Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa Portolan, PhD student, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University

When Tinder issued an in-app public service announcement regarding COVID-19 on March 3 we all had a little laugh as a panoply of memes and gags hit the internet.

Two weeks later the laughter has subsided, but the curiosity continues. How will singles mingle in the time of Corona?

We are entering unprecedented dating territory.

Luckily, dating apps have already taken the “face-to-face” out of many first meetings. A study conducted by YouGov and Galaxy in 2019 indicated 52% of Australian singles had used a dating app to make a romantic connection.

Usage was particularly high for single Aussies between 25 and 34, with 60% having used a dating app to make a romantic connection.

But while these people first made the connection online, for many (if not most), the connection eventually moved to real-life. So what now with social distancing?

We still want to connect …

People are still opening their dating apps.

Between March 5 and 10, OkCupid reported a 7% increase in new conversations, and at the time of writing, ten out of the top 100 apps on the iTunes store were dating apps.

During the second week of March, active users on Bumble rose by 8%. As American cities go into lockdown, apps are reporting increased numbers of messaging: on Bumble from March 12–22, Seattle saw a 23% increase in sent messages, New York City 23% and San Francisco 26%.

In a time of spatial distancing, dating apps present a solution – to boredom, for connection – and also a risk. What responsibilities do dating apps have in relation to hook-ups and meet-ups and social distancing, if any?

Dating apps continue to serve public service announcements in-app, as well as encouraging people to use their chat and video functionalities to continue exploring potential relationships.

Social media points to another interesting trend: people are changing their interaction patterns in dating apps, or dating app discussions are becoming corona-centric.

There has been a 188% increase mentions of coronavirus on OkCupid profiles in March. Indian Tinder users described a rise in longer Tinder conversations. Which made many question if COVID-19 marked the return of Jane-Austen-like-courtships?

In the Jane Austen romance world, a protracted courtship might involve a spate of love letters. Today, it’s video chats and direct messages.

To match this new phenomena, dating apps are pushing to keep the majority of the relationship in-app.

While many dating apps already had video-chat functionalities, some have tweaked the interface to make it more relevant to the current climate, re-branding video-chats as “virtual dates”.

… but with no touching

In this new world, we’re all navigating how romantic intimacy can exist without physical contact.

With the prospect of months of self-isolation how will we navigate sex? After all, not everyone has a sexual partner readily available.

A notice about sex and coronavirus from the New York City Department of Health went viral last weekend. It included the statement “You are your safest sex partner”.

The tables are suddenly turned: online hook-ups were previously framed as less wholesome than face-to-face ones. Yet in 2020 they are perceived as safer.

Simultaneously, we are seeing a steady rise in sex toy sales: sales are up 13% in the UK, 71% in Italy, and a whopping 135% in Canada. Australian sex toy brand Vush is reporting their sales are up 350%.

Connection is sought after in times of uncertainty, risk and crisis. But COVID-19 makes the navigation of these intimacies certainly difficult. We are in the middle of a historical re-jigging of our understanding of romance, intimacy and sex.

It’s safe to say the negotiation of intimacy has been irrevocably changed – even if it is only for the short while.

– ref. The safest sex you’ll never have: how coronavirus is changing online dating – https://theconversation.com/the-safest-sex-youll-never-have-how-coronavirus-is-changing-online-dating-134382

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philip Gibbons, Professor, Australian National University

As we witnessed last summer, the number of houses destroyed during bushfires in Australia has not been stemmed by advances in weather forecasting, building design and the increased use of large water-bombing aircraft.

At the latest count, more than 3,500 homes were destroyed the summer just gone, which makes this the most destructive bushfire season in Australia’s history.

The principal reason for the continually high rate of destruction is that so many homes are being built close to bushland. An estimated 85% of all houses destroyed in bushfires in Australia are within 100m of the bush.

It follows that clearing vegetation around houses is at the forefront of advice provided by fire authorities to homeowners in bushfire-prone areas.

A home without trees and shrubs around it is the safest option during a bushfire. But realistically, many people will want to retain some vegetation. And there are ways to do this sensibly.

Is clearing bushland the solution?

Research shows houses close to bushland are more effectively protected by clearing trees and shrubs within approximately 40m of the home.

There are laws in most states and territories, such as New South Wales’ 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Scheme, that permit this to some extent.

But if all homeowners in bushfire-prone areas exercised their right to clear trees and shrubs, places such as the Blue Mountains, Perth Hills, Mount Lofty Ranges, Dandenongs and our coastal towns like Mallacoota, Margaret River and Batemans Bay would be vastly different in character.

Read more: How a bushfire can destroy a home

Residents and tourists are attracted to these areas for the aesthetics, privacy, wildlife and shade native trees and shrubs provide.

A study of rural-residential areas north of Melbourne found property values were higher where there was a considerable cover of native vegetation. We not only like our native bush, we are prepared to pay for it.

Because many people value trees and shrubs around their homes, it is not realistic to expect uniformly low fuel loads within bushfire-prone parts of Australia.

Can we have our cake and eat it?

We analysed data collected before and after the 2009 Black Saturday Fires, in which 2,133 houses were destroyed.

We found that the extent of “greenness” of vegetation surrounding homes had a bearing on whether the structure withstood fire.

Greenness refers to the extent to which plants are actively growing. Houses with trees and shrubs within 40m were slightly less likely to be destroyed if the vegetation had relatively high values of “greenness”, as compared to houses surrounded by vegetation with low greenness value.

This makes sense because greener vegetation, typically with higher moisture content, has lower flammability, requires more energy to ignite and therefore can reduce the intensity of a fire.

Read more: Australian building codes don’t expect houses to be fire-proof – and that’s by design

Thus, watering your garden through summer, if this is feasible, or choosing plants with high moisture content (such as succulents) may reduce the bushfire risk compared with the same amount of vegetation with a lower moisture content.

We also found the risk to houses during bushfire was slightly less where trees and shrubs within 40m were not continuous, but instead arranged as discrete patches separated by a ground layer with low fuel hazard, such as mown grass.

As trees and shrubs become less continuous the heat transfer between patches becomes less efficient and the intensity of the fire is likely to decline.

Provided bushfires in your area come from a predictable direction, retaining more trees and shrubs downwind of this direction from your house poses less risk than the same cover of trees and shrubs retained upwind from your house.

This makes sense because burning embers, which are the main cause of house losses during bushfires, travel in the direction of the wind.

You can’t eliminate risk from bushfires

We must emphasise that while these strategies can strike a balance between retaining trees and shrubs and preparing for bushfires, they will not guarantee your home will survive a bushfire – especially in severe fire weather.

So in addition to vegetation management, other strategies – such as building design, adequate insurance and evacuating early to a safer place – should be considered in every household’s bushfire planning.

Read more: 12 simple ways you can reduce bushfire risk to older homes

– ref. If you’re worried about bushfires but want to keep your leafy garden, follow these tips – https://theconversation.com/if-youre-worried-about-bushfires-but-want-to-keep-your-leafy-garden-follow-these-tips-130876

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Menzies, Principal Research Fellow, Policy Innovation Hub, Griffith University

Crises pose particular challenges for democratic leaders. They are expected to make critical decisions in times of uncertainty and rapidly develop effective plans to lead us out of the crisis. Normally, we are more interested in constraining our leaders through the checks and balances of accountability. But in times of crisis, we look to our leaders to lead. Finding the right balance between accountability and rapid decision-making remains a challenge during an era of reduced trust in political leaders.

In Australia, the establishment of the national cabinet has undertaken this crisis leadership role.

The national cabinet comprises the prime minister and all state and territory premiers and chief ministers. Basically, it is COAG by another name.

Read more: ‘Where no counsel is, the people fall’: why parliaments should keep functioning during the coronavirus crisis

Though called a cabinet, the national cabinet is technically an intergovernmental forum. The conventions and rules of cabinet, such as cabinet solidarity and the secrecy provisions, do not apply to the national cabinet.

Its power is that which the leaders of all Australian jurisdictions bring to negotiate on behalf of their people, and to implement the decisions reached. This model is called executive federalism.

Advantages of executive federalism in a time of crisis

In a crisis, decision-making automatically shifts upwards with the expectation that leaders will work together to find a way through the crisis. The National Cabinet meets these expectations in several ways.

Timeliness and risk

Response time is critical, and with the national cabinet meeting multiple times a week, issues can be addressed as they emerge. Risk is reduced by bringing together technical and political experts.

The national cabinet is supported by the chief medical officers, who meet as the Australian Health Protection and Principles Committee (AHPPC). They pull together the modelling, research and data that form the basis of decisions made by the national cabinet.

Read more: View from The Hill: A contest of credible views should be seen as useful in a national crisis

The national cabinet is the mechanism to bring together information and intelligence sharing, and the capacity to pool and test ideas before locking in coordination and jurisdictional capacity.

Because of the frequency of meetings, decisions are expected and made. The consideration of different jurisdictional viewpoints and expertise puts rigour and contestability into the decision-making and strengthens the outcome.

Clarity and coherence

In a time of national crisis, agreement on a plan of action and then rapid and effective implementation is crucial. The national cabinet brings that focus. By putting aside their “politics as usual” squabbles the leaders demonstrate their desire for agreement and unity and communicate that firmness of purpose to the community at large.

Though the search for unity can be overborne by local circumstances. Some states moved earlier to introduce restrictions and shutdowns outside of the national cabinet. Though criticised for breaking ranks, the premiers were reacting to the different circumstances and anxiety within their jurisdiction. They decided to trade off the perception of a loss of unity against the need to create local responses for local circumstances.

Dual democracy

The national cabinet helps reconcile the dual allegiances citizens have to the national government and their state or territory government. People are looking for a coherent national approach through the crisis, but they do not want to see their individual jurisdiction to be disadvantaged compared to the rest of the country. At the national cabinet, the smaller states have equal representation, whereas in parliament their representation is proportionate to their population size.

Is it anti-democratic?

Executive federalism forums such as the national cabinet can be criticised for being undemocratic and unaccountable, with the role of the parliament marginalised. However, these forums are undertaking different roles. The national cabinet deals with negotiation and compromise between states, which recognise difference and diversity. The parliament is about majority will.

The connection has not been lost with parliament, which is suspended not pro-rogued, and will be brought back to pass legislation from decisions made by the national cabinet.

Once the COVID-19 crisis has passed, the full democratic accountability processes can scrutinise the decisions taken. This includes parliamentary committee investigations and royal commissions. The checks and balances of the democratic constraints on our leaders will reassert themselves.

– ref. Explainer: what is the national cabinet and is it democratic? – https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-the-national-cabinet-and-is-it-democratic-135036

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gary Mortimer, Professor of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour, Queensland University of Technology

The Morrison government keeps using the word “essential” to describe employees, public gatherings, services and businesses that are still allowed and not restricted as it tries to reduce the spread of the coronavirus.

But what is essential, and who gets to decide?

By its very definition, essential means “something necessary, indispensable, or unavoidable”.

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

When it comes to dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, there are no recent precedents for governments. There is no pre-determined list in place on what is an essential service. Instead, “essential” appears a moving beast that is constantly evolving and that can be confusing.

Confused messages

On March 22 the Victorian premier Daniel Andrews called for “a shutdown of all non-essential activity” within 48 hours. Supermarkets, banks and pharmacies were some of the things he said were essential but he did not provide an exhaustive list of what was considered an essential service.

Naturally confusion reigned. For example, in the rural Victorian town of Ballan, some stores closed while others remained open.

We’ve now seen a number of retailers decide to voluntarily shutter stores for the safety of their workers and the public, considering their businesses “non-essential”.

On Sunday, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said a meeting of the national cabinet had agreed to a raft of new restrictions, such as limiting “shopping for what you need, food and other essential supplies”.

But he also described his wife’s recent purchase of a number of jigsaw puzzles for the family as “absolutely essential”. While toy and hobby retailers may find comfort in this statement, in reality such businesses may not be considered “essential”.

Guns and pastries, essential?

There are differences too overseas in what people consider essential as part of any COVID-19 restrictions.

Is the United States, it’s recommended employees of gun stores and gun manufacturers should be seen as “essential” workers, according to a memo from the Department of Homeland Security.

While in Europe, “necessities” are said to include Belgian Fries, French Baguettes and Dutch Cannabis. In France, it’s also shops specialising in pastries, wine and cheese reportedly declared essential businesses.

In Ireland, reports say the government there has issued a detailed list of what it considers “essential workers”. As for essential retailers, they include pharmacies, fuel stations and pet stores, but not opticians, motor repair and bicycle repair outlets.

The essential essentials

Here in Australia there is broad agreement supermarkets, service stations, allied health (pharmacy, chiropractic, physiotherapy, psychology, dental) and banks are essential business and services.

Similarly freight, logistics and home delivery are also considered essential. Australia Post says posties and delivery drivers continue but some posts offices are temporarily closed.

Some bottle shops can stay open but many are now imposing restrictions on how much people can buy.

The government has moved to progressively add more business, services and activities to its “non-essential services” list.

This includes cafés, food courts, pubs, licensed clubs (sports clubs), bars, beauty and personal care services, entertainment venues, leisure and recreation (gyms, theme parks), galleries, museums and libraries.

Some of these entities do have exceptions. A café can remain open for take-away only. A hairdresser or barber can trade if they comply with the one person per four square-metre rule.

Others remain convoluted, such as outdoor and indoor markets (farmers markets), which are a decision for each state and territory.

In and out of work

In reality, no worker should ever be considered, or consider themselves, as “non-essential”.

But due to how the restrictions have been broadly applied, some workers in one industry may now find themselves out of a job, while others in that same industry remain fully employed.

Read more: $1,500 a fortnight JobKeeper wage subsidy in massive $130 billion program

Take for example chefs. Due to bans on restaurants and licensed clubs, chefs there are being stood down, but chefs inside hotels can continue to cook and provide room service meals.

A barista in a café can still be gainfully employed, as long as they only make take-away coffee, but a barista inside a licensed sports club, is unfortunately stood down.

Further restrictions and essentials

While we have seen many businesses reduce their operations and several retailers voluntarily close their doors, many are standing by waiting for further announcements to potentially close all “non-essential” services.

What should the government consider before deciding what is and isn’t regarded as essential?

Read more: In the time of coronavirus, donating blood is more essential than ever

Some decisions are easy: we need health workers, police, fire fighters and other emergency services workers, and we need those who maintain services to the public such as food supply, clean water, sewerage and so on.

But we also need those services required to keep these people functioning. The military describe this as tooth to tail ratio: the number of people required to keep any soldier on the battlefield (estimated up to three for every soldier).

In the civilian context this includes those responsible for the supply of consumables, personal protection equipment, transport, power, fuel, computer systems, and someone to look after their families while they do the heavy lifting.

– ref. What actually are ‘essential services’ and who decides? – https://theconversation.com/what-actually-are-essential-services-and-who-decides-135029

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aude Bernard, Lecturer, Queensland Centre for Population Research, The University of Queensland

Australians are among the most mobile populations in the world. More than 40% of us change address every five years, about twice the global average. Yet the level of internal migration – moving within Australia – has gone down over the past four decades.

The proportion of Australians changing state of residence fell by 20% between 1981 and 2016, particularly after 1991. Their movement between regions within states – between, say, Brisbane and Mackay – dropped by a whopping 25%.

The decline in migration is a feature of a number of advanced economies, including the United States. Policymakers have been concerned this trend heralds a less flexible economy where workers do not move to regions with jobs. If that’s the case, it could prolong recessions and reduce growth.

So why are Australians moving less? Several factors might help explain it.

Australia is getting older

Population ageing is one of the main explanations because older people move less than young people. It’s enough to account for 20-30% of the decline in internal migration in Australia.

However, the increase in the share of mobile groups – such as renters, tertiary-educated people and recently arrived immigrants – has fully compensated the downward effect of population ageing. This means the net effect on migration levels of changes in the composition of the Australian population is close to null.

So the decline is not the result of overall changes in population composition. It is the result of deeper behavioural changes. People in their 20s, 30s and 40s are simply moving less today than in the past.

Working arrangements have changed

Information and communication technology and the changes in working arrangements brought by the internet are often thought to have contributed to lower migration levels. But, the proportion of individuals who telework remains small. Only 5% of the Australian workforce worked from home at the 2016 census.

Perhaps more significant is the increase in dual-income households. They now account for two-thirds of couples compared with 56% in 2001. Because these couples find it more challenging to jointly relocate than traditional male-breadwinner families, this shift explains about 10% of the decline in interstate migration in Australia.

Despite these transformations, the mix of reasons for moving hasn’t changed over the past 15 years. Australians still move mainly for family and work reasons.

So, what is going on?

Place attachment plays a part

In the United States, this downward trend has been linked to “rootedness”, the idea that individuals have become more attached their families and communities and are therefore less inclined to relocate.

Such concepts are difficult to measure and quantify. Yet a 2019 study showed that Australians with strong place attachment and social networks are less likely to migrate, particularly over long distances. But it is not clear how place attachment has changed over time and whether it has contributed to the decline in internal migration.

Young people are staying put

We know young people are moving less than they used to. In 2017, 56% of Australians below the age of 30 were still living at home compared with 47% in 2001. Explanations for this trend include increasing housing costs and delayed union formation.

The consequences not only bring down current migration levels but also in the future. This is because migration is self-reinforcing: having moved in the past increases the chances of moving again. So, young adults who are staying put now are less likely to move later because they have not been exposed early in life to the challenges of relocating.

This means the level of migration in Australia is likely to remain low, but this downward trend may level off as we have seen in the United States.

Is this new low a problem?

There is no evidence Australians are less willing to relocate for their jobs, so this downward trend should not have major impacts on the economy.

What is more concerning is some groups have been affected more than others, particularly those in part-time work and in low-paid sectors such as retail and trade. These workers are less mobile than in the past and their share in the workforce has increased.

Individuals with limited resources face greater difficulties in being mobile, particularly when faced with rising housing costs and stagnant wages. We need to ensure Australia does not evolve toward a two-tier migration system, in which some can afford to move and others are “trapped”. This could, in the long term, reinforce socio-economic inequalities.

– ref. Australians are moving home less. Why? And does it matter? – https://theconversation.com/australians-are-moving-home-less-why-and-does-it-matter-133767

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Stubbs, Senior Lecturer, School of Creative Industries, University of South Australia

Being in isolation might be a great time to try something new. In this series, we get the basics on hobbies and activities to start while you’re spending more time at home.

While many are cancelling treks to Nepal, putting dreams of Venice on hold and wondering what we can substitute for a tropical beach escape, it is worth remembering we’re not the first who have had to rethink the notion of travel.

There is a precedent for thinking about journeys in a more imaginative sense: travel and the near-at-hand.

Vertical travel and travel writing – where we immerse in the spaces around us in greater detail, peeling back layers of history, botany and culture – goes back to the late 18th Century in Turin and a man named Xavier de Maistre.

De Maistre wrote A Journey Around My Room while imprisoned in his bedroom for six weeks after he was caught fighting a duel in the north Italian city in 1790.

Rather than sulk through his imprisonment, he decided to challenge the popularity of imperialist travel writing and he wrote a travel book about the contents of his bedroom. De Maistre observed his surroundings, detaching and looking with new eyes to give the reader an alternative perspective on what travel could mean:

What a comfort this new mode will be to the sick; they need not fear bleak winds or change of weather. And what a thing, too, it will be for cowards; they will be safe from pitfalls and quagmires. Thousands who hitherto did not dare, others who were not able, and others to whom it never occurred to think of such a thing as going on a journey, will make up their minds to follow my example.

De Maistre’s room became a place with latitude and topography.

He immersed in the scenes of the paintings on his walls and saw his bed as a vehicle for imaginative transportation alongside his dog, Rose, his trusted travel companion. De Maistre was so taken by the journey that he subsequently wrote A Nocturnal Expedition Around My Room to “revisit the country which I had formerly so delightfully travelled through”.

Writing of a microcosm

There were many inspired by this new style. Heinrich Seidel refocused his apartment into a microcosm where each item had a history and an interconnected story. Similarly, Alphonse Karr produced two volumes and 700 pages focused solely on his garden where he lived in Montmartre with his pet monkey Emmanuel.

In Henry David Thoreau’s Walden (1854), the author lived alone and in seclusion in a log cabin at Walden Pond; George Orwell meticulously captured the intricate details of weather, vegetable production and an egg count in his domestic diary from the early 1940s.

Read more: Why philosophy is an ideal travel companion for adventurous minds

This notion of rethinking space and valuing the mundane as an ethical and creative choice acts as a counter to the assumed importance of distance with many travel(ling) writers of the era.

This has not diminished in the modern era.

In Isolarion: A Different Oxford Journey (2007), James Attlee extends the notion of close travel or “home-touring” as he walks along a solitary Oxford street.

A Week at the Airport: A Heathrow Diary (2009) sees Alain de Botton at a desk in the departure hall of London Heathrow’s Terminal 5, confined for the duration of his stay, to understand the airport both as a destination in itself and as a location with a distinct culture.

Meg Watson’s essay Another life in Paris for The Saturday Paper focuses on her experience inhabiting another person’s space as an Airbnb guest in Paris:

On my first night in Canelle’s bed, I watch Midnight in Paris and drink rosé from one of her stained teacups. In a classic display of unabashed French nonchalance, the bedroom door is nothing but a clear panel of glass.

Within the intimacy of the apartment, Watson shows the reader a closer and more nuanced perspective of Paris. Simultaneously, the voyeurism of this approach also allows the reader to appreciate the sameness of many travel experiences.

Tips for your own close travel

Look intimately

Take a closer look at the items around your house.

Especially if you have things from previous travels, take the time to reflect on the item’s journey, write its story, or look through the photos of that period– it might even involve some research of your own, discovering what the pattern on your Moroccan mirror means, or the significance of the Easter Island statues on your bookshelf.

Smell deeply

Stroll through your garden. Take a closer look at all the plants, the soil and the trees. Look closer again.

By sifting through my own soil I discovered shards of 100-year-old-bricks which prompted my journey towards a better understanding of the history of my state.

Remember the outside world

Look out your window. Just as many have in Wuhan, Barcelona and Rome, conversations with new encounters, impromptu music performances and shared meals and experiences (even over a fence or across a road) are much of what we search for in conventional travel.

This new dimension can bring surprising togetherness.

– ref. Great first time to try: travel writing from the home – https://theconversation.com/great-first-time-to-try-travel-writing-from-the-home-134664

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fiona Armstrong, Executive Director, Climate and Health Alliance, Occasional Lecturer, School of Public Health and Human Biosciences, La Trobe University

The COVID-19 pandemic sweeping across the world is a crisis of our own making.

That’s the message from infectious disease and environmental health experts, and from those in planetary health – an emerging field connecting human health, civilisation and the natural systems on which they depend.

They might sound unrelated, but the COVID-19 crisis and the climate and biodiversity crises are deeply connected.

Each arises from our seeming unwillingness to respect the interdependence between ourselves, other animal species and the natural world more generally.

Read more: A major scorecard gives the health of Australia’s environment less than 1 out of 10

To put this into perspective, the vast majority (three out of every four) of new infectious diseases in people come from animals – from wildlife and from the livestock we keep in ever-larger numbers.

To understand and effectively respond to COVID-19, and other novel infectious diseases we’ll likely encounter in the future, policymakers need to acknowledge and respond with “planetary consciousness”. This means taking a holistic view of public health that includes the health of the natural environment.

Risking animal-borne diseases

Biodiversity (all biological diversity from genes, to species, to ecosystems) is declining faster than at any time in human history.

We clear forests and remove habitat, bringing wild animals closer to human settlements. And we hunt and sell wildlife, often endangered, increasing the risk of disease transmission from animals to humans.

The list of diseases that have jumped from animals to humans (“zoonotic diseases”) includes HIV, Ebola, Zika, Hendra, SARS, MERS and bird flu.

Like its precursor SARS, COVID-19 is thought to have originated in bats and subsequently transmitted to humans via another animal host, possibly at a wet market trading live animals.

Ebola virus emerged in central Africa when land use changes and altered climatic conditions forced bats and chimpanzees together around concentrated areas of food resources. And Hendra virus is associated with urbanisation of fruit bats following habitat loss. Such changes are occurring worldwide.

What’s more, human-caused climate change is making this worse. Along with habitat loss, shifting climate zones are causing wildlife to migrate to new places, where they interact with other species they haven’t previously encountered. This increases the risk of new diseases emerging.

COVID-19 is just the latest new infectious disease arising from our collision with nature.

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

Due to its ability to spread at an alarming pace, as well as its relatively high mortality rate, it’s the sort of pandemic experts have been warning will arise from environmental degradation.

We saw this in 2018, for instance, when disease ecologist Dr Peter Daszak, a contributor to the World Health Organisation Register of Priority Diseases, coined the term “Disease X”. This described a then-unknown pathogen predicted to originate in animals and cause a “serious international epidemic”. COVID-19, says Daszak, is Disease X.

Climate change makes us vulnerable

But climate change is undermining human health globally in other profound ways. It’s a risk multiplier, exacerbating our vulnerability to a range of health threats.

Earlier this year, all eyes were on the extensive, life-threatening bushfires and the resulting blanket of smoke pollution. This exposed more than half of the Australian population to health harm for many weeks, and led to the deaths of more than 400 people.

For infectious diseases such as COVID-19, air pollution creates another risk. This new virus causes a respiratory illness and, as with SARS, exposure to air pollution worsens our vulnerability.

Particles of air pollution also act as transport for pathogens, contributing to the spread of viruses and infectious disease across large distances.

A wake-up call

It might be clear to readers here that human health depends on healthy ecosystems. But this is rarely considered in policy decisions on projects that affect natural ecosystems – such as land clearing, major energy or transport infrastructure projects and industrial-scale farming.

Read more: The community-led movement creating hope in the time of coronavirus

The current COVID-19 pandemic is yet another warning shot of the consequences of ignoring these connections.

If we are to constrain the emergence of new infections and future pandemics, we simply must cease our exploitation and degradation of the natural world, and urgently cut our carbon emissions.

Controlling the pandemic appropriately focuses on mobilising human and financial resources to provide health care for patients and prevent human to human transmission.

But it’s important we also invest in tackling the underlying causes of the problem through biodiversity conservation and stabilising the climate. This will help avoid the transmission of diseases from animals to humans in the first place.

Read more: 222 scientists say cascading crises are the biggest threat to the well-being of future generations

The health, social and economic consequences of COVID-19 should act as a wake-up call for all governments to take stock, carefully consider the evidence, and ensure post COVID-19 responses reverse our war on nature. Because – as pioneering 20th century conservationist Rachel Carson argued – a war on nature is ultimately a war against ourselves.

– ref. Coronavirus is a wake-up call: our war with the environment is leading to pandemics – https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-is-a-wake-up-call-our-war-with-the-environment-is-leading-to-pandemics-135023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dana M Bergstrom, Principal Research Scientist, University of Wollongong

While the world rightfully focuses on the COVID-19 pandemic, the planet is still warming. This summer’s Antarctic weather, as elsewhere in the world, was unprecedented in the observed record.

Our research, published today in Global Change Biology, describes the recent heatwave in Antarctica. Beginning in late spring east of the Antarctic Peninsula, it circumnavigated the continent over the next four months. Some of our team spent the summer in Antarctica observing these temperatures and the effect on natural systems, witnessing the heatwave first-hand.

Antarctica may be isolated from the rest of the continents by the Southern Ocean, but has worldwide impacts. It drives the global ocean conveyor belt, a constant system of deep-ocean circulation which transfers oceanic heat around the planet, and its melting ice sheet adds to global sea level rise.

Antarctica represents the simple, extreme end of conditions for life. It can be seen as a ‘canary in the mine’, demonstrating patterns of change we can expect to see elsewhere.

A heatwave in the coldest place on Earth

Most of Antarctica is ice-covered, but there are small ice-free oases, predominantly on the coast. Collectively 0.44% of the continent, these unique areas are important biodiversity hotspots for penguins and other seabirds, mosses, lichens, lakes, ponds and associated invertebrates.

This summer, Casey Research Station, in the Windmill Islands oasis, experienced its first recorded heat wave. For three days, minimum temperatures exceeded zero and daily maximums were all above 7.5°C. On January 24, its highest maximum of 9.2°C was recorded, almost 7°C above Casey’s 30-year mean for the month.

Read more: Scientists looked at sea levels 125,000 years in the past. The results are terrifying

The arrival of warm, moist air during this weather event brought rain to Davis Research Station in the normally frigid, ice-free desert of the Vestfold Hills. The warm conditions triggered extensive meltwater pools and surface streams on local glaciers. These, together with melting snowbanks, contributed to high-flowing rivers and flooding lakes.

By February, most heat was concentrated in the Antarctic Peninsula at the northernmost part of the continent. A new Antarctic maximum temperature of 18.4°C was recorded on February 6 at Argentina’s Esperanza research station on the Peninsula – almost 1°C above the previous record. Three days later this was eclipsed when 20.75°C was reported at Brazil’s Marambio station, on Seymour Island east of the Peninsula.

What caused the heatwave?

The pace of warming from global climate change has been generally slower in East Antarctica compared with West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula. This is in part due to the ozone hole, which has occurred in spring over Antarctica since the late 1970s.

The hole has tended to strengthen jet stream winds over the Southern Ocean promoting a generally more ‘positive’ state of the Southern Annular Mode in summer. This means the Southern Ocean’s westerly wind belt has tended to stay close to Antarctica at that time of year creating a seasonal ‘shield’, reducing the transfer of warm air from the Earth’s temperate regions to Antarctica.

Read more: The air above Antarctica is suddenly getting warmer – here’s what it means for Australia

But during the spring of 2019 a strong warming of the stratosphere over Antarctica significantly reduced the size of the ozone hole. This helped to support a more ‘negative’ state of the Southern Annular Mode and weakened the shield.

Other factors in late 2019 may have also helped to warm Antarctica. The Indian Ocean Dipole was in a strong ‘positive’ state due to a late retreat of the Indian monsoon. This meant that water in the western Indian Ocean was warmer than normal. Air rising from this and other warm ocean patches in the Pacific Ocean provided energy sources that altered the path of weather systems and helped to disturb and warm the stratosphere.

Is a warming Antarctica good or bad?

Localised flooding appeared to benefit some Vestfold Hills’ moss banks which were previously very drought-stressed. Prior to the flood event, most mosses were grey and moribund, but one month later many moss shoots were green.

Given the generally cold conditions of Antarctica, the warmth may have benefited the flora (mosses, lichens and two vascular plants), and microbes and invertebrates, but only where liquid water formed. Areas in the Vestfold Hills away from the flooding became more drought-stressed over the summer.

High temperatures may have caused heat stress in some organisms. Antarctic mosses and lichens are often dark in colour, allowing sunlight to be absorbed to create warm microclimates. This is a great strategy when temperatures are just above freezing, but heat stress can occur once 10°C is exceeded.

On King George Island, near the Antarctic Peninsula, our measurements showed that in January 2019 moss surface temperatures only exceeded 14°C for 3% of the time, but in 2020 this increased fourfold (to 12% of the time).

Based on our experience from previous anomalous hot Antarctic summers, we can expect many biological impacts, positive and negative, in coming years. The most recent event highlights the connectedness of our climate systems: from the surface to the stratosphere, and from the monsoon tropics to the southernmost continent.

Under climate change, extreme events are predicted to increase in frequency and severity, and Antarctica is not immune.

Read more: The ozone hole leaves a lasting impression on southern climate

– ref. Anatomy of a heatwave: how Antarctica recorded a 20.75°C day last month – https://theconversation.com/anatomy-of-a-heatwave-how-antarctica-recorded-a-20-75-c-day-last-month-134550

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Weaving, Senior Lecturer, School of Creative Industries, University of Newcastle

Images of the latest coronavirus have become instantly recognisable, often vibrantly coloured and floating in an opaque background. In most representations, the shape of the virus is the same – a spherical particle with spikes, resembling an alien invader.

But there’s little consensus about the colour: images of the virus come in red, orange, blue, yellow, steely or soft green, white with red spikes, red with blue spikes and many colours in between.

In their depictions of the virus, designers, illustrators and communicators are making some highly creative and evocative decisions.

Colour, light and fear

For some, the lack of consensus about the appearance of viruses confirms fears and increases anxiety. On March 8 2020, the director-general of the World Health Organisation warned of the “infodemic” of misinformation about the coronavirus, urging communicators to use “facts not fear” to battle the flood of rumours and myths.

The confusion about the colour of coronavirus starts with the failure to understand the nature of colour in the sub-microscopic world.

Our perception of colour is dependent on the presence of light. White light from the sun is a combination of all the wavelengths of visible light – from violet at one end of the spectrum to red at the other.

When white light hits an object, we see its colour thanks to the light that is reflected by that object towards our eyes. Raspberries and rubies appear red because they absorb most light but reflect the red wavelength.

But as objects become smaller, light is no longer an effective tool for seeing. Viruses are so small that, until the 1930s, one of their scientifically recognised properties was their invisibility. Looking for them with a microscope using light is like trying to find an ant in a football stadium at night using a large searchlight: the scale difference between object and tool is too great.

It wasn’t until the development of the electron microscope in the 1930s that researchers could “see” a virus. By using electrons, which are vastly smaller than light particles, it became possible to identify the shapes, structures and textures of viruses. But as no light is involved in this form of seeing, there is no colour. Images of viruses reveal a monochrome world of grey. Like electrons, atoms and quarks, viruses exist in a realm where colour has no meaning.

Vivid imagery

Grey images of unfamiliar blobs don’t make for persuasive or emotive media content.

Research into the representation of the Ebola virus outbreak in 1995 revealed the image of choice was not the worm-like virus but teams of Western medical experts working in African villages in hermetically sealed suits. The early visual representation of the AIDS virus focused on the emaciated bodies of those with the resulting disease, often younger men.

With symptoms similar to the common cold and initial death rates highest amongst the elderly, the coronavirus pandemic provides no such dramatic visual material. To fill this void, the vivid range of colourful images of the coronavirus have strong appeal.

Many images come from stock photo suppliers, typically photorealistic artists’ impressions rather than images from electron microscopes.

The Public Health Library of the US government’s Centre for Disease Control (CDC) provides one such illustration, created to reveal the morphology of the coronavirus. It’s an off-white sphere with yellow protein particles attached and red spikes emerging from the surface, creating the distinctive “corona” or crown. All of these colour choices are creative decisions.

Biologist David Goodsell takes artistic interpretation a step further, using watercolour painting to depict viruses at the cellular level.

One of the complicating challenges for virus visualisation is the emergence of so-called “colour” images from electron microscopes. Using a methodology that was originally described as “painting,” scientists are able to add colour to structures in the grey-scale world of imaging to help distinguish the details of cellular micro-architecture. Yet even here, the choice of colour is arbitrary, as shown in a number of coloured images of the coronavirus made available on Flickr by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). In these, the virus has been variously coloured yellow, orange, magenta and blue.

Embracing grey

Whilst these images look aesthetically striking, the arbitrary nature of their colouring does little to solve WHO’s concerns about the insecurity that comes with unclear facts about viruses and disease.

One solution would be to embrace the colourless sub-microscopic world that viruses inhabit and accept their greyness.

This has some distinct advantages: firstly, it fits the science that colour can’t be attributed where light doesn’t reach. Secondly, it renders images of the virus less threatening: without their red spikes or green bodies they seem less like hostile invaders from a science fiction fantasy. And the idea of greyness also fits the scientific notion that viruses are suspended somewhere between the dead and the living.

Stripping the coronavirus of the distracting vibrancy of vivid colour – and seeing it consistently as an inert grey particle – could help reduce community fear and better allow us to continue the enormous collective task of managing its biological and social impact.

– ref. Scary red or icky green? We can’t say what colour coronavirus is and dressing it up might feed fears – https://theconversation.com/scary-red-or-icky-green-we-cant-say-what-colour-coronavirus-is-and-dressing-it-up-might-feed-fears-134380

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Omar Mubin, Senior Lecturer in human-centred computing & human-computer interaction, Western Sydney University

The Australian government has launched an app offering up-to-date advice and information on the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Coronavirus Australia app, available on the Apple App Store and Google Play, was released alongside a new WhatsApp messaging feature.

As this pandemic unfolds, the public’s ability to quickly access reliable information will be of paramount importance. Let’s take a look at whether this latest digital initiative hits the nail on the head.

Read more: 9 ways to talk to people who spread coronavirus myths

What are the features?

The app provides eight distinct features for people seeking information on COVID-19:

• Symptom checker directs users to a diagnostic tool from the Department of Health, that gives advice based on a user’s situation.

• Register isolation is an optional feature that requests certain personal details from users in self-isolation, including access to their location, their name, phone number, age, gender, isolation start date and the number of residents in their household.

• The current status feature provides a visual (map) and text-based breakdown of the number of confirmed cases per state.

• The advice section elaborates on several important topics related to COVID-19, including social distancing, travel, self-isolation, getting tested and accessing financial assistance.

• The resources section offers information targeted at individuals and groups including employers, and industry bodies such as the airline industry, hotel industry, cruise industry and aged care organisations.

• The news and media section displays relevant news articles and videos released by the government.

• The contact section, accessible through the left-hand menu, directs users to helpline numbers.

• Settings allows users to enable push-notifications and read the app’s privacy policy.

Missed opportunities

While the Coronavirus Australia app is certainly a great start, we’ve identified some features that could make it even more effective with future updates.

In terms of content, the app seems to miss an opportunity to provide positive reinforcement during a terrible crisis. For instance, as time progresses it could highlight improvements in the national effort to flatten the curve of the coronavirus.

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

The app’s tone is neutral, but it could have used more persuasive language and prompts, especially in regards to self-isolation and social distancing measures – which continue to be at the forefront of national discussions. And crucial points such as state-specifc restrictions are currently hidden in the advice section. Important information should be emphasised.

Also, certain language in the app’s text, such as the term “pneumonia”, may not be widely recognised. These terms could be defined using Tooltips. This widget displays text descriptions when users hold their cursor or finger over an object on the screen.

The current status section provides a static visual map that repeats information in the written text. While this map is informative, it cannot be interacted with or zoomed into for more area-specific data.

In terms of design, the app is mainly black and white. Using a range of colours and alerts could help categorise information, and draw the user’s attention to important aspects.

Another simple update would be to include the logos of all the state governments and departments that contributed to the app’s content. While the current federal government logo is enough to establish authenticity, research suggests having endorsements from additional bodies improves credibility.

The app doesn’t support languages other than English. This is significant as news reports suggest thousands of overseas visitors have been trapped in Australia as a result of COVID-19. These people will be as desperate for information as the rest of us.

More considerations

Rather than having all the necessary information available in the Coronavirus Australia app itself, many links redirect users to the government’s Department of Health website. For some, this may seem like the app is simply a landing page for the department’s website.

Also, while the logging of those who are isolating is an excellent feature, it relies on honest self-reporting. This can’t be guaranteed. If authorities wish to analyse or use the collected data to enforce social-isolation measures, then identification such as a drivers license or passport will be needed to prevent fake reporting.

Misleading reports could also be avoided by prompting users to enter the specific address they are self-isolating at (including details such as hotel name and room number), rather than simply using GPS location data as the app currently does.

In terms of potential advances in the app’s features, one option would involve using a user’s location to detect if they are away from home for longer than a specific advised time. The app could then send subtle prompts to remind the user to return to self-isolation.

A summary of the government’s latest restrictions, sorted by states and territories, would also be helpful, as would a section debunking common myths associated with COVID-19.

Read more: Explainer: what is contact tracing and how does it help limit the coronavirus spread?

Despite the small margins for improvement, the Coronavirus Australia app indicates the government has made an effort to provide quick and helpful information at a highly uncertain time. As this pandemic evolves, further incremental updates would certainly enhance its user experience.

– ref. The government’s coronavirus mobile app is a solid effort, but it could do even better – https://theconversation.com/the-governments-coronavirus-mobile-app-is-a-solid-effort-but-it-could-do-even-better-135030

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Omar Mubin, Senior Lecturer in human-centred computing & human-computer interaction, Western Sydney University

The Australian government has launched an app offering up-to-date advice and information on the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Coronavirus Australia app, available on the Apple App Store and Google Play, was released alongside a new WhatsApp messaging feature.

As this pandemic unfolds, the public’s ability to quickly access reliable information will be of paramount importance. Let’s take a look at whether this latest digital initiative hits the nail on the head.

Read more: 9 ways to talk to people who spread coronavirus myths

What are the features?

The app provides eight distinct features for people seeking information on COVID-19:

• Symptom checker directs users to a diagnostic tool from the Department of Health, that gives advice based on a user’s situation.

• Register isolation is an optional feature that requests certain personal details from users in self-isolation, including access to their location, their name, phone number, age, gender, isolation start date and the number of residents in their household.

• The current status feature provides a visual (map) and text-based breakdown of the number of confirmed cases per state.

• The advice section elaborates on several important topics related to COVID-19, including social distancing, travel, self-isolation, getting tested and accessing financial assistance.

• The resources section offers information targeted at individuals and groups including employers, and industry bodies such as the airline industry, hotel industry, cruise industry and aged care organisations.

• The news and media section displays relevant news articles and videos released by the government.

• The contact section, accessible through the left-hand menu, directs users to helpline numbers.

• Settings allows users to enable push-notifications and read the app’s privacy policy.

Missed opportunities

While the Coronavirus Australia app is certainly a great start, we’ve identified some features that could make it even more effective with future updates.

In terms of content, the app seems to miss an opportunity to provide positive reinforcement during a terrible crisis. For instance, as time progresses it could highlight improvements in the national effort to flatten the curve of the coronavirus.

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

The app’s tone is neutral, but it could have used more persuasive language and prompts, especially in regards to self-isolation and social distancing measures – which continue to be at the forefront of national discussions. And crucial points such as state-specifc restrictions are currently hidden in the advice section. Important information should be emphasised.

Also, certain language in the app’s text, such as the term “pneumonia”, may not be widely recognised. These terms could be defined using Tooltips. This widget displays text descriptions when users hold their cursor or finger over an object on the screen.

The current status section provides a static visual map that repeats information in the written text. While this map is informative, it cannot be interacted with or zoomed into for more area-specific data.

In terms of design, the app is mainly black and white. Using a range of colours and alerts could help categorise information, and draw the user’s attention to important aspects.

Another simple update would be to include the logos of all the state governments and departments that contributed to the app’s content. While the current federal government logo is enough to establish authenticity, research suggests having endorsements from additional bodies improves credibility.

The app doesn’t support languages other than English. This is significant as news reports suggest thousands of overseas visitors have been trapped in Australia as a result of COVID-19. These people will be as desperate for information as the rest of us.

More considerations

Rather than having all the necessary information available in the Coronavirus Australia app itself, many links redirect users to the government’s Department of Health website. For some, this may seem like the app is simply a landing page for the department’s website.

Also, while the logging of those who are isolating is an excellent feature, it relies on honest self-reporting. This can’t be guaranteed. If authorities wish to analyse or use the collected data to enforce social-isolation measures, then identification such as a drivers license or passport will be needed to prevent fake reporting.

Misleading reports could also be avoided by prompting users to enter the specific address they are self-isolating at (including details such as hotel name and room number), rather than simply using GPS location data as the app currently does.

In terms of potential advances in the app’s features, one option would involve using a user’s location to detect if they are away from home for longer than a specific advised time. The app could then send subtle prompts to remind the user to return to self-isolation.

A summary of the government’s latest restrictions, sorted by states and territories, would also be helpful, as would a section debunking common myths associated with COVID-19.

Read more: Explainer: what is contact tracing and how does it help limit the coronavirus spread?

Despite the small margins for improvement, the Coronavirus Australia app indicates the government has made an effort to provide quick and helpful information at a highly uncertain time. As this pandemic evolves, further incremental updates would certainly enhance its user experience.

– ref. The government’s coronavirus mobile app is a solid effort, but it could do even more – https://theconversation.com/the-governments-coronavirus-mobile-app-is-a-solid-effort-but-it-could-do-even-more-135030

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Holly Thorpe, Professor in Sociology of Sport and Physical Culture, University of Waikato

During New Zealand’s four-week lockdown, all sporting facilities, back-country walking trails and parks are closed to stop the spread of coronavirus and avoid injuries.

But New Zealanders have high participation rates in outdoor sports and for many people, outdoor recreation activities are part of their coping strategy during times of high stress. Connecting with the natural environment is an important contributor to their sense of identity, community and belonging.

My research into the benefits of informal sports and outdoor recreation during war and conflict and following disasters such as the Christchurch earthquakes has clear parallels with the challenges New Zealanders face during lockdown. This work shows the importance of outdoor activities for people’s resilience, as well as the creative strategies they will deploy as they attempt to rebuild a sense of routine in their lives.

Read more: The importance of sports in recovery from trauma: lessons from and for Christchurch

Clearing up mixed messages about outdoor exercise

At the start of the lockdown period, the government’s messages about outdoor activities were mixed. While the prime minister has encouraged people to simply “stay home” and not leave the neighbourhood when exercising, the Ministry of Health COVID-19 website clearly states:

As long as you are not unwell, you can leave your house to:

• access essential services, like buying groceries, or going to a bank or pharmacy
• go to work if you work for an essential service
• go for a walk, or exercise and enjoy nature.

If you do leave your house, you must keep a 2 metre distance from other people at all times. Police may be monitoring people and asking questions of people who are out and about during the Alert Level 4 lockdown to check what they are doing.

The message that people should enjoy outdoor activities within walking distance from their homes highlights the considerable inequities in access to outdoor recreation. Not everyone is lucky enough to live within walking distance from the beach or a bush reserve. Such inequities will be felt over the coming weeks.

The initial confusion has divided outdoor sports communities. An online poll by Surfing New Zealand revealed that 58% of surfers believe surfing should be acceptable with social distancing. Many continue to surf despite a ban on using the ocean for recreational purposes.

Some local communities are taking it upon themselves to police such activities. In the name of community protection, threats of verbal, physical or symbolic violence are being posted across digital forums. Many are reporting those breaching Level 4 restrictions to police.

Read more: How to stay fit and active at home during the coronavirus self-isolation

While the debate continues to rage in some lifestyle sport communities, the majority of New Zealanders have shown they’re committed to broader public health goals over their individual needs and desires, and most have been doing the right thing on social distancing.

Several national and local sport organisations – including Fish and Game, the Mountain Safety Council, Coastguard, and NZ Water Safety – have issued statements strongly discouraging hiking, hunting, mountain biking and other outdoor and ocean pursuits.

By now, the government message has become much more consistent, encouraging people not to drive for anything other than essential needs and not to enter the ocean for recreational activities.

Outdoor recreation boosts recovery and resilience

The benefits of sport and physical activity for physical health and mental well-being are well documented. Research also illustrates the value of sport, physical activity and play for resilience during times of high risk or ongoing stress, and the restorative value for those who have experienced traumatic events.

Evidence further points to the value of outdoor recreation and participation in nature for supporting mental health during times of stress and trauma.

For Christchurch residents, favourite sporting spaces were destroyed during the earthquake of February 22, 2011. Participants in my research identified a range of physical, psychological and social benefits of informal outdoor activities, including weight maintenance, stress and anxiety reduction, higher resilience, and a stronger sense of connectedness and belonging.

According to researchers, a disruption of a person’s attachment to a place, caused by events such as war or natural disaster, can result in identity discontinuity and feelings of loss and mourning.

After the 2011 earthquakes, many Christchurch residents expressed sadness at the loss of heritage buildings and frequently visited places. For some, their deepest feelings of loss where associated with places of active recreation they had used over years of regular participation. In the current lockdown, many New Zealanders will also feel a sense of loss and longing for the sporting and fitness spaces that are so important to them.

Getting back to routines

Research shows it is common for people to try to minimise the effects of a major disruption to everyday routines by trying to restore familiar spaces, routines and timings.

My case studies from the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes and overseas (New Orleans, Gaza, Afghanistan) have revealed that people were creative in engaging in their sporting activities and this helped them cope with uncertainties and higher stress.

Some Christchurch residents re-appropriated earthquake-damaged spaces. Rather than accepting closures, many worked together to find new ways to access safe spaces for participation. In so doing, these new locations became “therapeutic landscapes”, providing much needed psychological relief, escapism and connection to the physical environment.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and New Zealand’s lockdown, the conditions are very different – but the psychological challenges and strategies for resilience may be similar.

Already, we are seeing creative strategies to retain active recreation activities. Some are converting their garages and modifying outdoor spaces for fitness workouts and training circuits. Others are setting up backyard parkour routes for their children.

Following the Christchurch earthquakes, surfers were separated from the ocean for nine months. The current forced time away from the outdoors will likely create renewed appreciation for the special places that give us a sense of identity and connection.

– ref. The challenges and benefits of outdoor recreation during NZ’s coronavirus lockdown – https://theconversation.com/the-challenges-and-benefits-of-outdoor-recreation-during-nzs-coronavirus-lockdown-134892

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

The A$130 billion payment will be benefit six million of Australia’s 13 million employees through their employers.

It will ensure each employee kept on in a business that has lost custom gets at least $1,500 per fortnight for six months. But the devil is in the detail.

We asked three experts to pick the package apart.

Steven Hamilton

Visiting Scholar, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

This is a welcome move by the government that will keep many businesses afloat and connected to their employees, which are critical to a speedy recovery. It is commendable that the government reversed course so quickly given rapidly deteriorating economic conditions.

You can’t shut down the economy for months without providing massive support to businesses and workers. At A$130 billion, this package alone is worth 12% of the economy over the next six months. Along with the measures already announced, it takes our fiscal support to a similar scale as recently legislated in the United States.

Targeting only businesses experiencing a revenue loss limits profiteering. Those currently doing well won’t get unneeded support. It applies to all full-time, part-time, and long-term casual employees, as well as the self-employed, and it forces all participating firms to pay workers at least the $1,500 per fortnight subsidy.

Read more: The key to the success of the $130 billion wage subsidy is retrospective paid work

It could have several unintended consequences. It might encourage firms to limit sales to push revenue down below the turnover threshold.

For example, for Qantas the subsidy would be almost $600 million, but to receive it, its revenue will need to fall to 50% below where it was this time last year. That might discourage it from reopening routes, which would slow the recovery.

The scheme will also make it harder for businesses desperately in need of staff (such as supermarkets) to hire new workers from currently struggling businesses.

To do so, they would need to entice workers to move from what might be suddenly better-paid jobs (everyone benefiting from the scheme must receive at least $1,500 per fortngiht) to less well paid ones.

Read more: Modelling suggests going early and going hard will save lives and help the economy

And the choice to subsidise the largest businesses in Australia is questionable.

The major banks are excluded, but every other large company with at least a 50% reduction in revenue is included. Specific, targeted measures for the worst-affected industries might have been a better approach.

David Peetz

Professor of Employment Relations, Centre for Work, Organisation and Wellbeing, Griffith University

Dangers often associated with wage subsidy schemes — like wasting money on jobs that would have been created anyway, or substituting one type of worker for another — aren’t much of a concern when a wage subsidy is introduced in an environment in which revenue and employment is diving.

Making the scheme temporary, and restricting it to firms facing a 30% drop in revenue (50% for big businesses) greatly reduces this danger.

That said, the scheme will mainly target workers at or near the minimum wage. That’s because the payment is set close to the minimum wage.

In effect, firms can hire or keep on minimum-wage workers for free.

For workers on average full-time adult earnings, which are about twice the minimum wage, the subsidy is nowhere near as big. Many are still likely to lose their jobs, as we have already seen.

And the scheme introduces strange incentives. The same payment is received for a part-time worker as for a full-time worker on any wage. (The weekend leak that part-timers would be excluded seems to have been a furphy.)

Many part-timers’ wages will be less than the subsidy. But the employer still has to pay them the $750 per week. The payroll is simpler the fewer employees are on it, so the employer might give one part-timer the bulk of the hours and retrench the others.

Read more: New OECD estimates suggest a 22% hit to Australia’s economy

Many part-timers are casuals, though, and they aren’t covered unless they are “long term” casuals (seemingly a contradiction in terms).

This means many casuals can expect to be sacked in favour of workers who can be put into “free” $750 per week jobs.

Meanwhile, the superannuation guarantee no longer applies to wages covered by the jobseeker payment, including wages the employer would have paid anyway. That’s something that could lead to all sorts of legal complexities in the future.

Anthony Forsyth

Professor of Workplace Law, RMIT University

My comments focus on the government’s claim that its JobKeeper payment is more generous and broader than the UK’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.

Australia’s scheme is definitely broader, with the aim of providing support to up to six million Australians over coming months.

Eligibility will depend on a business suffering at least 30% reduced turnover or 50% for businesses with more than $1 billion turnover.

It enables employees to receive income support payments where they have been stood down, or already made redundant where the business wants to rehire the employee with Jobkeeper payment support. In the UK, only “furloughed” employees (stood down) are eligible for payments.

Read more: Coronavirus: how UK job retention plan borrows from collectivist Europe

But the UK scheme provides payments to those on “zero hours contracts” (akin to casuals). Where hours have varied, payments are based on last year’s average.

However in Australia, casuals can only claim Jobkeeper payment where they have been employed for at least 12 months. Many casual workers will be ineligible given the high turnover in hard-hit sectors such as accommodation, cafés and food services.

Casual teaching contracts in universities are often for less than a year.

As for generosity, Australia’s Jobkeeper payment of around A$3,000 per month is far lower than the UK’s, which is £2,500 per month, worth more than A$5,000.

Australia’s payment is 70% of the median wage. The government’s claim that employees in retail and hospitality will get the median wage in those industries simply reinforces their low-paid status to begin with.

The government specifically mentioned that New Zealanders working in Australia would be able to access the JobKeeper payment along with some other categories of visa holders.

Read more: Delivery workers are now essential. They deserve the rights of other employees

But the Victorian Trades Hall’s Migrant Workers Centre believes this will leave 1.1 million temporary migrant workers outside the scheme and needing assistance.

Another gap is the hundreds of thousands of workers in the gig economy.

We are relying more than ever on food delivery riders and drivers. Many are incorrectly categorised as self-employed contractors. JobKeeper will cover self-employed individuals but they must be able to show at least 30% decline in their turnover.

Most gig workers will not have the business systems set up to demonstrate this, as they are in reality employees who have had supposed “contractor” status imposed on them by the platforms they provide services for.

– ref. Australia’s $130 billion JobKeeper payment: what the experts think – https://theconversation.com/australias-130-billion-jobkeeper-payment-what-the-experts-think-135043

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

The secret sauce in the government’s A$130 billion JobKeeper payment is that it will be retrospective, in the best possible way.

It’ll not only go to employers who have suffered losses and had employees on their books tonight, March 30, but to employers who have suffered losses and had workers on their books as far back as March 1.

This means that employers who have sacked (“let go”) of workers at any time in the past month can travel back in time, pay them as if they hadn’t been sacked, and nab the A$1,500 per employee per fortnight payment.

As the official fact sheet puts it, “the JobKeeper Payment will support employers to maintain their connection to their employees”.

This retrospective connection will add new meaning to the term “revision” when the March unemployment numbers are released.

Not only will the March numbers be liable to being revised a month later as is normal in the light of extra information, but many Australians who were unemployed in March will retrospectively turn out not to have been unemployed.

They will have been retrospectively in paid work.

Read more: Modelling suggests going early and going hard will save lives and help the economy

(And if they have applied for the Centrelink payment of Newstart plus $550 per fortnight, they’ll have to un-apply to avoid what the prime minister referred to as “double counting” rather than the more loaded “double dipping”.)

It gets better. If you have been part-time, or for some other reason on less than $1,500 per fortnight, “your employer must pay you, at a minimum, $1,500 per fortnight, before tax”.

This means you’ll get a pay rise, for the six months the scheme lasts.

If you’ve been let go and then retrospectively un-sacked, you are also guaranteed to get at least $1,500 per fortnight, which in that case might be less than you were being paid, but will be more than the $1,115 you would have got on Newstart (which has been renamed JobSeeker Payment).

If you remain employed, and are on more than $1,500 per fortnight, the employer will have to pay you your full regular wage. Employers won’t be able to cut it to $1,500 per fortnight.

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

To get it, most employers will have to have suffered a 30% decline in their turnover relative to a comparable period a year ago. Big employers (turnover of $1 billion or more) will have to have suffered a 50% decline. Big banks won’t be eligible.

Self-employed Australians will also be eligible where they have suffered or expect to suffer a 30% decline in turnover. Among these will be musicians and performers out of work because large gatherings have been cancelled.

Half the Australian workforce

The payment isn’t perfect. It will only be paid in respect of wages from March 30, and the money won’t be handed over until the start of May – the Tax Office systems can’t work any faster – but it will provide more support than almost anyone expected.

It’s scope is apparent when you consider the size of Australia’s workforce.

Before the coronavirus hit in February, 13 million of Australia’s 25 million residents were in jobs. This payment will go to six million of them.

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

Without putting too fine a point on it, for the next six months, the government will be the paymaster to almost half the Australian workforce.

Announcing the payment, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said unprecedented times called for unprecedented action. He said the payment was more generous than New Zealand’s, broader than Britain’s, and more comprehensive than Canada’s, claims about which there is dispute.

But for Australia, it is completely without precedent.

– ref. The key to the success of the $130 billion wage subsidy is retrospective paid work – https://theconversation.com/the-key-to-the-success-of-the-130-billion-wage-subsidy-is-retrospective-paid-work-135042

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michaela Pascoe, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Exercise and Mental Health, Victoria University

Medicare-subsidised psychology and psychiatry sessions, as well as GP visits, can now take place via phone and video calls – if clinicians agree not to charge patients out-of-pocket costs for the consult.

The changes are part of a A$1.1 billion coronavirus health funding package, announced yesterday, which includes A$74 million for mental health support services, including Kids Helpline, Beyond Blue and Perinatal Anxiety & Depression Australia.

Read more: All Australians will be able to access telehealth under new $1.1 billion coronavirus program

Before the pandemic, one in five Australians experienced mental ill-health every year.

But the uncertainty and instability around coronavirus has the potential to exacerbate existing anxiety and depression and contribute to the onset of new mental health problems.

So what are some of the signs your mental health might be declining during the pandemic? And what can you do about it?

What are the signs of anxiety and depression?

Mental illness results in physical changes as well changes in thinking, feelings and behaviours.

Anxiety

Common physical signs for anxiety include increased heartbeat or butterflies in the stomach.

People might think they’re unable to cope, and may feel scared, restless, or stressed out.

Behavioural signs might include avoiding people or withdrawing, or being agitated, aggressive or using substances.

Even in the absence of a mental illness, many people will experience some of these symptoms during the pandemic.

Depression

Common physical changes for depression might be changes in sleep, appetite or energy.

Emotional effects might include changes in mood, motivation or enjoyment. People might have difficulty concentrating, or experience hopeless or critical thoughts, such as “nothing will get better.”

Behavioural signs might include withdrawing from people or activities, substance use or poorer performance at work or school.

Again, many people who don’t have clinical depression will experience some of these symptoms during the pandemic. You might be feeling stressed, worried, fearful, or ruminate over negative thoughts.

These thoughts and feelings can be difficult to manage, but are normal and common in the short term. But if symptoms last consistently for more than a couple of weeks, it’s important to get help.

Read more: Coronavirus is stressful. Here are some ways to cope with the anxiety

What steps can you take to improve your mental health?

The American College of Lifestyle Medicine highlights six areas for us to invest in to promote or improve our mental health: sleep, nutrition, social connectedness, physical activity/exercise, stress management and avoiding risky substance use.

1. Sleep

Lack of sleep, or poor quality sleep, can contribute to poorer mental health.

Keeping to your usual sleep routine even when your daily life has been disrupted is helpful. Aim to get seven to nine hours of sleep a night.

2. Nutrition

The food we eat can have a direct impact on our mental health. Try to eat a well-balanced diet rich in vegetables and nutrients.

Where possible, avoid processed food, and those high in saturated fat and refined carbohydrates, which have been linked to poorer mental health.

3. Social connectedness

Being connected to others is important for our mental and physical well-being and can protect against anxiety and depression.

Despite the physical barriers, it’s important to find alternate ways to maintain your connections with family, friends and the community during this difficult time.

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

4. Exercise

Physical activity decreases anxiety, stress and depression and can be used as part of a treatment plan for people with mental illness.

Regular exercise also improves the function of your immune system and decreases inflammation.

You might need to find different ways of exercising, such as running, walking or tuning into an online class, but try to make physical activity an enjoyable and rewarding part of your daily routine while at home.

Scheduling physical activity at the end of your “work day” can help to separate work from your personal life when working from home.

Read more: How to stay fit and active at home during the coronavirus self-isolation

5. Stress management

It’s important to be able to recognise when you’re stressed. You might have feelings of panic, a racing heart or butterflies in the stomach, for example. And then find ways to reduce this stress.

Mindfulness practices such as meditation, for example, can decrease stress and improve mental health. There are a number of breathing exercises that can also help to manage stress.

Spending time outdoors has also been shown to reduce stress. So consider spending time in your backyard, on your balcony or deck, or if possible, take a greener route when accessing essential services.

Talking about your experiences and concerns with a trusted person can also protect your mental health.

6. Avoiding risky substance use

While it might be tempting to reach for alcohol or other drugs while you’re self-isolating, keep in mind they can trigger mental health problems, or make them worse.

The draft alcohol guidelines recommend Australians drink no more than ten standard drinks a week, and no more than four a day.

Read more: Cap your alcohol at 10 drinks a week: new draft guidelines

People who drink more than four standard drinks per day experience more psychological distress than those who do not.

Where to get help

A good place to start is with Beyond Blue, which offers online discussion forums.

If you feel you need additional support, you can make an appointment with your GP and discuss getting a referral to a psychologist or psychiatrist, as well as telehealth and bulk billing options.

If you need immediate support and are in crisis, go to the emergency department of your local hospital, contact your local crisis assessment and treatment team (CATT) or psychiatric emergency team (PET), or call 000.

Other agencies that can help in a crisis are:

• Lifeline telephone counselling, 13 11 14 (24 hours)
• Suicide Call Back Service, 1300 659 467 (24 hours)
• Kids Helpline, 1800 55 1800 (24 hours).

– ref. Is your mental health deteriorating during the coronavirus pandemic? Here’s what to look out for – https://theconversation.com/is-your-mental-health-deteriorating-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic-heres-what-to-look-out-for-134827

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa Sedger, Senior Lecturer, Head of the Viruses and Cytokine Biology group in the School of Life Science, University of Technology Sydney

While many scientists are working on developing a coronavirus vaccine, others are busy testing antiviral drugs.

Vaccines are generally only effective when administered prior to infection, but antiviral agents are important because they can treat people who already have COVID-19.

Here’s an overview of antiviral drugs scientists are investigating for coronavirus.

Read more: How does coronavirus kill?

Targeting the copy cats

How do antiviral drugs work? First, it’s important to understand the genome of animals and plants is composed of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), but viral genomes can also be comprised of ribonucleic acid (RNA). This is the case for SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus – the virus that causes COVID-19.

In order to replicate, an RNA virus needs to make more copies of its RNA genome. This means antiviral drugs which block the copying of RNA genomes can potentially help treat COVID-19 patients. These drugs are known as RNA-polymerase inhibitors.

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

These types of drugs have successfully cured people of chronic hepatitis C – another RNA virus infection.

But not all viral RNA polymerases are the same, so the drugs that work for hepatitis C virus will not necessarily work for human coronaviruses.

Favilavir is an RNA polymerase inhibitor drug scientists are currently trialling against coronavirus.

Stopping the virus in its tracks

Another successful antiviral drug strategy is to use non-functional “analogues”, or inauthentic copies of the basic building blocks of the viral RNA genome. The presence of these analogues in the viral genome blocks the viral polymerase, meaning the virus cannot make another copy of its RNA. Acyclovir, ribavirin and azidothymidine (AZT) are examples of these drugs.

Unfortunately, this coronavirus is a bit tricky, because it “proofreads” the authenticity of its RNA genome. As such, it identifies the analogues as being inauthentic and removes them. This stops certain antiviral drugs like ribavirin from being effective.

Fortunately, the coronavirus’ proofreading powers don’t block a similar drug, remdesivir. So remdesivir potently halts coronavirus replication and represents a promising drug option for COVID-19 patients.

Remdesivir is also effective against other RNA viruses including Ebola virus and the coronaviruses SARS and Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS).

Scientists are currently assessing remdesivir in clinical trials in the United States and China. Time will tell if remdesivir is effective for COVID-19 patients. But doctors are already considering how the drug is best administered for optimal results and whether it should be used in combination with other drugs or as a single agent.

Read more: COVID-19 treatment might already exist in old drugs – we’re using pieces of the coronavirus itself to find them

Other proven antiviral drugs

Many RNA viruses produce a single “multi-protein” that’s later broken down into individual proteins via enzymes called “proteases”. Any molecules that inhibit these proteases have potential as antiviral drugs. Viral protease inhibitor drugs have been highly effective in treating the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus.

Lopinavir and ritonavir are a combination protease-inhibitor drug (Kaletra) that can inhibit coronaviruses in human cells. Kaletra has already been used to treat a patient with COVID-19 in South Korea, but a larger trial found its effects were unconvincing. The reasons for these discrepancies are currently unclear and more research is obviously needed.

With any antiviral drug, the sooner it’s administered once a patient is infected, the better the outcome. This is because viruses replicate quickly, producing tens to hundreds of new infectious viruses.

Weathering the cytokine storm

In respiratory infections caused by influenza or SARS-CoV-2 viruses, clinically serious infection involves what’s called a “cytokine storm”. Here, a strong immune response results in the production of high levels of inflammatory mediators: cytokines and chemokines.

These molecules recruit inflammatory cells to the site of the virus infection, for example, the lungs of patients with COVID-19. These cytokines and cells then fight the virus infection, but their presence also partly obstructs the air sacs where oxygen exchange occurs.

Researchers are now considering add-on therapies that partly limit the inflammatory response by blocking the effects of certain cytokines and chemokines. These add-on therapies include antibody-based drugs, such as tocilizumab that blocks the interleukin-6 cytokine receptor or leronlimab that blocks the chemokine receptor CCR5. When cytokine receptors and chemokine receptors are blocked then it matters less that there are high levels of cytokines or chemokines, because their effects are significantly minimised.

The good news is antibody-based drugs have minimal side effects, and have proved effective for many human chronic inflammatory diseases. Expanding these drugs for use in COVID-19 patients is therefore an attractive possibility. Although this would require caution for careful dosing, and these drugs would need to be co-administered together with an antiviral drug.

Anti-malarial drugs

Chloroquine, a well-known anti-malarial drug, has also gained attention. One study tested it together with a broad-spectrum antibiotic azithromycin. While some COVID-19 patients in this small study recovered, other patients died (despite chloroquine treatment), and some patients ceased treatment for a variety of reasons – including the severity of their symptoms.

Nevertheless, people are interested in how chloroquine and azithromycin might work for coronavirus. Chloroquine exhibits antiviral activity and is currently used to treat autoimmune diseases because it also has anti-inflammatory properties. Azithromycin is an antibiotic used to treat bacterial infections, but it, too, exhibits antiviral activity, including against rhinovirus that causes the common cold. Chloroquine might need to be given early after infection to be most effective against coronavirus.

Read more: Could chloroquine treat coronavirus? 5 questions answered about a promising, problematic and unproven use for an antimalarial drug

The World Health Organisation has announced a global clinical trial program testing possible COVID-19 treatments, including remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, chloroquine, and certain antiviral cytokines.

The escalating number of coronavirus patients worldwide means alongside vaccine development, the focus must remain squarely on finding effective antiviral drugs that can treat those already seriously ill from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

– ref. In the fight against coronavirus, antivirals are as important as a vaccine. Here’s where the science is up to – https://theconversation.com/in-the-fight-against-coronavirus-antivirals-are-as-important-as-a-vaccine-heres-where-the-science-is-up-to-133926

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

The Morrison government will provide a flat $1,500 a fortnight JobKeeper payment per employee for businesses to retain or rehire nearly six million workers, in a massive $130 billion six-month wage subsidy scheme to limit the economic devastation caused by the coronavirus.

Describing the initiative as “unprecedented action” for “unprecedented times”, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said this was a “uniquely Australian” solution to keep enterprises and their workers connected through to “the other side” of the crisis.

He said no Australian government had never made such a decision “and I hope and pray they never have to again.”

The payment, made through the tax system, applies for workers of large, medium and small enterprises, and not-for-profits. It will start flowing from May 1, but will be backdated to March 30.

Workers who have already lost their jobs will be eligible if they were on the enterprise’s books on March 1.

It will be a flat rate for all those eligible, who include full-time, part-time, and casual workers (provided they have been on with their employer for a year). Self-employed individuals will also be eligible.

The payment is about 70% of the national median wage. For workers in the accommodation, hospitality and retail sectors – sectors hardest hit by the crisis – it will equate to a full median replacement wage.

To be eligible, enterprises with an annual turnover of less than $1 billion must have lost at least 30% of their revenue after March 1 over a minimum of a month-long period.

For businesses with turnovers of more than $1 billion the reduction in revenue has to be at least 50%.

Where workers have already lost their jobs, they can be rehired by their employer, provided they were attached to the enterprise on March 1.

This will mean some people who have applied for a Centrelink payment will reconnect with their firm and will move to the JobKeeper payment.

Morrison and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg announced the scheme at 4 pm and almost 8000 businesses had registered by 5 pm.

The $1,500 a fortnight will be paid whether the employee is working [in the case of an enterprise still operating] or not [if the business is not trading].

The JobKeeper payment would mean that where a business continue operating, the employer would have first $1,500 a fortnight of the worker’s wage subsidised by the government.

The $130 billion JobKeeper scheme is the third tranche of emergency assistance the government has unveiled since March 12.

“This is about keeping the connection between the employer and the employee and keeping people in their jobs even though the business they work for may go into hibernation and close down for six months,” Morrison said.

“We will give millions of eligible businesses and their workers a lifeline to not only get through this crisis, but bounce back together on the other side,” he said.

The latest initiative brings the total support made available in the crisis $320 billion, including $95 billion assistance from the Reserve Bank. The total amounts to the equivalent of 16.4% of GDP.

Frydenberg said Australia was “about the go through one of the toughest times in its history”. The government had doubled the welfare safety net and now had gone even further, he said.

The government is also temporarily liberalising access to income support. The JobSeeker payment has been subject to a partner income test of about $48,000. This is being temporarily relaxed so an eligible person can receive the JobSeeker payment and the associated new Coronavirus supplement of $550 a fortnight provided their partner earns less than $79,762 a year

In other coronavirus developments on Monday, Victoria announced it had moved to “stage 3” of the response to the crisis, with the two-person restriction on gatherings to become legally enforceable.

The two-person rule was announced by Morrison on Sunday but it was left up to the states to decide whether to make it enforceable.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews said: “If you are having friends over for dinner or friends over for drinks that are not members of your household, then you are breaking the law”.

“You face an on-the-spot fine of more than $1,600”.

NSW is also announced it will enforce the rule.

Queensland, which has closed its border, is toughening border controls.

Federal Deputy Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly flagged modelling the government is using in its response will be made available later this week. Morrison has faced pressure for the modelling’s release.

Kelly told a news conference he had asked his staff “to organise a meeting later this week where the modelling and the epidemiology and the public health response will be unlocked, and people will be able to ask questions about that.

“I think we have been quite open with components of the modelling, but I respect that there is a large number of ways that modelling can be done, and so we need to be more transparent, and we will be.”

– ref. $1500 a fortnight JobKeeper wage subsidy in massive $130 billion program – https://theconversation.com/1500-a-fortnight-jobkeeper-wage-subsidy-in-massive-130-billion-program-135049

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Irving, Adjunct Professor, University of Technology Sydney

Blood is like milk, not toilet paper. You can’t just buy a lot of it and save it for later – you need to have a regular, fresh supply for patients who need it.

At the moment, fewer Australians are donating blood than usual. To a degree, we can understand why.

But blood donation is an essential health service, even during the coronavirus pandemic.

Read more: How coronavirus is upsetting the blood supply chain

Donor centres have implemented new measures to ensure the safety of staff, donors and patients receiving transfusions during this time.

If you’re healthy, there’s a good chance you’ll be eligible to donate.

Why do we need more donors now?

We need blood and plasma products every day to support cancer patients, new mums and babies, people with immune deficiencies or blood diseases, and people who need surgery or have suffered trauma.

We’re currently seeing an increase in cancellations and people rescheduling their appointments. Around 900 donors are cancelling appointments each day, up from 800 earlier this month.

There are a number of reasons fewer people are giving blood than usual.

At the start of 2020, we saw a strong response from donors who came forward as a way to help with the nation’s bushfire response. We’ve seen this response to major events before and we know it can affect the supply chain down the track. Because these donors need to wait 12 weeks before they can donate blood again, there are fewer people available to give blood right now.

Read more: Coronavirus: are people with blood group A really at higher risk of catching COVID-19?

Relating to coronavirus specifically, as people follow advice to stay home except for essential activities, they may be less inclined to donate blood.

And if the virus spreads to more people, fewer people may be eligible to donate because of new restrictions to keep our patients, staff, and donor centres safe.

Based on our forecasts for demand from Australian health providers, Australian Red Cross Lifeblood needs an additional 7,000 donors to make appointments to donate blood through to Easter Monday to prevent a shortage.

Who can donate?

Australia currently has around 500,000 blood donors, but millions of others may be eligible to donate.

Normally, if you’re aged between 18 and 76, weigh over 50kg and are healthy and well, you may be eligible. However, in keeping with government advice we encourage those aged 70 and over to postpone their donation during this period. There are other eligibility criteria which remain in place to ensure our patients and donors are safe from the risks we already understand.

Notably, there’s no evidence coronavirus or other respiratory viruses can be transmitted by blood transfusion.

But to be on the safe side, Lifeblood’s strict screening process means people who are unwell can’t donate.

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

During the pandemic, Lifeblood has introduced new rules to protect the safety of staff, donors and patients, in line with recent recommendations from the World Health Organisation:

• anyone who has returned from overseas is unable to donate for 28 days after their return

• people who have been in close contact with a confirmed case of COVID-19 will have to wait 28 days before donating

• people who have been confirmed as having COVID-19 will not be able to donate until they are cleared by their doctor plus undergo an additional recovery period.

• people with mild cold-like symptoms will be unable to donate until they are fully recovered.

Am I allowed to travel to a donor centre, and is it safe?

As many states in Australia have limited non-essential activities, it’s important to understand blood and plasma donation is vital, and travel and venue restrictions don’t prevent people from giving blood.

Donor centres are strictly regulated spaces, monitored regularly by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. There’s a specific code that sets out requirements for staff, premises, collection procedures, quality control and testing, among other things.

Staff adhere to strict sanitation protocols including wearing gloves, wiping down surfaces after every donation and using single use sterile collection kits for every donation.

In addition to the usual hygiene practices and new restrictions to who can donate, Lifeblood is implementing further measures to help protect donors and staff, including:

• increased disinfecting of frequently used items

• providing additional hand sanitiser for donors to use

• additional daily disinfection of all areas in our centres including the donation floor, refreshment areas, reception and more

• restricting non-donating visitors to our centres (so only staff and donors are allowed in)

• providing public health information consistent with the latest official coronavirus advice in every centre

• implementing social distancing in our centres wherever possible, ensuring all donors are at least 1.5 metres away from all other donors.

Read more: Australia’s ethnic face is changing, and so are our blood types

We’re appealing to anyone who has an appointment booked and who feels well to keep it.

If you’re a blood donor and haven’t made your next appointment, you can help by booking one in the next few weeks.

If you’re a blood donor who gave more than month ago, you may be able to donate plasma now.

And if you’ve never donated before, now is a great time to become a donor and help us maintain the nation’s blood supplies.

You can make an appointment online or call 13 14 95.

– ref. In the time of coronavirus, donating blood is more essential than ever – https://theconversation.com/in-the-time-of-coronavirus-donating-blood-is-more-essential-than-ever-134541

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mahmoud Elkhodr, Lecturer in Information and Communication Technologies, CQUniversity Australia

Australian universities have responded in a number of ways to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. These include delaying enrolments, moving semester breaks forward, abolishing late payment fees and moving courses online.

Engaging students in online content is easier said than done. Research shows results can improve with the use of techniques such as shortening content and making it more focused, and establishing rapport between the lecturer and students.

Students’ views on online learning can be mixed. Some research shows they can find online simulations such as in physics and engineering to be efficient, but say completing many online modules takes too long.

If you’ve found yourself having to study your university course online, here are some ways to ensure you’re ready for your virtual experience.

1. Laptop and software

It goes without saying that, to learn online, you need a laptop or a desktop PC with a reliable internet connection. You will need this to participate in the virtual class, for writing essays and other assignments, and navigating your university’s learning management system – such as Moodle or Blackboard.

Connecting your phone’s earphones to your computer is perhaps the cheapest alternative to a speaker and microphone.

You might see advertisements for a webcam with a fancy 4K definition. While this will provide a high quality video, you are unlikely to need this to participate in your online class. A high resolution camera uses a lot of data and requires a high speed internet connection.

So it’s advisable to use a webcam with no more than 720p resolution to reduce the amount of bandwidth you use (to use less of your data). Most laptops’ webcams have a resolution of 720p.

You can check the resolution of your webcam here.

If you do not have access to a computer at home, you can check with your university library about borrowing a laptop. Many universities loan laptops as part of their student services. But this may be as hard as getting your hands on a roll of a toilet paper. So put your request in early.

Read more: Universities need to train lecturers in online delivery, or they risk students dropping out

If you need access to a specific software, such as the Microsoft Office package, you should also check with your university library if it provides a free login for students to use the software. All Australian university and school students have free access to the Microsoft Office package, but there may be others your university has signed up to.

2. Make sure you know how much data you’re using

Most Australian universities are running their virtual classes via Zoom video conferencing software. By now you would have received instructions on how to download and set up your Zoom account.

But it’s important to know how much data you will need and whether your internet speed is enough.

A typical one hour 720p video call would use almost 540MB of data download (data received) and the same for upload (data you sent). This means, on average, total data use per hour may be more than 1GB.

Read more: Say what? How to improve virtual catch-ups, book groups and wine nights

Netflix, in comparison, uses 1GB per hour for standard definition, and 3GB per hour for HD streaming.

Assuming you are enrolled in four units this semester, you may need to attend up to eight hours of lectures and eight hours of tutorials per week. This brings your consumption to a rough average of 16GB per week. You will also need to account for browsing and other general use.

Below are some extra tips for improving the quality of your video call.

3. Set yourself up with a university VPN

Many universities provide staff and students with a Virtual Private Network (VPN), to access the university’s services when off campus.

If you are overseas, this may be essential. A VPN gives students and staff secure access to the university network. When you install the university VPN client on your computer, it will create a kind of a secure, private “tunnel” so the data exchanged between your computer and the university network won’t be seen by other internet users.

Read more: Explainer: what is a virtual private network (VPN)?

Some universities have set up a VPN specifically to help students in China impacted by the COVID-19 travel restrictions.

Regardless of your location, accessing university services (e-learnning platform such as Moodle, Blackboard, special software and journals) via VPN will simplify many of the security and access control policies enforced by your university such as dual and two- factor authentication.

Accessing the university library website via VPN will also give you free access to many paid research databases. As with any networking resource, if multiple students are accessing it at the same time, there is a chance of congestion.

For information on how to set up a VPN connection on your computer, consult your university library or IT support department.

4. Abide by some basic etiquette rules

A final point to remember is though you are attending classes from home, this doesn’t mean you should behave as if at home. An online classroom is a professional environment.

There are some basic etiquette rules for online learning, which include:

• be on time for class. Try to login five minutes before so you can make sure your audio, video and other features are set up

• wear the kind of clothes you would wear to class. Just because it’s virtual, doesn’t mean you can be in bed while Zooming in

• mute your microphone when others are speaking

• try to reduce your movements when your camera is turned on

• don’t assume people will remember your name and introduce yourself when you speak

• don’t shout over, or interrupt, others who are speaking.

– ref. Studying a uni course online? Here are 4 tips to get yourself tech ready – https://theconversation.com/studying-a-uni-course-online-here-are-4-tips-to-get-yourself-tech-ready-134549

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacinta Carroll, Senior Research Fellow, Counter Terrorism and Social Cohesion, National Security College, Australian National University

There are now nearly 300 cases of COVID-19 linked to passengers who disembarked from the Ruby Princess cruise ship without any health checks from authorities.

Amid public condemnation, video of travellers squashed together in the immigration queue at Sydney airport made the rounds last week on social media.

Border security at both airports and cruise terminals primarily falls under the purview of the Australian Border Force (ABF). Both episodes have raised critical questions about the management of our border security and who exactly is responsible for what during the coronavirus crisis.

Overlapping responsibilities at the border

The first thing to talk about here is Australia’s federal system and the “national cabinet” of Commonwealth, state and territory leaders that has been set up to respond to coronavirus.

One of the reasons for this approach is that certain roles were ceded to the national government at federation, including border control. But it’s not that simple – there are actually various agencies in charge of different facets of border control.

The ABF, which sits within Home Affairs, is the lead agency responsible for overseeing the movement of people and goods across Australia’s international borders.

Read more: In the wake of bushfires and coronavirus, it’s time we talked about human security

Biosecurity Australia, in the Department of Agriculture, works with ABF to protect Australia from any form of disease, including those brought in by humans. And the states are responsible for health delivery, which means anyone identified at the border with health concerns is transferred to the local health authority.

This partly explains why there was confusion over who was responsible for the Ruby Princess passengers. The inability of these three agencies to coordinate effectively at the time showed a gap in existing arrangements.

A risk-managed approach

Australia has had to adopt a risk-management approach to border security, given the range of threats the country faces (narcotics, biosecurity, organised crime), as well as the large volume of movements across the border (more than 44.7 million people per year and 53 million air cargo consignments).

And the numbers of travellers and imports crossing the border are increasing at double-figure rates. As Michael Outram, ABF commissioner, said at Senate Estimates recently,

Such enduring increases in volume necessitate a range of responses that improve efficiency and optimise the impact of our finite resources.

The ABF uses a framework of pre-arrival, arrival and post-arrival assessments and controls to identify, prevent and respond to threats.

On the front end, this means working closely with other countries and organisations to identify areas of risk – narcotics-producing countries, for example – and trying to prevent these threats from getting to Australia in the first place. As such, only a small number of specialised border officials are required at the “primary line” of airport terminals.

Read more: In the war against coronavirus, we need the military to play a much bigger role

Health threats are also risk-managed. As such, global pandemics have been part of the normal forecasting and response mechanisms used by ABF and its partners in the past. They developed action plans, for instance, after the SARS, MERS and Ebola epidemics.

This system relies on early identification and effective containment of a disease, along with other factors, such as how early symptoms appear, how contagious and lethal a disease is and whether vaccines are available.

In the case of SARS and MERS, for example, the diseases had limited spread, early onset of symptoms and relatively low transmission rates, even though initial information was limited and problematic.

However, the enormity and spread of COVID-19 is unparalleled in the modern era, requiring a rapid rethink of our strategies.

It was only two months ago that Chinese and WHO officials declared the virus could be transmitted between humans. Only 218 cases were officially confirmed in China at the time.

Research suggests that actual cases were already in the thousands. And international travel was continuing as usual, with around 2,000 people flying from Wuhan (the epicentre of the virus) to Sydney in the previous month.

Why cruise ships are usually so low risk

Where do cruise ships fit into this? Like airlines, cruise liners are required to check the health of passengers and inform the ABF of any illnesses before arriving in Australia.

They are then given permission to dock and for passengers to disembark with minimal physical checks at the terminal. This permission is known as “pratique”. It essentially means that risks are managed before arrival.

These arrangements, together with the profile of passengers from countries without major health issues and the medical resources available onboard ships, mean that cruises previously presented an extremely low health risk.

And like border authorities, cruise lines have had a limited understanding of coronavirus until very recently.

While all this activity is happening behind the scenes, Australia has also been streamlining the immigration process for travellers. The SmartGates, for instance, whisk more than 27.5 million air travellers through immigration in a matter of seconds annually.

All of this means a better passenger experience and use of taxpayer resources. But COVID-19 has challenged the systems we have in place and shown there’s still a need to be able to adapt quickly and reimpose physical barriers and other controls when necessary.

What lessons can ABF learn?

After the mistakes and creative responses of recent days, the ABF and its parent organisation, Home Affairs, should now be poring over these lessons and others to see how they can improve their operations.

In the case of the Ruby Princess, federal and state authorities identified the problem and adapted quickly, as seen by the revised arrangements for the reception of cruise ships in Western Australia. Border and health authorities are now working together to ensure stringent health checks for passengers and crew.

And state health officials and the ABF have worked out new arrangements for air arrivals, including an order that nurses and biosecurity staff give temperature checks for all incoming passengers and enforcing a 14-day quarantine in hotels.

The roles of varying agencies is also becoming clearer. In NSW, the state police have taken control of the quarantining of returning overseas passengers. Managing social distancing and imposing other physical measures in the terminals, meanwhile, should now be an integral part of ongoing training of border officials and airport staff.

Another key lesson: there is now a special place in the risk matrix for health issues like coronavirus that may be rare in frequency, but have extremely damaging consequences. From now on, health checks and mandatory quarantines should be put in place much more quickly.

Read more: Yes, Peter Dutton has a lot of power, but a strong Home Affairs is actually a good thing for Australia

These are practical matters that agencies can learn from and adjust as required. But perhaps the greater challenge is one that’s less obvious.

A modern border management system relies significantly on the international system of rules, regulations and data sharing. In a world of increasing competition between the major powers and the rise of misinformation, it is more difficult to vet the quality of information being shared and rely on international partners to collaborate.

COVID-19 has presented a strategic shock to Australia’s border operations. The good news is we are now seeing better collaboration and extraordinary adaptation among the agencies in charge of border security. A willingness to engage, cooperate and learn quickly from mistakes is what is needed right now – and to be sure we are ready for the next challenge.

– ref. Coronavirus has seriously tested our border security. Have we learned from our mistakes? – https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-has-seriously-tested-our-border-security-have-we-learned-from-our-mistakes-134794

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emily Brayshaw, Lecturer, Fashion and Design History, Theory, and Thinking, University of Technology Sydney

Once again, global crafting communities are stepping up to help in a crisis, sewing face masks desperately needed in American hospitals to help stop the spread of COVID-19.

People are also increasingly sporting homemade masks to try to stay safe.

But while they might look cute, homemade masks are a sign of both positive social changes and serious social failings.

As America’s Center for Disease Control states: homemade masks are a last resort.

Medical masks in modern times

Surgical masks were first used in France in 1897, but it wasn’t until the great Manchurian plague epidemic in China in 1910 that medical staff and patients started to wear personal protection equipment (PPE) to try to halt the spread of disease.

During the 1919 Spanish Flu outbreak masks became mandatory for Australian medical professionals. Other workers, including gravediggers, also started wearing masks and soon they became a fashion statement.

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

Deadly virus outbreaks in the last 20 years, including SARS in 2003, Swine Flu in 2009 and Ebola in 2014 have meant images of the general public wearing medical and homemade PPE to combat the spread of deadly viruses are now commonplace.

A global PPE shortage

Medical dramas like Grey’s Anatomy have donated PPE from their costume departments to hospitals. Hollywood’s Costume Designers Guild and the Bavarian State Opera’s costumiers are sewing masks.

Prominent US fashion labels owned by Christian Siriano and Dov Charney are starting to manufacture PPE. French luxury group Kering will provide 3 million surgical masks to France. Gucci will make 1.1 million masks for Italy.

Sewing masks is an activity that can assist people self-isolating at home feel like they are helping to fight COVID-19. Crafting communities like Sew the Curve Flat have formed to meet the challenge.

Masks must be made to strict standards and patterns. These are widely disseminated, but craft groups are still flooded with suggestions from well-meaning people who want to make perceived “improvements” to designs.

Even small changes to mask design can render it useless.

Do they work?

There is conflicting research into the efficacy of homemade masks. Studies into H1N1 viruses show common fabrics may provide only marginal protection against virus-containing particles in exhaled breath. But the general consensus among medical staff is homemade masks are better than nothing when treating patients.

It is imperative crafters follow specifications. The best homemade masks are made from fabric with a tight weave, and have a moisture impermeable layer and/or a pocket for a replaceable HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air) filter. A bandanna around your face won’t do the job.

Wearing face masks is not recommended for the general public and can be dangerous because people overestimate the level of protection offered and neglect social distancing rules and thorough hand washing.

Wearing a mask is generally only useful if you are already sick by slowing the spread of germs.

But if you choose to wear a mask, microbiologist Anna Davies from the University of Cambridge says it must be well-fitting over your mouth and nose. You can’t touch a mask while you’re wearing it, or pull it under your chin for a break. It must be changed as soon as it’s wet and disposed of or placed in the washing machine carefully. You must wash your hands thoroughly before and after handling it.

If you fail to follow these precautions you could get coronavirus from handling a dirty mask.

Where to from here?

Australia is addressing PPE shortages and the Australian army is helping to run three shifts around the clock to increase production at the Med-Con factory near Shepparton.

Melbourne’s The Social Studio has moved its production away from contemporary fashion to making scrubs at cost price for Australian health care workers.

Even so, many hospitals are struggling with limited resources and fear further PPE shortages.

For the general public, the power of wearing homemade masks lies not in their efficacy, but in their signalling of a collective action taken towards safety and protection in in uncertain times.

Read more: Coronavirus: how worried should I be about the shortage of face masks? Or can I just use a scarf?

But seeing desperate hospital staff wearing homemade masks that afford little protection is also a powerful symbol of the need to transform our societies to become more fair and equitable.

As long as hospitals face PPE shortages, the work of crafters will be crucial in combating COVID-19. It is vital that we leave these essential stocks of PPE for medical and auxiliary staff.

For most of us, the best thing to do stop the spread – and protect ourselves – is thorough hand washing and social distancing.

– ref. Do homemade masks work? Sometimes. But leave the design to the experts – https://theconversation.com/do-homemade-masks-work-sometimes-but-leave-the-design-to-the-experts-134409

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

In 1997, a bestselling book by Jared Diamond purported to explain how the West “won” world dominance based on the good luck of geography, and because western countries were the first to industrialise.

Fast forward to 2020, and to COVID-19. Geography still matters, but the West is no longer “winning”.

Despite initial mistakes, it seems China has been successful at containing the virus, and other countries such as South Korea and Singapore have, so far, been able to dramatically slow the rate of infection.

Western countries were slow to respond and are paying a very high price. As of March 30, Italy had 98,000 confirmed cases and 10,800 COVID-19 deaths.

Read more: We’re running out of time to use Endgame C to drive coronavirus infections down to zero

While cross-country comparisons on confirmed cases are problematic because of large differences in testing, the United States currently has more than 137,000 confirmed cases – the highest in the world, more than in China.

This number will get much larger very quickly if cases continue to double every few days.

The number of Americans who will die will soon be in the thousands, and possibly tens of thousands, if the US does not do much more at a national level to ensure physical distancing.

If the current growth rate continues, parts of its health system, especially intensive care units, will be overwhelmed.

Exponential growth

Currently, the rate of infection – without sufficient measures – tracks very closely exponential growth.

This allows us to accurately predict, with a basic disease spread model, the minimum, maximum, and most likely number of confirmed cases, at least for the next week or so (although it should be noted that an increased rate of testing will increase this number).

The data tells us that for countries in the earlier phase of the pandemic such as Australia the number of confirmed cases doubles every few days.

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

In Australia it began by doubling roughly every four days, and is now doubling every seven days. (The number undoubtedly underestimates the rate of infection.)

Australia had about 2,000 confirmed cases on 24 March. Given rates of infection and changes in growth, our forecasts of infections made on March 27 for Sunday March 29 ranged from 3,950 to 4,460.

Robust short-term predictions

The actual reported number on Sunday March 29 was 3,984, near the low end of that range.

Our forecast for 6pm on Wednesday April 1 now ranges from 5,080 to 5,970 cases, with 5,220 most likely.

For Thursday April 2 the range is 5,510 to 6,835, with 5,715 most likely.

Until physical distancing has had an effect, exponential growth is as good as certain. This will make our forecasts robust.

The current measures might already be cutting infection growth rates, but it is too early to tell. Even stricter measures will be needed to cut the number infected.

With sufficient physical distancing, Australia could end up with an infection rate as low as 1%. By comparison, if it fails to control the infection by not implementing sufficient physical distancing, it could end up with a much worse rate of 20%.

The payoff from going hard and going early

What is the difference in the number of deaths between an infection rate of 1% versus 20%?

Overseas death rates suggest Australia could face an additional 48,000 premature deaths without distancing. This is equivalent to about 30% of annual deaths in Australia.

Although recent evidence suggests young people might be more vulnerable than previously thought, those premature deaths would be clustered in the old and those with other illnesses, and those also in remote Indigenous communities, should the virus get there.

Read more: New OECD estimates suggest a 22% hit to Australia’s economy

Economists use the value of an economic life for cost-benefit analysis of public projects. It is a measure of society’s willingness to pay to reduce the risk of an additional death.

Using the New South Wales Treasury’s value of a statistical life of $4.2 million, the economic loss of 48,000 premature deaths amounts to some $200 billion, or about 10% of Australia’s annual economic output.

This means it makes sense to act early and hard before the infection rate gets too high, cutting it as quickly as possible. The Spanish Influenza pandemic suggests aggressive physical distancing works.

The question Australians should ask of their leaders is this: is strict physical distancing a cost worth paying?

Costs and benefits from distancing

The main economic benefit from insufficient physical distancing would be that, at least initially, more Australians would stay employed, there would be more economic activity, more taxes would be paid, and government would need to spend less.

But not imposing a lockdown or equivalent measures would come at the cost of a higher infection rate, which would also mean more non-pandemic patients might die because of insufficient beds or medical equipment or staff to look after them.

A higher infection rate would also increase the death rate of pandemic patients as there would be fewer ventilators available to treat each one.

Read more: Why defeating coronavirus in one country isn’t enough – there needs to be a coordinated global strategy

And the economy would suffer even without sufficient physical distancing, although the worst would be delayed. Many people would still get sick and be unable to work until they were recovered.

A much higher infection rate would also isolate Australia from the rest of the world. Why would any country want Australians to visit if it had high rates of infection, and why would anyone from another country want to visit Australia?

The wage subsidy provides a way out

A high enough wage subsidy for all workers (including part-timers and casuals) who cannot work because of control measures, coupled with the already announced additional $550 a fortnight COVID-19 supplement to the Jobseeker Payment, could provide most Australians with enough income to survive and pay the bills during a lockdown.

Such an approach combines “sharing the burden” with “flattening the curve”, a two-fold economic and public health approach that would save lives while minimising economic disruption, especially for younger and casual workers who are the most disadvantaged by severe physical distancing.

It’s the smartest and safest strategy, and Australia appears to be adopting it.

Our model for the spread of the infection is an adapted [SEIR-M] model. It is still under development and needs further validation and also peer-review.

For now, we assume a homogeneously mixed population. We are also working on a spatially explicit model to account for more complex population contact.

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

Our current results are roughly in line with changes in basic growth rates and their projections by state.

We will continue to provide forward projections that can then be compared with actual numbers.

All data is sourced from state and commonwealth websites.

A valuable discussion of this and more complicated infectious disease models is found on the University of Melbourne Pursuit website.

This piece is co-published with Policy Forum at the ANU Crawford School of Public Policy.

– ref. Modelling suggests going early and going hard will save lives and help the economy – https://theconversation.com/modelling-suggests-going-early-and-going-hard-will-save-lives-and-help-the-economy-135025

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Misha Ketchell, Editor & Executive Director, The Conversation

You might have seen recent media reports in various outlets of a paper, commissioned by the federal government, reporting the coronavirus advice of a group of experts from Group Of Eight universities.

Dated March 22, the letter said “we support the stronger decisions being now taken by government and what we term as the ‘go now, go hard and go smart’ strategy.”

As demand grows for greater transparency around the advice informing government measures aimed at fighting the coronavirus spread, The Conversation is publishing the letter in full below.

The four key recommendations in the paper are that:

1. Australia without delay implements national stronger social distancing measures, more extensive banning of mass gatherings, school closure or class dismissal.
2. Australia urgently seeks mechanisms to enable a much-enhanced and coordinated regime of COVID-19 testing without delay. This should include community testing to estimate the rates of disease in the population – and this should guide further decision making.
3. Strengthen the messaging around the importance of people complying with all of the requirements of isolation or quarantine and having increased compliance monitoring and support to allow them to do so (estimated that around 20-30% will not comply).
4. Social distancing, especially when introduced vigorously across so many areas of life, will have significant costs for individuals and groups in society. These consequences will impact unequally. Governments should plan for this and ensure flexible and supportive policy responses for all who may be disadvantaged.

Some of these recommendations informed stronger measures enacted last week. However, schools in some states remain open but parents are being urged to keep children home where possible.

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

– ref. ‘Go now, go hard and go smart’: the strategy Group of Eight universities experts urged the government to take – https://theconversation.com/go-now-go-hard-and-go-smart-the-strategy-group-of-eight-universities-experts-urged-the-government-to-take-135031

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Albert Van Dijk, Professor, Water and Landscape Dynamics, Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University

2019 was the year Australians confronted the fact that a healthy environment is more than just a pretty waterfall in a national park; a nice extra we can do without. We do not survive without air to breathe, water to drink, soil to grow food and weather we can cope with.

Every year, we collate a vast number of measurements on the state of our environment: weather, oceans, fire, water, soils, vegetation, population pressure, and biodiversity. The data is collected in many different ways: by satellites, field stations, surveys and so on.

We process this data into several indicators of environmental health at both national and regional levels.

The report for 2019, released today, makes for grim reading. It reveals the worst environmental conditions in many decades, perhaps centuries, and confirms the devastating damage global warming and mismanagement are wreaking on our natural resources.

Immediate action is needed to put Australia’s environment on a course to recovery.

Environment scores in the red

From the long list of environmental indicators we report on, we use seven to calculate an Environmental Condition Score (ECS) for each region, as well as nationally.

These seven indicators – high temperatures, river flows, wetlands, soil health, vegetation condition, growth conditions and tree cover – are chosen because they allow a comparison against previous years. In Australia’s dry environment, they tend to move up and down together, which gives the score more robustness. See the interactive graphic below to find the score for your region.

Nationally, Australia’s environmental condition score fell by 2.3 points in 2019, to a very low 0.8 out of ten. This is the lowest score since at least 2000 – the start of the period for which we have detailed data.

Condition scores declined in every state and territory. The worst conditions were seen in the Northern Territory (0.2 points), New South Wales (0.3 points) and Western Australia (0.4 points), with the latter also recording the greatest decline from the previous year (-5.7 points).

What is most striking is that almost the entire nation suffered terrible environmental conditions in 2019. In each case, the changes can be traced back to dry, hot conditions. Only parts of Queensland escaped the drought.

Comparing local government areas, the worst conditions occurred in Armidale and Gwydir in northern NSW. In contrast, Winton and Townsville in Queensland escaped the overall poor conditions, thanks to the beneficial impact of high rainfall early in the year – although those same events also caused floods killing around 600,000 livestock.

Extreme drought and extreme heat

So what exactly happened in Australia in 2019 to cause such widespread environmental damage? There were several causes.

Across most of Australia, the environment was already reeling from poor conditions in 2018. Also, cool temperatures in the Indian Ocean delayed the onset of the monsoon in northern Australia and reduced the flow of moisture to the rest of the continent, creating hot and dry conditions. Average rainfall was a mere 229 mm across the continent, the lowest in more than 119 years and probably longer than that.

The heat was also extraordinary. The average number of days above 35°C across the country was 36% more than the average for the 19 years prior.

In eastern Australia, arid and hot conditions pushed farmers and ecosystems deeper into drought. In many regions, dryness and declining protection from wind erosion created the worst soil conditions in at least 20 years. Consequences included several dust storms and widespread dieback of forests, especially in NSW.

The severe drought also affected inland water systems, especially the Darling River and its tributaries. Town water supply reservoirs ran out of water, the rivers stopped flowing, and the heat turned the remaining pools into death traps for fish.

Other rivers in northwest Australia, southeast Queensland and northeast NSW also saw their worst flows in 20 years.

Unprecedented fires

Of course, 2019 will be remembered as the year of unprecedented bushfires. Nationally, the total area burnt was not unusual, not even when the fires of early 2020 are included. But this is only because fire activity was much below average in northern Australia, where ongoing dry conditions left little vegetation to burn.

The extent of forest fires last year was unprecedented, however. As predicted well in advance, the tinder-dry forests in eastern Australia provided the fuel for a dramatic fire season that started in September. Between then and the first month of 2020, vast areas of forest in New South Wales, eastern Victoria, Kangaroo Island and the Australian Capital Territory went up in flames.

The fires destroyed more than 3,000 homes and directly killed 33 people. Indirectly, the most hazardous air quality in living memory created major but poorly known health impacts. The fires also damaged the reliability of drinking water supplies.

Read more: Yes, the Australian bush is recovering from bushfires – but it may never be the same

The ecological damage was also profound. Fires raged through ecosystems poorly adapted to fire, from rainforests in tropical Queensland to alpine vegetation in Tasmania and the Snowy Mountains of NSW. It remains to be seen whether they can recover. Across NSW, 35% of rainforests were turned to cinders.

About 191 species of animals and plants saw more than one-third of their living area burnt, among them 52 species that were already threatened. Thankfully, the last remaining stands of the prehistoric Wollemi pine and the rare Nightcap Oak were saved.

Even before the fires, 40 plant and animal species were added to the threatened list in 2019, bringing the total to 1890. Following the fires, more species are likely to be added in 2020.

We’re not doomed yet

Last year was neither an outlier nor the “new normal” – it will get worse.

Greenhouse gas concentrations continued to increase rapidly in 2019, causing the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans to soar. Australia’s population also continued to grow quickly and with it, greenhouse gases emissions and other pollution, and our demand for land to build, mine and farm on.

Whether we want to hear it or not, last year represented another step towards an ever-more dismal future, unless we take serious action.

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

The current coronavirus pandemic shows that as individuals, and collectively, we can take dramatic action once we acknowledge the urgency of a threat. By comparison, addressing environmental decline will cost less, whereas the long-term costs of not acting will be far greater.

There is much we can do. In the short term, we can help our natural ecosystems recover from the drought and fires. Government agencies and land owners can cull and manage invasive species in fire-affected areas – from weeds, to foxes, cats and feral horses – and stop damaging logging in fire-affected areas.

Individuals can do their bit. We can donate money or time to organisations committed to helping ecosystems recover. Record what you see on bushwalks to help environmental managers monitor and assist ecological recovery.

But the damage of climate change is not limited to natural environments. We must get serious about curbing greenhouse emissions. Humanity has the tools, technology and ingenuity to do it and Australia, one of the countries worst affected by climate change, should lead the world.

Beyond that, individuals can also make a contribution: recycle and reuse rather than buy new, choose low-emission and renewable energy technology and reduce waste – it can save money even now. Let governments and politicians hear your voice. Try to convince friends and family that things need to change.

In the long term, we must find a more balanced relationship with the natural world, understanding that our own survival will depend on it.

The full report and webinar are available here.

Read more: Lots of people want to help nature after the bushfires – we must seize the moment

– ref. A major scorecard gives the health of Australia’s environment less than 1 out of 10 – https://theconversation.com/a-major-scorecard-gives-the-health-of-australias-environment-less-than-1-out-of-10-133444

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yale Z Wong, Research Associate, Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney

ZMinimising health risks has rightly been the focus of discussion during the coronavirus outbreak. This includes efforts to protect both frontline public transport employees and the travelling public. But we should also be concerned about the strategic, financial consequences for transport operators and their workforces.

We have already seen the struggles of the aviation industry. The COVID-19 pandemic also has major financial implications for the public transport sector. While it has been declared an essential service, fears about coronavirus, widespread work-from-home directives, cancellations of major events and potential city-wide lockdowns will result in massive drops in patronage.

Railways are a high fixed-cost industry (like airlines) and are particularly vulnerable to demand volatility.

Read more: To limit coronavirus risks on public transport, here’s what we can learn from efforts overseas

The Chinese experience has been that people preferred to use private cars and services like taxis and ride hailing rather than public transport. In New York, we have seen a surge in cycling as people seek to avoid the subway crowds.

What are the impacts on revenue?

Developments like these appear inevitable. However, the loss of revenue for transport operators depends very much on the design and specifications of their contracts with government.

Most urban public transport systems in Australia are “gross cost” regimes. This means operators are paid on a per kilometre basis regardless of the number of passengers carried. These operators are much less susceptible to changes in demand.

Transport operators who work off “net cost” contracts – meaning they keep their fare revenue – are facing huge financial pressures. This in turn has implications for the cash flows of their suppliers, including vehicle manufacturers and consultancies.

Hong Kong rail operator MTR (which has businesses in Melbourne and Sydney), already battling almost a year of protests, has been forced into significant service reductions. In Japan, some Shinkansen services are being suspended as patronage plummets. Many Asian operators have diversified revenue streams from property developments, but large falls in patronage also affect the ability to collect rents (such as from retail).

We are also seeing US transit agencies calling for emergency funding as demand drops. Major service cuts are on the horizon – suggestions include running a weekend schedule on weekdays. This is likely to reduce patronage further as the service becomes less useful for the travelling public.

Read more: Who’s most affected on public transport in the time of coronavirus?

Any service reduction has major ramifications for public transport workforces. Permanent staff may have their work hours reduced, while casual staff will struggle to get rostered. This will add to the psychological impacts on staff.

The global collapse in oil prices is another factor as the lower cost of fuel makes driving more attractive.

Beyond government-contracted public transport there are many intercity coach operators and small-to-medium-sized charter operators (many family-owned). These operators serve the school, tourist, airport, hotel and special-needs markets. They are all private commercial operators.

Many charter operators have already seen a massive reduction in bookings due to the summer bushfires and travel bans. The loss of international tourism and cancellation of school excursions and extracurricular activities will bring even greater pain to charter operators and their workforces. Chinese tours have been a large part of the charter market.

On the other side of the ledger are increased costs arising from enhanced cleaning efforts and changes in operational practices to reduce the risks of COVID-19 infection for as long as the crisis lasts.

Read more: Scott Morrison has said we’ll face at least 6 months of disruption. Where does that number come from?

A major issue in these circumstances is how to provide incentives for transport operators to go above and beyond what is required as part of their usual remit. Do operators merely “comply” with their contract specifications, or do they see an opportunity to extract value from proactively deploying, for instance, an enhanced disinfection regime? Should the contracted operator bear the extra costs, or should government share these costs?

Reshaping the industry

COVID-19 brings enormous unknowns for the public transport sector. Cost and revenue pressures may lead to transport operators fighting for survival. The result could be market consolidation and less competition in the industry.

In the longer term, how can future contract design for both transport services and transport assets ensure resilience to “black swan” events and encourage a proactive, rather than reactive, response? Too often, a myopic focus on cost reduction has governed these discussions.

Finally, is there a way to protect commercial operators from huge swings in demand?

The coronavirus pandemic demands an urgent operational response by our public transport systems. But it should also encourage a strategic rethinking of our institutional structures and how public services are procured. Let us create an opportunity for longer-term reform out of the crisis.

– ref. For public transport to keep running, operators must find ways to outlast coronavirus – https://theconversation.com/for-public-transport-to-keep-running-operators-must-find-ways-to-outlast-coronavirus-134224

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tyler Riordan, PhD Candidate, The University of Queensland

Along with home delivery of groceries, pharmaceuticals and alcohol, demand for food delivery is booming.

Services such as Uber Eats and Deliveroo have become essential to cafes and restaurants that can now only sell takeaway food.

It is good news for the likes of Uber, whose stock price has risen since it announced a ten-fold increase in the number of restaurants signing themselves up to Uber Eats.

But it’s a situation that has provoked serious questions. Not only about whether delivery services are safe, but whether it’s ethical to use them.

Digital platforms like Uber Eats and Menulog are not, after all, ideal employers. In fact, they don’t regard themselves as employers at all, merely facilitators of work by “independent contractors”.

Food delivery drivers and riders often work for less than the minimum wage, and have no employee rights such as sick leave.

Now we are collectively relying on them to provide an essential service during social distancing, we need to ask what, as a society, we owe these workers in return.

Vulnerable to exploitation

We’re interested in how this economic crisis affects food delivery drivers and riders due to our research into the experience of migrant gig workers.

Our research has found migrants are already “socially distanced”, without deep networks of family or friends. They are vulnerable to exploitation and discrimination.

Most food delivery work is done by migrants, through third-party digital platforms like Uber Eats and Menulog. The platforms treat drivers and riders as independent contractors, not employees with the protections and rights of employees.

Read more: Redefining workers in the platform economy: lessons from the Foodora bunfight

A 2019 survey commissioned by the Victorian government suggested about 7% of the workforce used digital platforms to get gig work, the most common being Airtasker (35%), Uber (23%), Freelancer (12%), Uber Eats (11%) and Deliveroo (8%).

Previous research suggests many choose gig work simply because it is better than other forms of low-paid work.

Now food delivery workers face pressure from those displaced from such jobs in hospitality or retail. Complicating the situation is the lack of clarity about whether those on temporary work visas are eligible for income support announced for other workers.

Platforms don’t owe gig workers a minimum wage so can sign up as many “independent contractors” as they like. This improves the service for customers, and increases profit for the platform, but means individual deliverers make less money.

Increased health risks

Many delivery services are implementing contactless delivery procedures. But the lack of defined employer responsibility in the platform economy means patchy attention to the extra physical and mental health risks gig workers now face.

Unions and others have urged delivery platforms to provide protective equipment such as gloves, face masks and sanitisers. Responses from platforms have been limited.

This was Uber Eats’ response on March 17, by its regional general manager for the Asia Pacific, Jodie Auster:

Our plan to address challenges born by COVID-19 includes making A$5 million in funding available for independent restaurants across Australia and New Zealand. The multi-million dollar fund will allow restaurants to deploy promotions to attract customers and will help restaurants time promotions to suit their individual business needs.

What Auster didn’t mention was a plan to issue safety gear, though she did note the company had started a campaign “reminding Uber Eats users that they can request deliveries be left on their doorsteps”.

Not surprisingly, delivery workers are scared they will catch the coronavirus.

Uber says it will financially assist drivers and riders “diagnosed with COVID-19 or placed in quarantine by a public health authority” for a period of up to 14 days.

But what if a worker with viral symptoms wants to self-isolate as a precaution? There’s no sick leave or workers compensation, and they risk “deactivation” if work isn’t accepted.

Read more: Workers’ compensation doesn’t cover gig workers – here’s a way to protect them

Legal protection

Social distancing measures mean the delivery economy and the health of the general population are now intimately linked.

To secure and safeguard this now essential service, it is time the law ensured gig workers have the same legal rights and protections as other employees.

Read more: How to stop workers being exploited in the gig economy

We need the delivery drivers coming to our doors to be healthy. That health depends on their safety as well as economic and social inclusion.

– ref. Delivery workers are now essential. They deserve the rights of other employees – https://theconversation.com/delivery-workers-are-now-essential-they-deserve-the-rights-of-other-employees-134406