Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexey D Muraviev, Associate Professor of National Security and Strategic Studies, Curtin University

Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s declaration of “war” against the COVID-19 pandemic requires a mobilisation of all available resources to the front-lines of the response – and this includes a bigger role for our armed forces.

So far, the most visible force on our streets has been the police. In NSW, the police are now patrolling supermarkets to enforce civilised behaviour and order among panic buyers. A special police task force has also been set up in Victoria to enforce social distancing practices in public places.

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

The military can also be a highly valuable asset in a national emergency, yet governments usually only deploy armed forces when a situation turns critical, such as this summer’s bushfires.

We have clearly reached such a critical point in the coronavirus crisis. Desperate times call for a more coordinated and strategic response and much greater involvement of the Australian Defence Force.

Responding to unconventional threats

Modern military power is designed to respond to a comprehensive suite of conventional, asymmetric or unconventional threats. The latter includes chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons, often referred to as CBRN.

Defence has a limited, but well-equipped, capability to respond to CBRN threats. The ADF has a specialised counter-CBRN unit, the Special Operations Engineer Regiment (SOER), which has been trained to respond to biological and bacteriological threats and operate in contaminated environments.

Read more: ‘Cyber revolution’ in Australian Defence Force demands rethink of staff, training and policy

The Defence Science and Technology (DST) Group conducts specialised research and development to prevent and defend against CBRN attacks, including disease modelling.

In simple terms, the ADF can offer specialist epidemiological detection and decontamination capabilities. This includes the type of heavy equipment (such as CBRN-proof armoured personnel carriers) and protective gear that could be useful if the pandemic worsens.

This is in addition to a wide range of other functions the ADF can offer, from trained medics to transport logistics to policing functions.

The diggers move in

The ADF has been involved in the nation’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak from the early stages. For instance, the military offered its ground defence facilities, RAAF Base Learmonth and RAAF Base Darwin, to assist with the transfer of Australian nationals to quarantine stations on Christmas Island and Howard Springs.

But it wasn’t until the country moved into lock-down mode that it was asked to contribute much more.

Just this week, ADF personnel have been deployed in contact tracing teams to help NSW health officials track down those who came in contact with passengers on the virus-stricken Ruby Princess cruise ship.

ADF staff are also contributing clinical and epidemiological support to the Department of Health, while engineering maintenance specialists have been called in to assist the Victoria-based Med-Con medical supplier with the production of protective masks, sanitisers and other medical items.

Yet, this is likely to be just the beginning. For example, CBRN specialists could be providing much-needed training to police and other emergency services on how to operate in contaminated environments.

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

More defence medical staff, including mobile hospital units, decontamination equipment and emergency stocks of supplies, should be on standby to be deployed on short notice to worst-affected areas.

The military can also start assisting in ground logistical operations (for example, setting up quarantine areas and exclusion zones) and targeted emergency airlift (dispatching emergency medical teams to remote areas).

And if police resources become overstretched, military personnel could enforce quarantine orders or area shut-downs, though deploying soldiers on the streets may only be used as a last resort by the government.

If the government declares an even higher state of emergency, the military could also be called on to secure key elements of physical infrastructure (power stations, fuel depots, airports and sea ports, state borders and others), and protect key elements of supply chains.

What foreign militaries are doing

This is the strategy being embraced around the world as the pandemic worsens, with militaries being deployed in increasingly diverse tasks.

In the US, the military and National Guard are now undertaking a range of duties, such as

• assisting civil authorities with enforcing quarantine orders by opening up defence facilities and providing mobile and floating hospitals to treat the infected

• airlifting specialists, equipment and supplies to areas most in need and offering on-site logistical support and delivery of key items (food, medical supplies)

• assisting in COVID-19 testing of civilians and research for a vaccine.

In the UK, up to 20,000 active defence personnel and reservists are in a higher state of readiness to respond to the pandemic, part of Operation Broadshare.

In Germany, about 3,000 military doctors and thousands of military reservists are also on standby, while France has mobilised 100,000 police officers and military personnel to enforce the country’s lock-down orders. A military field hospital also just opened this week in France to take the pressure off intensive care units.

In northern Italy, the military has been enforcing city lockdowns, in addition to transporting bodies of victims to places of cremation.

With limited resources on hand, Australia may even be in need of foreign military medical assistance if the pandemic worsens here, notably from the US. Australia received such assistance during the bushfire crisis, and Italy is currently getting similar aid from Russia.

Protecting the defenders

Of course, even as the Australian military is prepared to counter the pandemic, it’s not immune to the threat.

This week, the ADF announced it is relocating non-essential personnel out of Iraq and Afghanistan out of concern the virus could spread there.

There have also been 11 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the Department of Defence inside Australia.

For a small standing force like the ADF, a pandemic is as much of a challenge as for the rest of the nation. But given the military’s resilience to stressful environments, a bigger role for our soldiers may be what we need right now.

– ref. In the war against coronavirus, we need the military to play a much bigger role – https://theconversation.com/in-the-war-against-coronavirus-we-need-the-military-to-play-a-much-bigger-role-134149

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Langley, Senior Research Fellow, Griffith University

With constraints on our movements and general way of life becoming more and more restricted, we are feeling a loss of control not experienced since the second world war.

In being confined to our homes, we are missing our normal social support from friends and family, and our freedom to control our day-to-day lives.

But making music provides a means to regain control.

People in Spain have been filmed acting out with music, creating duos across apartment buildings.

The citizens of Wuhan chanting “Keep it up, Wuhan!” and singing patriotic songs from their windows encouraged themselves and their neighbours in their efforts to save their city.

In Italy, citizens have been playing instruments and singing from their balconies during their lockdown.

Parodies on YouTube are both lifting community spirits and reminding people to look after each other – not just themselves.

For some, this behaviour might have begun with trying to break the tedium of staying confined at home. But others clearly wished to support their community in one of the only ways they had left available to them: by making music.

Why do we sing during times of crisis?

Music creates a sense of belonging and participation.

It is an antidote to the growing sense of alienation and isolation in society in general – even more so now we are being asked to actively practise social distancing and isolation.

Social distancing and geographical isolation do not have to result in social isolation. In the face of uncertainty and panic, music is a social balm for soothing anxiety, enhancing community connections and acting in defiance of a threat to community spirit.

We have seen this before. People sang as flames tore through the roof of the historic Notre Dame Cathedral last April: hymns in the streets when Parisians could do nothing else to save the beloved icon.

This spontaneous reaction seemed to reflect the need of Parisians to reassure each other that, even though the cathedral was being destroyed before their eyes, their community would continue.

The music also seemed to be offered to the cathedral itself – reassurance that she was being supported by her community in her time of need.

During the coronavirus crisis, community support has evolved from a series of spontaneous musical flash mobs to connect with each other to coordinated displays of appreciation – including clapping, shouting and singing – to acknowledge the health workers on the front lines.

Much like singing, this external expression of gratitude is helping people to cope in times of crisis: providing personal and social development, mental health and well-being benefits, and community strength and harmony.

Music in human evolution

We don’t know exactly when we started to make music.

Finding the first evidence for singing – likely our first foray into music – is impossible, though instruments dating back some 40,000 years have been found in Europe. These bone flutes would not be the first instruments to be created, however, as they already show signs of complex design and most musical tools, such as skin drums, couldn’t survive the many thousands of years to discovery by an archaeologist.

Today, music is the most consumed form of culture. People listen to music to regulate their mood, to achieve self-awareness, and as an expression of personal and collective identity and social relatedness.

The ability of music to increase social cohesion and direct human attention was probably a key reason for its development throughout human behavioural evolution, allowing early humans to convey emotions and intentions effectively. This communication could prove decisive in times of stress, and ultimately mean the difference between life and death.

Now, we are seeing this age-old human adaptation once again being mobilised in response to the COVID-19 pandemic to keep communities pulling together.

Music has not yet lost its importance for humanity.

– ref. Singing away the coronavius blues: making music in a time of crisis reminds us we belong – https://theconversation.com/singing-away-the-coronavius-blues-making-music-in-a-time-of-crisis-reminds-us-we-belong-133790

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pauline Taylor-Guy, Professor, Australian Council for Educational Research

Most Australian universities are moving courses online to prevent the potential spread of COVID-19. This includes lectures and tutorials, which will likely be delivered via the university learning management systems such as Moodle or Blackboard.

Some students believe universities are waiting until the census date (the date students can withdraw from the course without incurring a fee) before the transition, so they are locked into an inferior online experience while paying money for what they believe is a superior mode of teaching.

When done right, online learning can actually be as effective as face-to-face education. But Australian universities haven’t upskilled their staff to deliver this kind of quality online education.

If Australian universities don’t provide intensive upskilling to lecturers to deliver online classes and support effectively, they might see many students disengaging and dropping out early.

Why online learning can fail

Australian universities introduced online degrees more than a decade ago. The hope was, and still is, that online learning would provide access for students who have historically been prevented from completing a higher education because they were unable to attend university in person.

These include students from low socio-economic backgrounds, students with a disability, and regional and remote students.

Completion rates for students studying fully online in many countries are considerably lower than for those studying face-to-face. In Australia, dropout is at least 20% higher for online students compared with on-campus students and degree completions are 2.5 times lower.

Those most likely to drop out are the very groups access to online learning was meant to reach.

A national 2017 study investigated these dropout rates. It found many academic and professional staff at Australian universities perceived online delivery as less important or lower priority than face to face.

The same report also identified a lack of skill and experience among many academic staff when it came to online course design and online teaching which, in turn, impacted negatively on student learning and engagement.

A 2016 study showed a lot of online learning in Australian universities consisted of lecturers simply uploading materials they used in their face-to-face courses to online learning platforms.

Many university teachers have had no experience themselves of online learning and have not been upskilled in online course design and pedagogy.

Read more: Australian unis may need to cut staff and research if government extends coronavirus travel ban

Where online students are out of sight and out of mind and lecturers do not have the skills to teach in an online environment it’s the perfect storm for disengagement and dropout.

When online learning is done right

Learning management systems such as Moodle are designed to support online learning. These systems effectively organise learning resources, including multimedia resources, that students can easily access.

Students can engage in collaborative activities with their peers and lecturers, through tools such as discussion boards and wikis (a website or database developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing any user to add and edit content).

An analysis of studies conducted between 1995 and 2004 compared achievement for students who had completed online and face-to-face tertiary education courses. It found the results were largely similar.

Read more: The coronavirus outbreak is the biggest crisis ever to hit international education

Students who completed online courses learnt as much as those in face-to-face instruction, achieved as well and were equally satisfied with their overall experience. The key word here is completion. There are higher dropout rates and lower completions across the higher education sector internationally for students who study online.

When online learning is well-designed, conducted in a learning management system and is in the hands of skilled teachers, it offers a comparable learning experience to face-to-face.

What many uni courses may look like online

In the current scenario, a lecturer may deliver the same lecture or tutorial via video that they would deliver face to face. They may use online discussion boards or chat rooms to try and replicate small group work in tutorials.

Students may work through course materials on their own and have little connection with each other or their lecturer beyond the real-time video or chat interactions. They may not get the opportunity for the kinds of peer-to-peer and student-lecturer interaction that support engagement and learning.

Research shows these sorts of practices – which can be more accurately described as “remote learning” rather than “online learning” – promote student disengagement and dropout.

So, what can lecturers do to improve learning?

In the immediate future, university staff moving to online teaching can use some of the following tips to help students stay satisfied and engaged.

1. Communicate with students as much as possible

• get to know your students in the online environment. Ask them to introduce themselves by completing an “about you” page

• students are likely to have many questions. One way to manage this is to set up a Frequently Asked Questions discussion board and ask students to post their question on it. In that way, all students can see the response

• set up a weekly 30 minute live, but also recorded, Q & A session. Students can send in questions for you to respond to or ask you live. This way, students will see you “in person”.

2. Make sure students know where to get support

• make clear to students where they can access support for the different areas that impact them, such as academic advice and finance. You will need to work closely with student support services to do this

• set up a student support services discussion board in your subject, which student support officers could manage.

3. Help build your students’ technology skills

• help students who aren’t so sure about the online platform to learn the technological skills they need. It’s not just you who needs upskilling.

• you can ask your student group to self-nominate as online mentors if they have good online skills. It’s a great way to build connections.

1. Get across the resources

• your students will need to collaborate and share knowledge in new ways now they are not in the same physical space. Use discussion boards and wikis to encourage them to work on collaborative activities. If you don’t know how to do this, ask your learning and teaching specialists at your university. Edinburgh University also has some helpful resources. Stephen Downes’ creating an online community guide is also helpful

• for course design ideas, Professor Gilly Salmon’s carpe diem resources are excellent.

Universities should also move, as quickly as they can, to provide intensive training in online course delivery to their lecturers.

– ref. Universities need to train lecturers in online delivery, or they risk students dropping out – https://theconversation.com/universities-need-to-train-lecturers-in-online-delivery-or-they-risk-students-dropping-out-133921

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Colvin, Lecturer, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

Australia has the technology to move from fossil fuels to renewable energy, but the social dynamics remain challenging. The Stop Adani protest convoy during the 2019 federal election campaign brought this difficulty to the fore.

A real sticking point for navigating any social change, including the energy transition, is finding a way through entrenched attitudes in which people see themselves as “us” in conflict with “them”. In these situations, people tend to focus on trying to defeat their opponents rather than finding mutually beneficial solutions to the problem.

In research just released, I examined media coverage of the Stop Adani protest convoy to better understand these social identity divides. In particular, I analysed the factors shaping who was an “us” and who was a “them” in the conflict.

I found that the media, with the help of politicians, crafted a narrative of division between inner-city “greenies” and Queensland mining communities. These divisions foster a social dynamic that ultimately inhibits co-operation and good policy outcomes.

Identity matters

The Stop Adani convoy took place in April and May 2019. It involved hundreds of protesters travelling by road (in a convoy of vehicles) from Tasmania, through eastern Australian cities to Clermont, the regional Queensland town nearest the site of Adani’s proposed Carmichael coal mine.

The identity dimension of this protest is important. Australia’s energy transition is inextricably tied to the often fraught politics of climate and energy more broadly, and our social divisions fall along left-right political lines. This means our views on issues such as climate change and energy policy are wrapped up in, and can often be explained by, the groups with which we identify.

Read more: Coal mines can be closed without destroying livelihoods – here’s how

So, the energy transition is taking place in an already polarised and challenging space plagued time and time again by the same conflict dynamics.

This conflict often gets in the way of identifying and implementing effective policy solutions. It’s a particular problem for the energy transition, which needs people and sectors working together to support the technical changes. And if society is divided, it is far less likely to achieve a “just transition” that limits negative social impacts and promotes social equity.

The role of the media

The media is a space in which diverse groups of people make sense of something happening outside their day-to-day life. That’s why it’s important to examine how the media depicts contentious issues. I studied representation of the convoy in Australia’s six most popular online news websites.

Media representation of the Stop Adani convoy depicted it as a social conflict between two opposing, hostile sides. One side was characterised as activists, Greens (or “greenies”), conservationists and elites; the other characterised as blue-collar workers, regional Queenslanders and proud mining communities.

Read more: Adani is cleared to start digging its coal mine – six key questions answered

These identity-based distinctions were cultivated by political figures who provided media commentary on the convoy. The most prominent were those in favour of the Adani mine, such as Nationals senator Matt Canavan, who criticised the convoy participants as “self-appointed, self-important bureaucrats” who took a “busybody approach”.

Former Greens leader Bob Brown, who led the convoy, said he “respected those who genuinely believed the Adani mine should go ahead” and identified the coal mining industry and governments as the targets of the protest.

My media analysis revealed that to convoy participants, Adani’s proposed mine symbolised the need for climate action and curtailment of Australia’s coal industry. A counter-movement grew stronger in response, comprising community members and supported by the coal industry. To this group, the Adani mine symbolised regional survival and self-determination.

Once a debate becomes a “groupish” conflict like this, predictable dynamics in social interactions emerge. This includes hostility and suspicion towards the other side, and stereotyping which can lead to de-humanisation.

These dynamics emerged during the Stop Adani convoy. There were reports of protesters refused entry to local shops and feeling intimidated by the behaviour of townspeople, including having stones thrown at their cars. Conversely, an anti-Adani protester reportedly likened Adani supporters to Nazis in a Facebook post. (Bob Brown distanced the convoy from the comments, which he said had “no place in civil debate”).

Media reports of these incidents served to fuel a narrative of two opposing groups clashing over a fundamental and unsolvable differences.

Finding unity

There has been much debate about the extent to which the convoy affected the election result in crucial regional Queensland electorates. My study did not address this question.

At its core, my analysis showed that for the “us” that emerged via the convoy, there had to be a “them”. In other words, we form groups based not just on who we are like, but also who we are not like.

Read more: Coal miners and urban greenies have one thing in common, and Labor must use it

But achieving a successful and fair energy transition requires creating a unified “we”, and not leaving any person or community behind. This means looking after regional communities and people who will feel the first-hand impacts of decarbonising our energy supply.

We must better understand the identity dimension of the energy conflict if we’re design and implement creative and effective solutions. This means more listening, more sharing, and finding common ground.

– ref. Our social identity shapes how we feel about the Adani mine – and it makes the energy wars worse – https://theconversation.com/our-social-identity-shapes-how-we-feel-about-the-adani-mine-and-it-makes-the-energy-wars-worse-133686

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Colvin, Lecturer, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

Australia has the technology to move from fossil fuels to renewable energy, but the social dynamics remain challenging. The Stop Adani protest convoy during the 2019 federal election campaign brought this difficulty to the fore.

A real sticking point for navigating any social change, including the energy transition, is finding a way through entrenched attitudes in which people see themselves as “us” in conflict with “them”. In these situations, people tend to focus on trying to defeat their opponents rather than finding mutually beneficial solutions to the problem.

In research just released, I examined media coverage of the Stop Adani protest convoy to better understand these social identity divides. In particular, I analysed the factors shaping who was an “us” and who was a “them” in the conflict.

I found that the media, with the help of politicians, crafted a narrative of division between inner-city “greenies” and Queensland mining communities. These divisions foster a social dynamic that ultimately inhibits co-operation and good policy outcomes.

Identity matters

The Stop Adani convoy took place in April and May 2019. It involved hundreds of protesters travelling by road (in a convoy of vehicles) from Tasmania, through eastern Australian cities to Clermont, the regional Queensland town nearest the site of Adani’s proposed Carmichael coal mine.

The identity dimension of this protest is important. Australia’s energy transition is inextricably tied to the often fraught politics of climate and energy more broadly, and our social divisions fall along left-right political lines. This means our views on issues such as climate change and energy policy are wrapped up in, and can often be explained by, the groups with which we identify.

Read more: Coal mines can be closed without destroying livelihoods – here’s how

So, the energy transition is taking place in an already polarised and challenging space plagued time and time again by the same conflict dynamics.

This conflict often gets in the way of identifying and implementing effective policy solutions. It’s a particular problem for the energy transition, which needs people and sectors working together to support the technical changes. And if society is divided, it is far less likely to achieve a “just transition” that limits negative social impacts and promotes social equity.

The role of the media

The media is a space in which diverse groups of people make sense of something happening outside their day-to-day life. That’s why it’s important to examine how the media depicts contentious issues. I studied representation of the convoy in Australia’s six most popular online news websites.

Media representation of the Stop Adani convoy depicted it as a social conflict between two opposing, hostile sides. One side was characterised as activists, Greens (or “greenies”), conservationists and elites; the other characterised as blue-collar workers, regional Queenslanders and proud mining communities.

Read more: Adani is cleared to start digging its coal mine – six key questions answered

These identity-based distinctions were cultivated by political figures who provided media commentary on the convoy. The most prominent were those in favour of the Adani mine, such as Nationals senator Matt Canavan, who criticised the convoy participants as “self-appointed, self-important bureaucrats” who took a “busybody approach”.

Former Greens leader Bob Brown, who led the convoy, said he “respected those who genuinely believed the Adani mine should go ahead” and identified the coal mining industry and governments as the targets of the protest.

My media analysis revealed that to convoy participants, Adani’s proposed mine symbolised the need for climate action and curtailment of Australia’s coal industry. A counter-movement grew stronger in response, comprising community members and supported by the coal industry. To this group, the Adani mine symbolised regional survival and self-determination.

Once a debate becomes a “groupish” conflict like this, predictable dynamics in social interactions emerge. This includes hostility and suspicion towards the other side, and stereotyping which can lead to de-humanisation.

These dynamics emerged during the Stop Adani convoy. There were reports of protesters refused entry to local shops and feeling intimidated by the behaviour of townspeople, including having stones thrown at their cars. Conversely, an anti-Adani protester reportedly likened Adani supporters to Nazis in a Facebook post. (Bob Brown distanced the convoy from the comments, which he said had “no place in civil debate”).

Media reports of these incidents served to fuel a narrative of two opposing groups clashing over a fundamental and unsolvable differences.

Finding unity

There has been much debate about the extent to which the convoy affected the election result in crucial regional Queensland electorates. My study did not address this question.

At its core, my analysis showed that for the “us” that emerged via the convoy, there had to be a “them”. In other words, we form groups based not just on who we are like, but also who we are not like.

Read more: Coal miners and urban greenies have one thing in common, and Labor must use it

But achieving a successful and fair energy transition requires creating a unified “we”, and not leaving any person or community behind. This means looking after regional communities and people who will feel the first-hand impacts of decarbonising our energy supply.

We must better understand the identity dimension of the energy conflict if we’re design and implement creative and effective solutions. This means more listening, more sharing, and finding common ground.

– ref. Our social identity shapes how we feel about the Adani mine – and it’s making the energy wars worse – https://theconversation.com/our-social-identity-shapes-how-we-feel-about-the-adani-mine-and-its-making-the-energy-wars-worse-133686

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jodi McAlister, Lecturer in Writing, Literature and Culture, Deakin University

Romance fiction has two defining features.

First, it centres on a love story. Secondly, it always ends well.

Our protagonists end up together (if not forever, then at least for the foreseeable future) and this makes the world around them a little bit better, too.

In times of uncertainty, upheaval and chaos, readers often turn to romance fiction: during the second world war, Mills & Boon was able to maintain its paper ration by arguing its books were good for the morale of working women.

The books the company was producing in this period were not about the war. Most never even mentioned it. Instead, they provided an escape for readers to a world where they could be assured everything was going to turn out all right: love would conquer all, villains would be defeated, and lovers would always find their way back to each other.

Read more: How to learn about love from Mills & Boon novels

Today, romance publishing is a billion-dollar industry, with thousands of novels published each year. It covers a wide range of subgenres: from historical to contemporary, paranormal to sci-fi, from novels where the only physical interaction between the protagonists is a kiss, to erotic romance where sex is fundamental to the story.

Rule 34 of the internet states if you can think of something, then there’s porn of it. The same, I would argue, is true for romance fiction.

But where to begin? As both a scholar of romance fiction and an avid reader of it, I’ve put together this list of five great reads for people who might want to start exploring the genre.

If you like Jane Austen, try…

The Austen Playbook by Lucy Parker

The Austen Playbook is the fourth book in Parker’s London Celebrities series (all only loosely connected, so you can jump in anywhere).

Heroine Freddy is an actress from an esteemed West End family, trying to balance her desire to perform in musicals and crowd-pleasers over her family pushing her towards serious drama. Hero Griff is a theatre critic and his family estate is playing host to a wacky live-action Jane Austen murder mystery, in which Freddy is playing Lydia.

Parker is a gifted author, and this book is a light, bright and sparkling delight.

If you like (or hate!) dating apps, try…

The Right Swipe by Alisha Rai

Many people now find partners on dating apps, but these apps are often not exactly friendly for women.

Rai addresses that to great effect in The Right Swipe, where heroine Rhiannon is the designer of a dating app designed specifically for women.

She meets hero Samson the first time as a result of swiping right, and then the second time, months later, when he’s teamed up with one of her primary business rivals…

If you’re fascinated by psychology, try …

The Love Experiment by Ainslie Paton

Paton is one of Australia’s smartest and most underrated romance authors. The Love Experiment draws on the 36 questions developed by psychologist Arthur Aron to explore whether intimacy could be generated or intensified between two people if they exchanged increasingly personal information.

The 36 questions were popularised in Mandy Len Catron’s 2015 New York Times essay To Fall In Love With Anyone, Do This. Here, journalist protagonists Derelie and Jackson undertake the experiment in Paton’s book, only to find love is more complex than 36 questions.

If you think we need to save the oceans, try…

Project Saving Noah by Six de los Reyes

This book emerges from RomanceClass, a fascinating community of English-language romance writers and readers based in the Philippines. One of their distinctive features is their collaboration with local actors in Manila to perform excerpts from the books (including Project Saving Noah) at their regular gatherings. I was privileged enough to attend one of these last year.

Protagonists Noah and Lise are graduate students in oceanography competing for one spot on a research project, while simultaneously being forced to work together. Their romance is conflicted and compelling, but what stands out about this book is the vividness with which their environment – natural and academic – is constructed.

If you like your protagonists to have some maturity, try…

Mrs Martin’s Incomparable Adventure by Courtney Milan

If Milan’s name sounds familiar, it’s because she was at the centre of the recent scandal engulfing the Romance Writers of America, which penetrated through romance’s usual cultural invisibility.

When she’s not standing up against systemic racism, Milan writes excellent, mostly historical, romance. Mrs Martin is a delightful historical romp, as our two heroines Bertrice (aged 73) and Violetta (aged 69) team up against Violetta’s terrible nephew, and fall in love and eat cheese on toast together.

– ref. Love and a happy ending: romance fiction to help you through a coronavirus lockdown – https://theconversation.com/love-and-a-happy-ending-romance-fiction-to-help-you-through-a-coronavirus-lockdown-133784

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

Only five people will be able to attend a wedding – the couple, the celebrant and two witnesses – and funerals will be restricted to 10 in the latest round of life-changing restrictions to be imposed on Australians to fight the coronavirus’s spread.

Real estate auctions and “open house” inspections will be stopped, and Australians will now be prohibited from leaving the country, rather than just strongly advised not to do so.

Scott Morrison, announcing the new crackdowns, also told people to stay home, except when it was absolutely necessary to go out. But they shouldn’t have the extended family around the dinner table or to a barbecue.

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

However he is still advising people to send their children to school, and on Wednesday will meet teachers’ union representatives to discuss arrangements to protect staff, especially older teachers more vulnerable to the virus. Schools would need to reopen on the other side of the holidays, he said.

Addressing a news conference after Tuesday night’s federal-state national cabinet, Morrison said the widened list of bans would include food courts in shopping centres, except for takeaways. Outdoor and indoor markets – excluding food markets essential to ensure the food supply across the country – will be a decision for each state and territory.

A range of personal services, including beauty therapy, tanning, waxing, nail salons and tattoo parlors, will be shut down, as well as spas and massage parlours. This does not extend to physiotherapists and similar allied health services.

Hairdressers and barbers have escaped closure, but with a social distancing limit to the number of people on their premises, and the stipulation a patron can only be there for 30 minutes.

The banned list also includes amusement parks and arcades, play centres (both indoor and outdoor), community and recreation centres, libraries, health clubs, fitness centres, yoga, barre and spin facilities, saunas, and wellness centres. Social sporting events and swimming pools are on the list, as are galleries, libraries and youth centres.

Boot camps may be held outside with no more than 10 people.

Morrison said people should “stay at home unless it is absolutely necessary you go out.

“Going out for the basics, going out for exercise, perhaps with your partner or family members, provided it’s a small group – that’s fine.” As was going out to work, where it was not possible to work from home – but not “participating more broadly in the community”.

Visits to your house “should be kept to a minimum and with very small numbers of guests.

“So that means barbecues of lots of friends, or even family, extended family, coming together to celebrate one-year-old birthday parties and all those sorts of things, we can’t do those things now.

“These will be a significant sacrifice, I know.

“Gathering together in that way. even around the large family table in the family home when all the siblings get together and bring the kids, these are not things we can do now. All of these things present risks”.

He said states and territories were considering whether they would make it an offence to organise house parties.

Read more: View from The Hill: Entertainment venues closed in draconian measures to fight the virus

“Outdoors, do not congregate together in groups.

“If you’re gathering together in a group, say, 10 people, together outside in a group, that’s not OK. We’ve got to move people on.”

Morrison said the “hopefully” a full shutdown of the retail sector would not be necessary,

“I do note in a lot of the commentary … there seems to be a great wish to go to that point. Well, be careful what you wish for on something like that. … Because that would need to be sustained for a very long time. And that could have a very significant and even more onerous impact on life in Australia.

“We should seek to try to avoid that where it is possible. But if it is necessary for health reasons, ultimately, those decisions will be taken at the time”.

Asked about why an outside boot camp of ten people was allowed, Morrison said “that is a business, that is someone’s livelihood and you are saying that I should turn their livelihood off. I’m not going to do that lightly. If it is not believed to be necessary based on the medical expert advice.

“I am not going to be cavalier about people’s jobs and their businesses. Where possible the national cabinet together is going to try and keep Australia functioning in a way that continues to support jobs and activity in our economy which is not going to compromise the health advice that we’re receiving.

“And so no, I don’t think we should rush to that sort of [shutdown] scenario. I think you could rush to failure in that sort of scenario.

“You could rush to causing great and unnecessary harm because understand this, this country is not dealing with one crisis, we’re dealing with two crises. We are dealing with a health crisis that has caused an economic crisis.

“I am very concerned about the economic crisis that could also take a great toll on people’s lives, not just their livelihoods. The stresses that that will put on families. The things that can happen when families are under stress.

“I am as concerned about those outcomes as I am about the health outcomes of managing the outbreak of the coronavirus and it is a delicate task for the national cabinet to balance those two.

“Lives are at risk in both cases. And so the national cabinet won’t just rush on the sense of an opinion of inevitability. We will calmly consider the medical advice that is put to us and weigh those things up and make sensible decisions as leaders. I will not be cavalier about it and neither will other premiers and chief ministers.”

He apologised for the systems failure that prevented people accessing Centrelink, prompting huge queues with many people who had lost jobs visibly upset.

“We are deeply sorry. We have gone from 6,000 [online traffic], to 50,000 to 150,000, all in the matter of a space of a day.”

He appealed to people “even in these most difficult of circumstances to be patient. Everyone is doing their best. What we are dealing with an unprecedented. No system is built to deal with the circumstance and events we are facing as a nation.”.

Read more: Grattan on Friday: We are now a nation in self-isolation

The Chief Medical Officer, Brendan Murphy, said the steep growth in the number of cases – the tally is now passed 2000 – was “very concerning”.

Nine reported a panel of experts from the Group of Eight universities commissioned by the federal government had recommended that “Australia without delay implement stronger national social distancing measures, more extensive banning of mass gatherings, school closure or class dismissal”.

The group, in advice presented on March 22, also urged “much-enhanced” testing without delay.

It said: “Countries with significant COVID-19 infections have eventually been forced into strong public health measures in a reactive manner. It became unavoidable from a public health perspective.

“Proactive measures will result in a smaller epidemic and less stress on the health system. Reactive measures (such as in Italy) may result in a greater burden of morbidity and mortality and delay in reaching the point of recovery.

“The only difference is at what point these measures are implemented, whether proactive or reactive, and how large the resulting epidemic will be.”

The “dominant” position in the group was for “a comprehensive, simultaneous ban across Australia”, but the other view among its participants was for a “more proportionate response”.

With the government going down the latter path, Morrison and Murphy were noticeably uncomfortable when questioned about the advice.

Former prime minister Tony Abbott, who as health minister in 2004 drove preparations for a possible bird flu pandemic, called for a total shutdown.

“We need to have a very, very complete shutdown now to do everything we humanly can to prevent the spread of the disease, he told 2GB.

“You can only put the economy into a coma for so long, it can’t be indefinite,” he said.

“But the more complete it is now the more likely it is to be short-lived.”

– ref. In the age of coronavirus, only tiny weddings are allowed and the extended family BBQ is out – https://theconversation.com/in-the-age-of-coronavirus-only-tiny-weddings-are-allowed-and-the-extended-family-bbq-is-out-134584

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jack Anderson, Professor of Sports Law, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne

At the 125th IOC Session in Buenos Aires in 2013, Tokyo won the right to host the Summer Olympics in 2020. The city was to join Athens, London, Paris and Los Angeles in the small group that have hosted a summer Olympics more than once.

Tokyo will now have to wait for most likely a year to join this exclusive club, however, after finally giving in to international pressure and deciding to postpone the games due to the coronavirus pandemic.

The pressure had been building over the past few days, led by Canada and Australia, both of which said they would not send athletes to Tokyo this year.

Stakeholders in the US, including the governing bodies of gymnastics, track and field and swimming, also called for the games to be postponed. Their messages carried extra weight as the three events are key anchors of the Olympics and of special importance to broadcasters in the US.

The ever-tightening travel restrictions of the past week also made it evident that even if the games were to go ahead this year, they would do so in the absence of key members of the Olympic family. This could have included athletes from the five countries – Greece, Australia, Britain, France and Switzerland – that have participated in every modern Summer Olympics.

Read more: Why haven’t the Olympics been cancelled from coronavirus? That’s the A$20bn question

There were other complications, as well. Sporting events have been cancelled or postponed around the world, making qualifying for the Olympics difficult for nearly half of all athletes expected to take part.

It was also becoming impossible to continue anti-doping testing to any meaningful degree.

Only concerned about the bottom line

The IOC has been sharply criticised for its recalcitrance in not postponing the games sooner. Some have suggested its brand has suffered as a result.

There is no doubt that holding the Olympic flame ceremony in Greece and continuing with the torch relay was tactless at a time when fatality rates from the coronavirus were spiking in Europe and governments around the world were urging their citizens not to travel and stay away from public events.

The IOC’s decision to continue with these ceremonies and its dilatory and dithering response to the pandemic in general left it open to criticism that it cared only about the impact a postponement might have on its revenues.

It must be remembered that, although the IOC is an immensely rich and influential entity, it has in effect only one asset – the Olympic Games – to commercially exploit. And these come around only every two years.

But we can only speculate as to the role money played in the IOC’s reluctance to postpone the games.

To be fair to the IOC, it has said consistently that any decision on Tokyo 2020 would be guided by the health and welfare of the athletes and spectators, and based on the advice of recognised authorities such as the WHO.

The challenge of cancelling or moving the games

The logistics of reorganising an Olympics involving 11,000 athletes and thousands of support personnel and spectators will certainly be a significant undertaking. But this stands in stark contrast to the exponentially bleak figures of the toll of the virus – 12,000 confirmed cases of coronavirus on February 1, 87,000 on March 1 and now over 335,000 worldwide.

While Olympics have been postponed, cancelled and moved in the past, this has been mainly due to the outbreak of war. (Tokyo was, for example, supposed to host the 1940 Games before they were cancelled due to the second world war.)

Indeed, the current host city contract specifically states in clause 66 that if the host country is in a state of war or civil disobedience, the IOC can at its sole discretion terminate the contract.

Natural disasters have affected the games in the past. The 1908 Olympics, originally to be held in Rome, had to be moved to London when Mount Vesuvius erupted and the Italian government was forced to divert money to projects such as the rebuilding of Naples and not the construction of Olympic venues.

It is unlikely the IOC will seek to move this year’s Tokyo Games to another city. Logistically, it would be very difficult for any country to host the games on such short notice, especially given the massive investment in physical infrastructure required at a time when the world is pumping billions into stimulus packages for their economies.

It is also not in Japan’s interest to see the games moved. Under the host city contract, the failure to host the games is one of the specific contingencies that allows the IOC to unilaterally terminate the contract without affecting its rights to claim compensation against the Tokyo organising committee.

In addition, in cases when the IOC does unilaterally terminate the contract, the organising committee agrees to waive its right to receive any form of compensation from the IOC.

Further, the organisers (effectively, Japanese taxpayers) also agree to “indemnify and hold harmless” the IOC from any third party claims in respect of the IOC’s withdrawal from the games, such as those from broadcasters.

Then there’s the small fact that Japan has already invested A$20billion in the games.

Read more: Coronavirus: For the sake of athletes, it’s too soon to cancel the Tokyo 2020 Olympics

Moving the games to later in 2020 is likely not an option given the accelerating nature, for now, of the coronavirus. Hosting the games in September or October would also wreak havoc with the scheduling of both athletes and broadcasters (although the 1964 Tokyo Olympics were held in mid-October).

As we saw from the Rugby World Cup held in Japan last year, moving into autumn also coincides with the typhoon season. And the Olympics would have to contend with the football seasons in Europe and the US at that time of year.

This leaves organisers with one decent option – delaying for a full year until the summer of 2021.

Why legal claims are unlikely

Apart from the logistical challenges of postponing the games, there are significant commercial considerations related to ticketing, broadcasting and sponsors. In simple terms, those holding tickets, those with the rights to broadcast the Olympics and those with exclusive “official” sponsorships may now attempt to seek their money back in full or in part.

The Tokyo organisers and the IOC might argue that so-called force majeure clauses apply and that the contractual commitments given to sponsors and broadcasters have been disrupted by an unforeseen, natural cause.

There are already reports the Tokyo 2020 ticketing policy says organisers would not be held responsible if the Olympics are cancelled due to a number of “force majeure” incidents, including natural disasters, war and “states of emergency connected to public health.”

While sports lawyers try to interpret these contractual clauses over the next few weeks, we all need to remember the wider context here.

If any broadcaster or sponsor tries to engage in legal action at a time when the world is facing its most serious public health emergency in a century, this may not sit well with their viewers or customers. The commercial losses sustained by large corporate sponsors for an event that can be rescheduled will engender little public sympathy at the moment.

If the Olympics do go ahead in 2021, it can then be a global celebration of the talent, hard work and resilience of the world’s leading athletes.

For now, the world needs to support the talent, hard work and resilience of the world’s leading health professionals. They truly have an Olympian task ahead.

– ref. Why the fall-out from postponing the Olympics may not be as bad as we think – https://theconversation.com/why-the-fall-out-from-postponing-the-olympics-may-not-be-as-bad-as-we-think-134531

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Craig Valli, Director of ECU Security Research Institute, Edith Cowan University

Apart from the obvious health and economic impacts, the coronavirus also presents a major opportunity for cybercriminals.

As staff across sectors and university students shift to working and studying from home, large organisations are at increased risk of being targeted. With defences down, companies should go the extra mile to protect their business networks and employees at such a precarious time.

Reports suggest hackers are already exploiting remote workers, luring them into online scams masquerading as important information related to the pandemic.

On Friday, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s Scamwatch reported that since January 1 it had received 94 reports of coronavirus-related scams, and this figure could rise.

As COVID-19 causes a spike in telework, teleheath and online education, cybercriminals have fewer hurdles to jump in gaining access to networks.

High-speed access theft

The National Broadband Network’s infrastructure has afforded many Australians access to higher-speed internet, compared with DSL connections. Unfortunately this also gives cybercriminals high-speed access to Australian homes, letting them rapidly extract personal and financial details from victims.

The shift to working from home means many people are using home computers, instead of more secure corporate-supplied devices. This provides criminals relatively easy access to corporate documents, trade secrets and financial information.

Read more: What’s your IT department’s role in preventing a data breach?

Instead of attacking a corporation’s network, which would likely be secured with advanced cybersecurity countermeasures and tracking, they now simply have to locate and attack the employee’s home network. This means less chance of discovery.

Beware cryptolocker attacks

Cryptolocker-based attacks are an advanced cyberattack that can bypass many traditional countermeasures, including antivirus software. This is because they’re designed and built by advanced cybercriminals.

Most infections from a cryptolocker virus happen when people open unknown attachments, sent in malicious emails.

In some cases, the attack can be traced to nation state actors. One example is the infamous WannaCry cyberattack, which deployed malware (software designed to cause harm) that encrypted computers in more than 150 countries. The hackers, supposedly from North Korea, demanded cryptocurrency in exchange for unlocking them.

If an employee working from home accidentally activates cryptolocker malware while browsing the internet or reading an email, this could first take out the home network, then spread to the corporate network, and to other attached home networks.

This can happen if their device is connected to the workplace network via a Virtual Private Network (VPN). This makes the home device an extension of the corporate network, and the virus can bypass any advanced barriers the corporate network may have.

Read more: Hackers are now targeting councils and governments, threatening to leak citizen data

If devices are attached to a network that has been infected and not completely cleaned, the contaminant can rapidly spread again and again. In fact, a single device that isn’t cleaned properly can cause millions of dollars in damage. This happened during the 2016 Petya and NotPetya malware attack.

Encryption: not a cryptic concept

On the bright side, there are some steps organisations and employees can take to protect their digital assets from opportunistic criminal activity.

Encryption is a key weapon in this fight. This security method protects files and network communications by methodically “scrambling” the contents using an algorithm. The receiving party is given a key to unscramble, or “decrypt”, the information.

With remote work booming, encryption should be enabled for files on hard drives and USB sticks that contain sensitive information.

Enabling encryption on a Windows or Apple device is also simple. And don’t forget to backup your encryption keys when prompted onto a USB drive, and store them in a safe place such as a locked cabinet, or off site.

VPNs help close the loop

A VPN should be used at all times when connected to WiFi, even at home. This tool helps mask your online activity and location, by routing outgoing and incoming data through a secure “virtual tunnel” between your computer and the VPN server.

Existing WiFi access protocols (WEP, WPA, WPA2) are insecure when being used to transmit sensitive data. Without a VPN, cybercriminals can more easily intercept and retrieve data.

VPN is already functional in Windows and Apple devices. Most reputable antivirus internet protection suites incorporate them.

It’s also important that businesses and organisations encourage remote employees to use the best malware and antiviral protections on their home systems, even if this comes at the organisation’s expense.

Backup, backup, backup

People often backup their files on a home computer, personal phone or tablet. There is significant risk in doing this with corporate documents and sensitive digital files.

When working from home, sensitive material can be stored in a location unknown to the organisation. This could be a cloud location (such as iCloud, Google Cloud, or Dropbox), or via backup software the user owns or uses. Files stored in these locations may not protected under Australian laws.

Read more: How we can each fight cybercrime with smarter habits

Businesses choosing to save files on the cloud, on an external hard drive or on a home computer need to identify backup regimes that fit the risk profile of their business. Essentially, if you don’t allow files to be saved on a computer’s hard drive at work, and use the cloud exclusively, the same level of protection should apply when working from home.

Appropriate backups must observed by all remote workers, along with standard cybersecurity measures such as firewall, encryption, VPN and antivirus software. Only then can we rely on some level of protection at a time when cybercriminals are desperate to profit.

– ref. ‘Click for urgent coronavirus update’: how working from home may be exposing us to cybercrime – https://theconversation.com/click-for-urgent-coronavirus-update-how-working-from-home-may-be-exposing-us-to-cybercrime-133778

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katharine H. Greenaway, Senior Lecturer, University of Melbourne

We are now a society at a distance. As of this week, New South Wales has closed restaurants, bars, gyms, and entertainment venues where people gather in large numbers.

Victoria has similarly implemented a shut down of all non-essential activities, including closing schools. People are strongly advised to stay at least 1.5 metres away from others where possible.

But the label used to describe these measures – “social distancing” – is a misnomer. While we must be physically distant, it’s crucial we maintain, or even increase, social contact with others during this unprecedented time.

Read more: State-by-state: how Australia’s new coronavirus rules will affect you

In a crisis, we need support

The so-called social distancing measures seek to limit the spread of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, by reducing physical contact between people. And there’s evidence these measures work.

But research also shows being isolated can have negative effects on a person’s mental health. Specifically, periods of quarantine have been shown to increase negative emotions like anxiety, confusion and anger.

Importantly, strong social support can help us counter these negative effects. And as well as improving our mental health, being socially connected is linked to better physical health too.

One US psychologist rightly noted rather than talking about social distancing, we should be practising distant socialising.

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

Of course, this can be difficult when so much of our social closeness depends on physical closeness. Humans are innately social, and often our instinct is to reach out to touch or be close to others when we feel unwell or afraid.

This makes it all the more difficult to stay away from others right now.

Social solidarity, not social distance

Staying socially connected in times of threat has benefits beyond helping us manage our mental well-being. Other people can provide us with practical support, like picking up groceries or passing on relevant information, as well as emotional support.

Building this kind of social infrastructure, where people help neighbours and strangers as well as their friends, fosters the feeling we as Australians are all in this together.

This feeling is called social solidarity, and if we get it right we’ll be much better equipped to respond to this and other crises.

In the case of coronavirus, social solidarity may be the key to getting people to comply with public health recommendations. Recent research found if people were told distancing was important for the sake of others, they were more likely to say they would adhere to the relevant guidelines than if they were told it was to avoid negative consequences.

Read more: Coronavirus is accelerating a culture of no touching – here’s why that’s a problem

To mitigate the dangers of conflating physical distancing and social distancing, and to work towards social solidarity, here are three things we need to see:

1. Consistent messaging

The Victorian health department now refers to physical distancing rather than social distancing, in line with calls from experts to change the terminology.

But the federal government and most other state governments are still using the social distancing moniker.

Consistent messaging from our leaders, including an explanation of why the label must change, could serve to encourage people to adopt practices that promote social closeness while maintaining physical distance.

2. Social tips alongside physical tips

Much of the current messaging from government sources focuses on maintaining physical health by washing hands with soap, practising correct cough and sneeze etiquette, and cleaning and disinfecting surfaces. These measures are undoubtedly critical.

But missing from most official advice is guidance about the importance of maintaining social connectedness. The government should add evidence-based recommendations for staying connected to its official resources.

3. Prioritising communication

Where state governments are increasingly limiting activities to allow for only essential services, phone and internet services that allow people to connect virtually should be seen through the same essential lens.

The government should consider policies which encourage providers to waive late fees or stop disconnections that may occur because of financial hardship related to the virus.

Read more: Coronavirus distancing measures are confusing. Here are 3 things to ask yourself before you see someone

Physical distance is important, but it’s equally necessary we maintain social closeness during this time. Staying connected with others will make us happier, healthier, and more socially responsible as we continue to contend with this crisis.

– ref. Why are we calling it ‘social distancing’? Right now, we need social connections more than ever – https://theconversation.com/why-are-we-calling-it-social-distancing-right-now-we-need-social-connections-more-than-ever-134249

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Euan Tovey, Associate Professor & Principal Research Fellow in Medicine, University of Sydney

According to Google Trends, the top two most searched terms about mobile phones this week in Australia were “how to disinfect phone” and “how to clean your phone.”

And the third most-searched “can I get coronavirus from…?”-style question in the past week in Australia was “can you get coronavirus from mail?” (If you were wondering, “can you get coronavirus from food?” was number one, followed by “can you get coronavirus twice?”)

In short, many Australians are wondering what role phones and mail and/or package deliveries may play in the risk of coronavirus transmission.

To better understand the risk, and what you can do to reduce it, it helps to think about how your phone or mail might come into contact with coronavirus – and what the evidence says about how long it lives on various surfaces.

Read more: Coronavirus distancing measures are confusing. Here are 3 things to ask yourself before you see someone

What do we know about how long the coronavirus can survive on a phone or mail?

Not a whole lot yet.

There has been some general media reporting on the role that surfaces play in the transmission of this coronavirus, termed SARS-CoV-2. That’s the disease that causes COVID-19.

But the main peer-reviewed journal paper on this topic was published about a week ago by the New England Journal of Medicine.

That paper found:

SARS-CoV-2 was more stable on plastic and stainless steel than on copper and cardboard, and viable virus was detected up to 72 hours after application to these surfaces.

It also noted:

On copper, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 4 hours […] On cardboard, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 24 hours.

These might be underestimates. The virus may survive even longer on these surfaces, depending on conditions. That’s because these studies looked at how long the virus would survive when in a “buffer” (a solution in which viruses live in the lab). In real life, they would be in mucous and would be more stable.

The fact that the viruses seemed to last longest on plastic is something of a worry and means that, on phones, the virus could potentially last for days.

It is important to remember this is a new virus and we don’t yet have all the data. New findings are emerging every day.

It’s also possible that, in reality, the virus may last longer on phones than indicated in the recent lab experiments.

CDC data published yesterday detected the faint genetic signature of viruses (viral RNA) which had survived 17 days on surfaces in cruise ships. That doesn’t mean infectious virus particles were found after 17 days – only a part of the virus was detected in this study – but it does suggest there may be some cause for concern regarding how long this coronavirus can last on surfaces. More research is required on this question.

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

How might virus particles end up on a phone?

Talking on the phone generates an invisible spray of airborne droplets. A person with COVID-19 can have a lot of virus in the mucous at the back of their throat, so they’re likely spraying the virus on their phone every time they make a call.

If an infected person hands their phone to someone else, the virus could transfer to the new person’s fingertips, and then into their body if they touch their mouth, eyes or nose. (And remember, not every infected person displays the classic symptoms of fever and cough, and may be infectious before symptoms show).

It’s also possible there is an oral-faecal route for transmission of coronavirus. This coronavirus is often detected in faeces.

That means, for example, that tiny particles of poo generated by flushing a toilet could settle on a toothbrush, on a phone brought into the bathroom or on surfaces/food in an adjoining room. They could then end up in your mouth. At the moment this has not been shown, but it is certainly possible. SARS was sometimes spread by this route.

That’s why frequent handwashing with soap is so crucial.

What about mail?

It is technically possible a package or mail coming to your house is contaminated with virus picked up somewhere along the way by people handling or coughing on it. I think, though, the infection risk is very low because, as the New England Journal of Medicine study found, the survival time on cardboard is thought to be around one day.

And unlike plastic surfaces, cardboard is porous. That means a droplet would probably penetrate into the material and may not be so easily picked up when you touch the package.

What can I do to reduce my risk?

For starters, do the obvious things: wash hands frequently, reduce your contact with others (and if you do see other people, stay at least 1.5 metres apart, particularly if you are talking). Definitely don’t go out at all if you’re unwell.

Keep your phone to yourself. I’d be very reluctant to share my own phone with anyone right now, especially if they seem unwell.

It’s not clear what role children play in the transmission of this coronavirus but, just in case, children should be washing hands before they touch their parents’ phones. That said, it seems more likely at present that adults give it to children than the other way round.

Ideally, you should be cleaning your phones, tablets and keyboards with alcohol wipes (which need to be around 70% alcohol). They are quite effective at deactivating viruses (if somewhat hard to get now). Most baby wipes only have a low percentage of alcohol so are less effective but just the wiping would help remove virus particles.

In the worst case scenario, you can try using a damp cloth with a small amount of soap and water to clean your phone – but don’t let water get inside your phone and wreck it.

When it comes to mail and package deliveries, try to keep apart from the delivery person. Many delivery people are already forgoing the customary signature on the tablet, meaning you don’t have to touch a device or e-stylus that many others have already handled. You could consider wiping down a package before opening it, and washing your hands well after disposing of the packaging.

At the end of the day, the risk is never zero, and the world is a nightmare if you go too far down this route of worrying about every single surface.

Read more: What steps hospitals can take if coronavirus leads to a shortage of beds

– ref. Can I get coronavirus from mail or package deliveries? Should I disinfect my phone? – https://theconversation.com/can-i-get-coronavirus-from-mail-or-package-deliveries-should-i-disinfect-my-phone-134535

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Patrick O’Leary, Professor and Director of Violence Research and Prevention Program, Griffith Criminology Institute and School of Human Services and Social Work, Griffith University

A country-wide shutdown is now in place for non-essential activities. At the weekend, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said “far more Draconian measures” were needed to ensure people adhered to social distancing and self-isolation requirements.

The latest measures include bans on all non-essential travel, stricter domestic border control and school closures in some states.

Read more: Can I take the dog for a walk? Can I put the kids to bed? What you should and shouldn’t do if you’re in coronavirus self-isolation

Despite experts’ pleas to practise social distancing, Sydney’s Bondi Beach was teeming with people on Friday. And although the beach was closed on Sunday, some still refused to comply.

As the coronavirus crisis continues to unfold, to what extent will the public heed advice? And with many facing the prospect of a potentially lonely six months, how long before people start to preemptively emerge from their cocoons?

Rule-breakers abound

Currently, individuals required to self-isolate include those returning from overseas, those who have been exposed to a confirmed COVID-19 case, and those travelling between certain states. Everyone else should be practising social distancing.

Many of us are already incorporating social distancing into our everyday interactions. When offered a hug or a handshake, you may wonder: “am I supposed to say ‘no’?”

Read more: Nice to meet you, now back off! How to socially distance without seeming rude

Self-isolation is now a legal requirement for those it applies to, with heavy penalties for non-compliance. Prime Minister Scott Morrison even encouraged us to “dob” in anyone who doesn’t comply.

Yet, reports in the media indicate not everyone is following the rules, whether due to misunderstanding, plain defiance, or a “testing” of how strict the rules are.

One man who was told to self-isolate visited a supermarket on his way home from a COVID-19 test. Another person who was tested then travelled to New Zealand, after which the test came back positive.

What’s the cost?

Compliance can be partly attributed to a group’s sense of risk. During the H1N1 crisis (swine flu) in Australia, despite intense media interest, compliance with self-isolation measures worsened once swine flu was deemed a pandemic.

When this happened, Australians perceived the flu as having relatively mild symptoms, and this lowered the perception of individual risk. People became less afraid, and less compliant.

The swine flu also highlighted differences between social groups in relation to compliance.

Researchers found that across a number of countries, older, more educated and socially advantaged people were more likely to comply with recommended behaviours. Those who were younger, with lower levels of education were less likely.

Authoritarian and democratic responses

Some have speculated the authoritarian structure of the Chinese government made it easier to enforce isolation and social distancing in China. This has led to suggestions that an authoritarian response might be an effective way to tackle COVID-19, while more individualistic attitudes (like those held in Australia) could enable its spread.

However, a society whose government displays proactive (rather than delayed) leadership, and a capacity to deliver important resources, will likely be empowered to observe restrictions.

Australia currently has a short window to mitigate COVID-19. While it’s still early days, we may have a similar or slightly better trajectory than Japan and Taiwan. Compliance to social distancing and isolation measures will determine this.

There’s no immediate reward for adhering to these measures. Indeed, Australians may not reap the benefits for many months. And some evidence suggests that over a prolonged period, people initially following rules may become complacent.

To counter this, effective communication from authorities will be paramount. Messages should convey both the gravity of the risk, and positive reinforcement of civic duty.

Achieving this balance could be challenging, but it’s worth it. Research indicates people are willing to comply with rules they don’t even necessarily agree with, or see benefit in. This is especially true when the rules derive from a society’s shared moral concern.

For instance, rules which govern smoking in public spaces are generally respected due to society’s overall negative view on passive smoking, especially when it impacts children.

In the case of COVID-19, social distancing rules align with principles of caring for older Australians, and other vulnerable groups. Sustaining this concern will be important in the coming months.

How to encourage compliance?

Different demographics display different levels of compliance in times of crisis. Considering this, authorities should avoid a “one size fits all” communication strategy when imploring people to fulfil self-isolation and social distancing requirements. For instance, Norway’s prime minister held a children’s only COVID-19 press conference.

During the swine flu outbreak, different regions showed different preventative behaviours based on the region’s leadership style.

Mexico achieved more effective social distancing, face mask use and better hygiene practices than other countries. This has been attributed to the Mexican government’s visible encouragement of such behaviours, and support from the army in distributing masks.

In Australia, we’ve already seen people react fearfully to the prospect of enforced isolation, with some hoarding supermarket goods and fighting over products.

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

Scenes like this indicate a fear of social order breaking down. At such times, the public’s level of compliance will depend on our leaders’ capacity to deliver important services, act early and proactively to slow COVID-19’s spread, and display a united front.

This will influence our collective sense of risk which, coupled with knowledge about the virus and a concern for others, will encourage compliance – particularly in the short-term. In the long-term, we’ll need even stronger social and psychological support.

– ref. Can we really rely on people to isolate when they’re told to? Experts explain – https://theconversation.com/can-we-really-rely-on-people-to-isolate-when-theyre-told-to-experts-explain-134027

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robin Price, Lecturer in Employment Relations and Human Resource Management, CQUniversity Australia

So you’ve been asked to work from home.

Doing so usually requires changing aspects of your relationship with your employer. What it doesn’t change is that your relationship is based on mutual obligations. These remain exactly the same even though you work at home.

Read more: Coronavirus could spark a revolution in working from home. Are we ready?

Your employer’s duties, under both industrial relations and work health and safety laws, are to ensure you are able to work safely at home, and to cover reasonable expenses. Your obligation is to work if you want to be paid.

A safe workspace

In Australia, an employer has a legal duty of care for the health and safety of workers “so far as is reasonably practicable”. This duty is contained under the uniform work health and safety legislation of states and territories – see, for example, the Queensland legislation.

That duty of care extends to anywhere work is performed. If you are asked to work from home, your employer is responsible to ensure this does not pose a risk to your health and safety.

Read more: It’s not just the isolation. Working from home has surprising downsides

Some organisations conduct formal inspections of homes before approving working-from-home arrangements. That may not be practical in current circumstances.

The next best option might be a virtual tour using virtual meeting software such as Google hangouts or Zoom. At a minimum, your employer should provide you with a health and safety checklist, specifying considerations such as:

• a safe work space free from trip hazards (such as rugs and cables)
• a broadly safe environment including an exit, smoke alarms and a first aid kit
• appropriate lighting and ventilation
• ergonomic requirements such as a desk large enough for tasks, phone and mouse within reach
• a chair that adjusts to ensure your feet are flat on the floor
• a computer screen positioned for your eyes to meet the top of the screen

Reimbursing expenses

Your employer’s primary responsibility under industrial relations law is to pay you for the work you do under applicable awards, enterprise agreements and contracts.

Your employer is also responsible for providing you with the appropriate resources for work to be carried out. These might include a computer with systems to access and protect work files, a headset, a webcam and virtual meeting software.

Read more: Working at home to avoid coronavirus? This tech lets you (almost) replicate the office

There is an implied obligation also to reimburse you for expenses incurred while working at home, such as extra electricity or internet access.

This obligation may be spelled out in an enterprise agreement or a working-from-home policy, but not all organisations have codified entitlements. You may need to establish with your employer what costs will be reimbursed, what limits apply, and what approvals are required.

If your employer does not reimburse you for running costs – because the paperwork is arduous and the amount usually small – remember you can also claim work-related expenses, including the cost of a dedicated work area, as tax deductions. Claimable expenses are set out on the Australian Taxation Office’s website.

Employee responsibilities

In allowing you to work from home, your employer is demonstrating a degree of trust that past generations of managers would have found unacceptable. Your obligation is to do the right thing even without direct supervision, observing the same practices as normally expected by your employer.

All your usual employee responsibilities from the workplace continue to apply, such as obeying lawful directions and working to the best of your ability.

Much has been written on how best to work at home. There are some common themes. Get dressed for work, so that you feel “at work” and behave accordingly. Maintain a separate work space, so there is a clear delineation between work and leisure. Ensure you take breaks to maintain your health and well-being.

Read more: Get dressed and set goals: some routines not to break if coronavirus means you have to work from home

Another aspect of well-being you will need to pay conscious attention to is minimising the psychological stress of isolation.

Working from home can be isolating in the best of times, and in the current situation this is arguably also an aspect of your employer’s duty of care. But this is something that cannot be easily codified and will require goodwill and negotiation. You and your employer may need to consider new routines for communication to ensure working at home is about physical distancing and social solidarity, not social isolation.

– ref. Working from home: what are your employer’s responsibilities, and what are yours? – https://theconversation.com/working-from-home-what-are-your-employers-responsibilities-and-what-are-yours-133922

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Gurran, Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Sydney

Staying home and social distancing are now essential to control the spread of COVID-19. Suitable accommodation for quarantine and isolation are critical, but Australia’s broken housing system leaves us all exposed.

By now, almost every Australian will have thought about the coronavirus pandemic in terms of their own housing. For many home owners, this is an economic concern. They are dangerously in debt after a 20-year housing boom. Renters face greater uncertainty.

Read more: Why housing evictions must be suspended to defend us against coronavirus

But it’s people in overcrowded, informal or no housing at all who are most exposed. Crowded housing conditions are bad for all occupants, largely through the increased risks of infections, as WHO Guidelines on Health and Housing clearly identify.

Expose one, expose us all

The increased risk of COVID-19 infection will have impacts on both the residents of crammed dwellings and the rest of the community. Improving the housing conditions of the most marginalised members of our society is an important biosecurity measure.

The number of Australians who are homeless grew dramatically from 2011-2016. The largest increase was people living in severely overcrowded dwellings.

This trend includes a sharp rise in older people living in crowded or marginal housing.

Read more: Informal and illegal housing on the rise as our cities fail to offer affordable places to live

Crowding is endemic in Indigenous communities. Poorly maintained and inadequate dwelling conditions make the impacts of crowding worse.

Previous experience with swine flu – Influenza A (H1N1) – indicates contagious disease outbreaks in Indigenous communities will be catastrophic. After over a decade of making remote areas harder places to be – as a result of cuts to housing and infrastructure allocations and increased water insecurity – they are now expected to operate as refuges.

Tertiary students, including international students, are also likely to be living in overcrowded share houses and room-share rentals. These arrangements already breach basic health and sanitation standards.

Read more: Tracking the rise of room sharing and overcrowding, and what it means for housing in Australia

These problems aren’t due to a shortage of housing. Census data show the number of unoccupied dwellings increased during the same period that homelessness grew.

Rather than an absolute shortage of homes, our increasingly financialised property market has distorted access to decent accommodation. Housing is now treated as an asset instead of a basic right. In recent years platforms such as Airbnb have made this situation worse by transforming permanent rentals into short-term accommodation for tourists.

What should governments do?

Moves to prevent evictions and to offer mortgage relief during the pandemic period are an urgent first step in what needs to be rapid national action on housing.

Securing adequate housing for those in unstable accommodation, particularly those who need to isolate, is the next phase in this public health response. Suitable housing must be made available immediately in locations near hospitals and key health services. This can be triaged.

Options might include:

• local hotels or motels – for people in metropolitan and some regional centres this seems to be an obvious option as many are likely empty of travellers

• vacant holiday homes or temporary workforce housing

• other health accommodation used for rehabilitation that can be repurposed

• construction of temporary dwellings.

Hotels close to major teaching (university) hospitals could be commandeered for patients with COVID-19 who need quarantined nursing care, but not intubation to help them breathe.

These hotels could also provide places of rest for health workers who might wish to isolate themselves from their families while they fight in our favour. For example, the University of Tasmania has provided one of its hotel buildings, which has been used for student housing, to the Tasmanian government for this purpose.

Access to hotels and motels for civilian isolation practices more broadly is an obvious solution across urban areas and regional centres.

To reduce the risks arising from inadequate housing, the nation’s vast holiday rental supply should also be considered for people on priority waiting lists for social housing who are in crowded accommodation. Owners of currently empty holiday accommodation could receive the equivalent of rent assistance payments from the Commonwealth for making their housing available.

Read more: Australia needs to triple its social housing by 2036. This is the best way to do it

A vast tourism workforce of property managers, maintenance and cleaning staff, already reeling from the bushfire crisis, is likely ready and able to repurpose residential tourist accommodation for those in need.

On the other side of the health crisis, it’s clear a rapid, nation-building expansion in social and affordable housing must be part of Australia’s plan. Well-designed, secure and maintained housing should be Australia’s first defence, not our weakest link, in combating health, climate and economic crises.

Read more: Australia’s housing system needs a big shake-up: here’s how we can crack this

– ref. Homelessness and overcrowding expose us all to coronavirus. Here’s what we can do to stop the spread – https://theconversation.com/homelessness-and-overcrowding-expose-us-all-to-coronavirus-heres-what-we-can-do-to-stop-the-spread-134378

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gerard Fitzgerald, Emeritus Professor, School of Public Health, Queensland University of Technology

The number of COVID-19 cases in Australian continues to grow with new cases confirmed each day.

Of those who get ill, about 20% will have moderate or severe illness that requires hospitalisation.

Based on experience in China, of those admitted, about 26% will require a stay in an intensive care unit (ICU) and 17% mechanical ventilation.

Read more: How we’ll avoid Australia’s hospitals being crippled by coronavirus

So what happens if we run out of hospital beds for patients with COVID-19?

Overwhelmed health systems

The epidemic is currently under control in Hubei but continuing to expand rapidly in Italy which is currently overwhelmed by this disease and its health system floundering.

A report this month in the New England Journal of Medicine describes the impact of this outbreak in Italy: operating rooms turned into ICUs, patients admitted for other reasons contracting the disease and health workers falling ill.

In Australia, as of this morning there were more than 1,800 confirmed cases of COVID-19, with 344 new cases since 6am yesterday.

We have an extensive health capability in Australia with around 94,000 hospital beds (61,000 in public hospitals) including 2,200 ICU beds. We also have about 800,000 people working in health services including 350,000 nurses and 90,000 doctors.

At present in Australia, the number of cases is not at a level that would challenge our health treatment capability.

But health personnel are stretched undertaking contact tracing to understand how the infection is spreading, data collection and analysis, and implementing enhanced infection control procedures.

Similarly the laboratory system is being challenged by increased testing rates and primary care services are likely to be stretched by responding to considerable community concern.

Read more: State-by-state: how Australia’s new coronavirus rules will affect you

So, if demand continues to increase, what can our health system do to surge the response?

As the numbers grow

The surge requirements are not one dimensional. People often speak about the capacity of the system to surge the amount of space, staff and stuff. Each of these has limitations.

The space must be appropriate to need.

The surge in staff must take into consideration the impact this event has on staff availability and the risk they are taking on.

Surging consumables and equipment depends on supply chains. The domains are complementary. Increasing ventilators alone without having sufficient staff to operate them is futile.

In addition, people will continue to get sick from other causes. Indeed, there is often a danger in disaster response in which all of the attention is focused on those with the disease and other patients including some who are serious and critically ill are relatively ignored.

A four tier response

Health system responses will escalate as demands increase and may be broadly categorised into four tiers.

The first tier is when there is a relatively small epidemic. Health systems will seek to concentrate the care into a small number of facilities, thus concentrating the expertise and maximising the infection control. This is what is happening now.

The second level of response occurs when health facilities need to create additional internal capacity or to refocus existing capacity. Common strategies involve cancelling elective surgery, early discharge and relocation of patients to other facilities.

The third tier of response occurs when additional capacity has to be created. Options include recommissioning purpose-built facilities (closed hospitals) or by taking over suitable alternatives such as hotels.

Hotels can be useful for recuperating patients who require mainly observation and support. They are facilities that can be easily and rapidly converted to include appropriate levels of infection control.

Victoria has announced funding for an extra 269 hospital beds, including 84 at Melbourne’s old Peter Mac Hospital, and the former Baxter House Hospital in Geelong will be recommissioned.

In South Australia, new facilities will be set up at the recently decommissioned ECH College Grove and Wakefield hospitals providing an extra 188 beds.

Additional space and equipment is one thing, but not helpful as we need people to care for the patients and run the ventilators. We need to protect the existing staff wherever possible.

Additional staff can be found among recently retired practitioners and students, and by redirecting personnel from other (particularly non-clinical) areas.

But a word of caution. This is not a time to learn new skills. Familiarity leads to efficiency and so unfamiliar staff can be best used to help and support and to undertake non-technical roles.

Hard decisions at tier four

The fourth tier occurs when a system is overwhelmed, as in Italy and other European countries at present. This is when the demand for care exceeds any possibility of providing that care equally to all.

In this case, very difficult decisions have to be made involving triage of patients and the allocation of resources.

We have not had to implement such responses in this country since perhaps the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918/1919. But such decisions based on risk and possible benefit are not unusual.

Read more: Coronavirus: how to access the medicines you and your family need

Decisions about whether to resuscitate or operate are made commonly but mostly focused on the likely benefit to the individual and are made in partnership with the patient and their carers.

In this circumstance, very hard decisions will have to made about relative benefit to preserve the health system’s capacity for people who are more likely to survive.

To support this, we would need to identify and communicate what is known as “Crisis standards of care” so that there is a consistent, system-wide approach. The legal and ethical aspects of this will need agreement not only by medical authorities but more broadly in the community.

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

– ref. What steps hospitals can take if coronavirus leads to a shortage of beds – https://theconversation.com/what-steps-hospitals-can-take-if-coronavirus-leads-to-a-shortage-of-beds-134385

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

From midnight on Wednesday, New Zealand will go into lockdown for four weeks, with only essential services like supermarkets and pharmacies remaining open.

Police and medical officials already have legal powers under existing laws to fine people who flout the lockdown rules, but Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has foreshadowed she will also declare a state of emergency and issue an epidemic notice.

Ardern has instructed people to stay at home, in the “most significant restriction on New Zealanders’ movements in modern history”, as the country moves to alert level four to slow the spread of COVID-19.

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

Highest alert level

There are now 155 confirmed or likely cases in New Zealand, and 12 people who have recovered from the illness.

The difference between levels three and four is the scale of transmission. Level four means that COVID-19 is “sustained, intensive and widespread” and stricter measures are necessary to try to eliminate it.

The difference in policy is that the government moves from strong and escalating recommendations for many people to mandatory prohibitions and controls for all people.

There are now four cases of community transmission in New Zealand, and even though there is no conclusive evidence that the disease will become widespread, authorities can act in a pre-emptive way in response to a clear threat that comes with uncertainty in some areas. The government does not need absolute proof that disease transmission is occurring within the community at multiple levels before moving to level four.

Existing immigration law and health legislation give authorities powers to implement border and movement restrictions. COVID-19 is a quarantinable infectious disease, and the Health Act 1956 allows medical officials (with the help of the police) to take a range of actions to prevent an outbreak or spread of the disease. The law allows officials to:

• isolate or quarantine people
• shut down, disinfect or even destroy many types of premises
• stop people from congregating in outdoor spaces
• force people to take medical tests
• ban travel.

If the infectious disease breaks out (as a level four designation suggests), authorities gain further powers. They can requisition property (private and public) for the transport or treatment of the sick or the holding of bodies. Anybody who fails to to follow orders could face fines of up to NZ$4,000 or six months in jail.

In addition, as anxiety levels rise, the police have existing powers to control disorderly or offensive behaviour or language within certain areas, as they maintain public order.

Read more: Why Singapore’s coronavirus response worked – and what we can all learn

National emergency

Beyond these existing laws, the government is expected to take two further steps.

It is likely to declare a state of national emergency, which is used in situations of such a magnitude that a high-level response is required, involving both national and local governments, emergency services and lifeline utilities, rolled into a configuration necessary for effective civil defence.

Although the military is not directly part of the civil defence and emergency management structure, the above authorities can request its help. Given the sheer scale of what is being contemplated, it is likely the military will need to be deployed.

The laws available to authorities to deal with the emergency include the ability to:

Refusal to comply with these rules may result in up to three months in jail, and/or a NZ$5,000 fine for an individual or NZ$50,000 for a corporate.

The second option the government has is the 2006 Epidemic Preparedness Act. This becomes available if the prime minister issues an epidemic notice, should she be satisfied that a designated quarantinable infectious disease is “likely to disrupt” or continue to disrupt essential governmental and business activity in New Zealand significantly.

This notice allows the government, in its truncated form of the executive branch, to change existing laws, subject to only a few safeguards of review, some civil rights and constitutional structure.

This means that if deemed absolutely necessary, the government can do nearly anything that needs to be done to stop the epidemic of COVID-19 in New Zealand.

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

– ref. As NZ goes into lockdown, authorities have new powers to make sure people obey the rules – https://theconversation.com/as-nz-goes-into-lockdown-authorities-have-new-powers-to-make-sure-people-obey-the-rules-134377

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Komesaroff, Professor of Medicine, Monash University

Last week American biotech company Moderna commenced the first clinical trial of a vaccine for COVID-19.

Similar studies are reportedly being planned in the US, China, Israel, Australia and elsewhere, with at least 20 potential vaccines under development.

The usual time scale for the development of a new vaccine is five to ten years. But the scale of the emergency we are facing creates overwhelming pressure to speed up this process.

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

The Moderna trial shows this has already been at least partially successful. The speed at which this trial vaccine has been developed is breathtaking, given the virus was only identified three months ago.

However, the shortcuts being taken – including skipping animal trials and going straight to human testing – may end up doing more harm than good.

What’s significant about these trials?

The rapid progress has been made possible, in part, by a promising new technology which is still largely untested.

Unlike traditional vaccines, the Moderna vaccine candidate doesn’t use modified or killed forms of the virus. Rather, it relies on genetically engineered fragments of the virus’ genetic code, which are calculated on the basis of a theoretical model.

But the goal of both types of vaccines is the same: to provoke an immune response that will provide protection against infection.

Similar methods have been tried in small clinical trials of new vaccines for other viral infections (not coronaviruses), with promising, but still inconclusive, results.

The trial is also unprecedented in that it involves testing a completely new therapeutic substance in humans.

Usually, new drugs and vaccines are required to undergo a thorough assessment of safety in animals before humans are exposed to them.

However, in the present emergency it has been argued that there is no time to undertake such a process.

What’s the problem with jumping to human testing?

Testing a substance on humans that has received a minimal assessment of its safety poses potential risks. It could cause unexpected effects in the study participants, including severe illness and even death.

It’s also possible that an untested vaccine could even accelerate or enhance the effects of the virus instead of blocking them.

Read more: We mightn’t like it, but there are ethical reasons to use animals in medical research

Speeding up the approval process and recruitment of participants also runs the risk of eroding ethical requirements relating to consent, privacy and the protection of vulnerable people, especially where payments may be involved. This could both increase the risks to volunteers and undermine public trust in clinical research.

The anti-vaccination movement already seeks to discredit the importance of vaccines. If a new vaccine, tested and introduced without established safeguards, is associated with major health problems, people may be less likely to undergo other vaccinations in future.

The ethics approval process needs work

The research ethics regulatory system has protected us against these risks for 50 years. It ensures newly released products will be safe and effective.

But the system has problems. It has become deeply bureaucratised and ethical discourse has often been replaced by rigid administrative rules and the slavish completion of forms.

Often the approval process can take months, and involve an extensive cycle of quibbling with little or no ethical content.

The challenge of COVID-19 research may prompt a rethink of this bureaucracy. The sheer urgency of the task may force a review of current ethics processes and open the way for a more efficient, streamlined system.

This process could stimulate a move away from the focus on formal rules and procedures and a return to the core idea of ethical deliberation in the service of urgent social needs.

Is there still a role for animal testing?

The question of the use of animals in research is more complex than it may first appear.

Animal testing has played a fundamental role in the development of many vaccines in the past and will continue to do so. But different viruses may produce different effects in different species. A candidate vaccine that appears useful in one animal species may not be effective in humans.

Read more: Of mice and men: why animal trial results don’t always translate to humans

At the same time, animal rights groups have rightly pointed to a history of cruelty towards animals and have strongly advocated for the reduction or elimination of animal testing.

It would, however, seem premature to dispense with animal testing, which can provide invaluable guidance for human clinical studies. The search for animal models which mimic the effects of coronavirus in humans, and the testing of candidate substances, should continue, albeit with great care.

We need to maintain safety standards

The development and testing of COVID-19 vaccines is urgent and it is important to find ways to speed things up.

However, it has to be undertaken without compromising standards of care and safety.

Tried and tested processes to assess risks and benefits, protect research participants, and ensure the ethical conduct of clinical trials, must be preserved.

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

– ref. The US is fast-tracking a coronavirus vaccine, but bypassing safety standards may not be worth the cost – https://theconversation.com/the-us-is-fast-tracking-a-coronavirus-vaccine-but-bypassing-safety-standards-may-not-be-worth-the-cost-134041

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

Within the space of weeks, Australia has been transformed into a command economy.

Businesses are being told whether they can or cannot open and how they must operate, consumers are subject to formal and informal rationing, workers are directed to stay home, or, in the case of schoolteachers, until now ordered to turn up regardless of risk.

All of it is taking place against the background of what is assumed to be a market economy, where businesses are meant to live or die according to their success in meeting the needs of consumers, and where unemployed workers are expected to find jobs or live in poverty.

Read more: View from The Hill: Entertainment venues closed in draconian measures to fight the virus

The economy we thought we were living in is one in which individual problems are addressed case by case, with nothing remotely resembling an overall plan.

For the next couple of weeks at least, as the lockdown of the economy is completed, policy will be made up as we go along.

But then it will be time to think about the future, and how we will deal with the consequence of the command economy we have created. It’s unlikely that we will be able to return to the economy that existed a month ago.

Indeed, the catastrophic bushfire season, now pushed out of our minds by COVID-19, demonstrated that we could not go on as we have done.

Economists think like planners

To think about how to deal with the crisis in the medium term, it’s useful to adopt the perspective of a central planner.

Surprisingly, perhaps, this is something economists do regularly, even though hardly any of us support comprehensive central planning.

The idea, in dealing with an economic problem like unemployment, is to ask how a perfectly informed, and purely benevolent social planner might deal with it. (To avoid getting into disputes about comparative systems, economists mostly prefer the term “social planner” to “central planner”)

No such omniscient and benevolent planner exists or is likely to, but we can use the ideal planned solution as a benchmark against which to compare market outcomes.

Read more: Scalable without limit: how the government plans to get coronavirus support into our hands quickly

A famous conclusion of mainstream economics, with the grandiose title of the Second Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics, states that, under ideal conditions, and with the right initial allocation of property rights, perfectly competitive markets can replicate any outcome that might be chosen by a social planner.

But, just like omniscient and benevolent social planners, perfectly competitive markets don’t exist in reality. So economic analysis involves comparing market outcomes to the unattainable ideal of the perfect social planner, then considering policy changes that might move the economy closer to the ideal.

How a planner would think

How might a social planner respond to the COVID-19 crisis, and the lockdowns it has necessitated?

The planner would begin with an assessment of the resources available to the community and the technology available, which in turn would determined the set of goods and services that could be produced.

Having selected a particular set of goods and services, the planner would decide who should get them, subject to various constraints of feasibility and equity.

Read more: State-by-state: how Australia’s new coronavirus rules will affect you

In this way of thinking, the need for lockdowns in response to COVID-19 represents a backward step in technology, making it impossible for the economy to produce services like restaurant meals and travel.

As a result, the planner is faced with a number of problems.

First, what can be produced in place of these lost services? We can think of examples like takeaway in place of restaurant meals and teleconferencing in place of travel. These replacements will go some way to offsetting the shock of the lockdown, but by no means all the way.

Next the planner needs to consider the workers and input suppliers who produce the lost services.

Can they be re-employed elsewhere in the economy? And if so how? On the assumption that the lockdown will last months rather than years, it seems likely that only limited redeployment is possible.

Who should bear the losses?

However, some sectors of the economy, like international travel are likely to be greatly reduced for years to come. Subsectors like cruise shipping may never recover. In this case, workers and resources need to move to other areas of production.

The final, and most critical, question for the planner is: who should bear the loss associated with the crisis?

In a market economy, those outside the affected sector have to do without restaurant meals and other services, but can shift their spending elsewhere or save up and spend it later. The loss is borne by workers who become unemployed and employers who go out of business.

Read more: Coronavirus puts casual workers at risk of homelessness unless they get more support

A social planner would want to spread the losses more evenly.

In the absence of the ideal social planner, the options available to policy makers fall into three broad categories

• unemployment benefits and business assistance, which require transfers of resources from the rest of the community (unlike in a normal recession unemployed workers can’t easily be mobilised)

• requirements for private creditors such as banks and landlords to forgive or defer payments

• taking enterprises into public ownership, keeping staff on and operating at a loss, which must will be met by the community as a whole

To get the mix right, we need to take the time following the immediate crisis to consider what a planner would do.

John Quiggin’ latest book is Economics in Two Lessons: Why Markets Work so Well and How they can Fail so Badly.

– ref. To get out of this well we are going to have to think like central planners – https://theconversation.com/to-get-out-of-this-well-we-are-going-to-have-to-think-like-central-planners-134356

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hugh Breakey, President, Australian Association for Professional & Applied Ethics. Senior Research Fellow, Moral philosophy, Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law, Law Futures Centre., Griffith University

As the country moves into lockdown mode in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we are increasingly faced with serious ethical questions about what ordinary people should be obliged to do for others.

These challenges can perhaps best be seen in the outrage as people flocked to Bondi Beach and packed into pubs and cafes over the weekend, despite strict social-distancing rules.

This also helps explain the anger on social media over people lying about overseas travel in order to get doctors’ appointments, hoarding toilet paper and defying quarantine orders, even as they defend their conduct self-righteously.

People are even being met with disdain when they ask others to keep their distance.

Why is ethical action critical?

In the face of a pandemic, legislation and police enforcement can only do so much. Ethical decision-making by ordinary people becomes crucial.

While laws and policies can be slow to evolve, individuals can alter their behaviours instantaneously. Rules and bans can be ham-fisted or crude, but ethical decision-makers can respond intelligently to their own contexts.

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

Above all, ethical decision-makers can be intrinsically motivated to do right by the community, ensuring compliance of social-distancing rules in situations where effective policing is logistically impossible.

Even as Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews announced a special taskforce to enforce an immediate shutdown of venues and restrictions on gatherings, he appealed to people’s consciences in the strongest terms:

If you act selfishly, people will die.

This is why leaders have called for voluntary cooperation during the crisis. Laws and political action alone will not save us. An effective response to the pandemic requires ordinary people making sound ethical decisions.

Why is this so challenging?

As we’ve seen from the images over the weekend, ethical decision-making in response to a pandemic is not easy. Many people are simply not taking the crisis seriously enough.

One of the reasons for this is confusion. Rules change almost daily, meaning some people won’t know the latest requirements. Others might not appreciate the stakes involved with their behaviours, and that it is not only their own health they are risking.

Also, rules can be ambiguous. For example, what happens if you’re keeping an appropriate distance from others at the beach or park, and it starts becoming crowded? Who should leave? Should those who arrived first have priority? Or should those who have had “their turn” move on?

In ambiguous situations, people take cues from those around them. If we saw others interacting normally at the park or pub (before they were closed), we could conclude it’s probably okay. We might also wonder if there’s any point in obeying the rules if others aren’t.

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

Furthermore, it’s easy to question the legitimacy of the new rules. Ordinarily, we judge rules based on many factors, such as:

• Is it the right thing to do?

• Is it fair?

• Will it be effective?

In fluid situations, these conditions are hard to meet. Consider the case of casual workers with no paid sick leave who might not be able to pay rent or might lose their jobs if they comply with quarantine orders. Demanding they shoulder this burden can seem unfair.

Similarly, many teachers feel they are taking unfair risks to keep schools open.

In the most difficult cases, people must weigh up conflicting moral priorities. Do they support their elderly parents by visiting them, or is this risking infection?

For these reasons, even conscientious ethical decision-makers can struggle.

Why we might make poor decisions

Unfortunately, human beings suffer from decision-making biases.

For example, we often interpret expectations as entitlements. We convert our ordinary expectations about social, work, educational, religious and sporting routines into demands that these should continue.

This is one reason why some call for a “war footing”, urging people to acknowledge a “new normal”.

Read more: Explainer: what are the laws mandating self-isolation and how will they be enforced?

In addition, people tend to be self-interested and prioritise immediate goals. Abstract concerns about risks to community infection can seem less salient than the pressures of the moment.

This bias can affect ethical decision-making. It allows us to “neutralise” rules by inventing stories about why they don’t apply to us, given our special circumstances. These self-serving excuses are a classic source of serious moral error.

Some guidelines to follow

There are no easy answers to the myriad moral challenges that COVID-19 thrusts upon us. However, here are five rules of thumb:

1. Common sense ethics still applies – and the stakes make it more important than ever. Never lie about or conceal your history or infection status. Comply strictly with authoritative directives about quarantine.

2. Stay informed about the latest rules.

3. Never force your decisions on other people. Even if you aren’t personally concerned about social distancing, acknowledge that others are entitled to their space.

4. If others are behaving recklessly or inappropriately, try to engage with them constructively. Outrage can be appropriate, but understanding can be better at changing minds.

5. Gird yourself for the long haul. “Fatigue” can set in over long periods with changing rules. As the weeks in a state of emergency turn into months, we can be worn down and become less diligent in our ethical decision-making.

Finally, remember the positives. As the stakes rise, acts of kindness and support are more important than ever before.

– ref. Acting selfishly has consequences right now – why ethical decision making is imperative in the coronavirus crisis – https://theconversation.com/acting-selfishly-has-consequences-right-now-why-ethical-decision-making-is-imperative-in-the-coronavirus-crisis-134350

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dan Parker, PhD Candidate, University of Melbourne

Native to southeastern Australia, the powerful owl (Ninox strenua) is threatened and facing the prospect of homelessness.

These birds don’t make nests – they use large hollows in old, tall trees. But humans have been removing such trees in the bush and in cities, despite their ecological value.

Read more: To save these threatened seahorses, we built them 5-star underwater hotels

Owls are lured into cities by abundant prey, with each bird capturing hundreds of possums per year. But with nowhere to nest, they struggle to breed and their population is at risk of declining even further.

Conservationists tried to solve this problem by installing nesting boxes, but to no avail. A 2011 study in Victoria showed a pair of owls once used such a box, but only one of their two chicks survived. This is the only recorded instance of powerful-owl breeding in an artificial structure.

So as a team of designers and ecologists we’re finding a way to make artificial nests in urban areas more appealing to powerful owls. Surprisingly, the answer lies in termite mounds, augmented reality and 3D printing.

Bring in the designers

Nesting boxes aren’t very successful for many species. For example, many boxes installed along expanded highways fail to attract animals such as the squirrel glider, the superb parrot and the brown treecreeper. They also tend to disintegrate and become unusable after only a few years.

Read more: The plan to protect wildlife displaced by the Hume Highway has failed

What’s more, flaws in their design can lead to overheating, death from toxic fumes such as marine-plywood vapours, or babies unable to grow.

Designers and architects often use computer modelling to mimic nature in building designs, such as Beijing’s bird’s nest stadium.

But to use these skills to help wildlife, we need to understand what they want in a home. And for powerful owls, this means thinking outside the box.

What powerful owls need

At a minimum, owl nests must provide enough space to support a mother and two chicks, shelter the inhabitants from rain and heat, and have rough internal surfaces for scratching and climbing.

Traditionally, owls would find all such comforts in large, old, hollow-bearing trees, such as swamp or manna gums at least 150 years old. But a picture from Sydney photographer Ofer Levy, which showed an owl nesting in a tree-bound termite mound, made us realise there was another way.

Termite mounds in trees are oddly shaped, but they meet all necessary characteristics for successful breeding. This precedent suggests younger, healthier and more common trees can become potential nesting sites.

A high-tech home

To design and create each termite-inspired nest, we first use lasers to model the shape of the target tree. A computer algorithm generates the structure fitting the owls’ requirements. Then, we divide the structure into interlocking blocks that can be conveniently manufactured.

To assemble the nests, we use augmented-reality headsets, overlaying images of digital models onto physical objects. It sounds like science-fiction, but holographic construction with augmented reality has become an efficient way to create new structures.

So far, we’ve used 3D-printed wood to build one nest at the University of Melbourne’s System Garden. Two more nests made from hemp concrete are on the trees in the city of Knox, near the Dandenong Ranges. And we’re exploring other materials such as earth or fungus.

These materials can be moulded to a unique fit, and as they’re lightweight, we can easily fix them onto trees.

So is it working?

We are still collecting and analysing the data, but early results are promising. Our nests have important advantages over both traditional nesting boxes and carved logs.

This is, in part, because our artificial nests maintain more stable internal temperatures than nesting boxes and are considerably easier to make and install than carved logs. In other words, our designs already look like a good alternative.

Read more: B&Bs for birds and bees: transform your garden or balcony into a wildlife haven

And while it’s too early to say if they’ll attract owls, our nests have already been visited or occupied by other animals, such as rainbow lorikeets.

Future homes for animal clients

Imagine an ecologist, a park manager or even a local resident who wants to boost local biodiversity. In the not-too-distant future, they might select a target species and a suitable tree from an online database. An algorithm could customise their choice of an artificial-nest design to fit the target tree. Remote machines would manufacture the parts and the end user would put the structure together.

Such workflows are already being used in a variety of fields, such as the custom jewellery production and the preparation of dental crowns. It allows informed and automated reuse of scientific and technical knowledge, making advanced designs significantly more accessible.

Our techniques could be used to ease the housing crisis for a wide range of other sites and species, from fire-affected animals to critically endangered wildlife such as the swift parrot or Leadbeater’s possum.

– ref. Urban owls are losing their homes. So we’re 3D printing them new ones – https://theconversation.com/urban-owls-are-losing-their-homes-so-were-3d-printing-them-new-ones-133626

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bruce Mountain, Director, Victoria Energy Policy Centre, Victoria University

The massive Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro project is soon expected to be granted environmental approval. I and others have criticised the project on several grounds, including its questionable financial viability and overstated benefits to the electricity system. But Snowy 2.0’s greenhouse gas emissions have barely been discussed.

Both Snowy Hydro and its owner, the federal government, say the project will help expand renewable electricity generation (and by extension, contribute to emissions reduction from the energy sector).

However, closer inspection shows it won’t work that way. For at least the next couple of decades, Snowy 2.0 will store coal-fired electricity, not renewable electricity. In fact, I predict Snowy 2.0 will create additional demand for coal-fired generation and lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions for the foreseeable future.

The problem explained

The expanded Snowy Hydro scheme in southern New South Wales will involve pumping water uphill to a reservoir, storing it, and then releasing it downhill to generate electricity when demand is high.

The emissions reduction potential of the project rests on what type of electricity is used to pump the water uphill. Snowy Hydro says it will pump the water when a lot of wind and solar energy is being produced (and therefore when wholesale electricity prices are low).

But the crucial point here is that wind and solar farms produce electricity whenever the resource is available. This will happen irrespective of whether Snowy 2.0 is producing or consuming energy.

Read more: Snowy 2.0 will not produce nearly as much electricity as claimed. We must hit the pause button

When Snowy 2.0 pumps water uphill to its upper reservoir, it adds to demand on the electricity system. The generators that will provide this extra electricity are the ones that operate when demand is high.

These will not be the renewable generators. For the next couple of decades, coal-fired electricity generators – the next cheapest form of electricity after renewables – will provide Snowy 2.0’s power.

Why this matters

Ageing coal-fired generaters will account for a smaller share of Australia’s electricity production over time as they become uneconomic and close down. But projections from the Australian Energy Market Operator show coal will make up a significant proportion of electricity production for the next two decades.

It is only when all coal-fired generators have closed (and gas-fired generators have not taken their place) that Snowy 2.0 could claim to be using renewable electricity to power its pumps.

Does this matter? Yes, very much. Using Snowy Hydro’s projections of how much electricity Snowy 2.0 will pump each year from 2025 to 2047 (the period over which they have developed their projections) I estimate that Snowy 2.0 will, on average, account for 5.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent each year.

Read more: Turnbull unveils Snowy plan for pumped hydro, costing billions

This is clearly a big number – roughly equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions of Australia’s mineral or chemical industry, and equal to the annual emissions of 2.4 million cars.

If we assume, conservatively, that emissions have a cost of A$20 per tonne of carbon, then Snowy 2.0 will impose an additional annual cost of A$108 million on the Australian community that will need to be countered by emissions reduction somewhere else in the economy.

The NSW government has adopted a target of net-zero emissions by 2050. But using Snowy Hydro’s projections of pumped energy, average greenhouse gas emissions attributable to Snowy 2.0 over its first decade will increase NSW’s emissions by about 10% of their current levels each year.

This proportion will increase if the government successfully reduces emissions elsewhere.

Of course, emission reduction is not just an issue for the states. The federal government has been at pains to affirm its commitment to the Paris climate accord. Snowy 2.0 will undermine the achievement of this commitment.

If additional energy storage is needed to stabilise our electricity grid, it can be provided by many alternatives with a much smaller greenhouse gas impact such as demand response, gas or diesel generators, batteries or smaller and more efficient pumped-hydro generators.

Meeting the climate challenge

Emissions associated with storage is given little attention in Australia but is well-researched overseas. Since Australia’s state and federal governments profess a commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, this is a serious omission.

Read more: If the NBN and Snowy Hydro 2.0 were value for money, would we know?

Energy storage will increase emissions as long as fossil fuel generators dominate the power system.

In meeting the climate challenge, greenhouse gas emissions must become a more prominent consideration in the planning and approval of all electricity projects, including storage – and especially for Snowy 2.0.

In response the points raised in this article, Snowy Hydro said Snowy 2.0 would add 2,000 megawatts (MW) of renewable capacity to the national electricity market (NEM).

“In the absence of Snowy 2.0, the NEM will have to fill the capacity need with other power stations, which would inevitably be fossil-fuelled,” the company said in a statement.

“Snowy will sell capacity contracts (tantamount to insurance against NEM price volatility and spikes) to a range of NEM counterparties, as it does now and has done for decades.”

Snowy Hydro said Snowy 2.0 would directly draw wind and solar capacity into the NEM, via the contract market.

It said this market, rather than the wholesale market, drives investment and electricity generation.

“Snowy Hydro’s renewable energy procurement program, through which Snowy contracted with 888 MW of wind and solar facilities in 2019, has made the construction of eight new wind and solar projects possible,” Snowy Hydro said.

“In the NEM, what happens subsequently to the spot price is of little interest to the owners of these facilities, because their revenue is guaranteed through their offtake contracts with Snowy.”

The company said the energy produced by wind and solar plants, backed by Snowy’s existing large-scale generation fleet, was “the most cost-effective and reliable way to serve the customers of the NEM in the future.”

Snowy Hydro said Snowy 2.0 would pump water uphill using cheap electricity from wind and solar – often most plentiful when NEM prices are low – rather than expensive electricity from coal.

“The water is released when prices are high – this is one of the four Snowy 2.0 revenue streams,” it said.

“Given that Snowy has the water storage capability to pump when electricity prices are low, and generate when electricity prices are high, why would Snowy choose to buy expensive coal-fired energy to pump water uphill at times of high prices?”

– ref. Snowy 2.0 is a wolf in sheep’s clothing – it will push carbon emissions up, not down – https://theconversation.com/snowy-2-0-is-a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing-it-will-push-carbon-emissions-up-not-down-133006

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul J. Maginn, Associate Professor of Urban/Regional Planning, University of Western Australia

Mention the phrase “sex tourism” in conversation and most people will cringe in disgust.

Why? People often picture old Western men visiting Asia for easy cheap sex with young boys and girls.

Stereotypes of sex tourism, as geographer Phil Hubbard notes, “obscure a more complex global economy of sex”. A wide range of people, regardless of age, gender, relationship status, race/ethnicity, ability/disability and sexuality, engage in sexualised tourism and leisure activities. We do this whenever we watch porn at home or in a hotel room when on holiday; go on a “romantic/dirty weekend”; visit a strip club, brothel, swingers’ club or bdsm dungeon when on a business trip; attend a gay/lesbian Mardi Gras parade; or go to a porn expo.

Consent matters in sexualised touristic spaces. It can’t be taken for granted just because a space is hyper-sexualised. Workers are continuously negotiating consent. They can and should be able to withdraw consent at any time.

Most people who regularly engage in these practices recognise this. Venues are increasingly taking responsibility for this issue too, but there is still work to do.

Sexualised tourism takes many forms

As we note in our recent research paper, the touristic gaze involves more than just looking. It includes “touching or being touched (physical or emotionally), buying, moving around and talking”.

Different cities are renowned for particular forms of sexualised leisure/tourism.

Sydney, for example, is globally recognised for its Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. The Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco is arguably the tourist capital for fetishists from around the USA and the world. Paris is the tourist city for romantic getaways. And in the UK the “dirty weekend” is synonymous with seaside towns such as Brighton and Blackpool.

Other UK cities such as London, Liverpool and Newcastle, plus European cities such as Amsterdam, Dublin and Prague, are popular destinations for stag or hen parties. These may include visits to strip clubs, brothels, sex shops and casual or hook-up sex.

Casual/hook-up sex in Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Cancun and Cabo San Lucas is popular for US college students during “Spring Break”. During “Schoolies Week” in Australia, high school graduates hit destinations such as the Gold Coast, Byron Bay and Bali.

But if there is one city that personifies sexualised leisure tourism and hedonistic urbanism it is the US city of Las Vegas, Nevada – aka “Sin City”. Nevada has “built a tourist industry on turning deviance into leisure”.

Pascale Nédélec notes that Las Vegas has aggressively marketed itself as a “free-wheeling, anything-goes kind of place”. Its long-running advertising slogan is “What Happens Here, Stays Here”.

Managing issues of consent

The AVN Adult Entertainment Expo represents one key node in a global network of adult-oriented entertainment expos that attract fans and industry personnel. Examples include Exxxotica (USA), SEXPO (Australia), Taboo (Canada) and Expo Sexo y Erostismo (Mexico).

Every January the sexualised touristic gaze within Las Vegas ramps up when the AVN Expo sets up camp at the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino (soon to be rebranded).

The largely LA-based adult entertainment industry relocates to Las Vegas for about a week, bringing with it performers, producers, directors and videographers. The porn community is in town for business-to-business events, to shoot porn, celebrate industry achievements at the AVN Awards – the so-called Porn Oscars – and meet and greet porn fans.

The meet-and-greet aspect is where the touristic gaze is particularly intense. In a panel we organised at the 2020 AVN Expo, performers Jessica Drake and Katy Jayne said they often felt an even more intense gaze when winding their way to their hotel rooms, restaurants and bars within Hard Rock’s broader spaces.

Admittedly the expo encourages a sexualised touristic gaze by largely heterosexual male attendees. But this in no way negates the importance of negotiated consent in interactions between fans and performers.

A “mix of physical, social and institutional boundaries and formal and informal rules of engagement” prevails within the AVN Expo space. Attendees – performers, media and fans – must sign a “code of conduct”. Signage around the expo space reminds patrons of the AVN’s policy of zero tolerance of anyone found and/or reported to have engaged in assault, non-consensual physical contact, violations of privacy, and verbal or physical harassment.

While this code isn’t perfect, our research found it’s part of a “mix of physical, social and institutional boundaries and formal and informal rules of engagement”. These help keep non-consensual contact to a minimum and empower the performers to negotiate their own boundaries.

A charter of consent helps

When sexualised leisure activities are an important part of a city’s tourism or night-time economy, it is critical for government officials, local businesses and advocacy organisations that represent workers in sexualised tourism to come together and develop what might be termed a “charter of consent”.

Such a charter would set out the essential “rights, roles and responsibilities” of participants. It could also highlight the repercussions for those who transgress consensual boundaries.

This charter could be widely promoted via traditional and social media, creative marketing strategies (e.g. drinks coasters, receipts, online adverts, and posters in restrooms in bars, clubs and restaurants), as well as signage in sexualised tourism/leisure spaces to remind tourists consent is paramount.

With active promotion and demonstrated commitment by regulators, such a charter would help give those on the front line of providing sexualised leisure experiences the confidence to report non-consensual or inappropriate behaviours to their employers and relevant authorities.

– ref. What happens in Vegas … why consent matters in ‘Sin City’ and other sex tourism cities – https://theconversation.com/what-happens-in-vegas-why-consent-matters-in-sin-city-and-other-sex-tourism-cities-133080

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Daley, Chief Executive Officer, Grattan Institute

The New South Wales and Victorian governments showed foresight on Sunday by announcing a shut-down of all non-essential activity. On Saturday we described this strategy on Saturday as Endgame C – with the goal to drive new infections down to zero.

But after meeting Prime Minister Scott Morrison last night, the two states backtracked and for now will only close pubs, clubs, cinemas, nightclubs, and restaurants. Schools will be closed in Victoria and the ACT, and parents will be encouraged to keep their children home in NSW.

State governments should stick to their guns and move more quickly to shutting down more non-essential businesses and activities.

Read more: The case for Endgame C: stop almost everything, restart when coronavirus is gone

Our best hope to limit the long-term economic damage and to save the lives of our friends and families is to do everything we can to reverse the spread of this virus.

Coronavirus is growing exponentially in Australia – with a sufficiently broad shutdown, it should fall exponentially as well. Choosing Endgame C now means that the shut-down will be much shorter than if we wait another week.

Australian COVID-19 cases up to Monday March 23

The goal should be to all but remove coronavirus from the community as soon as possible.

Modelling shows that “flattening the curve” is unlikely to save the health care system, and it definitely won’t save the economy.

Business cannot return to normal while this disease festers. But once infections are very low, tracking and tracing them becomes feasible, particularly if we upgrade existing systems.

Read more: State-by-state: how Australia’s new coronavirus rules will affect you

Whatever restrictions are implemented, the challenge for the states will be to set community expectations so there is all but universal compliance.

The most effective public health messages are clear and simple. When people are told that it is too dangerous to go to a café but they are fine to get a haircut, they are right to be confused.

If the messages are contradictory, many people will ignore them, and we will waste our best chance to contain this virus.

Legal enforcement also helps to send the message, and Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews should be commended for announcing that 500 police will be knocking on doors to check that people are following self-isolation rules.

We’ll need control of our borders

The federal government must also step up and take control of our borders. If they cannot track every new entrant to ensure compliance, the borders should be closed to passengers completely, or quarantine should be enforced in airport hotels.

Australians may be complacent about the spread of coronavirus because we so far have had fewer cases than the UK, the US or Italy. But Australia is a smaller country; we need far fewer cases to create a crisis.

We are only just behind the UK when it comes to coronavirus cases per person, and only a couple of days behind France, Germany and the US. We are in a similar position to Italy three weeks ago.

Our biggest advantage is that we are testing more people than these countries, and growth of infections is a little slower, but there are no signs yet that we are changing the trajectory of our infection rates.

Our best endgame is to do everything we can to reduce infection rates. Over the coming days there will be many ideas about ways we can minimise the chance of this virus spreading. Some countries have been successful without implementing every single measure.

But every country is different – what works in one climate or culture might not be as effective in Australia. The risks of doing too little too late are high. The risks of doing too much are relatively small.

Read more: Our politicians are not fit to oversee the coronavirus response. It’s time they got out of the way

If Endgame C succeeds, Australians society will be able to slowly return much more closely to normal functioning after eight to twelve weeks.

South Korea, Singapore, and Hubei province in China have successfully implemented Endgame C – and their infection rates have fallen.

Economic life is reappearing, and they now have the benefit of a public health workforce that can focus laser-like attention on any new outbreaks to prevent widespread community spread.

With Endgame C, Australians can have hope for a brighter future.

– ref. We’re running out of time to use Endgame C to drive coronavirus infections down to zero – https://theconversation.com/were-running-out-of-time-to-use-endgame-c-to-drive-coronavirus-infections-down-to-zero-134393

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philip C. Almond, Emeritus Professor in the History of Religious Thought, The University of Queensland

It’s not the end of the world. But with the Coronavirus running rampant, you could be forgiven for thinking so.

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse symbolically portray the four events that will occur before the end of the world: plague, war, famine, and death. It is the first of these that is striking fear into hearts worldwide. But with the rhetoric of our being “at war” with this disease, of “an invisible enemy”, a high mortality rate, and increasing food shortages, all four horsemen appear to be riding out.

How does God figure in all this? Within the religious doctrine of Divine Providence – that all that happens in the universe is under God’s sovereign control – we can identify five different responses.

1. Providential fatalism

The first is providential fatalism. According to this stance, my fate and the fate of the world have all been planned out in advance. Whatever happens is God’s will and there is nothing we can do to alter this plan. On this account, we should all just carry on as usual and should take no active precautions.

In its most extreme forms, this is interpreted in line with the Biblical statement: “They will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them” (Mark 16.18). Among some conservative Protestant churches in the United States, worshippers pick up venomous snakes and hold them up as they sing and dance. It is believed those who die do so because it’s God’s will.

2. Providential activism

The second response is providential activism, which holds to the belief that, as the African American spiritual puts it, “He’s got the whole world in his hands”. But this is interpreted to mean, even though God orchestrates all of history to bring about his purposes, he relies upon us to accomplish them.

While providential fatalism would see it as sinful to act against God’s will, providential activism would view acting to avoid catching a disease as in accord with God’s will. Thus, taking active measures to avoid contagion is to cooperate with divine providence rather than act against it. The mainstream Christian churches (Catholic, Anglican, the Uniting Church) along with the Jewish and Muslim communities are endorsing this activist approach.

3. Providential exclusivism

Third, providential exclusivism would have us believe that God will look after those whom he has chosen for salvation. This exclusivist approach is common among conservative Protestant groups that divide the world into the saved and the damned on the criterion of having accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

The Pentecostal Hillsong Church in Sydney is following government requirements and its large weekend gatherings are going online. It is also recommending taking active measures to manage the disease. Yet it reassures followers that “no evil shall befall you, nor shall any plague come near your dwelling” (Psalm 91.10).

Pentecostalist Margaret Court’s Victory Life Centre, while assuring churchgoers their health and safety is the group’s top priority, declared:

We are in agreement that this Convid-19 [sic] will not come near our dwelling or our church family […] knowing that we are all protected by the blood of Jesus.

4. Providential punitivism

Throughout the history of Christianity, the most common response to plague has been providential punitivism. In its simplest form, pandemic disease is God’s punishment for our sins (or the sins of others) and a call for repentance.

It has good Biblical precedent: “Then the Lord sent a plague on the people, because they made the [golden] calf” (Exodus 32.35). The Jesuit priest in Albert Camus’ The Plague warned:

the unjust should tremble. In the vast granary of the universe, the implacable flail will thresh the human corn until the chaff is divided from the grain […] Beaten on the bloody threshing floor of pain, you will be cast out with the chaff.

The Coronavirus is yet to provoke providential punitivism in Australia. But, like the Coronavirus, it is spreading. A recent issue of Lifesite News, a conservative Canadian Catholic magazine, declared:

Of course the coronavirus is a punishment from God: all our sufferings are the consequence of sin; for us sinners, they are a just penalty for our sin; and God has complete control over what happens and how it affects us.

The downside of this response is that it makes God an arbitrary and cruel despot rather than a God of love and compassion.

5. Providential interventionism

The doctrine of providence is not completely set in stone. For, fifth, providential interventionism holds God can be persuaded to “change” his plans and end the plague because of our prayers to him to do so.

This may seem to contradict the notion of divine providence. But, as medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas put it, “our motive in praying is, not that we may change the Divine disposition, but that, by our prayers, we may obtain what God has appointed”. In short, God had built our prayers to him, and his response, into his original plan. You never get anything past Thomas Aquinas!

Thus, leaders in the UK of the Anglican, Catholic, Free Churches, Orthodox, and Pentecostal churches have called for a National Day of Prayer and Action for March 22. Likewise, US President Donald Trump called for a National Day of Prayer, “to pray for God’s healing hand to be placed on the people of our Nation”.

O ye of little faith

For the non-believer, none of the above attempts to relate the ways of God to the world is in play. The Coronavirus is nothing but a natural, if deeply unfortunate, event for which there is neither ultimate explanation nor ultimate meaning. It just is.

The virtue of the doctrine of the divine providence is that everything is going to plan in spite of appearances to the contrary. The problem is that it’s hard to believe, in the face of global pandemics, there is any divine plan at all. If there is, God might need to do a pretty radical rethink – and sooner rather than later.

– ref. Are you there God? Whether we pray harder or endure wrath depends on the religious doctrine of Providence – https://theconversation.com/are-you-there-god-whether-we-pray-harder-or-endure-wrath-depends-on-the-religious-doctrine-of-providence-134139

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

The Morrison government would like the “national cabinet” to mean individual states, notably NSW and Victoria, just stay in line – the line being what the Feds want.

Scott Morrison was clearly beyond irritated on Sunday when premiers Gladys Berejiklian and Daniel Andrews flagged shutdowns and indicated they disagreed with Canberra’s insistence on the need for children to be kept in school.

Not only had the premiers overshadowed the federal government’s $66 billion economic package. But they were arm twisting the Commonwealth, by announcing, pre-emptively, tougher positions.

In the event, on Sunday evening the national cabinet agreed to close down a range of premises to limit social gatherings, which seems to have satisfied the premiers on that front.

On schools, there was a compromise, which basically looks like a paper-over. Schools would stay open. But parents could pull their kids out – which on Monday Berejiklian was quick to advise. Andrews had already said he was bringing the holidays forward.

For weeks the Morrison government has been adamant about schools, arguing that children are at low risk of the virus, that out of school they’re more likely to infect other people, especially vulnerable grandparents, and that if parents have to stay home to mind them, it could mean a 30% reduction in the health workforce (this is its core concern).

Latterly, Morrison has stressed the undesirability of kids losing a year of schooling. Ensuring all children have adequate access to distance learning would be a near-impossible challenge for governments and parents.

Morrison stresses he’s driven by the medical advice. But how watertight is that?

Read more: View from The Hill: Entertainment venues closed in draconian measures to fight the virus

It is instructive to look in detail at the words from his advisers, the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee.

“AHPPC does not support closure of schools at this time,” it headed its Sunday advice.

“AHPPC does not support the closure of schools given the lack of evidence of significant disease in children and the lack of reported major disease spreading in schools,” it said.

“Furthermore, the closure of schools poses a major risk to children’s education, mental health and wellbeing, particularly those from low socioeconomic regions, where schools provide an important environment for nurturing and learning. The impact on the critical workforce and potential exposure of elderly relatives caring for children is also of significance.

“School closure would achieve some degree of additional social distancing but the evidence of its benefit at this stage is minimal. AHPPC views schools as an essential service and strongly supports keeping schools open. …

“AHPPC will continue to review developing evidence regarding the effect of the disease in children and the role of children in the transmission of the virus.

“School closures are likely to be more effective when approaching the peak of the epidemic and enforced for a shorter period.”

The advice is strong – and broader than strictly medical – but the qualifications are also significant. The judgement about non-closure is not absolute. The committee doesn’t support the closure “at this time”. (So much of the debate about how to handle the virus goes to the “when” question.) Closure would be more effective “when approaching the peak of the epidemic”. And the committee is still reviewing medical evidence.

This suggests a lot of room for different judgements.

“Experts” have come into their own in this crisis, which is how it should be, and a welcome change from the dissing of them in the “anti-elite” strand of modern politics.

But on this issue, the matter of expertise has been complicated.

Read more: Grattan on Friday: We are now a nation in self-isolation

We’ve seen the federal government strike positions, referencing its expert advice, then alter them, declaring the experts’ advice has changed. The change may be driven by new circumstances, or just a rethink.

Also, experts are divided – even if the advice from the AHPPC to the national cabinet is always said to be unanimous. (Does this really mean there is never any disagreement among these federal and state experts? Hardly.)

Credible experts have strongly contested the federal policy of a staged approach to the crisis, arguing for harder and faster action. Some of that advice has obviously been going to state governments.

Moreover, the debate is conducted against the unfortunate background of deep distrust of politicians, especially the federal ones (contrast the almost cult status acquired by the ABC’s long-time health journalist Norman Swan).

When official advice is contested by credible sources, and/or when governments have views at variance, the differences should not be suppressed. This is especially so given the states, rather than the Commonwealth, have the main formal powers in particular areas, and so a prime responsibility to their citizens.

Critics say dissent by states just confuses the public. Well, yes. But isn’t it better to have some confusion than not to hear the full range of views?

It’s like going to your doctor about a serious illness but refusing to get a second opinion because it might contradict the first.

The national cabinet is facilitating joint decisions and co-ordination, but that doesn’t mean unity at all costs would best serve the community.

– ref. View from The Hill: A contest of credible views should be seen as useful in a national crisis – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-a-contest-of-credible-views-should-be-seen-as-useful-in-a-national-crisis-134419

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sunanda Creagh, Head of Digital Storytelling

A suite of new measures aimed at slowing the spread of the coronavirus COVID-19 have been announced by federal and state governments in the last 24 hours.

We’ve collated the regulations in an infographic below – but it’s important to remember the situation is rapidly changing.

The regulations clearly proscribe some activities but are silent on others. So we asked two infectious disease researchers to reflect on some common scenarios.

They stressed the basics apply in any situation – wash your hands regularly with soap and water, practice good cough and sneeze etiquette, stay away from others if you’re unwell and try to reduce contact with others. Where contact is required, we should stay at least 1.5 metres apart from other people (one researcher, Ian M. Mackay said 2 metres would be better).

However, there’s often no single correct answer. All we can do is make the best decision we can in line with the medical evidence, the directions from government, and our own abilities and priorities. Difficult choices lie ahead for all of us.

Read more: Coronavirus distancing measures are confusing. Here are 3 things to ask yourself before you see someone

Can I walk the dog?

Ian M. Mackay, researcher on rare viral threats to public and environmental health: Walking the dog should be fine. If you were to walk past someone who was actually sick, you’d be classed as a “casual contact” just by going past them. If you had a face-to-face conversation within 2 metres of them, you’d be classed as a “close contact” just because you have had that face-to-face conversation. So really, the advice is: just keep walking, don’t stop or chat.

Sanjaya Senanayake, infectious diseases physician: Yes, that wouldn’t be a problem. Just try to avoid very crowded areas and keep your distance from other people by staying at least 1.5 metres apart. I think, in this climate, to have some physical outdoor exercise, if you can, is a good idea. If it’s a dog park with lots of dogs running around while their owners stand around and chat, just be careful to stay at least 1.5 metres apart from the other owners.

Can I have a friend over?

Ian M. Mackay, researcher on rare viral threats to public and environmental health: It’s better not to. When we are sharing the same room for two hours or more you can increase your risk, even if you are 2 metres apart. Prolonged time in the same room is a real risk so it’s better not to be spending a long time together.

If you decide to do it, you need to be 2 metres apart, your house needs to be really clean, don’t share any utensils, wash your hands a lot.

It’s better, though, if you can put that off and have the conversation by phone or Zoom, FaceTime or Skype.

Sanjaya Senanayake, infectious diseases physician: If you’re aiming for true social isolation, there’s a risk with every encounter you have. But if it’s just one friend and you are both well and you practice good hand hygiene and stay at least 1.5 metres apart when chatting, it could be okay. There’s a risk but you can reduce the risk.

You could possibly avoid food that has been touched by other people. Maybe bring your own food and drink.

Should I have my child’s tutor over?

Ian M. Mackay, researcher on rare viral threats to public and environmental health: It would be better not to have that happen. Even if they are more than 2 metres, it’s prolonged exposure in an enclosed room and that tutor may have visited many other houses or travelled by public transport. The tutor and the child are both at risk – as well as anyone they subsequently encounter. Remember, people can be infected but still look well.

It would be better if that could be done remotely.

Sanjaya Senanayake, infectious diseases physician: I think it’s probably OK, as long as the tutor is well and the child and tutor can work together without sitting too close. The same principles apply – good hand hygiene and stay at least 1.5 metres apart if anyone is unwell.

Should my child have a playdate?

Ian M. Mackay, researcher on rare viral threats to public and environmental health: For now, at least until we know more, that should stop as well.

Not even if both the kids and their families have been mostly staying home. Social distancing means keeping away. Kids have close contact relationships – they don’t keep their distance from each other – and they are random and, in this context, unreliable. It would be better to stop playdates and look for other ways our kids can interact with their friends. But watch the type and amount of social media use.

We have to be serious about this stuff and that means doing as much as we can to break any chains of transmission.

Sanjaya Senanayake, infectious diseases physician: With kids, it depends greatly on the age of the kids.

For very young kids, I would say no. Younger kids are more likely to have close contact and may not be so good with hand hygiene. You just can’t trust young kids to follow the rules of good hygiene and distancing. It’s mostly about minimising the contact and trying to use other options as much as possible, such as FaceTime, Skype and Zoom. For older kids, they are likely to rely on their social media networks and that’s probably for the best.

Can my kid play at the park with a friend?

Ian M. Mackay, researcher on rare viral threats to public and environmental health: There’s risk. It’s better to be out in the open air than in a room, because you have lot of air, often moving air, to dilute any droplets that may come from coughing or spitting when you talk and shout. But when you start doing stuff together – especially in areas with shared shiny surfaces like a public barbecue or play equipment – it gets risky. Steer clear of play equipment and water fountains, for example.

It’s better if you are keeping apart at a distance outside. But the risk isn’t zero.

Sanjaya Senanayake, infectious diseases physician: If they are young kids, they are still likely to have close contact with each other so I’d approach with caution.

Can I have in-home visit by a service provider, for example a health worker who assists a person with a disability?

Ian M. Mackay, researcher on rare viral threats to public and environmental health: That is a tough one. The health care worker should probably wear a mask as they are at higher risk of acquiring an infection because they are visiting so many people. A health care worker would be more aware of infection control than most people but they would need to be able to keep themselves and the people they visit safe.

If you do have an in-home visit you need to clean the house as much as possible, wash hands and do whatever you can to reduce the risk.

Sanjaya Senanayake, infectious diseases physician: That is a difficult one. That will need to be looked at by health authorities.

A health care worker should not come to your house if they are unwell. If they are coming, they should call ahead and make sure the person they are visiting is also well before they arrive to provide care.

There will have to be exceptions, of course, because otherwise people who need to have dressings changed and so on they will need to come to hospital and that’s not ideal.

Health care workers are being heavily educated about when they should be tested, because they are at risk of COVID-19. If there’s a lot of COVID-19 transmission in that particular community, the health care worker should wear appropriate PPE (personal protective equipment) even if the person they are visiting is not obviously sick.

Can the cleaners come over?

Ian M. Mackay, researcher on rare viral threats to public and environmental health: No. Clean your own house. They may be professional cleaners but they are not professionals at infection control.

And cleaning may need to be more frequent than usual. You may need to be cleaning your house more than once a week so just get used to that idea.

Sanjaya Senanayake, infectious diseases physician: Yes, I think the cleaners can come over. But if you have cleaners in your house, you should try to go out while the cleaners are there and let them do their work. Go for a walk outside, while staying at least 1.5 metres away from others.

What about sending kids to school?

Ian M. Mackay, researcher on rare viral threats to public and environmental health: Many states are doing slightly different things with regards to schools.

I am very conscious we don’t want to drain essential workforces because some would need to stay home. So I think what NSW is doing – where parents are advised to keep kids home if they can and only send kids to school if they have no other option – is probably the best option for now.

We’ve heard there’s no reason to believe children are transmitting the virus – but there’s also no reason to believe they won’t be. If we are serious about flattening the curve, schools need to be in the picture, and we need to reduce the number of kids at school.

The risks are then to the teachers who are going to be repeatedly exposed to children who may more become infected in greater numbers as time goes on. That’s a real concern for them and for the fact they may then inadvertently be spreading virus in the community. There is no easy answer on schools which is why the issue is being constantly reassessed as we learn more.

Sanjaya Senanayake, infectious diseases physician: I still don’t think we really understand the epidemiology of infection of kids. The downside of broadscale school closures is people will have to stay home with their kids, especially for health workers. And if that’s unnecessary then it’s not ideal. I don’t know the right thing to do. It’s a tough one.

Can I go for a walk with a friend or friends?

Ian M. Mackay, researcher on rare viral threats to public and environmental health: I would advise against that. We know asymptomatic transmission happens. It may happen from spitting while talking. If you are walking alongside someone and having a chat, then there is risk. If you are out in the open moving air, that reduces your risk but it’s really better to pick up the phone. You can even be on the phone and going for a walk together in separate places, or on other sides of the road and wave to each other. It is really hard but we need to get creative right now. It’s time to get very serious about doing everything you can to reduce transmission.

Testing has been limited so we may in fact have a lot more community spread than we realise right now.

Sanjaya Senanayake, infectious diseases physician: If you are outside, you have a lot of air currents to make things more safe for you. I stood at least 1.5 metres from someone and walked with them and I think that’s feasible. Just try to stay at least 1.5 metres apart.

Or go to a neighbour’s house and knock on the door but then stay at least 1.5 metres apart from them while you chat.

Should I get takeaway?

Ian M. Mackay, researcher on rare viral threats to public and environmental health: Takeaway is a good idea because it supports small business, is a treat in tough times and it takes the stress off having to cook and find food. The issue, of course, is the risk of contaminated surfaces.

The best idea is once you have got the food in the house, put the bag down and open it up. Then go away and wash your hands properly before you handle the food. Then come back and take out the food with clean hands, and then get rid of the bag. Then wash your hands again. Then away you go.

That’s not 100% foolproof because there’s still some risk, but you reduce the risk with each step.

And the social distancing rules apply all the time, whatever you are doing – whether its waiting for food or walking the dog – stay 2 metres away from other people.

Sanjaya Senanayake, infectious diseases physician: It’s a hard one. I have been wondering this, too. It’s not just getting the takeaway, its about congregating while you wait for the food to be ready. Try to maintain at least 1.5 metres distance from anyone else. If you are less than 1.5 metre from anyone but you’re there for less than 15 minutes it doesn’t count as a “close contact”.

You have to wonder: is the food contaminated with virus particles? You have to hope the staff at the restaurant aren’t working while sick and they are practising good hygiene. You and I can’t police that.

Whatever choices you make on these issues, remember it’s about risk mitigation. Hardly anything is ever zero risk. And sometimes these choices are hard.

Read more: Nice to meet you, now back off! How to socially distance without seeming rude

– ref. State-by-state: how Australia’s new coronavirus rules will affect you – https://theconversation.com/state-by-state-how-australias-new-coronavirus-rules-will-affect-you-134379

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nathalie Collins, Academic Director (National Programs), Edith Cowan University

Depending on your culture, you are probably used to greeting someone with a handshake, hug or nose bump. Well, not any more.

As introverts everywhere silently (of course) celebrate the need for social distance, the rest of us are struggling to navigate how to project our feelings without touch.

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

How much we touch someone when we greet them varies by culture, personality and gender, as well as relationship. Besides being an important greeting ritual, appropriate touch can also serve to strengthen emotional bonds and help to establish the relationship status of two people, whether family, friends, business colleagues, or strangers.

Hands off

Important as handshakes are, the need for personal safety trumps everything. You absolutely don’t have to shake someone’s hand just because they offer it.

How should we deal with any awkwardness that arises? The best advice is to talk about it, but not at length. It doesn’t require an apology or a long explanation.

When refusing a handshake, do so simply and without fuss, and mention the coronavirus at the first opportunity. Say something simple and concise, such as: “Due to the virus I am not shaking hands at the moment.”

Or, to make it totally clear that it’s nothing personal, you could try saying: “I am not shaking anyone’s hand.”

The tone in which you say these things is crucial. It should be light and maybe even playful. You could further put the other person at ease by saying something friendly like: “It’s lovely to see you again.”

Whatever you do, do it with a smile. The gesture on your face is more important than the ones with your hands. If you’re feeling awkward, make a conscious effort to remember to smile, especially if you are a bloke – one study found that men tend to smile less often than women.

With handshakes and even elbow-bumps now off the table, you could try non-contact options such as a thumbs-up, a “namaste”-style prayer gesture, or even an ironic jazz hands if you think you can pull it off.

Heading off a hug

While it’s vital to prioritise your own health and safety, a guiding principle of etiquette is to put the other person at ease by showing you value their feelings and comfort over your own. Make it less about the “I” and more about the “you”.

For example, you can head off a potential hug by getting on the front foot, saying “I’m so glad to see you, I’m sorry we can’t hug” rather than waiting for it to happen and then diving out of the way. Being proactive shows you value the other person’s feelings and have considered them in advance.

Another way to do it is to emphasise this is part of a collective effort to tackle the virus. Make it clear you’re avoiding physical contact for the other person’s safety, as well as your own. This might be a particularly useful strategy with older relatives.

Manners maketh meetings

Although there are no hugs or handshakes online, the same basic etiquette principles apply here too. If working from home, you can show others you value their feelings by logging in on time to meetings, muting yourself until ready to speak, and making sure any distractions are minimised (not always easy with kids or pets around).

Support the person chairing the meeting, and be just as willing to engage as you would be if you were in the same room. If you think about a situation in advance and believe that action will make others more comfortable, even if your effort fails, you will be perceived as polite.

Read more: Working at home to avoid coronavirus? This tech lets you (almost) replicate the office

As we strive to get used to the strange new feeling of social distancing, remember manners and respect are what make society work. This used to mean shaking hands, but now it means demonstrating our concern for each other’s health by not shaking hands.

Etiquette is a cornerstone of social interaction, and what we learn from it is this: it is not the distance that matters. Showing each other we care is what brings us closer together.

– ref. Nice to meet you, now back off! How to socially distance without seeming rude – https://theconversation.com/nice-to-meet-you-now-back-off-how-to-socially-distance-without-seeming-rude-134250

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julie Leask, Professor, University of Sydney

Editor’s note: This article is based on the coronavirus and COVID-19 situation as of March 23. It’s important to remember that the situation is rapidly developing and official advice may change.

If the flurry of new orders released in the last 24 hours has you feeling confused about what’s OK and what’s not when it comes to social contact, you’re not alone.

It’s so difficult to adopt a set of hard and fast rules with the advice changing so quickly. Government departments have put out detailed guidance but that won’t cover all situations. Experts in the public sphere will give different advice.

The fact is, if there’s an activity you want or need to do and you’re not sure if it’s advisable, often you’ll have to make a call. After ensuring that it doesn’t breach public orders, your decision will need to be based on your assessment of the risks and benefits.

Whatever activity you’re considering, it can help to first clearly list your options. For example, if I’m talking to a friend with kids, we could organise to meet at the park, in a house, online or not at all. Or if I want to catch up with my sister, I could do it in person or on the phone.

Then ask yourself some important questions as you consider your options.

Here are three considerations that should help you make an informed decision on behalf of your family and the wider community.

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

1. What’s the latest advice of my state or territory health department?

The first is to look to the latest advice for your state and territory health department, and be aware that they may change from day to day or even within a day. So keep checking.

Some departments are now developing quite detailed lists of dos and don’t that are being updated as quick as is humanly possible.

Read more: 4 ways to talk with vaccine skeptics

2. Do I know the latest on how the virus moves between people?

Understanding as much as you can about the way that the virus moves between people can help you make an informed decision about whether an activity you’re considering doing poses a higher risk of passing coronavirus on or picking it up.

The coronavirus causing COVID-19 is currently thought to be passed on through contact and droplet transmission. It comes from the mucous membranes (meaning the wet parts of your face – mouth, nose and eyes). A person with the infection might cough or sneeze or touch their mouth or nose and then touch another surface where it can remain infectious for a time.

The virus is able to move to another person through direct contact with droplets from the cough or sneeze or if they touch that surface with their hands then touch their mouth, nose or eyes. The more symptomatic somebody is, the more easy it is to get the infection but people with very mild symptoms can still pass it on. More is being learnt about the virus and this knowledge may change.

That is why handwashing and cough or sneeze etiquette is so important.

COVID-19 is currently thought to be mostly spread by people who have symptoms and have been in close contact with others. Those more at risk of it are those who have had contact with someone who has been diagnosed with it or have recently returned from overseas.

However, that is changing as it moves more in the general community in Australia.

That basic understanding of how it moves can help people make decisions of who to see, how to see them, how to behave in public places and at home.

3. How do the risks of a certain activity weigh up against the benefits?

Whenever you are considering doing some activity with somebody, you need to weigh up the risks of harm with the potential benefits.

First, make sure you are abiding by the public health orders. Also remember that this is not just a decision about your personal risk. We are all reducing the chain of transmission by reducing our contact with others as much as we can.

Sometimes, we will still want or need contact with others.

First of all, we need to accept that we take a risk whenever we have contact with another person and we need to weigh that risk against the potential benefits.

There might be really important social benefits, for example, for seeing a person for whom contact with others is extremely important.

There might be benefits in helping someone who has less access to resources than we do – for example, helping a neighbour in need.

In these instances, if you decide to take the risk, it is important to follow guidance on doing everything you possibly can do to minimise the spread of COVID-19 within that encounter.

That means proper hand hygeine; washing hands when arriving and leaving. Try to stay 1.5 metres or more apart. Never go out and meet with others if you have respiratory symptoms such as a cough, or a fever. And it means trying to avoid contact with people at greater risk of severe disease, such as those with existing chronic disease, an older person, or person who is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

If the COVID-19 risk is really high to that person, then maybe the benefits don’t outweigh the potential harm. You may be forced to make a really hard decision.

Hard decisions ahead

There’s no magic cut off where you stop all risk. We have got to accept it is about degrees of risk and what we collectively do to minimise it.

If we choose to have contact with another person, while staying within the boundaries of what is permissible based on the government requirements, then it’s important you have a set of evidence-based principles that helps guide your decision-making.

Read more: Parents’ decisions about vaccination and the art of gentle persuasion

– ref. Coronavirus distancing measures are confusing. Here are 3 things to ask yourself before you see someone – https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-distancing-measures-are-confusing-here-are-3-things-to-ask-yourself-before-you-see-someone-134394

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julie Leask, Professor, University of Sydney

Editor’s note: This article is based on the coronavirus and COVID-19 situation as of March 23. It’s important to remember that the situation is rapidly developing and official advice may change.

If the flurry of new orders released in the last 24 hours has you feeling confused about what’s OK and what’s not when it comes to social contact, you’re not alone.

It’s so difficult to adopt a set of hard and fast rules with the advice changing so quickly. Government departments have put out detailed guidance but that won’t cover all situations. Experts in the public sphere will give different advice.

The fact is, if there’s an activity you want or need to do and you’re not sure if it’s advisable, often you’ll have to make a call. After ensuring that it doesn’t breach public orders, your decision will need to be based on your assessment of the risks and benefits.

Whatever activity you’re considering, it can help to first clearly list your options. For example, if I’m talking to a friend with kids, we could organise to meet at the park, in a house, online or not at all. Or if I want to catch up with my sister, I could do it in person or on the phone.

Then ask yourself some important questions as you consider your options.

Here are three considerations that should help you make an informed decision on behalf of your family and the wider community.

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

1. What’s the latest advice of my state or territory health department?

The first is to look to the latest advice for your state and territory health department, and be aware that they may change from day to day or even within a day. So keep checking.

Some departments are now developing quite detailed lists of dos and don’t that are being updated as quick as is humanly possible.

Read more: 4 ways to talk with vaccine skeptics

2. Do I know the latest on how the virus moves between people?

Understanding as much as you can about the way that the virus moves between people can help you make an informed decision about whether an activity you’re considering doing poses a higher risk of passing coronavirus on or picking it up.

The coronavirus causing COVID-19 is currently thought to be passed on through contact and droplet transmission. It comes from the mucous membranes (meaning the wet parts of your face – mouth, nose and eyes). A person with the infection might cough or sneeze or touch their mouth or nose and then touch another surface where it can remain infectious for a time.

The virus is able to move to another person through direct contact with droplets from the cough or sneeze or if they touch that surface with their hands then touch their mouth, nose or eyes. The more symptomatic somebody is, the more easy it is to get the infection but people with very mild symptoms can still pass it on. More is being learnt about the virus and this knowledge may change.

That is why handwashing and cough or sneeze etiquette is so important.

COVID-19 is currently thought to be mostly spread by people who have symptoms and have been in close contact with others. Those more at risk of it are those who have had contact with someone who has been diagnosed with it or have recently returned from overseas.

However, that is changing as it moves more in the general community in Australia.

That basic understanding of how it moves can help people make decisions of who to see, how to see them, how to behave in public places and at home.

3. How do the risks of a certain activity weigh up against the benefits?

Whenever you are considering doing some activity with somebody, you need to weigh up the risks of harm with the potential benefits.

First, make sure you are abiding by the public health orders. Also remember that this is not just a decision about your personal risk. We are all reducing the chain of transmission by reducing our contact with others as much as we can.

Sometimes, we will still want or need contact with others.

First of all, we need to accept that we take a risk whenever we have contact with another person and we need to weigh that risk against the potential benefits.

There might be really important social benefits, for example, for seeing a person for whom contact with others is extremely important.

There might be benefits in helping someone who has less access to resources than we do – for example, helping a neighbour in need.

In these instances, if you decide to take the risk, it is important to follow guidance on doing everything you possibly can do to minimise the spread of COVID-19 within that encounter.

That means proper hand hygeine; washing hands when arriving and leaving. Try to stay 1.5 metres or more apart. Never go out and meet with others if you have respiratory symptoms such as a cough, or a fever. And it means trying to avoid contact with people at greater risk of severe disease, such as those with existing chronic disease, an older person, or person who is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

If the COVID-19 risk is really high to that person, then maybe the benefits don’t outweigh the potential harm. You may be forced to make a really hard decision.

Hard decisions ahead

There’s no magic cut off where you stop all risk. We have got to accept it is about degrees of risk and what we collectively do to minimise it.

If we choose to have contact with another person, while staying within the boundaries of what is permissible based on the government requirements, then it’s important you have a set of evidence-based principles that helps guide your decision-making.

Read more: Parents’ decisions about vaccination and the art of gentle persuasion

– ref. Confused about what’s OK and what’s not? Here are 3 questions to ask yourself before you see someone – https://theconversation.com/confused-about-whats-ok-and-whats-not-here-are-3-questions-to-ask-yourself-before-you-see-someone-134394