circumstances as a test — they are temporary hardships to strengthen us (2:153-157). Such a perspective allows Muslims to show resilience in times of hardship and tribulation, with sufficient strength to make it to the other side intact.

In times like this, some people will inevitably lose their wealth, income and even their lives. Prophet Muhammad advised the grieving that property lost during tribulations will be considered charity, and those who die as a result of pandemics will be considered martyrs of paradise.

As Muslims continue to deal with the coronavirus pandemic, they, like everyone else, are wondering how their lives might be changed afterwards.

– ref. How coronavirus challenges Muslims’ faith and changes their lives – https://theconversation.com/how-coronavirus-challenges-muslims-faith-and-changes-their-lives-133925

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aaron Martin, Associate Professor, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne

The viral spread of mis- and disinformation about the coronavirus pandemic, just like the viral spread of the disease itself, has led to unprecedented media coverage. This has included a welcome return to prioritising expert knowledge.

Amid widespread criticism of the sharing of “fake news” about coronavirus, seven of the world’s most influential technology companies have banded together to prioritise the public health messages of experts. Companies such as Facebook and Google have now committed to “elevating authoritative content on our platforms and sharing critical updates in coordination with government healthcare agencies around the world”.

As the death toll from COVID-19 has climbed, the world’s technology giants have faced the same question confronting all of us: who to turn to for information, and how much trust we have in that information.

Read more: Grattan on Friday: Which leaders and health experts will be on the right side of history on COVID-19 policy?

To better understand questions of public trust, the University of Melbourne’s Policy Lab last year conducted a representative survey of 1,000 Australians.

In this survey, we asked where people would turn to get information about a health problem. Respondents nominated their “local doctor” and “24-hour nurse hotline” to be among the most important sources of information.

We then asked which of the sources were the most trusted. Respondents listed their local doctor as number one, the 24-hour nurse hotline number two and the public hospital website as number three.

Given escalating attacks on experts in recent years, the survey findings reveal a rare piece of good news for evidence-based knowledge in the so-called “post-truth” age. Our findings suggest medical experts and public authorities remain the most frequently turned to, and trusted, sources of information when it comes to health.

Another Policy Lab study from 2019 arrived at the same conclusion. That peer-reviewed research found Australians were much more likely to support a health policy intervention put forward by “medical scientists” than if the same policy was put forward by “the government in Canberra”.

This finding sits well with the Australian government’s decision in March that the group of Chief Medical Officers around the country – known as the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee or AHPPC – would be “the paramount source of medical advice to the nation”.

Together with the establishment of a unique “war cabinet” called the National Cabinet, the nation’s chief medical officers are the principal source of advice to state and federal governments.

And while there may be differences of approach between experts, it is within the confines of expertise, rather than random online opinions, that debate is best had in times of medical emergencies.

Like other national studies this decade, our survey showed that Google searches and social media were among the most used sources of information. Yet, when we asked how much they trusted these sources, participants nominated Google and social media as the least trusted sources.

Social media and online discussion plays a central role in public communication about coronavirus. But they are also a source of mis- and disinformation that can ramp up public fear and – even worse – be a source of dangerous, unqualified advice. The decisions by technology companies to prioritise experts is an important step forward in a world awash with untrustworthy information.

The headline finding of our research is that most Australians turn to and trust medical experts, such as doctors, when a health concern arises. For everything that is said about the “death of expertise”, doctors and scientists appear to hold an esteemed position in society — at least when it comes to health.

There are clear policy implications that stem from this.

The first is that health seems protected from the erosion of trust that has affected other areas of society. This may be because health professionals’ objectives are easy to understand – to save lives.

Secondly, while governments and health authorities play a vital role in countering public misinformation, they no longer have the stage to themselves. This is a shift from when journalists were the main gatekeepers able to prioritise authoritative sources.

This new reality requires a delicate balancing act from our experts and leaders in which they must try to communicate risk while mitigating the harm that such information can cause when communicated in a selective way through various platforms.

Thirdly, as we are now seeing, tech companies such as Google and Facebook are realising they can no longer avoid making decisions about when to censor online information that may be harmful to its users.

Read more: Coronavirus shines a light on fractured global politics at a time when cohesion and leadership are vital

This is obviously a thorny issue as censorship goes against democratic values. Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg has warned about the dangers of his company becoming the “arbiters of truth” in the absence of government regulations.

Yet, coronavirus has reminded all of us that how information circulates on these online platforms is now, quite literally, a matter of life or death. It is significant that the technology companies that have resisted censoring political disinformation, that arguably harms the democratic process itself, have agreed to band together to censor disinformation about coronavirus.

Those who have attacked the “establishment” and “experts”“ in recent years are the same people now looking to medical experts for advice.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, it would appear that the death of expertise has been “greatly exaggerated”.

– ref. A matter of trust: coronavirus shows again why we value expertise when it comes to our health – https://theconversation.com/a-matter-of-trust-coronavirus-shows-again-why-we-value-expertise-when-it-comes-to-our-health-134779

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

As the Covid-19 pandemic spreads around the world, wartime metaphors abound. And, with what amounts to a war economy now in place, attention has inevitably turned to post-war reconstruction. It is self-evident that, without any clear idea of when the emergency will be over, we must begin planning now to deal with its aftermath.

Experience here and elsewhere after the two world wars provides lessons on what to do, and what not to do.

In the aftermath of what was then called the Great War, governments around the world sought a rapid return to the pre-war world of the gold standard and the free market. Little was done to ensure that soldiers returning from the front and those who had been working in war-related industries could find new jobs.

The result was depression in most of developed world. Australia’s unemployment rate reached 11% in 1921, and was never below 6% during the 1920s.

The response to World War One was a mistake

The postwar failure to deliver security and prosperity to the mass of the people set the stage for the rise of dictators like Mussolini, who seized power in Italy in 1922, and for Hitler’s first attempted coup, the “Beer Hall Putsch” of 1923.

All of these mistakes were magnified still further in the Great Depression of the 1930s, which led directly to the renewal of world war on an even larger scale in 1939.

Even as World War II raged, the Allies were determined to ensure that this time, the postwar period would not be one of depression and injustice.

Read more: Governments haven’t always shirked responsibility for our low wages

At the global level, the Bretton Woods conference of 1944 established a system of fixed exchange rates and created the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

These bodies were supposed to prevent international financial crises and allow governments to maintain full employment, a goal which was sustained for 25 years after the war.

We acted differently after World War Two

In Australia, the Commonwealth Bank was given the responsibility for central banking. It was eventually split into the Reserve Bank, which ran monetary policy, and the Commonwealth savings and trading banks, which operated for almost half a century under public ownership until they were privatised in stages by the Hawke, Keating and Howard governments in the 1990s.

Reliance on government to manage the economy was bolstered by the contrast between the disaster of the Depression and the success of the WWII economy in mobilising all available resources, including workers who had long been unemployed and apparently unemployable.

This point was made eloquently in the post-war White Paper on Full Employment:

Despite the need for more houses, food, equipment and every other type of product, before the war, not all those available for work were able to find employment or to feel a sense of security in their future.

On the average during the twenty years between 1919 and 1939 more than one tenth of the men and women desiring work were unemployed. In the worst period of the depression, well over 25% were left in unproductive idleness.

By contrast, during the war no financial or other obstacles have been allowed to prevent the need for extra production being satisfied to the limit of our resources.

The dramatic response to the coronavirus pandemic has shown, again, that tolerating high levels of unemployment is a choice, not an inexorable requirement of a market economy.

For a long time, we chose full employment

The experience of the depression and war made it obvious that in a complex modern economy no one was safe from the risks of unemployment or inability to work through illness or age.

Old distinctions between the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor were abandoned in favour of a comprehensive commitment that no one should be left out of the shared prosperity made possible by technical progress.

But in the decades since the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s, these zombie ideas have crept back, beginning with the bashing of “dole bludgers” in the early 1970s (these were supposed to be the young people, my generation, many members of whom are these days tut-tutting at the alleged slackness of Millennials and Gen-Zeders).

Read more: Memories. In 1961 Labor promised to boost the deficit to fight unemployment. The promise won

A final consequence of the war was a massive expansion in public debt, which reached reached 100% of annual gross domestic product. Despite expressions of concern, it was managed without any serious problems thanks to steady growth in both real and nominal GDP.

This is one instance where the logic of exponential growth works in our favour. If the economy grows at 7% a year, it will double over 10 years. It means a debt equal to 60% of GDP at the beginning of the decade will be only 30% of GDP at the end. A rate of 7% could be achieved if the economy consistently delivered its full potential growth rate of 3.5%, and inflation also ran at 3.5%.

But achieving such rapid growth requires both a commitment to full employment, and an abandonment of the exclusive focus on inflation targeting that has dominated monetary policy since the 1990s, with results ranging from disappointing (in Australia) to disastrous (in the case of austerity in the Eurozone).

The path we choose this time will matter

The first step in this process should be a reordering of priorities to place the restoration and maintenance of full employment ahead of sticking to the ultra-low inflation rates of recent years.

This could be signalled by the Reserve Bank and government adopting a nominal GDP target, set either in levels or in rates of growth.

Read more: To get out of this well we are going to have to think like central planners

As with World War II, the end of the pandemic will see the gradual relaxation and removal of the drastic controls on economic activity that are necessary today.

But we should resist any attempt to return to the market liberal economy of the past few decades.

Not only has it proven to be of no use in dealing with crises like the pandemic, it has regularly generated crises of its own, such as the global financial crisis, forcing governments to come to the rescue.

The lesson of pandemics, wars and financial crises is that a modern society needs a strong government with a strong commitment to providing security and prosperity.

– ref. Australia’s post-war recovery program provides clues as to how to get out of this – https://theconversation.com/australias-post-war-recovery-program-provides-clues-as-to-how-to-get-out-of-this-135324

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eva Anagnostou-Laoutides, Associate Professor in Ancient History, Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Macquarie University

In the current health crisis, we might ask what needs to be cured more urgently: the virus itself or people’s poor sense of moderation.

We have seen shocking footage of panicked citizens fighting over the last pack of toilet tissue, our politicians’ exasperation at selfish stockpiling, and blasé disinterest from those who don’t think social isolation rules apply to them.

The Athenian philosopher Plato outlines in his dialogues, especially the Symposium and the Laws, the practice of civic moderation – sophrosyne in Greek – in an ideal state.

Plato, drawing on ideas already developed by earlier Greek writers, saw justice and injustice in the soul as comparable to health and illness in the body. Although Plato eventually promoted philosophers as political leaders, many writers saw leaders as physicians curing diseased communities. These ideas feed into what we expect from politicians today.

First, do no harm

The therapeutic effect of politicians was already a powerful metaphor in early 5th century BCE poetry (alongside the idea of the leader as captain of the Ship of State.

In his Fourth Pythian Ode, written in 462-461 BCE, the lyric poet Pindar compares Arcesilaus IV, the king of Cyrene, with a physician. The king is entreated to “heal” the city which has been left wounded by the exile of a prominent citizen, Damophilus (whose name, conveniently, means “dear to the people”).

In Aeschylus’ tragic play Agamemnon, written in 458 BCE, the king, having just returned from Troy, announces to the Argive assembly his political agenda. He will maintain what is good, “but whenever there is need of healing remedies”, he “will try by applying either cautery or the knife reasonably to avert the damage of the disease”. In simple terms: cut out the bad bits with surgical means if necessary.

According to ancient historian Thucydides, Nicias, the general who warned the Athenians about the disastrous Sicilian expedition of 415-413 BCE, advised the city’s executive council to act as physicians “in trying to do as much good as possible or at least no voluntary harm”.

Both Nicias and his political opponent Alcibiades agreed that the Athenians needed to change their usual way of doing politics to deal with the crisis at hand. Nicias insisted on a radical, immediate change of habits. Alcibiades argued remedies ought to be proportionate.

By employing medical metaphors in their arguments, they sound very much like today’s politicians debating approaches to the pandemic.

Read more: Thucydides and the plague of Athens – what it can teach us now

A healthy balance

The use of the leader-as-physician metaphor by ancient Greek poets and historians reflected the rising prominence of the Hippocratic Corpus, a collection of texts associated with Hippocrates and his teachings. The collection also highlights the tension between medicine, mainly preoccupied with curing symptoms, and philosophy, whose aim is that understanding nature and its causes.

The Hippocratic texts advocate the notion of health as a kind of balancing act: between elements in the body such as cold, hot, wet, dry, sweet, bitter or, in terms of bodily fluids, a balance between blood, phlegm, yellow and black bile.

Alcmaeon of Croton, an early medical writer and philosopher, described this balance as isonomia (equality). In addition, he called disease, which he understood as the prevalence of one of these elements or fluids, monarchia (monarchy), clearly borrowing his terminology from politics.

The body politic

Plato, a voracious reader, preoccupied with the ideal constitution, appreciated the leader-as-physician metaphor.

The Laws, Plato’s last work, explores the ethics of government and law, including the notions of social responsibility and restorative punishment. Plato thought justice (Greek dikaiosyne) secured a better life for the individual and made them more willing to obey laws. At a social level, “the union of justice, moderation, and wisdom” is proposed as the solution, or prescription, to ensure social harmony – like the balance the Hippocratics aspired to for the body.

Plato advocates moderation (sophrosyne) as a most excellent quality in the pursuit of justice and virtue. He also references mental health and civic moderation. Besides the clinically mad, he says, there are two other groups of people who may behave foolishly: the young who can be reckless as a result of naivety, and those unable to withstand pleasures and sorrows or control their fears, desires, and frustrations. Plato describes their disease as anoia (mindlessness).

His proposed “cure” is risky: to instil permanent bravery in the citizens, he argues, we may use a fear drug to artificially arouse fear in them, either fear of bad reputation or fear of the enemy. By applying a drug similar to wine as a medicine (pharmakon), the citizens would be purged of vice and a sense of moderation restored.

Like modern medicine, the process is allopathic: using remedies to produce effects different from those produced by the disease being treated. Bravery is produced by fear, moderation by excess.

Learning moderation the hard way

In Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War Greek history’s bad boy, Alcibiades, makes a familiar call to arms:

… understand that neither youth nor old age can do anything without each other, but together the frivolous, the middling, and the very exact, when united, will have most strength. And that, by sinking into inaction, the city, like everything else, will wear itself out …

In modern political parlance: we’re all in this together.

The trouble might be today’s citizens are getting mixed messages. On the one hand, they hear Alcibiades’ rallying cry. But they also hear, via the mouths of political office holders, his political opponent Nicias’ more drastic treatment approach for a sick society at war. Nicias asked the Athenians to vote to “Stay home.” History proved him right.

– ref. Leaders as healers: Ancient Greek ideas on the health of the body politic – https://theconversation.com/leaders-as-healers-ancient-greek-ideas-on-the-health-of-the-body-politic-135028