Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Huw Griffiths, Senior Lecturer in English Literature, University of Sydney

Review: The Cherry Orchard, directed by Eamon Flack, Belvoir.

In 1904, when Anton Chekhov wrote his last and greatest play, The Cherry Orchard, Russia was still 13 years away from the Bolshevik Revolution. But the conditions for those future events were already all around him.

Rapid industrialisation and urbanisation had ensured old relationships with the land and between people were no longer sustainable. Serfdom, which had tied peasants to landowners in the bonds of slavery, had been abolished a generation before. Old certainties were slipping away in favour of a future that was probably already there but out of focus.

In the play, the cherry trees on the vast estate of the bankrupt landowner, Ranevskaya, have become so old and tired they only fruit every second year. There is nobody left who can remember what to do with them when they do.

A future out of focus

Belvoir’s production is timely. We are still emerging, bleary-eyed into a world we know has changed, and has been changing economically and environmentally for decades now. But we have no collective capacity to see or to control the horizons against which this change is taking place. Will this future that is already happening have room for people who live, behave and consume like we do? Probably not.

So, how should we behave now? Is it okay to cling to the past for as long as we can? Or should we already be living differently, be different? What does it mean to still laugh and enjoy company if these are the very things that might be shielding us from reality?

At the height of the gloriously insane third act of the play, Ranevskaya — here played by Pamela Rabe in a role she embraces with all of her considerable resources — shouts out, “This might not have been the best moment for a party!” You think?

As she and her extended family await the fate of the auction on their home, they drink, laugh, sing and dance. Until they don’t.

But Chekhov and director Eamon Flack both want us to laugh, and to laugh loud at the absurdities and ironies of the situation in which they find themselves. Chekhov insisted on his play being a comedy and Flack draws out its capacities for absurdity with what Belvoir audiences have come to recognise as his customary generosity of spirit.

This is a big, warm-hearted production. And the third act is central to this as characters all cling to actions and habits that make increasingly little sense in terms of their actual situation: from the brilliantly comic turns of Lucia Mastrantone as the governess Charlotta to the futile love affairs of Sarah Meacham’s Dunyasha.

Flack has a great directorial eye for presenting actions and gestures that have become unmoored from the social contexts that gave them meaning.

Read more:
The lies of happiness: living with affluenza but without fulfilment

Changing roles

This sense of a future that is already disrupting the present condenses itself in the character of Lopakhin, here played brilliantly by Mandela Mathia. Lopakhin is the offspring of serfs who previously worked on the estate. He is now a wealthy bidder for the property.

Casting a Black actor in this role vividly adds racial context around the narrative of slave turned financial saviour.

The play does not shy from its potential for tragedy. The last words go to the family’s old butler, here played to comic perfection by the inimitable Peter Carroll.

Firs is a servant who regrets the emancipation of the serfs and wishes he were still indentured to the family. As he lies down, alone and left behind in the deserted old house, he finally faces his situation: “Well, that was my life,” he says. “It’s just as if I’d never lived at all”.

All this to the soundtrack of the axes finally being taken to the cherry orchard, now auctioned off to recover the family’s debts. How to craft a comedy in the face of an ending that is seemingly so bleak?

Read more:
Guide to the Classics: Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, a tragicomedy for our times

To laugh or cry?

Chekhov was famously upset The Cherry Orchard’s first director, Konstantin Stanislawski, played it for more fully for is there an extra word? its pathos and tragedy than its levity. But the ongoing critical question of the play’s tone or genre misses the point.

The play is a tragicomedy: not just a mix of the tragic and comic but an attempt to come to terms with their complex overlap.

Key to genuine tragicomedy is a sense of forgiveness: that we can forgive ourselves as much as we can forgive others. Take the ending of Shakespeare’s The Winter’s Tale. For that play to achieve the wonder of its final moments, the characters have to have gone through years of coming to terms with the tragic events that have set up the play’s narratives of loss and estrangement.

There is potential for forgiveness, too, in The Cherry Orchard, but it is a mark of the play’s modernity that we can’t quite be sure it will bring off a happy ending.

Read more:
The Picture of Dorian Grey review: Eryn Jean Norvill stuns in all 26 roles

In one of the most affecting scenes of Belvoir’s production, Rabe’s Ranevskaya confronts the young student, Petya (Priscilla Doueihy plays the traditionally male role), angry at her idealistic and unforgiving belief she might be able to rise above current circumstances.

The older woman demands a more forgiving attitude that accommodates the attachments of the past. And that forgiveness is forthcoming, both from the young student and the production. She — and we — understand why so many of these people want to blind themselves to the abuses of the past and attach themselves to its comforting memories. And we forgive them for it.

But this forgiveness doesn’t bring reconciliation. The future happens anyway, whether we dance or not. The cherry orchard still gets chopped down.

The Cherry Orchard plays at Belvoir, Sydney, until 27 June.

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

– ref. Belvoir’s The Cherry Orchard is a laugh-out-loud tragedy for uncertain times – https://theconversation.com/belvoirs-the-cherry-orchard-is-a-laugh-out-loud-tragedy-for-uncertain-times-160916

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shane Cronin, Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Auckland

While today’s pre-trial hearing over the Whakaari White Island tragedy revealed most of the 13 parties charged have yet to enter pleas, there is no disputing the basic facts.

The December 9 2019 eruption struck when 47 people were on the small island; 22 people died and survivors were left with severe or critical injuries.

But what will really be on trial when proceedings resume, most likely in September? Ultimately, it comes down to how the individuals present on the day perceived the natural hazard and risk, and especially its uncertainty.

This understanding rests on processes we have in place to communicate and manage risk for workers and tourists exposed to unpredictable natural environments. It is really these processes that should be on trial.

Scientists are at the frontline of understanding volcanic nature. They use physical, chemical and geological methods to delve into volcanic systems.

This knowledge is the first step in a long chain: feeding models of volcanic processes, which are used to produce hazard forecasts that, finally, are converted to hazard maps and public warnings. But each step has its uncertainties, and no scientist is certain of the future — only the odds.

Read more:
Scientists should welcome charges against agency over Whakaari/White Island — if it helps improve early warning systems

Monitoring volcanic hazard

To monitor a volcano like Whakaari, we cannot look directly below the eruption vent. Instead, we interpret internal processes indirectly, using seismic sensors, gas output, heat flow and satellite measurements — and then work out what the data mean. There isn’t always a straight answer.

For instance, if gas and heat output drop, it might mean the system is cooling or magma has waned. Or, it could be that a clay or liquid sulphur seal has formed, trapping gas and heat. The difference in risk and consequence is obviously huge.

We rely heavily on seismic data (ground vibrations mostly too small for people to feel) collected by GeoNet in real time. But the volcanic system is “noisy” thanks to ocean waves, wind or rain. Some seismic signals are distinct, such as the cracking of rock when magma rises, others are diffuse, such as fluids moving through voids.

Read more:
New Zealand’s White Island is likely to erupt violently again, but a new alert system could give hours of warning and save lives

We are constantly learning about new features of Whakaari’s volcanic system. The vent area changes after each eruption and is affected by deep and shallow processes, such as magma intrusion, a lake over the crater or landslide debris.

Magma rises in unusual ways, sometimes abruptly, but mainly slowly at Whakaari. It often just stalls well below the crater, slowly crystallising and degassing in place.

Communicating monitoring information to forecast hazard and risk requires a degree of simplification. It is generally impossible to say in black and white whether people should go onto a volcano. Thresholds of acceptable risk need to be set, often with little quantitative guidance in terms of the probability of an eruption.

What went wrong at Whakaari

For those guides traversing the volcano every day, familiarity breeds a false impression of safety. Even with a full understanding of risks, after the novelty of the first few visits, fear dissipates and familiarity leads to an expectation that it will always be safe.

But risk is cumulative with exposure time. Feeling safer over time is the opposite of reality. How much of a factor was overconfidence of tourism operators who had visited Whakaari for decades without major incident?

Different people are involved in decision making in tourism activities, and they perceive hazard differently. For a visitor present for two hours, the risk is much lower due to their brief exposure, but how can the magnitude of risk be expressed to short-term visitors adequately?

Say there is a 0.1% chance of an eruption today: would you visit the volcano and take the 1 in 1,000 risk? But visit every day over a year, and that grows to a 1 in 3 chance.

A better approach is to distinguish days when it is safe (say, 1 in 10,000 risk) from those that are marked as “eruption possible” (1 in 50). These assessments are possible now, although they are plagued by data uncertainties, human biases and methodological arguments.

One focus during the trial will be risk messaging. Two weeks before the eruption, the Volcanic Alert Level was changed to 2 (level 3 means an eruption is occurring). The last communication before the event had contrasting messages:

The monitoring observations bear some similarities with those seen during the 2011-2016 period when Whakaari/White Island was more active and stronger volcanic activity occurred.

And:

While the [fountaining] activity is contained to the far side of the lake, the current level of activity does not pose a direct hazard to visitors.

This shows how difficult it is to address uncertainty in observation through to forecasting. With 20/20 hindsight it is easy to judge the outcome, even if it is grossly unfair to those doing their best at the time to provide expert judgement and balance.

An added factor is that Whakaari is privately owned and sits in an unusual administrative “grey” zone. It was unclear who would have a mandate to “close” the island. While GNS Science provided warning information, it had no jurisdiction or control.

Contrast that with the Department of Conservation, which was quick to restrict access at Mt Ruapehu at the end of last year when GNS Science raised its alert level to 2.

This brings into question the role of the National Emergency Management Authority (NEMA), local authorities and indeed the owners of the island.

One of the most important considerations we must take forward from the tragedy is the cumulative nature of volcanic risk. The length of exposure time is critical. In basic risk calculations, using conservative figures and OECD accepted life-safety models, repeated visits to Whakaari by tour guides place them near unacceptable limits.

To get better at forecasting different levels of eruption risk requires advances in our basic science, as well as automated systems that can dispassionately judge risk and raise concerns. It also requires a more rigorous regime that ties warning systems to restrictions in access.

Even with this, the compounding uncertainties of how we measure and interpret this natural system mean it will never be completely safe.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Whakaari tragedy: court case highlights just how complex it is to forecast a volcanic eruption – https://theconversation.com/whakaari-tragedy-court-case-highlights-just-how-complex-it-is-to-forecast-a-volcanic-eruption-161995

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nancy Baxter, Professor and Head of Melbourne School of Population & Global Health, The University of Melbourne

A man from Wollert, a suburb in Melbourne’s north, breezed into Melbourne from South Australian hotel quarantine, stopped at a 7-11, had a curry, shopped in Epping, took a train, and at some point, had a passing encounter with a stranger. Perhaps he coughed or spoke, or was simply breathing, but that was enough for a waft of aerosol to transmit COVID-19 to Melbourne’s missing link.

Three weeks later, at least 63 people in Victoria are infected with the Kappa variant (B.1.617.1), the whole of Victoria is in lockdown, there’s political conflict and fallout about South Australia quarantine and the bungled aged care vaccine rollout, and Victorians are rushing to get vaccinated.

Let’s rewind time and pick an alternate universe. Let’s say the Wollert man returns to Melbourne from quarantine in Adelaide, stops at a 7-11, has a curry, left his keys at the restaurant and had to go back and get them before going to shop in Epping. Luckily, he had no fleeting encounters with a stranger where aerosol wafted from him to them carrying the virus. Melbourne escaped a lockdown, without even knowing it, all because a man forgot his keys.

Life is random, and COVID is very much so. A difference in seemingly innocuous circumstances can lead to very different outcomes.

The key point is that chance matters. It’s unlikely Victoria is doing anything that “makes us” more likely to have outbreaks leading to lockdowns.

The butterfly effect

Even a very small difference early in a chain of events can lead to a vastly different outcome.

This might be a potential superspreader deciding to go hiking alone for the weekend, not to his Aunt’s birthday party. Or an aged care worker picking up an extra shift at a second facility. Or a man from Wollert forgetting his keys.

This is what is sometimes called the butterfly effect.

Read more:
Why predicting a flu outbreak is like betting on football or flipping a coin

In simulation modelling, we call this “stochasticity”. We incorporate stochasticity into our models to reflect the chance events which happen in real life. Using this approach to modeling, when we simulate transmission of COVID-19 infections in groups of people, we see very different outcomes each time the model is run, even when the parameters we set for the model are exactly the same.

Each run shows us a different possible unfolding of the future. This is because a seemingly small random difference can alter the whole future.

In our COVID-19 Pandemic Tradeoffs website, you can see this for yourself by drilling down to look at some of the 100 runs (stochastically varying) we do for each of 600+ scenarios. Each individual scenario has the same “initial conditions”, including the same reproductive rate, which refers to how many people on average one person with the virus will infect. But there’s still a huge component of chance in each of its 100 runs.

For example, the graph above shows 100 stochastic simulations of what the daily infection rate with COVID-19 might be in Victoria under the following circumstances:

• if we continue to have ongoing COVID-19 introductions, due to inadequacies in our hotel quarantine system

• if our vaccine roll out was progressing as originally planned (remember the October timeline?)

• if the vaccine reduced transmission moderately well

• if we relax our thresholds to go into lockdown as our vaccine coverage increases. So, if we used a NSW-like moderate elimination approach early on during Phase 1 of the vaccine rollout, and over time evolved into a more South Korea-like tight suppression approach in Phase 2B when we are vaccinating all remaining adults.

Each line represents a run of the simulation.

The key thing to note is how the runs vary from each other. In some cases the infections fizzle out. In others, case numbers rise. Because of chance events, each simulation of the future looks different. But now is different from last year due to a more infectious variant.

The figure below is for the exact same scenario as above, except the infectiousness of the virus is higher, more in line with the Kappa (B.1.617.1) variant we’re now dealing with in Victoria.

Some of the runs now have high daily infection rates (by Australian standards), but notably in some scenarios the infection rate continues to be low. This is how random chance events play out on a population level.

What about contact tracing, weather, and good public transport?

Contacting tracing was inadequate in Victoria at the start of the pandemic, but since our second wave, our contact tracing has been outstanding. Deficiencies there do not explain the frequency of our lockdowns.

Could it be our interconnectedness and good public transportation? Well, with outbreaks affecting many commuter cities — think Phoenix and Los Angeles in the United States — it doesn’t appear travelling in your car and staying in your suburb protects you.

Is it our younger demographic? An older median age does not make a city immune — take Montreal where the median age is nearly 40.

Read more:
Why has Victoria struggled more than NSW with COVID? To a demographer, they’re not that different

We have had lockdowns in summer and in winter, so our colder climate does not necessarily explain it either.

What makes Melbourne distinct in terms of culture and geography can never explain why the Wollert man transmitted COVID to the missing link. At the end of the day we have chance, stochasticity, and some butterflies not flying our way. We have just been unlucky.

Oh, and if we want to improve our luck, let’s do something about hotel quarantine.

Read more:
Hotel quarantine causes 1 outbreak for every 204 infected travellers. It’s far from ‘fit for purpose’

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why do our COVID outbreaks always seem to happen in Melbourne? Randomness and bad luck – https://theconversation.com/why-do-our-covid-outbreaks-always-seem-to-happen-in-melbourne-randomness-and-bad-luck-161978

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jill Newby, Associate Professor and MRFF Career Development Fellow, UNSW

As Melbourne prepares to begin a second week of lockdown, it’s important to recognise the serious toll this is likely to take on many people’s mental health.

Research during earlier COVID lockdowns in Australia found lockdowns were associated with poorer mental health, such as symptoms of depression and anxiety, among young people and adults.

A variety of factors play into this — from financial stress, to concerns about contracting COVID-19, to disruptions to work or study, to separation from friends and family.

For Melburnians, this latest lockdown will come as an especially upsetting setback. Victoria faced the longest lockdown in the country last year, and in recent months there’s been largely no COVID in the community.

If you’re a Melburnian and you’re feeling more stressed, uncertain, anxious, lonely or burnt out, or are worrying more about COVID-19, these reactions are completely normal.

But there are a variety of ways you can look after your mental health during this time, which will hopefully make it a little easier.

1. Stay connected with others

Lockdown can be extremely lonely, especially for people who are separated from loved ones, or living alone. Fortunately, the “single social bubble” is again in place, where people who live alone or single parents can nominate one person who is able to visit their home.

Keeping in touch with others — via phone, text, social media, or in other ways — can help avoid isolation and depression. Plan these catch ups so they are in your diary.

2. Think about what’s in your control, and what’s not

When facing the prospect of more uncertainty, disruption, and plans turned upside down, it can seem futile to have any expectations at all. You may be left feeling helpless.

Take the time to acknowledge this, but focus on things you can still do, and that you enjoy, or the small things you can do each day to make the day better. For example, doing a hobby you enjoy, exercising, relaxing, listening to music, or watching TV.

Focusing on the smallest of positives, the silver linings, or the things you are grateful for, can help improve mood.

It also helps to recalibrate your expectations so you’re not holding yourself or other people to unrealistic standards (which can cause more distress). Try asking yourself what you’re expecting of yourself or someone else and whether that’s realistic right now. Maybe good enough is good enough, just for one more week.

Read more:
More screen time, snacking and chores: a snapshot of how everyday life changed during the first coronavirus lockdown

3. Look after your body

Getting a good night’s sleep, doing some physical activity, and eating healthily can help give you more energy, motivation, and help manage the emotional fallout of the extended lockdown. Limiting alcohol and drugs is also key.

4. Manage anger and frustration

Repeated lockdowns are likely to evoke feelings of frustration and resentment. We might vent our anger in ways we wouldn’t normally, that make us feel ashamed or hurt our relationships.

If you feel an outburst bubbling up, step out of the room or away from your phone. Spend ten minutes writing down what you’re feeling and who is to blame. This is just for you, so don’t censor yourself. Once you have your thoughts down on paper, you’ll likely be calmer and clearer.

Then, ask yourself what more you need to know about the situation and the people in it before yelling or pointing fingers. Try asking questions rather than hurling accusations. A bit more information or another person’s perspective can soothe anger and help us understand each other better.

Read more:
Are the kids alright? Social isolation can take a toll, but play can help

5. Set boundaries around your work

For those who work, be mindful of the hours you’re working and the amount of time you’re “switched on” — for example looking at emails — even after you’ve clocked off.

Working from home blurs the boundaries between home and work life, and increases the tendency to work harder, for longer. Being mindful of this, ensuring you’re taking breaks, and switching off at night can help reduce exhaustion and burnout.

If you feel like your colleagues or boss are expecting things you can’t deliver at the moment, consider talking to them and coming up with a plan for the remainder of lockdown.

6. Seek support

When you’re not feeling like yourself, or you’re exhausted or burnt out, it can be hard to tell the difference between what’s a “normal reaction”, versus when it’s a problem that needs professional help.

If you’re feeling like you may not be coping, talk to a GP you trust, call a telephone counselling service, or contact a mental health professional. They can help assess whether you might benefit from additional support or treatment.

Read more:
We can’t ignore mental illness prevention in a COVID-19 world

While public health measures to protect us from COVID-19 are important, this pandemic has shown us mental health care should be top of the agenda too.

Building positive coping strategies now can help set you up for positive mental health long term.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Beyond Blue on 1300 224 636.

Jill Newby receives funding from the Australian Medical Research Future Fund, and the HCF Research Foundation.

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

– ref. Lockdowns don’t get easier the more we have them. Melbourne, here are 6 tips to help you cope – https://theconversation.com/lockdowns-dont-get-easier-the-more-we-have-them-melbourne-here-are-6-tips-to-help-you-cope-161991

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bonita Mason, Senior Lecturer in Journalism, University of South Australia

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains names of people who have passed away, and descriptions of these deaths.

One year has passed since George Floyd’s death under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer. Floyd’s name is imprinted upon our consciousness, as it should be.

However, in Australia we know less about the more than 474 Indigenous people who have died in police or prison custody in the 30 years since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.

While Floyd’s death and the Black Lives Matter movement sparked extensive media attention, Australian Indigenous deaths in custody have had a harder time attracting sustained coverage, particularly from mainstream news outlets. Media attention on the issue has been episodic and too often absent.

The Great Australian Silence continues

As Darumbal and South Sea Islander journalist Amy McQuire says, there is a national apathy in response to First Nations deaths in custody. McQuire, who consistently reports on deaths in custody as an independent journalist, says: “When Aboriginal people die in custody there is a national silence”. Some deaths in custody break through, but many more pass unnoticed.

The royal commission stated that to reduce Aboriginal deaths in custody it is critical to reduce imprisonment rates (which have doubled since 1991), and to improve the exercise of the duty of care owed to people in custody.

Two Indigenous deaths in custody, 20 years apart, demonstrate the failure to achieve both.

In 1994, 30-year-old Aboriginal woman Ms Beetson died of treatable heart disease in Sydney’s Mulawa women’s prison.

She was admitted to prison unwell; previous open-heart surgery and other concerns were highlighted on her admittance form. She was given a cursory medical examination and her symptoms were put down to drug withdrawal. Over a week, she became weaker and sicker, received no effective medical attention and died alone in a cell.

In 2014, Yamatji woman Ms Dhu, 22, was arrested for unpaid fines, against royal commission recommendations. She was held in a South Hedland, WA, police watch house for three days in intense pain and growing sicker.

The usual assumptions were made about drug withdrawal and that she was “faking it”. She died of staphylococcal septicaemia and pneumonia.

Twenty years apart, the circumstances around Ms Beetson’s and Ms Dhu’s deaths reflect the same inadequate medical treatment, inhumanity, lack of professionalism and failures. Both medical conditions were treatable and both deaths preventable.

But the story of Ms Dhu’s case broke through, due to local and effective activism, and because the media landscape had started to change.

Read more:
Not criminals or passive victims: media need to reframe their representation of Aboriginal deaths in custody

The year before Ms Dhu’s death, The Guardian began publishing an online Australian edition. Guardian journalist Calla Wahlquist reported at least one story every day from the inquest into Ms Dhu’s death.

The Guardian’s sustained deaths in custody reporting and its “Deaths Inside” database have made a difference to deaths in custody coverage.

Australian media needs to keep addressing deaths in custody

Media attention was important in helping to create the conditions for the royal commission’s establishment. Among the more influential and agenda-setting stories were those by Western Australian freelance journalist Jan Mayman reporting on Roebourne teenager John Pat’s 1983 death for The Age, and a 1985 Four Corners program presented by David Marr.

In its report and recommendations, the royal commission recognised the important role of the media as a form of “collective conscience”, contributing to the possibility of increased justice for Aboriginal people.

The release of the royal commission’s final report was a Black-lives-just-could-matter moment in Australia.

Here was the blueprint for transforming the life chances of Aboriginal people, and the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. Implementing the report’s 339 recommendations could reduce imprisonment rates, deaths in custody, inequality and disadvantage.

When the report was released, the media was again interested and engaged. Aboriginal people’s points of view were heard, and Aboriginal deaths in custody became an important story that put individual deaths into context. However, this kind of reporting soon fell away.

Four years after the report, governments were claiming successful implementation of the royal commission’s recommendations. However, the Australian Institute of Criminology was reporting deaths in prison at record levels.

Research by the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism found the media uncritically reported government implementation claims as if they were true.

Non-Indigenous journalists need to step up

While First Nations journalists, such as Amy McQuire, Gamilaraay and Yawalaraay woman Loreena Allam and Muruwari man Allan Clarke, are telling stories of injustice meted out to Aboriginal people, non-Indigenous journalists must also keep telling stories about the injustices caused by colonisation.

It took an event in the US to spark the Indigenous lives matter response across Australia. Journalists must continue to report on the chain of events that lead to Black deaths at the hands of the state.

How we can do this:

We can report the facts, for instance, Indigenous adult and youth apprehension and imprisonment rates, Aboriginal youth and adult suicide rates, coronial inquest findings and recommendations.

1. We can interview witnesses, family members and representatives, police and prison officers, and other experts and report what they and other informed commentators say about the facts, consequences and causes of those deaths.

2. We can investigate and discern the patterns emerging from these deaths; the similar facts and common factors, the same systemic failures, the ongoing evidence of institutional racism.

3. Through our journalism we need to honour each person who has died, and try to bring some comfort to their affected families and communities.

As investigative journalist Allan Clarke says:

Australia, we can do better and we must do better.

See here for resources and guides for what we as journalists can do.

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

– ref. Australia’s news media play an important role reminding the country that Black lives still matter – https://theconversation.com/australias-news-media-play-an-important-role-reminding-the-country-that-black-lives-still-matter-161412

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kylie Soanes, Postdoctoral Fellow, School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, The University of Melbourne

If trees are cut down in the city, where will possums live? – Millie, age 9, Sydney.

Hi Millie.

Thanks for your question. I worry about this too.

Trees are really important to possums in the city. Like lots of Australian animals, possums depend on hollows — a hole that forms in trees as they get older. Because possums are nocturnal (meaning they only come out at night), they need somewhere safe to curl up and sleep during the day. A nice cosy tree hollow is the perfect place.

Tree hollows are special because they take a long time to make. They usually happen when a tree gets injured and the place where it broke starts to rot away, eventually forming a hole. Most types of gum tree don’t even start making hollows until they’re more than 100 years old. Usually, the bigger the tree, the more hollows you’re likely to find.

Out in the bush, a possum might have lots of different trees and hollows to choose from. Some kinds of possum might have 12 different hollows – 12 bedrooms! Can you imagine?

But in the city, we don’t have as many big trees with hollows, so possums can’t be as picky about their bedrooms. And when a big old tree dies or is cut down, even if we plant a new one we might have to wait hundreds of years before it provides a good possum house. This means the possums have to look for somewhere else to live.

Read more:
Curious Kids: if our bodies are happy at 37℃, why do we feel so unhappy when it’s too hot outside?

Other possum places in the city

Now, there are a few other places that possums might find in the city.

They want somewhere dark, dry and warm, and they don’t mind if they’re not supposed to be there.

That’s why people often find possums sleeping in their roof, in old pots in the garden, or even inside a barbecue!

Tiny possums can squeeze into even smaller places. Sugar gliders are sometimes found in electricity boxes, and feathertail gliders might nest in a drainpipe.

It’s amazing how resourceful animals can be! But these aren’t very safe places for possums to make a home. So there are two things we can do to help.

1. Protect our city’s big trees

There aren’t many left, so every single tree is important. And it’s not just gum trees — lots of types of trees make hollows or provide food for native animals. Even dead trees!

Great big trees can get dangerous as they get older because if they drop branches or fall over they could hurt someone. Sometimes tree experts can use cables to keep the trees upright and safe, or only cut down the dangerous branches.

Or sometimes we can fence the area so that people don’t walk underneath. If a tree does have to be cut down, scientists came up with an idea to move the whole tree to a new spot — like a tree transplant! The tree can’t grow anymore, but it still has all the hollows possums and other animals need to make their homes.

2. Build new possum homes

There are lots of different ways to build new hollows for wildlife. Nest boxes (sometimes known as dreys) might be made out of wood, or old hollow logs, or even pot plant liners.

Sometimes local councils will use a chainsaw to carve holes into trees to make new homes for wildlife.

And other scientists are using 3D printers to make hollows that mimic the same shapes as real hollows (but we need to make sure the designs are safe).

City trees are so important. They help keep us cool in summer, make the air nice and fresh, and they’re nice to look at. Some of them have been here longer than the buildings.

So protecting trees in the city isn’t just good for possums. It’s good for humans, too.

Read more:
Curious Kids: why does the sun’s bright light make me sneeze?

Hello, Curious Kids! Have you got a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au

Kylie Soanes has previously received funding from the Clean Air and Urban Landscapes Hub and the Threatened Species Recovery Hub of the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program. She provides advice to local councils and other land managers on ways to promote biodiversity in cities and towns.

– ref. Curious Kids: if trees are cut down in the city, where will possums live? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-if-trees-are-cut-down-in-the-city-where-will-possums-live-161810

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

Amid public debate about consent and how we define it legally, there is a push to create the lesser offence of “negligent rape”. The NSW Bar Association has long made the call. More recently, NSW Police sex crimes boss detective superintendent Stacey Maloney and education advocate Chanel Contos have echoed the call.

The calls for “negligent rape” occur against a backdrop of overwhelming evidence the police and court systems are letting down sexual violence survivors. Only one in ten even report to police.

But would this type of offence actually help combat sexual violence?

What is ‘negligent rape’?

The proposal for a lesser offence of “negligent rape” is based on the idea that a person who engages in non-consensual sex through recklessness is less culpable than somebody who deliberately and knowingly disregards a person’s lack of consent.

For example, in 2018, the NSW Bar Association argued,

[s]exual assault is a serious crime with severe maximum penalties, reserved for behaviour that is so seriously wrong as to be deserving of such criminal punishment — it should not be satisfied by a form of negligence.

The proposal would effectively create two rape offences. One offence would capture offenders who commit rape while knowing the victim-survivor was not consenting, and another would apply where the person acted recklessly.

Sweden adopted negligent rape as an offence in 2018. This has seen rape convictions rise. However, before the change, “rape” could only be established if the prosecution proved the accused had forced the other person to engage in the act through violence.

So the inclusion of negligent rape captured cases that were being ignored by the Swedish justice system. Comparable cases in Australia, by contrast, already fall within our criminal law.

The ‘mental element’

Several Australian states have recently held reviews of sexual consent laws. This comes in response to growing community awareness of the failures of the criminal justice system when responding to sexual violence.

Queensland’s review saw legislation passed through parliament in March 2021. This codified the existing case law but made no substantive changes. The Queensland parliament voted down a Greens-backed amendement that would have put in place an affirmative consent model. This would have required a clear agreement before having sex.

The New South Wales government, by contrast, announced last week it wants to legislate affirmative consent in the state.

Read more:
NSW adopts affirmative consent in sexual assault laws. What does this mean?

The focus of these reviews has included not only the definition of consent, but also the standards of knowledge required for defendants to be convicted of sexual offences. This is known as the “mental element” of a criminal offence.

This mental element differs across jurisdictions. Most states recognise someone who has sex with another person without their consent is guilty of an offence if they did not have an honest and reasonable belief the other person was consenting.

In some states, such as NSW, the law also outlines a specific provision of recklessness. So recklessness as to whether or not the complainant was consenting is enough for the law to find culpability.

Recklessness and the law

Though recklessness isn’t defined in the NSW legislation, case law provides that it can be proven in two ways. The prosecution must prove that either the accused person didn’t turn their mind to whether the other person was consenting, or they realised there was a chance the other person was not consenting, but continued anyway.

Read more:
Not as simple as ‘no means no’: what young people need to know about consent

In other states that don’t specifically provide for recklessness, these circumstances may be criminalised since the accused would be considered not to have a reasonable belief in consent.

This approach makes sense. A circumstance where a person does not bother to consider whether their potential sexual partner is consenting — or where they consider it and ignore the potential that they are not — would not be consensual sex for most people.

Creating a rape ‘hierarchy’ is not the answer

Despite the need to improve justice for survivors, there are strong reasons not to split sexual offending into two types, as a negligent rape offence would do. The myth that “real rapes” are perpetrated by strangers and involve overt violence is widespread in both society and the courtroom.

These types of cases are more likely to be prosecuted and result in convictions. This is partly because it is easier to establish the mental element of the crime. A stranger who attacks someone using force can more easily be proven to know the other person is not consenting.

Read more:
Sexual assault victims can easily be re-traumatised going to court — here’s one way to stop this

This means, the only situation where the “lesser” offence of negligent rape would be used is where the victim and defendant are known to each other. This is precisely the context in which most rapes occur — as Contos’ recent petition calling for better consent education at school, and decades of research, have highlighted.

The proposed new offence could effectively create a hierarchy of sexual offences: rape by strangers and rape by acquaintances. However, suggesting rapes committed by someone known to the victim are not as “seriously wrong” as rapes committed by strangers is deeply offensive — and untrue.

Calls for “negligent rape” reflect a valid frustration with the criminal justice system’s inability to support survivors of sexual violence. However, treating some forms of rape as less serious than others would be a leap in the wrong direction.

Rachael Burgin is Executive Director of Rape and Sexual Assault Research and Advocacy.

Jonathan Crowe is Director of Research at Rape and Sexual Assault Research and Advocacy.

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

– ref. There’s a push for a new ‘negligent rape’ offence — this would create a dangerous hierarchy of sexual violence – https://theconversation.com/theres-a-push-for-a-new-negligent-rape-offence-this-would-create-a-dangerous-hierarchy-of-sexual-violence-161415

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Hickey, Professor, School of Education, Deakin University

The Australian Curriculum is going through a review process with proposed changes released for public consultation at the end of April.

When Australian state education ministers commissioned the review in June 2020, the terms of reference specified the aim to “refine and reduce the amount of content across all eight learning areas […] to focus on essential content”.

The draft up for consultation states:

The Review looks to improve the Australian Curriculum by refining, realigning and decluttering the content so it focuses on the essential knowledge and skills students should learn and is clearer for teachers on what they need to teach.

But is the curriculum actually “cluttered” or “crowded” as commonly claimed? And what does that even mean?

Who says it’s crowded?

Claims of the Australian Curriculum being “crowded” have been heard far and wide. For instance, in December 2018 then Federal Education Minister Dan Tehan told a conference:

Teachers tell me that there is too much being taught and we should be concentrating on developing a deeper understanding of essential content.

Preliminary research from the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority’s (ACARA) does reveal teachers are in the chorus line of those voicing concerns about the need to refine and reduce the curriculum’s content.

ACARA’s Director of Curriculum Janet Davey said teachers are looking to the review for clarity about “what it is we want teachers to teach and what it is we want learners to learn”.

Today’s teachers are increasingly called on to play an active role in translating a wide range of contemporary social agendas into age-appropriate curriculum content for their students. This includes fostering young people’s understandings of respectful relationships , consent , cultural awareness and the environment.

While few would reject the importance of these issues having a presence in the contemporary curriculum, they inevitably add to the time and content demands already placed on teachers.

At the heart of accusations of a crowded or cluttered curriculum are concerns learning in key areas — such as literacy and numeracy — will be compromised by an insidious creep towards a breadth of content, such as gender and environmental issues.

Read more:
Proposed new curriculum acknowledges First Nations’ view of British ‘invasion’ and a multicultural Australia

Of course schools have always been active sites for the delivery of important social policy. Key social agendas associated with population health, welfare, security, nutrition and hygiene have all had prominence in the curriculum at various moments in history.

A historical example of curriculum adaptation to accommodate national priorities can be readily tracked during times of war. Both world wars saw an increase in gender segregation in the curriculum, in which greater emphasis was placed on the disciplining and conditioning of boys, while welfare and health education were heightened for girls.

Going ‘back to basics’

Accusations of a crowded curriculum are often amplified following the publication of international educational test results. At the end of 2019, the OECD released the latest results of its Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The results showed, since PISA first assessed reading literacy in 2000, Australia’s mean score had declined by the equivalent of around three-quarters of a year of schooling.

Australia also trailed 23 countries in maths, and 12 countries in science.

Whenever the comparative performance of Australian students is seen to fall against their international counterparts a blame-game is set in motion.

Read more:
PISA doesn’t define education quality, and knee-jerk policy proposals won’t fix whatever is broken

For instance, Dan Tehan had said he was disappointed with the results and would “take a chainsaw” to the Australian Curriculum — again saying it was too “cluttered”. Together with this is generally the declaration for an urgent need to, “go back to basics”.

Indeed, successive federal education ministers have called-out the crowded curriculum as a major reason for Australia’s international underperformance in literacy and numeracy (see, Christopher Pyne, Dan Tehan and current Education Minister Alan Tudge.)

It’s not so simple

While the rhetoric around stripping back the so-called crowded curriculum has an appealing simplicity, its application is considerably more problematic.

At stake here are the perceived merits of each of the eight key learning areas that comprise the Australian Curriculum.

It would be a hotly contested decision to declare the content associated with any of the eight Learning Areas (English, Maths, Science, The Arts, Humanities, Technologies, Health and Physical Education and Languages) should be purged.

So rather than concede the curriculum is crowded, ACARA has opted to describe it as cluttered. The prevailing view here is that it is not excessive curriculum content causing teacher angst, but uncertainty about its structure.

ACARA’s CEO David de Carvalho believes clarifying the structure of the Australian Curriculum and the relationship between the three dimensions of the curriculum — Learning Areas, General Capabilities (key skills and dispositions) and Cross-Curriculum Priorities (regional, national and global priorities) — will go a long way to addressing current teacher concerns.

Read more:
What’s the point of education? It’s no longer just about getting a job

Indeed, ACARA defends the current curriculum’s breadth as necessary for preparing young people for active citizenship in an increasingly complex world.

A complex world

So the challenge is to strike a balance between the competing curriculum demands for “back to basics” and the need for “formative futures” — understood as the fundamentals for effective personhood in an increasingly complex world. Numeracy and literacy may be important but they are not enough to prepare young people to be active shapers of the world they live in.

Yes, the curriculum is busy and requires regular updating and refining. But breadth is not the enemy of depth. A balanced curriculum has the power to deliver a wide range of important lessons.

So, rather than rehearsing old rhetoric about the curriculum being crowded, we should shift the focus to the quality of the learning experience, and how we can best nurture productive interactions between teachers and students.

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

– ref. A ‘crowded curriculum’? Sure, it may be complex, but so is the world kids must engage with – https://theconversation.com/a-crowded-curriculum-sure-it-may-be-complex-but-so-is-the-world-kids-must-engage-with-157690

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Mills, PhD Candidate, University of the Sunshine Coast

Over 1,000 Australians died as a result of a traffic crash in the past year, with speed being a factor in around 20–40% of crashes.

Historically, many of the attempts to convince drivers to obey road rules have relied on strategies that highlight the risks associated with the offence. However, findings from a Queensland-based study suggest some motorists may acknowledge the risks associated with speeding and continue to offend anyway.

Humans are well designed to recognise and respond appropriately to risk, which is largely connected to our drive to avoid pain and seek pleasure. In other words, if we know the risks and dangers associated with a behaviour, we are expected to not do it.

When it comes to speeding, campaigns typically focus on the negative consequences of doing it, ranging from receiving a ticket to the destruction and loss associated with a fatal traffic injury. It is intended that each time we view one of these campaigns, we are reminded that engaging in these dangerous driving behaviours increases our risk of a negative outcome.

But what if motorists don’t think the risks apply to them? Or what if they acknowledge the risks and continue offending anyway?

Our research explored these questions by looking at motorists’ perceptions of the risks of being involved in a crash due to speeding, and of getting a speeding ticket. We asked what they perceived was the likelihood of these events for them compared to a driver of the same age and sex.

A total of 760 Queensland motorists were involved in the research. Participants were members of the public, recruited in shopping centres, online and at a Queensland university.

Read more:
Rising cyclist death toll is mainly due to drivers, so change the road laws and culture

The research found speeding was common, but participants considered their risk of being involved in a crash to be lower than that of other drivers (72% of sample). Importantly, 74% considered their driving ability to be better than other drivers’.

However, a closer look at the factors related to speeding highlighted that those who reported offending more often recognised that, compared to a similar driver (of the same age and sex), they believed themselves to be more likely to be involved in a crash due to speeding, and more likely to get a speeding ticket. However, they considered their driving ability to be better than other drivers’.

Drivers who sped frequently were also more likely to report being involved in a traffic crash in the past and having lost their licence. Therefore, frequent offenders were aware of the dangers of their behaviour but continued to offend anyway.

The challenge of changing behaviour

The research findings suggest those who break the speed limit are aware of the possible risks. For some, these risks remain “hypothetical”, with drivers dismissing them with inflated perceptions of their own driving ability. For others, not even previous crash involvement (or receiving a ticket) is enough to change driving behaviours.

The findings further highlight the challenge of improving road safety, particularly in regard to influencing drivers.

From a different perspective, the perceived risks of speeding might not outweigh some of the benefits or “driving forces” that motivate speeding. Previous speeding research has found:

• motorists may be more likely to speed if they have influences (such as peers or parents) that endorse and promote speeding behaviour, so the benefit of peer acceptance may outweigh the risks

• some people have a greater tendency towards sensation-seeking and may seek experiences from which they derive sensation (such as dangerous driving)

• many mainstream movies portray risky driving behaviours in a glamorised way, which may encourage motorists to adopt similar behaviours

• some drivers simply enjoy driving fast.

Read more:
Busted: 5 myths about 30km/h speed limits in Australia

Deterring drivers who understand the risks but offend anyway

The findings remind us that biases are common and so is speeding. Both may contribute to the road toll refusing to go down. Put simply, the link between increased speed and crash outcomes is well documented, yet motorists are still willing to take the risks.

While punishing offenders remains a key ingredient, new approaches are badly needed to ensure motorists regularly recognise (and respond appropriately to) road risks. That is, the risk is real and extends beyond one’s own driving ability, as it should not be forgotten that we share the roads with many others.

While humans are considered the apex creature for learning, this capacity does not always extend to the roads. Until the autonomous self-driving machines arrive and potentially save us, we need to enhance our willingness to respond to ever-present risks in order to save ourselves and others.

Laura Mills receives funding from the Motor Accident Insurance Commission (MAIC).

James Freeman receives funding from the Motor Accident Insurance Commission (MAIC)

Verity Truelove receives funding from the Motor Accident Insurance Commission.

– ref. Speeding drivers keep breaking the law even after fines and crashes: new research – https://theconversation.com/speeding-drivers-keep-breaking-the-law-even-after-fines-and-crashes-new-research-161672

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liz Allen, Demographer, ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods, Australian National University

There’s been much talk in recent days about the demographic and travel behaviour differences between Melbourne and Sydney and to what extent they may help explain why Victoria appears to be struggling with COVID outbreaks, while New South Wales isn’t.

Recent commentary has suggested transport, age, jobs, migrant population and other factors among the reasons that may help explain the difference.

As I outlined in a recent thread on Twitter, pure luck or random chance play a role in virus outbreaks — but you can also unpack some of these questions using publicly available statistics.

A tale of two states

When considering virus outbreaks, population characteristics and behaviours are crucial. The data doesn’t support the suggestion population and behaviour differ greatly between the states. When you look at the numbers, Victoria and NSW just aren’t all that different.

Is Victoria younger than New South Wales? No, median age and age distribution among the working age population (the most socially interactive group) aren’t all that different.

One theory circulating is that there are a lot of migrants in Victoria and that these communities are more likely to live together, visit and support each other. Are there more migrants in Victoria versus NSW? Not really, the proportion of the population born overseas is similar in NSW to that in Victoria.

What about population density, then?

Is Melbourne more densely populated than Sydney? Not overall.

It’s true the ABS said in a 2021 data release the most densely populated areas in Australia were inner-city Melbourne (22,400 people per sq km), followed by Potts Point-Woolloomooloo (16,700) and Pyrmont-Ultimo (16,500), both in inner Sydney. But, as the ABS points out:

Population density can also be explored at a finer level by breaking Australia up into 1 km² grid cells.

Grid cells can be grouped into population density classes, ranging from no population to very high.

Sydney had the largest combined area in the high and very high density classes (193 km²), followed by Melbourne (77 km²) and Brisbane (15 km²).

The word “combined” there is very important.

Do people in Melbourne use active transport (meaning public transport, biking and walking) more than those living in Sydney? No, Sydneysiders have the highest rate of active transport use in the country.

Do people in Victoria live in more crowded housing situations than in New South Wales? No, overcrowding appears to be a bigger problem in New South Wales where it is estimated there are 49,333 people living in overcrowded housing compared to 28,710 people in Victoria.

What about travel?

Do people in Victoria travel longer distances than those living in NSW? No, average commute distances are similar for Victoria and NSW.

Do people in Melbourne travel around more than those in Sydney? No, the data doesn’t support that based on travel to work information.

In short, it would appear Victoria and NSW have more in common, demographically, than many think.

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

– ref. Why has Victoria struggled more than NSW with COVID? To a demographer, they’re not that different – https://theconversation.com/why-has-victoria-struggled-more-than-nsw-with-covid-to-a-demographer-theyre-not-that-different-161996

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jan-Hendrik May, Senior Lecturer, School of Geography, Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, Faculty of Science, The University of Melbourne

Few parts of the world would seem as inhospitable to humans as the highlands of the Tibetan Plateau, near the Himalayas. Archaeologists have long wondered when, where and how our ancestors began to explore and occupy these landscapes.

But evidence of early human presence on the plateau has been scarce — and dating the few remaining traces has proven an ongoing challenge.

Using a recently developed dating technique, our research team has now produced the first solid evidence for human presence on the central-southern Tibetan Plateau more than 5,000 years ago. Our findings are published today in Science Advances.

The challenge of dating surface artefact scatter

The dry highlands of Tibet are considered to be among the last areas on Earth to have been settled by humans. The high altitude of the region, in the shadow of Himalayan peaks more than eight kilometres high, makes for extreme conditions.

The question of where and when the peopling of this remote region occurred has been debated among archaeologists. Many studies have come from research conducted at open-air locations, with abundant evidence of stone tool use or manufacture, such as rock flakes found on the ground.

These sites are referred to as “lithic artefact scatters”. They are among the most commonly preserved archaeological sites in the world, and hold potential to reconstruct human settlement patterns and explore various aspects of past human behaviour.

Yet it has been extremely difficult to interpret the archaeological significance and ages of these sites unambiguously. Most artefacts are made from stone, which makes it difficult to determine when the tools were manufactured, or if they were moved after being discarded.

Artefacts on the surface are prone to erosion, and movement by wind and water, over hundreds or even thousands of years since humans first produced them. Consequently, they’re often found “out of context”, so a clear relationship can’t be drawn between them and their immediate surroundings.

Developing new techniques

To overcome this limitation, our team spent the past several years in the Innsbruck OSL (optically-stimulated luminescence) dating laboratory in Austria led by Michael Meyer at the University of Innsbruck, developing a new technique suitable for dating ancient stone tools.

OSL dating has become one of the main dating methods in archaeology and the earth sciences. It’s based on the accumulation of energy in the crystal structure of sand grains.

When grains are shielded from daylight, such as when they’re buried, their crystal accumulates energy due to low-level radiation from surrounding rocks and sediment.

This can then be measured in the laboratory, through controlled exposure to blue and green light, which releases the energy as a “luminescence signal”. The longer the grains have been buried, the more luminescence we will measure from them.

Instead of looking at sand for our research, we used an approach called “rock surface burial dating”. It’s the first ever approach to focus on the signal stored beneath the surface of rock artefacts at a scatter site.

The luminescence signal built up within a rock is almost infinitely high, due to the extremely long time that has passed since the rock was formed by geological processes.

However, once a rock surface is exposed to daylight, such as when an artefact is first produced and used, the luminescence signal is erased at the surface and just beneath (but not at the centre). The erasure of the signal is strongest at the surface and tapers off towards the centre of the artefact.

When the artefact is thrown away and becomes shielded from daylight — either from beneath, or from being covered by sediment — the signal starts to build again.

This leads to varying levels of signal intensity found at different depths beneath the artefact’s surface. We can measure this signal distribution to determine the overall age and history of a stone artefact.

5,000 years in the shadow of Mount Everest

The large potential of this new way of using OSL had been shown in previous archaeological and geological contexts, but hadn’t been rigorously tested on artefact scatter sites.

Accompanied by experienced high-altitude archaeologist Mark Aldenderfer from the University of California at Merced, and supported by mineralogist Peter Tropper from Innsbruck, we set out to test the suitability of this promising method at the lithic artefact scatter site of Su-re, in southern Tibet.

At an elevation of 4,450 metres, in a large valley descending from the highest peaks in the world – Mount Everest and Cho’Oyu — Su-re had been known for decades for its dense accumulation of diverse surface artefacts. This suggested a long history of site use by humans. But how long?

Using our dating approach, we dated the oldest artefacts found at the Su-re site as being between 5,200 and 5,500 years old. These tools were likely related to quarrying activities at the site.

While some older sites have been discovered in central and southeastern Tibet, our dataset has made Su-re the oldest securely dated site in the central-southern Tibetan Plateau near the high Himalaya.

This finding is particularly exciting considering the proximity of Su-re to the “Nangpa La” mountain pass. This pass has historically connected local Tibetans in the highlands with Nepali Sherpas in the Himalayan valleys and lowlands.

Our new approach to analysing surface artefacts can be considered the beginning of a road to new archaeological perspectives. In the future it could help uncover the secrets of lithic artefact sites around the world.

Read more:
How midnight digs at a holy Tibetan cave opened a window to prehistoric humans living on the roof of the world

Jan-Hendrik May receives funding from ARC (Australian Research Council).

Luke Gliganic received funding and support from the FWF (M2121-G25 and 24924-G19) while working at the University of Innsbruck.

– ref. World-first artefact dating method shows humans have lived in the shadow of the Himalayas for more than 5,000 years – https://theconversation.com/world-first-artefact-dating-method-shows-humans-have-lived-in-the-shadow-of-the-himalayas-for-more-than-5-000-years-161822

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Lindsey, Malcolm Smith Professor of Asian Law and Director of the Centre for Indonesian Law, Islam and Society, The University of Melbourne

No one really knows true state of the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia, and that means it is unpredictable. But there are good reasons to worry about what will happen next.

Fifteen months after Indonesia reported its first case of COVID-19, testing for the coronavirus remains among the lowest in Asia. Perhaps because it is not free, testing has reached only around 40 per 1,000 people, compared with 115 in the Philippines, 373 in Malaysia, and more than 2,000 in Singapore.

Testing is better even in Myanmar, where a military coup has triggered daily protests and an increasingly fraught security situation.

And Indonesia’s test results are not reliable. The country is still excessively reliant on rapid antigen tests, which are less accurate than PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests.

Read more:
Indonesian-made COVID-19 breathalyser sensitivity comparable to RT-PCR

Indonesia’s official death reports are questionable too. LaporCovid-19, an independent website established to provide accurate information about the pandemic, noted a discrepancy between the 48,477 COVID-related deaths reported by the government in May and its own total of 50,729. It reached its tally by simply adding the death tolls of each province – and that was with out-of-date data from six provinces and none from Papua.

In fact, researchers and journalists have long pointed to significant “excess deaths” as evidence of significant under-reporting of COVID fatalities in Indonesia.

Excess deaths refer to the number of deaths occurring beyond what would be expected in a normal year. One study found a 61% increase in excess deaths in Indonesia in 2020 compared with the previous five years, which was not reflected in the official data.

Concerns of a super-spreader event

But even on the clearly inadequate official data available, COVID case numbers are now on the rise. Indonesia reported 2,385 new cases on May 15. Two weeks later, daily cases had more than doubled to 6,565.

If numbers keep growing at this rate, Indonesia’s health system will not be able to cope. When daily cases peaked earlier this year at 10,000-14,000 new cases per day (officially), Jakarta’s hospitals were overwhelmed and COVID patients were turned away.

And there is a real possibility the numbers will get this high again — maybe even worse.

Countries in the region that had managed the pandemic well through 2020, such as Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia are now experiencing deadly third and fourth waves. In early May, Indonesian authorities also reported cases of the UK variant (B.1.1.7), South African variant (B.1.351) and Indian variant (B.1.617.2), which are more contagious than the original strain.

Read more:
COVID is forcing millions of girls out of school in South-east Asia and the Pacific

To make matters worse, Indonesia just experienced a national super-spreader event: Eid al-Fitr, the most important Islamic holiday.

Traditionally, millions of Muslims return to their home villages to see family and friends during this time — a mass event known as mudik. Fearing a repeat of last year, when daily cases shot up by 93% after mudik, the government banned travel this year — the second time it has tried to halt mudik.

But, as is so often the case in Indonesia, enforcement was badly lacking, and mudik rolled on, even if numbers were down. WhatsApp groups were ablaze with ways to avoid police checkpoints.

Over the past fortnight, Indonesians have been gradually returning to the cities, fuelling concerns of a major outbreak.

This is happening in next-door Malaysia, where the government has announced a post-Eid total lockdown of the entire country as consecutive days of record infections catapulted its total caseload above 550,000.

In Vietnam, as well, the government has just imposed a two-week lockdown on the largest city, Ho Chi Minh City, with plans to test all 9 million residents.

But in Indonesia, with more than eight times the population of Malaysia and a far weaker health care system, it is business as usual, or what the government calls the “new normal”.

The government recently expanded its social restrictions nationwide through June 14, requiring schools to shut, shops and restaurants to close by a certain time each night, and limits on employees allowed in offices. However, a more robust lockdown still appears only a remote possibility.

Read more:
Why a ‘new normal’ might fail in Indonesia and how to fix it

Vaccine rollout offers some hope

Indonesia’s vaccine rollout may offer a slim ray of hope. More than 27 million vaccine doses have now been delivered and nearly 4% of Indonesia’s population (10 million of 270 million) has been fully vaccinated, compared with 3.6% in Malaysia, 2.7% in Japan and a woeful 2% in Australia.

Indonesia’s vaccine program began in January with a combination of AstraZeneca, procured through the World Health Organization’s COVAX scheme, and the Chinese-made Sinovac vaccines. But AstraZeneca shortages exacerbated by the recent COVID surge in India have led to greater reliance on China.

In April, the Indonesian government approved Sinopharm for emergency use, and supplies of the China’s CanSino and the Russian Sputnik V vaccines are on the way.

There are concerns about the efficacy of these vaccines, but most Indonesians would agree they are better than nothing.

A two-track vaccination system has now been developed. The government is offering Sinovac or AstraZeneca vaccines free to health workers, senior citizens and public servants, and for a fee to anyone else.

At the same time, a program self-funded by companies is offering their employees Sinopharm vaccines supplied by the government.

This two-pronged approach will help increase vaccination numbers, but only a little. The corporate program is costly, and most medium-to-small enterprises — which represent 99% of businesses in Indonesia — simply can’t afford it.

And the young, poor and unemployed — a fast-growing group as the economy continues to slide – have little hope of getting a jab.

Scandals and data leaks

Price-gouging, corruption and other crimes are only make things worse. Several civil servants were arrested last month, for example, for allegedly stealing Sinovac vaccines intended for a prison, to sell to the public.

Worse still, former social affairs minister Juliari Batubara stands accused of taking 17 billion rupiah (A$1.5 million) in bribes related to the distribution of COVID-19 aid for the poor.

Read more:
Indonesia’s coronavirus fatalities are the highest in Southeast Asia. So, why is Jokowi rushing to get back to business?

And, most recently, the social security data of 279 million Indonesians — both alive and dead — is believed to have been leaked and sold on the dark web.

Pandemic fatigue has well and truly set in, and these high-profile scandals threaten to further deepen distrust between Indonesians and the government. The country will not fare well if predictions of an even bigger outbreak fuelled by new variants of the virus come true.

If this happens, the government will may well find itself facing a looming health catastrophe, rising social unrest and perhaps serious political tensions, too.

Tim Lindsey has received funding from Australian Research Council

Max Walden is a PhD Candidate under the Australian Research Council-funded project “Indonesia’s refugee policies: responsibility, security and regionalism”.

– ref. Indonesia may be on the cusp of a major COVID spike. Unlike its neighbours, though, there is no lockdown yet – https://theconversation.com/indonesia-may-be-on-the-cusp-of-a-major-covid-spike-unlike-its-neighbours-though-there-is-no-lockdown-yet-158955

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Heather Handley, Honorary Associate Professor in Volcanology and Geochemistry, Macquarie University

Environmental scientists see flora, fauna and phenomena the rest of us rarely do. In this series, we’ve invited them to share their unique photos from the field.

Volcanic activity is a constant global threat. It’s estimated over 1 billion people live within the potential, direct impact range of volcanic eruptions.

Just recently, lava flows from the eruption of Mount Nyiragongo, a volcano in the Democratic Republic of Congo, killed 32 people, with many more missing. Tens of thousands of people have been forced to flee the city of Goma.

This shows why understanding more about the inner workings of volcanoes is critical to improve the safety of those living in their shadows.

As a volcano scientist, my research takes me across Australia and all over the world. But sometimes, the most stunning revelations actually occur in the lab.

I take a microscopic look at volcanic rocks and fragments of the Earth’s mantle to estimate just how fast molten rock (magma) moves from deep in the Earth to the surface. This can help us prepare for future eruptions.

Australia’s fiery past — and future

Since the demise of the dinosaurs to recent human settlement, magmatic activity has left behind a trail of volcanoes stretching over 4,000 kilometres down Australia’s eastern margin, forming one of the world’s most extensive volcanic belts.

Read more:
Australia’s volcanic history is a lot more recent than you think

The last mainland eruptions took place at Mount Gambier and Mount Schank in South Australia around 5,000 years ago, a mere blink of a geological eye.

These eruptions were witnessed by local Aboriginal people and incorporated into oral traditions that have been passed down for hundreds of generations.

Based on the time since the last eruption, there are potentially two active volcanic regions in mainland Australia: in the northeast (southwest of Cairns) and southeast (from Melbourne across into South Australia).

The Mount Gambier and Mount Schank volcanoes are two of more than 400 volcanoes in the active southeast region called the Newer Volcanics Province, which has been active for at least the last 4.5 million years.

It’s considered likely there’ll be a future eruption in this province, but it’s not known when or where exactly the eruption will be.

So how much warning time might we have?

To answer this question, we have to unravel the secrets held by past eruptions, now locked away in the erupted rocks and the crystals within them.

Our first clue is that many of the dark black volcanic rocks that erupted in the Newer Volcanics Province (and others) contain chunks of green rock, called peridotite.

These dense green rock fragments are, in fact, pieces of the Earth’s upper mantle that were plucked out by the rising magma and carried all the way to the surface from depths of greater than 30 or 40 kilometres below our feet.

These fragments can sink back down through the liquid rock during its ascent, like a pebble dropped into a cylinder of honey. So in order to reach the surface, the rising magma had to move fast — likely taking just a few days from the source.

Volcanic crystal balls

In the same way tree rings can tell you about what the climate was like when the tree grew, the crystals within volcanic rocks and the mantle fragments they carry preserve memories of the environment on their upward journey through the Earth.

In the photo below, you can see how light passing through the mantle rock reveals a mosaic of colourful crystals. The darker part is the enclosing volcanic rock.

This thin slice of rock is just 30 microns in thickness, about half the thickness of a typical human hair.

Now let’s take a look through a scanning electron microscope at the border where the mantle crystals make contact with the now-solidified magma.

In the two photos below, you can see the rim of the crystals has become lighter in colour, which means it changed its chemical composition. This is so it could adapt to its new magma environment on ascent in a process called diffusion.

We use the sharpness of this chemical boundary to estimate how long mantle fragments sat in the magma before the rock erupted.

In other words, the minimum time magma took to travel from source to surface — an eruption warning time.

Read more:
Curious Kids: Why do volcanoes erupt?

I can also use the chemistry and shapes of crystals that grew within the magma itself to map out the plumbing system beneath the volcano — the route magma takes to the surface.

The photos below show some of the different shapes crystals can form as the magma rises to the surface, cooling along the way. The spiky and skeleton-shaped crystals grow when the rising magma cools fast and by a large degree.

And we’re finding so far that individual volcanoes in the Newer Volcanics Province can take strikingly different pathways to the surface. This could result in varying eruption warning times.

Australia isn’t prepared

With likely maximum warning times of some past eruptions in Australia on the order of days, it’s worth considering how prepared we are for future eruptions — and not just from within Australia. If the global pandemic has taught us anything, it’s to expect the unexpected.

Large volcanic events are far from recent human memory, but in the Asia-Pacific region, they occur with a frequency of around every 400 years.

The federal government’s recent announcement of A$600 million towards establishing a new National Recovery and Resilience Agency will help Australia adapt to some climate change-associated hazards. But volcanic events appear to be excluded.

Preparing for the next potentially cataclysmic volcanic event in Australia’s neighbouring Ring of Fire should be part of Australia’s risk and resilience conversation.

Read more:
The government has pledged over $800m to fight natural disasters. It could be revolutionary — if done right

Heather Handley receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Heather is a General Governing Councillor of the Geological Society of Australia and Co-Founder and President of the Women in Earth and Environmental Science Australasia (WOMEESA) Network. She is a 2021-2022 Science and Technology Australia Superstar of STEM.

– ref. Photos from the field: the stunning crystals revealing deep secrets about Australian volcanoes – https://theconversation.com/photos-from-the-field-the-stunning-crystals-revealing-deep-secrets-about-australian-volcanoes-161176

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kristen Lyons, Professor Environment and Development Sociology, The University of Queensland

Academic freedom is widely championed as the foundation of a good university. It is seen as vital in speaking “truth to power” – to borrow from influential political philosopher Hannah Arendt – and in ensuring universities are oriented towards the common good, not select elite interests.

Academic freedom also ensures universities can lead research, education and public debates that are responsive to today’s global challenges and crises, ensuring their relevance in a volatile and complex world. In this way, universities help prepare graduates not simply for a career but also for a meaningful life in our “uncertain and unequal world”.

The latest special issue of Australian Universities’ Review is devoted to Academic Freedom’s Precarious Future. Contributing authors identify how the pressures on universities in Australia and overseas are hindering academic freedom. The consequences are dire and broad-ranging. These trends raises questions about just who, and what interests, universities are intended to serve.

Under this shadow, this special issue asks: what are the conditions in which academic freedom can flourish?

Read more:
The government’s funding changes are meddling with the purpose of universities

Entangled with corporate and political interests

Since their foundation in the 19th and early 20th centuries in Australia, universities have been tied to the political concerns of the settler colonial nation state and the economic interests of global capitalism. Settler colonial power has always ensured its interests are woven into the fabric of universities (alongside other institutions). The rise of corporate and neoliberal agendas over recent decades has reinforced these dynamics.

Universities have become further entangled with vested interests, including the private sector and philanthro-capital, such as the controversial Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation. As Andrew Bonnell and Richard Hil set out in this special issue, these developments enable corporate and political influence across research, curriculum and the very infrastructure of university campuses.

Read more:
ANU stood up for academic freedom in rejecting Western Civilisation degree

The spread of neoliberal managerialism has also created a workplace culture of hyper-surveillance. This includes rigid performance appraisals, the use-value of research assessed via “impact” criteria and other metrics, as well as student evaluations that can affect educators’ careers. This bears down upon university staff and crushes academic freedom.

Such practices have emerged alongside what Jeannie Rea describes as increasingly precarious work and funding. Academics are encouraged to compete with – rather than care for – one another. This erodes collegiality and collective organising.

These workplace conditions and culture are at odds with the pursuit of academic freedom. Yet rather than turning the spotlight on the structural forces that curtail it, conservative interests frequently hijack debates about academic freedom. This distracts attention from the very real freedoms that are under threat, as Rob Watts argues.

Read more:
How a fake ‘free speech crisis’ could imperil academic freedom

A crucial issue in times of crisis

Crisis is now all too familiar, threatening ecologies, human life and livelihoods. We are grappling with the climate emergency, the COVID-19 pandemic, structural racism, sexual violence and more. These are all redefining our relations with one another, including both the human and non-human world.

In the midst of such crises, contributors to this special issue consider the purpose and responsibilities of universities, as well as the rights and interests they might support. The defence of academic freedom is identified as being vital to, and intertwined with, teaching, research, advocacy and service that are responsive to the conditions of our volatile world.

Academic freedom can provide the mandate for universities – their staff, students and graduates – to move through the world with purpose, care, and even love. This includes acting on the responsibilities that come with recognising that universities are part of, and in relationship with, diverse ecologies, people and the unceded territories on which they sit.

Creating the conditions for academic freedom

Jeannie Rea describes the vital work of Scholars at Risk in defending academic freedom. They include those who speak out against military, religious and state regimes, often jeopardising their lives to do so.

Gerd E. Schroder-Turk provides the compelling case for good governance. His essay includes a critique of the ways university councils are able to self-select external members. As a result, universities are increasingly governed by those with little expertise in teaching and research.

Read more:
Governing universities: tertiary experience no longer required

Peter Greste and Fred D’Agostino differentiate academic freedom from broader freedom of speech debates. They then consider some of the responsibilities that might underpin academic freedom.

In the afterword to this special issue, Canadian scholar Sharon Stein (and member of the Gesturing Towards Decolonial Futures collective) sets out the conditions in which academic freedom may flourish. This includes valuing diverse knowledges, practising intellectual humility and embracing difficult conversations. It also includes acknowledging our interdependence with one other, and with the non-human world.

The hope is this special issue moves academics, policymakers and diverse publics towards engagement with these ideas, leading to outcomes that support the conditions needed for academic freedom to flourish. This will be vital if universities are to have purpose and a meaningful place in facing the uncertainties of our lifetime.

Read more:
Book review: Open Minds explores how academic freedom and the public university are at risk

Kristen Lyons is a member of the Australian Greens, and senior research fellow with The Oakland Institute.

– ref. Universities’ relevance hinges on academic freedom – https://theconversation.com/universities-relevance-hinges-on-academic-freedom-160346

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andreas Chai, Associate Professor, Griffith University

Australia doesn’t expect to reopen its international borders until well into 2022.

The border has been closed since March 2020. That decision has been instrumental in the nation containing COVID-19, but there are big social and economic costs.

The social costs – of families separated, of students and others losing their jobs but being denied government assistance and so on – are hard to quantify.

But we’ve done our best to calculate some of the economic cost. By our reckoning every day the borders remain largely closed is costing at least $36.5 million in lost expenditure.

Calculating the costs of the closed border

There are a variety of ways to calculate the cost of the closed border. For this exercise we’ve focused on international tourists and international students. These two groups have a significant impact on the economy as Australia’s top two service exports.

We’ve left out other elements affected by the border closure. The following chart shows how the Australian Bureau of Statistics counts arrivals. Most significantly we’ve excluded permanent arrivals – migrants – from our estimates. Migration certainly brings significant economic benefits, but quantifying them for this exercise would be difficult.

In 2019, the Australian Bureau of Statistics recorded a total of 10,067,650 short-term and long-term visitor arrivals – an average of 27,582 a day. Over the whole year, according the Reserve Bank of Australia, they spent about A$65 billion on Australian goods and services.

In 2020, visitor numbers dropped to 2,023,020 – 1,971,490 of those in the first three months. Since April 2020 the average number of visitor arrivals has been about 219 a day.

Read more:
Migration is a quick fix for skills shortages. Building on Australians’ skills is better

Losses from tourists

Short-term international visitors buy goods and services made both domestically and overseas. The following chart provides a breakdown of all spending by primary purpose of trip, using data from Tourism Research Australia.

For our calculations, we’ve excluded spending on imported goods and focused on expenditure by international visitors on Australian goods and services. RBA data indicates in 2019 this is about $23 billion – or an average of about $63 million a day. Since April 2020 it has been negligible.

It wouldn’t be accurate, though, to say Australia is losing more than $63 million every day due to closed borders. If the border was open it is unlikely tourist arrivals would snap back to pre-COVID levels.

So what level is reasonable to assume?

One way is to look at international tourism trends in countries that have kept borders open. Statistics from the OECD published in December 2020 show declines between 50% (for Croatia) and 57% (for Germany). On this basis, we have assumed an open border would result in about half the number of international tourists pre-pandemic.

In keeping the border closed, therefore, this means losing expenditure of about $11.5 billion a year – or $31.5 million a day.

But, you might be thinking, what about the fact the closed border is also stopping Australians going overseas and taking money out of the economy?

This is true, but that “saved” money only helps the local economy if the dollars are spent here. From what we know, household saving rose to record levels last year and domestic tourism spending also declined. Both factors suggest lost international tourist dollars are not being offset in any significant way by higher domestic spending by Australians unable to travel overseas.

Losses from international students

The international student market in 2019 was worth about $40 billion to the Australian economy, according to the Reserve Bank. About $17 billion of that was in tuition fees, and $23 billion for living expenses. That’s equivalent to about $109 million a day.

Since the border closure, more than 100,000 students enrolled in Australian educational institutions have been prevented from coming into the country. Many have continued their studies online, but total enrolments have also fallen, as the following chart showing the number of international student visa holders over 2020 shows.

If the borders were open, we can’t assume total student numbers would bounce back to pre-pandemic levels. But we can reasonably assume many of those overseas studying online at an Australian institution would choose to come here.

According to the latest March 2021 data, there are about 112,435 international students in this situation. To be conservative, we’ve assumed 70% – about 78,700 – would return to study onshore.

To get an idea how much this would add to the economy, we’ve calculated each student would spend about $24,090 a year – $66 a day –on Australian goods and services. This is based on a total of about 952,00 international students enrolled in Australia in 2019 spending $23 billion on living expenses (per the Reserve Bank figures). This estimate is admittedly inexact because enrolments are not the same as the number of international students, but it is the best we have.

On this basis, we conclude the closed border is keeping about 78,700 international students out of the country and costing the economy $5.2 million a day – let’s round it down to $5 million a day to be conservative.

Read more:
As hopes of international students’ return fade, closed borders could cost $20bn a year in 2022 – half the sector’s value

Bottom line: $36.5 million a day

Keeping the international borders closed, therefore, is costing about $36.5 million a day in lost expenditure from tourists and international students. We calculate that equates over a year to about 72,000 jobs.

We acknowledge this is not a complete reckoning. Other methods might arrive at different figures. We’ve had to make many assumptions, and pick from statistics that differ between agencies (and even the same agency depending on the date). We’ve left out migrants, who bring critical skills and increase demand for goods and services, as well as business travel that facilitates investment and trade.

Read more:
‘Fortress Australia’: what are the costs of closing ourselves off to the world?

But we’ve done our best to use the most solid statistics available to provide a firm answer as to what Australia’s closed border is costing the economy.

That cost underlines the importance of a speedy vaccine roll-out – the key to relaxing border restrictions.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Australia’s closed border is costing the economy $36.5 million a day – https://theconversation.com/australias-closed-border-is-costing-the-economy-36-5-million-a-day-160873

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Byron, Senior Lecturer, Department of English, University of Sydney

Vladimir: Well? Shall we go?

Estragon: Yes, let’s go.

[They do not move.]

Samuel Beckett originally subtitled his 1953 play Waiting for Godot “a tragicomedy in two acts”. Vivian Mercier, the critic for the Irish Times, dubbed it “a play in which nothing happens, twice.”

Two tramps, Vladimir and Estragon, wait on the side of a country road. Each act begins with the pair reunited after spending the night apart. As they await their enigmatic patron, Godot, Estragon laments being beaten by nameless figures during the night, and Vladimir seeks to pass the time by stirring his companion into repartee.

These two are ill-starred but well-suited: Estragon’s feet are in constant pain, and Vladimir’s unspecified affliction induces frequent and painful urination. Estragon’s shoes stink, while Vladimir adheres to a diet of garlic to ease the symptoms of his condition. Vladimir remembers, and Estragon forgets.

Memory stretches into the deep past. The present sits on the cusp of a hopeful future. Time’s recurrence is marked by the moon and the sun. The endless wait for a rendezvous … for what, exactly?

To receive instructions? To be delivered from this tormented life? To relieve the tramps of their little canters, their bombastic declarations, their pleas? To relieve the steadfast audience?

From its first performances in the 1950s, Waiting for Godot enjoyed a positive critical reception. Yet its earliest audiences thought otherwise, ensuring the interval was the most popular part of the play by voting with their feet. Over time, though, Godot would become a celebrated avant-garde play, and a popular cultural reference for fruitless waiting.

This waiting is eerily prescient in a time of pandemic.

From Dublin to Paris

Samuel Beckett was born in Dublin in 1906. As a child he boarded at the Portora Royal School in Enniskillen (Oscar Wilde’s alma mater), before a degree in Modern Languages and Literature at Trinity College Dublin.

His enduring relation with Paris began soon after. During his two-year position as lecteur d’anglais at the Ecole Normale Superiéure (1928-29) Beckett met and became close with James Joyce, who introduced him to the Parisian literary and artistic avant-garde.

Beckett spent two years in London (1933-35) undergoing a course of psychoanalysis under Walter Bion at the Tavistock Clinic, during which he wrote his first published novel, Murphy (1938). Following travels in Germany and Italy, Beckett settled in Paris in 1938, as war looked increasingly likely.

Beckett joined the French Resistance but his cell was infiltrated and he was forced to flee to Roussillon for the duration of the war, where he composed the novel Watt (published in 1953) in English. Back in Paris, Beckett embraced French and embarked upon one of modern literature’s most eccentric and fruitful monastic episodes: the “siege in the room” which yielded the trilogy Molloy (1951), Malone Dies (1953) and The Unnamable (1953).

Beckett’s trilogy contributed to the new wave of French postwar novels renowned for their spare style and forensic treatment of plot, a movement that came to be known as the nouveau roman (“New Novel”).

Beckett wrote Waiting for Godot between October 1948 and January 1949. It was his first play to reach the stage — his first full playscript, Eleuthéria, was written in 1947 but only published posthumously.

Nothing, twice

Despite appearances, Godot is a surprising blend of suspense and dramatic action. Themes repeat over both acts: the same waiting, the same fights. A messenger boy appears in each act — or, perhaps, two different boys in each act, brothers. The horizon of time is scanned twice, once in each act.

The symmetry of Vladimir and Estragon, endlessly waiting for the unseen Godot, is echoed by another pair, Pozzo and Lucky, who pass by in each act. In Act 1, Pozzo is the grand landlord — a revenant of the Irish Big House literary tradition — whipping his servant Lucky into service.

Pozzo’s pomposity is matched by Lucky’s silence, and when Pozzo compels Lucky to speak, finally, Lucky’s cascade of logorrhea stands in contrast to Pozzo’s grandiloquence.

In Act 2 Pozzo returns, blinded, his authority diminished to the merely rhetorical. His final speech echoes Macbeth on time and the brevity of life. In Shakespeare’s play, Macbeth pronounces:

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player / That struts and frets his hour upon the stage / And then is heard no more

Pozzo’s final passionate outburst reduces life to:

the same day, the same second […] They give birth astride the grave, the light gleams an instant, then it’s night once more.

Estragon’s complete indifference to Pozzo’s swansong has Vladimir wonder at his own dilemma, inducing an irrevocable moment of clear vision:

At me too someone is looking, of me too someone is saying, he is sleeping, he knows nothing, let him sleep on.

This burden of recognition places Valdimir within a tragic mode, out of step with the farcical tragicomedy around him. He is no longer immersed in the condition of waiting, but breaks through to understand the act of waiting as a condition of life.

Audible yawns – from those who stayed

Godot premièred at the Théâtre du Babylone in Paris in January 1953. The play drew positive attention from reviewers and from some of the biggest names in French theatre and literature. Its fame rose slowly — then abruptly, when a fistfight broke out in the interval of one performance, between the play’s defenders and those offended or shocked by its (in)action and the cruel plight of the character Lucky.

Its English-language premiere in London in August 1955 was met with “waves of hostility” and audible yawning from audience members who remained after interval.

The play’s fate in the United States was little short of catastrophic: billed as “the laugh sensation of two continents”, its opening night in January 1956 at the Coconut Grove Playhouse in Miami was farcical.

Even Alan Schneider’s expert direction couldn’t salvage the play from a disruptive rehearsal atmosphere, complicated sets and an ill-suited venue. The interval, again, turned out to be the most popular part of the performance.

Bert Lahr (who played the Lion in 1939’s The Wizard of Oz) played Estragon in Miami and would be instrumental in the play’s success later that year on Broadway, an event that remained one of his career highlights.

During those early years, Godot was also performed in prisons, including a landmark production by the San Francisco Actors Workshop at San Quentin State Prison in 1957. Inmates were astounded a playwright could capture limbo with such insight and sensitivity.

All of us are waiting

Over time its fame has grown to the point where Godot is a definitive meeting point of the avant-garde and popular culture. The play has inspired numerous parodies and spin-offs, perhaps most notably the 1996 mockumentary Waiting for Guffman, in which the cast of a small-town musical production in Missouri awaits the arrival of a legendary Broadway producer.

The claustrophobia of Beckett’s next play, Endgame (1957), might capture the experience of lockdown in the current pandemic (“Beyond [the wall] is the other hell”), but Godot captures the distortions of time combined with the uncertainty of respite.

Populations across the globe have endured various kinds of waiting: waiting for published infection numbers, for hospital beds, for oxygen supplies, for borders to reopen, for opportunities to see loved ones. Running through our individual narratives, waiting has proved to be a truly global, shared experience.

How do we remember pre-pandemic times – that past “a million years ago,” as Vladimir pronounces in the play – and what do we forget?

Estragon exclaims: “Nothing happens. Nobody comes, nobody goes. It’s awful.” But dilatory time and static place also offer opportunities for new perception: a long moment to consider our circumstances and ourselves anew.

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

– ref. Guide to the Classics: Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, a tragicomedy for our times – https://theconversation.com/guide-to-the-classics-samuel-becketts-waiting-for-godot-a-tragicomedy-for-our-times-157962

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

Despite this week’s strong economic figures, the pandemic is not as distant in the rearview mirror as many had hoped it would be by now.

In Victoria, cluster outbreaks have forced the state into a new lockdown. With cases amongst aged care workers and residents, the state waits nervously as health authorities battle to contain the situation.

As Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing, Mark Butler is focused on scrutinising the federal government’s handling of pandemic and the aged care sector, and what more should be done.

“The problem is distribution[…] We need to ramp up the aged care vaccination and disability care vaccination. And that just means the Commonwealth needing to engage more teams to do the job.

“They’re doing that in Melbourne right now. But still, we have hundreds and hundreds of aged care facilities that haven’t yet received their second dose. And 98% of residents in disability care haven’t received their second dose. These are priority groups. So that is what the Commonwealth should be doing as a matter of urgency.”

Butler is a former national president of the Labor party and sits on its national executive. This week, rebel backbencher Joel Fitzgibbon called for Labor to scrap the rank and file component in selecting its leader. Currently the Labor leader is elected on a 50-50 basis between the caucus and party membership. Butler firmly rejects the Fitzgibbon call for change.

Indeed, he says he’s held a “strong view” for “many, many years” that there should be more rank and file decision making in the party – not less. But the complication is that with party membership decreasing, membership decisions skew a certain way.

“There is an obligation. You can’t rely upon a shrinking group of party members[…]but what I do know is that it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy if we continue to disrespect our members and just expect them to roll up to polling booths every election day and not really do much else.”

Additional audio

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

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Mark Butler on the vaccine rollout and democracy in the Labor Party – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-mark-butler-on-the-vaccine-rollout-and-democracy-in-the-labor-party-161993

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Bennett, Chair in Epidemiology, Deakin University

Victoria’s lockdown is to be extended for another week to get on top of the growing number of community cases, which now stands at 60.

But questions remain about what’s behind some of these cases.
Victoria’s COVID-19 testing commander Jeroen Weimar said yesterday in about four or five cases, the virus was transmitted after only “fleeting contact”.

Today, we heard from Victoria’s Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton about one case suspected to have been infected when visiting a site some two hours after an infectious person had left. The source case had been there for some time, and it was described as a poorly ventilated space.

Nonetheless, this is consistent with the aerosol transmission we have become increasingly concerned about, and perhaps this is the first documentation of this outside hotel quarantine.

Today we also heard that health authorities have reported about 10% of cases are linked with more casual exposures, including at “tier two” sites (Victoria describes exposure sites according to risk, with a tier one site being the most risky).

So is it the virus, or more focused efforts in tracking cases, that’s led us to finding such casual exposures?

Read more:
What can you expect if you get a call from a COVID contact tracer?

Is it the virus?

Despite today’s news, people are not more likely now to get infected by brushing past someone on the street.

In the vast majority of cases, people have become infected by very close contacts, or at certain “tier one” exposure sites when there at the same time as a known case.

There is evidence the variant associated with India is more infectious. This particular lineage of the Indian variant B.1.617.1, however, may not be as infectious as other lineages.

It reinforces how important it is that outbreaks are contained as early as possible where this increased risk of spread is still manageable.

On average, with variants of concern like the one currently circulating in Victoria, a case might infect 15% of household contacts instead of 10% seen in 2020. When new case numbers are high later in an outbreak, this difference in transmission translates to much bigger jumps in case numbers.

The way the virus spreads in clusters has also not changed, with some cases not passing the virus on, while a small number pass it on to many.

If this strain of the virus were vastly more transmissible than the original strain, we’d expect to see many cases. This strain has been in our community for a month now, undetected and running free for more than two weeks. There would be many more than 60 cases if this were true.

Read more:
What’s the ‘Indian’ variant responsible for Victoria’s outbreak and how effective are vaccines against it?

We’re also better at tracking cases

The main thing that’s changed since Victoria’s second wave last year is that we have forensic analysis of every case and we’re better at finding casual links between cases.

We’re now publishing lists of venues with exposure times and more people are coming forward for testing than at the peak of Victoria’s second wave. We also have check-in data for many venues.

This results in more reliable measures of both the total spread and routes of virus transmission, than in the second wave, or any community outbreak of this size.

Transmission associated with more casual exposures would have been much more likely to be missed before. Even if these cases were picked up, they might have been counted among the “mystery cases” that comprised 18% of all cases in 2020. We didn’t know where these cases were infected as there were no apparent links between them and known cases.

We are doing much better this time with only three transmission events that not yet fully understood.

How about this ‘fleeting contact’?

The four or five cases Weimar mentioned yesterday relate to a range of indoor exposure sites including a display home, a Telstra shop, local grocery stores, and a shopping strip.

This is where people may have been in direct contact with a case, but where no definitive exposure event is documented, there is no check-in and people don’t know each other.

So from what we know so far, there’s been a crossover between when most cases were present and where their contacts became infected. And 90% of these are in the settings we know are high transmission risk — households and workplaces in particular, where there is extended and repeated indoor contact.

Read more:
Australia has all but abandoned the COVIDSafe app in favour of QR codes (so make sure you check in)

The more casual contacts described yesterday, in a display home or at the Telstra shop, there might have been some overlap with a case in a small enclosed area for sufficient time to receive an infecting dose.

A further example Sutton provided today was an infection that started with someone sitting in the same outdoor area as a case at a hotel bistro. We know there is less risk in outdoor settings generally, but on a still autumn day, we now know this is all it takes.

Now, as we have transmission in the beer garden, all those nearby will be recategorised as primary close contacts and asked to quarantine for a full 14 days, even if they have returned a negative test. Better to be safe than sorry.

That’s why it’s so important to check in with a QR code. You don’t always know the name of the person who’s standing (or sitting) next to you. It is also why check-ins will now be required at more retail and public venues across the state. Being able to identify contacts in these settings will remove some of the fear associate with this more casual spread.

So what are we to make of this?

This latest news reinforces the importance of QR codes and checking in. You never know who you’re standing next to in a long queue while shopping.
Extending our QR codes into further settings whether retail, grocery stores or display homes, which we now know are a risk, is a good move.

The message remains the same, get tested if you have symptoms or when directed to by public health officials, and isolate when necessary. In particular, keep an eye on those exposure sites, even if you only dropped in to grab a coffee.

But we shouldn’t be overly concerned about COVID-19 spread by “fleeting contact”. The precautions we all know (hygiene, distancing and masks) still work and are our best forms of protection.

Catherine Bennett receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council and the Medical Research Future Fund.

– ref. We’re seeing more casual COVID transmission. But is that because of the variant or better case tracking? – https://theconversation.com/were-seeing-more-casual-covid-transmission-but-is-that-because-of-the-variant-or-better-case-tracking-161979

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

Back in the first three months of this year when we had JobKeeper, enhanced unemployment benefits and no lockdowns, Australia roared out of recession.

The GDP figures released on Wednesday tell us that in the months leading up to the end of JobKeeper and the coronavirus supplement at the end of March Australians spent, earned and produced an impressive 1.8% more than in three months to December, which was itself more 3.2% more than the three months to September, which was itself 3.5% more than the three months before that.

It’s growth of more than 8%, described by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg as the most over three quarters since 1968.

But it followed a collapse in gross domestic product of 7% – by far the worst since the Bureau of Statistics began compiling records in 1959.

The net result over the year to March growth of 1.1%, an extraordinary result which means that, at least until Victoria’s (just extended) lockdown, we were producing, earning and spending more than before the COVID recession.

On the graph it’s not much more, not the two or so per cent of normal growth the Reserve Bank had been expecting before the recession, but it means that almost alone among developed nations (along with South Korea and probably New Zealand whose figures aren’t yet out) we are better off after the COVID recession than before it.

Australian quarterly gross domestic product

And we are better off than that bald GDP figures suggest.

In accordance with what is normally good statistical practice those figures are adjusted down for upward movements in prices.

We’ve had a monster upward movement in the price of iron ore over the past year which has enriched Australians through channels including company profits, tax revenue and a higher dollar that aren’t fully reflected in gross domestic product.

That’s why the bureau publishes a separate measure that measures buying power called real national disposable income per capita.

The graph shows it has climbed well above where it was to a new record high.

We ended the recession with 5.8% more buying power than before it began.

Real national disposable income per capita

But we’ve been reluctant to fully use that buying power.

While consumer spending has bounced back to where it was before the recession, in terms of what it buys it is no higher.

In March 2021 we were buying no more than we were in March 2020 — more goods, less services, and more essential items, fewer discretionary items, but no more than we did a year earlier.

Zero growth in buying at a time of substantial growth in buying power can be seen as either disturbing, a sign of understandable caution, or a sign that the best is yet to come.

Household final consumption expenditure

At his press conference Frydenberg painted the caution to date as something that would support economic growth in the months to come as we unwind our record-high household saving rate.

But the unwinding slowed in the three months to March.

In the December quarter the saving rate plunged from 18.6% of after tax income to 12.2%. Before that it had plunged from the record-high 22% to 18.6%.

But in the March quarter it barely fell, inching down from 12.2% to 11.6%, perhaps reflecting the imminent end of JobSeeker and the coronavirus supplement.

Household saving ratio

The subsequent spread of coronavirus in Victoria, and the reluctance to date of the federal government to reinstate JobKeeper in Victoria will give Australians to keep saving rather than spending their money for some time to come.

Frydenberg told the national accounts press conference he was open to further assistance of another kind and would speak to Victoria’s Treasurer as soon as he could.

Leer más:
Frydenberg spends the bounty to drive unemployment to new lows

Business investment in buildings and equipment surged 5.3% in the March quarter (enough to account for nearly all of the economic growth over the past year) aided by investment incentives which were renewed in the May budget.

Australia’s rigorous approach to compiling the national accounts means the ones released Wednesday are out of date.

Although much will have improved since then, the spread of coronavirus and the lockdown in Victoria means much is suddenly worse.

Our future is about as uncertain as it has ever been.

Peter Martin no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. The four GDP graphs that show us roaring out of recession pre-lockdown – https://theconversation.com/the-four-gdp-graphs-that-show-us-roaring-out-of-recession-pre-lockdown-161981

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Driss Ait Ouakrim, Research Fellow, Population Interventions Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne

With Melbourne under lockdown for another seven days, the consequences of Australia’s inefficient and dangerous quarantine system continue.

This outbreak started with just one leak from hotel quarantine in South Australia in early May. And unless the hotel quarantine system gets a serious shake up – and fast – we’re likely to see more outbreaks.

Our analysis shows for every 204 infected travellers in hotel quarantine in Australia, there is one leak.

We have known since August 2020, through the World Health Organization, of the risks associated with quarantine in hotels with their shared spaces and inadequate ventilation systems.

Over the past ten months, a plethora of epidemiologists, public health experts, engineers and state premiers have consistently highlighted the shortcomings of a hotel-based quarantine system and the need for purpose-built facilities.

These calls have been largely ignored by the federal government, which continues to consider the current hotel-based quarantine system as “fit for purpose” and “a system that is achieving 99.99% effectiveness” and is “serving Australia very well”.

But is this true?

Rethinking the data

We teamed up with colleagues from the University of Otago to analyse hotel quarantine data from Australia and New Zealand (some of which is outlined in this pre-print paper, meaning it’s yet to be peer reviewed).

We attempted to identify all COVID-19 outbreaks and border control failures associated with quarantine systems and to estimate the failure risks in terms of the spread of COVID-19 infection into the community.

Read more:
Another day, another hotel quarantine fail. So what can Australia learn from other countries?

We identified 21 failures that have occurred between April 2020 and June 2021 in Australia:

• three in Queensland
• eight in New South Wales
• two in South Australia
• five in Victoria
• three in Western Australia.

One of these caused more than 800 deaths and the most recent is causing the current lockdown in Victoria.

There were 4.9 failures per 1,000 SARS-CoV-2 positive cases in quarantine. This means that one outbreak from hotel quarantine is expected every 204 infected travellers.

Since April 2020, on average 308 infected travellers arrived in Australia each month, so that is 1.5 expected outbreaks per month.

This doesn’t sound like a system that is 99.99% effective.

So what needs to happen?

The proportion of returning travellers who are infected is increasing due to the global intensification of the pandemic and the increasing infectivity of new SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Read more:
What’s the ‘Indian’ variant responsible for Victoria’s outbreak and how effective are vaccines against it?

Australia’s quarantine system is our first and most important line of defence against COVID-19. If it’s not improved, the risk of outbreaks will increase.

So how can we improve the quarantine system? Based on our analysis, we recommend:

1. Capping or temporarily suspending travel from high-risk areas.

The most obvious action is to reduce arrivals, or even suspend arrivals, from high-infection locations.

Australia and New Zealand temporarily did for travel from India in April 2021 and other high-risk countries earlier in the pandemic .

This is the “red light” we need to hit from time to time.

2. Establishing adequate quarantine facilities.

Every state and territory should be equipped with Howard Spring-style facilities, with outdoor-facing cabins with free-flowing air.

These facilities could be used in priority for travellers coming from high-risk countries.

This won’t reduce the risk of leaks to zero, although we have not yet seen any leakage out of Howard Springs.

The Victorian government recently announced a project to build a 3,000-bed facility for returning travellers with support from the federal government, and other states should do the same.

Hotels could then be used just for arrivals from lower-risk countries such as Singapore and South Korea – though the classification of countries as “low risk” would change over time.

Some countries may be so low risk quarantine is not needed and may place returned travellers at increased risk of acquiring COVID-19 while in quarantine. This is the case for NZ at the moment, and should be expanded to other countries that meet suitable thresholds.

3. Expanding the use of saliva testing among facility workers and travellers.

We need to expand the daily use of PCR (polymerase chain reaction) saliva testing to workers at all facilities.

So far, as of April 2021, Victoria, WA, NSW and SA have all updated their testing rules to make daily saliva testing mandatory for quarantine staff. Other states should follow suit.

4. Protect and test border workers.

Most of the quarantine system failures in Australia involved the infection of quarantine workers.

The vaccination of all quarantine workers against COVID-19 will have reduced this risk of transmission, though no public data are available to confirm all workers have been vaccinated.

While vaccination is not mandatory for border workers, staff who refuse the jab are removed from the front line.

Read more:
Why strict border control remains crucial if we want to keep the travel bubble safe

We can’t afford to wait

Quarantine system failures can be very costly in terms of health, lives and economic impacts. The likely economic cost of the current outbreak in Victoria, A$1 billion or more, is enough to build two or more new facilities.

Embracing a more rigorous quarantine system for high-risk arrivals, in combination with an effective vaccination strategy that allows low-risk arrivals to (eventually) come in with no quarantine, is the necessary path forward.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Hotel quarantine causes 1 outbreak for every 204 infected travellers. It’s far from ‘fit for purpose’ – https://theconversation.com/hotel-quarantine-causes-1-outbreak-for-every-204-infected-travellers-its-far-from-fit-for-purpose-161815

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Allen, Senior Lecturer and DECRA Fellow, University of Newcastle

Steel is a major building block of our modern world, used to make everything from cutlery to bridges and wind turbines. But the way it’s made – using coal – is making climate change worse.

On average, almost two tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO₂) are emitted for every tonne of steel produced. This accounts for about 7% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Cleaning up steel production is clearly key to Earth’s low-carbon future.

Fortunately, a new path is emerging. So-called “green steel”, made using hydrogen rather than coal, represents a huge opportunity for Australia. It would boost our exports, help offset inevitable job losses in the fossil fuel industry and go a long way to tackling climate change.

Australia’s abundant and cheap wind and solar resources mean we’re well placed to produce the hydrogen a green steel industry needs. So let’s take a look at how green steel is made, and the challenges ahead.

Steeling for change

Steel-making requires stripping oxygen from iron ore to produce pure iron metal. In traditional steel-making, this is done using coal or natural gas in a process that releases CO₂. In green steel production, hydrogen made from renewable energy replaces fossil fuels.

Australia exports almost 900 million tonnes of iron ore each year, but only makes 5.5 million tonnes of steel. This means we have great capacity to ramp up steel production.

A Grattan Institute report last year found if Australia captured about 6.5% of the global steel market, this could generate about A$65 billion in annual export revenue and create 25,000 manufacturing jobs in Queensland and New South Wales.

Steel-making is a complex process and is primarily achieved via one of three processes. Each of them, in theory, can be adapted to produce green steel. We examine each process below.

Read more:
Australia could fall apart under climate change. But there’s a way to avoid it

1. Blast furnace

Globally, about 70% of steel is produced using the blast furnace method.

As part of this process, processed coal (also known as coke) is used in the main body of the furnace. It acts as a physical support structure for materials entering and leaving the furnace, among other functions. It’s also partially burnt at the bottom of the furnace to both produce heat and make carbon monoxide, which strips oxygen from iron ore leaving metallic iron.

This coal-driven process leads to CO₂ emissions. It’s feasible to replace a portion of the carbon monoxide with hydrogen. The hydrogen can strip oxygen away from the ore, generating water instead of CO₂. This requires renewable electricity to produce green hydrogen.

And hydrogen cannot replace carbon monoxide a a ratio of 1:1. If hydrogen is used, the blast furnace needs more externally added heat to keep the temperature high, compared with the coal method.

More importantly, solid coal in the main body of the furnace cannot be replaced with hydrogen. Some alternatives have been developed, involving biomass – a fuel developed from living organisms – blended with coal.

But sourcing biomass sustainably and at scale would be a challenge. And this process would still likely create some fossil-fuel derived emissions. So to ensure the process is “green”, these emissions would have to be captured and stored – a technology which is currently expensive and unproven at scale.

Read more:
Australians want industry, and they’d like it green. Steel is the place to start

2. Recycled steel

Around 30% of the world’s steel is made from recycled steel. Steel has one of the highest recycling rates of any material.

Steel recycling is mainly done in arc furnaces, driven by electricity. Each tonne of steel produced using this method produces about 0.4 tonnes of CO₂ – mostly due to emissions produced by burning fossil fuels for electricity generation. If the electricity was produced from renewable sources, the CO₂ output would be greatly reduced.

But steel cannot continuously be recycled. After a while, unwanted elements such as copper, nickel and tin begin to accumulate in the steel, reducing its quality. Also, steel has a long lifetime and low turnover rate. This means recycled steel cannot meet all steel demand, and some new steel must be produced.

3. Direct reduced iron

“Direct reduced iron” (DRI) technology often uses methane gas to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide, which are then used to turn iron ore into iron. This method still creates CO₂ emissions, and requires more electricity than the blast furnace method. However its overall emission intensity can be substantially lower.

The method currently accounts for less than 5% of production, and offers the greatest opportunity for using green hydrogen.

Up to 70% of the hydrogen derived from methane could be replaced with green hydrogen without having to modify the production process too much. However work on using 100% green hydrogen in this method is ongoing.

Read more:
For hydrogen to be truly ‘clean’ it must be made with renewables, not coal

Becoming a green steel superpower

The green steel transition won’t happen overnight and significant challenges remain.

Cheap, large-scale green hydrogen and renewable electricity will be required. And even if green hydrogen is used, to achieve net-zero emissions the blast furnace method will still require carbon-capture and storage technologies – and so too will DRI, for the time being.

Private sector investment is needed to create a global-scale export industry. Australian governments also have a big role to play, in building skills and capability, helping workers retrain, funding research and coordinating land-use planning.

Revolutionising Australia’s steel industry is a daunting task. But if we play our cards right, Australia can be a major player in the green manufacturing revolution.

Tom Honeyands receives funding from BHP.

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

– ref. ‘Green steel’ is hailed as the next big thing in Australian industry. Here’s what the hype is all about – https://theconversation.com/green-steel-is-hailed-as-the-next-big-thing-in-australian-industry-heres-what-the-hype-is-all-about-160282

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dallas Rogers, School of Architecture, Design and Planning, University of Sydney

Crown Towers Sydney, at 75 storeys, is now the city’s tallest building. It should not exist, and certainly not where it is – in prime location on Sydney’s famous harbour.

The redevelopment of the 22-hectare Barangaroo precinct was supposed to transform the former docklands into a world-class example of architectural and public domain design.

But giving Crown Resorts the go-ahead to build its skyscraper – containing a casino, hotel and luxury apartments – diminished the space set aside for parkland in the original concept plan and broke height limits.

This week the ABC’s Four Corners program shed light on how the tower got approved, beginning with a 2012 lunch facilitated by radio celebrity Alan Jones between Crown Resorts’ majority shareholder James Packer and then NSW premier Barry O’Farrell.

It is a familiar story of a culture of wealthy mates and backroom deals. It is also a story about the novel use of an obscure infrastructure approvals mechanism called “unsolicited proposals” – or USPs for short – that circumvented established processes intended to protect the public interest.

The Barangaroo tower has not just changed Sydney’s skyline. It has changed the whole planning system.

An unsolicited proposal

As the Four Corners program related, in February 2012 Packer (one of Australia’s ten wealthiest individuals) asked his friend Jones to organise a meeting with O’Farrell.

In Jones’ penthouse suite overlooking Sydney’s Circular Quay, they ate pies and mash while Packer outlined his vision for a A$1 billion-plus hotel, casino and entertainment complex.

How did Packer’s plan fit into the concept that won Hill Thalis Architecture the international design competition for Barangaroo? It didn’t.

O’Farrell, Jones said, pointed to the rigours of NSW’s urban planning process as a barrier to Packer’s idea. The premier “made the point that it wouldn’t be all that easy, but he embraced the vision”.

Packer went public with his vision shortly after. Many objected. Then:

With Packer’s project still facing significant opposition, Premier Barry O’Farrell came up with a novel solution which he proposed at another private meeting in his office. The solution was to use an obscure government policy called the “unsolicited proposals” process.

How unsolicited proposals work

The Productivity Commission has defined an unsolicited proposal as a public-private infrastructure project initiated by a private party, not in response to a request from government.

Common to all guidelines for considering such a proposal is “a requirement for uniqueness or innovation” – with uniqueness implying no other party
could reasonably deliver the project for the same value for money in the same time.

But as Serena Lillywhite of Transparency International Australia told Four Corners: “If it’s a project that is considered to be unique and on such a large scale, then it should be going to an open tender process.”

Part of the urban planning landscape

We’ve studied unsolicited proposals as part of our research into how planning systems have changed since the 1990s and the implications for public participation and social justice. We’ve been involved in several studies in Sydney’s Millers Point and Barangaroo since 2014.

This research has included interviewing key actors in local and state government, urban planning and heritage professionals, public housing residents facing eviction, journalists, documentary makers and Indigenous knowledge holders.

Since the process was adopted to greenlight Packer’s plan for Barangaroo, unsolicited proposals have become a well-used tool to circumvent the standard approval processes for urban planning in Australia.

The concept has spread to Victoria and Western Australia, where they are called “market-led proposals”, and Queensland, where they are also known as “exclusive mandates”.

Read more:
Market-led infrastructure may sound good but not if it short-changes the public

Examples include Macquarie Group’s Metro station and towers on Sydney’s Martin Place, the redevelopment of Henry Deane Plaza (near Sydney’s central station) by property manager Dexus and Frasers Property Australia, and Transurban’s Northconnex tollway in Sydney, Logan Enhancement Project in Queensland and West Gate Tunnel in Melbourne.

The concept is also spreading internationally as a means to connect global money to local infrastructure projects.

Creating a black box

One bureaucrat who has worked on unsolicited proposals described the process to us. After the initial proposal is made, discussions go on behind closed doors and “some sort of contribution is cooked up”.

Contributions could include a commitment to provide infrastructure or a fee to government by the proponent.

For example, Macquarie Group will “deliver the new metro station, retail space, and pedestrian connections” at Martin Place in exchange for approval to build its towers.

In the case of Crown Resorts’ Barangaroo deal, the promised contributions included guaranteed future taxation revenue and “an upfront licence fee of $100 million” for the state government.

We are not suggesting these negotiations and contributions are corrupt. From a transparency perspective, however, they are concerning. The public does not know the exact nature of the relationships involved, nor the financial details of what (in the words of our bureaucrat) is being “cooked up” and whether they are value for money.

These negotiations happen, as another insider put it, “in a very black box […] no one knows what happens there”.

Baked into the system

Urban planning academics and multiple agencies with oversight on public finances and integrity have flagged this as problematic.

In 2016 the Audit Office of NSW urged greater transparency and public reporting of unsolicited proposals, warning they “pose a greater risk to value for money than procurements done through open, competitive and transparent processes”.

In 2018, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission criticised state governments for accepting unsolicited proposals for tollways, warning the lack of competitive tender processes would inflate costs for taxpayers.

The Victorian Auditor-General made similar warnings in 2019.

The Barangaroo casino has yet to open, as NSW’s Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority ponders if Crown Resorts (also being scrutinised by royal commissions in Victoria and Western Australia) is fit to hold a gaming licence.

Read more:
It’s hard to see how Crown Resorts can be found ‘fit and proper’ to run Sydney’s Barangaroo casino

As Shaun Carter, former NSW president of the Australian Institute of Architects, told Four Corners: “We should look at that building and forever know that we should never let that happen again.”

But with unsolicited proposals being baked into the system, the likelihood is that it will happen – again and again.

Dallas Rogers receives funding from The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and the Australian Research Council.

Chris Gibson receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. How Sydney’s Barangaroo tower paved the way for a culture of closed-door deals – https://theconversation.com/how-sydneys-barangaroo-tower-paved-the-way-for-a-culture-of-closed-door-deals-161816

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kathryn Williams, Professor in environmental psychology, School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, The University of Melbourne

When I tell people I’m an environmental psychologist, they often assume that means I am a “tree hugger” and they are not entirely wrong. But it really means I spend a lot of time thinking and finding out about people’s relationships with the natural world, trees included.

So when I dropped in at my local book store and saw a whole collection of new books for children about trees, I found myself wondering: What kinds of books help kids connect with trees?

The question was prompted by a recent publication, The Book of Australian Trees by Inga Simpson and Alicia Rogerson. Its not the only tree book published this year, but it’s notable for its focus on Australian trees.

The last few years have seen the publication of some remarkable books about trees for children, for example Peter Wohlleben’s Can you hear the trees talking (a 2019 young reader’s edition of his book The Hidden Life of Trees) and Piotr Socha and Wojciech Grajkowski’s The Book of Trees (2018).

I love both these books, but they also illustrate why books about Australian trees and plants are needed. When Socha and Grajkowski declare: “In winter, the only green trees are coniferous trees”, or when Wohlleben suggests young readers go outside and find a birch log (likely in in their family’s store of firewood) kids in the southern hemisphere might feel lost.

Read more:
People are ‘blind’ to plants, and that’s bad news for conservation

Learning to love plants and trees

Having books that help children learn to love trees really matters to me. There is increasing concern that people are less connected with the natural world than in the past. Plants are of particular concern, as there is evidence of lower appreciation, knowledge and concern for plants compared with animals. Various writers have noted the negative implications of these trends for human health and well-being, environmental action, and conservation.

Direct experience of nature is often seen as essential to building connections, but it’s not always possible and might not be enough. Books can help children connect with trees, for example by:

• telling stories about trees (and people’s relationships with them) that evoke empathy for trees

• bridging everyday human experience with the very different life of plants

• building a vocabulary for talking about nature

• suggesting ways that young readers might directly engage with nature.

So how are recent children’s book authors going about this important task?

Read more:
Where the old things are: Australia’s most ancient trees

The Book of Australian Trees

The introduction to Simpson and Rogerson’s book echoes some of these pathways for connection. “Trees tell stories about places,” Simpson writes and while trees may all seem the same, “if you look more closely, they are each a little different, like people”.

The book introduces just 16 different trees, most from the eastern mainland states of Australia. Each species is introduced with a single painting by Rogerson, often showing the trunk and lower canopy but sometimes just a part of the trees such as a Bunya Pine nut or a flower.

Simpson’s text is brief. It includes visual characteristics of the tree, the kinds of soils or climate in which it grows, and usually a an insight to cultural associations with the tree. Some entries refer to “famous trees”, for example Centurion, the tallest mountain ash tree found in Tasmania. Others refer to Australian literary references to trees, like the “Old Man Banksias” of May Gibbs’ Snugglepot and Cuddlepie stories.

I enjoyed Simpson’s evocative description of trees, particularly of bark and the ways it differs across trees and seasons. These often emphasise the links between visual attributes of trees and familiar human characteristics. Brush box branches “grow out like arms, with crooked elbows, then wrists and long fingers”. But while Simpson describes the kind of environments in which the trees typically grow, there is little sense of story or sense of place in these descriptions.

Books on trees and plants often focus purely on ecological qualities. Simpson incorporates cultural aspects of trees as they offer an important means of connection. But these are not always well considered. Linking magnificent Flame Trees to Cold Chisel’s 1984 song about “lost loves or old flames” seems unlikely to resonate with younger readers. Only a single entry (Bunya Pine) references relationships with First Nations peoples that have been maintained over many thousands of years.

The book is beautifully illustrated and celebrates the beauty of trees of this land — the flyleaf paintings of leaves, bark, cones, seeds, and blossoms lend themselves to a plant-rich conversation with younger readers.

4 more to choose from

Other recent books about trees make great use of stories, emotion, science and tree-related activities to help children connect with trees.

The Forest in the Tree (by Australian team Ailsa Wild, Aviva Reed, Briony Barr and Gregory Crocetti) skilfully weaves story and science to explore symbiotic relationships between trees and fungi. Characters include Broma the Cacao tree and We, Gloma the fungal network that connects the forest system. It is sure to fascinate and inform older children.

Little Sap (by Jan Hughes and Ruth Hengeveld) is written for a much younger audience. It tells a moving tale of a mother tree and a young sapling who eventually takes her place in the canopy. The authors note they found inspiration in the science of Suzanne Simard and Monica Gagliano among others.

Peter Wohlleben has also published a book for younger children. His book Peter and the Tree Children is a tale about Peter the forester and Piet the squirrel, and all they learn while walking in the forest.

I found it less engaging than his earlier book Can you hear the trees talking which is structured around curious questions like “How do trees make babies?” or “Is there a forest internet?”.

Finally, Plantastic! A new A-Z to 26 of Australia’s most unique and incredible native plants by Catherine Clowes and Rachel Gyan deserves a mention. Its not only about trees, but suggests some great activities that will encourage Australian kids to get out into nature and explore the wonder of plants.

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

– ref. Growing up with trees: new books use story and science to connect kids with nature – https://theconversation.com/growing-up-with-trees-new-books-use-story-and-science-to-connect-kids-with-nature-159705

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicola Gaston, Co-Director of the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology, University of Auckland

New Zealand’s government has been praised for listening to scientists as it continues to pursue its COVID-19 elimination strategy. But it’s difficult to find any signs of significant investment in science in the recent budget — or in fact previous budgets.

It was with a sense of déjà vu I scrolled through the tables listing expenditure. Surely, with all the challenges we know we need science to address, nothing is business as usual in 2021.

Research and innovation require continual maintenance and growth. This government has a 10-year target to increase research and development funding to 2% of GDP (the OECD average is 2.4%). But this year’s budget cuts or flat-lines research funds, at best.

The Endeavour Fund, a significant funding mechanism for many of my colleagues in the natural sciences and engineering, and the Health Research Fund (part of which goes to funding Health Research Council grants) both have appropriations for 2021-2022 in the order of 10% less than the previous year.

The Marsden Fund, New Zealand’s major fund for fundamental research and for the humanities, hasn’t decreased. But a flat line in funding is an effective cut.

The stipend I was paid as a PhD student in 2003 would be NZ$40,000, tax-free, in today’s dollars, but very few PhD candidates get even three-quarters of that amount these days.

These numbers matter, but they aren’t particularly transparent. I have been assured the actual dollars available in Endeavour and Health Research Council grants this year will be the same as last year. The Endeavour Fund is calculated at a fixed amount of new funding per year, but grants are awarded for timeframes that vary, so the $200 million allocation varies year on year as contracts end.

Last year, health research investment included COVID-19 specific funds, separate from HRC grants, and these are simply not being continued. Whether this amounts to an actual cut is a moot point. A productive research system is not just a nice-to-have, and it is dangerous to take it for granted.

Read more:
Money for telescopes and vaccines is great, but the budget’s lack of basic science funding risks leaving Australia behind

Research inputs versus outputs

Perhaps we should celebrate and support government funding for the implementation of science outcomes, every bit as much as we welcome funding we need to do our research.

One of the most obvious places to look is the suite of policies related to climate change. There is a $300 million top-up for Green Investment Finance to accelerate investment in low-carbon technologies, $67 million to decarbonise the public sector, and nearly $20 million to support the policy response to the Climate Change Commission’s final advice package, to be tabled in parliament next week.

Climate change minister James Shaw suggested that once allocations for rail, warmer homes and research to reduce agricultural greenhouse gases are taken into account, this year’s budget adds up to $2.3 billion for climate policy.

As massive as this sounds, addressing climate change requires transformative policy and initiatives to catalyse action. This is not yet quite that.

But on the whole, this is a budget that looks to implement policy based on research advice. We should welcome the increase in benefits following advice of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group. As with climate change initiatives, this may not yet go far enough, but the direction of change is good.

Read more:
NZ’s second ‘Well-being Budget’ must deliver for the families that sacrificed most during the pandemic

Where funding goes matters

The means of funding, and the behavioural change it can enable, are just as important as the amount. Who gets funded, and what does it support them to do?

This is particularly important in the context of climate change, where we need to encourage behavioural change. But it is an equally important lens through which to examine research funding itself.

My biggest disappointment in this budget is that there is no provision for the continuation of the Science Whitinga fellowships, set up as a response to the impact of COVID-19 on early-career researchers. This is despite the absolute need and considerable evidence within the sector for the value of these fellowship schemes.

This scheme deserves new money, and I would have liked to see it prioritised over other forms of current expenditure.

I’m happy to acknowledge some early career research roles will always be funded within the sector. But it is vital, in the highly hierarchical academic workplace, to have mechanisms to rebalance the distribution of power and acknowledge the innovation emerging researchers contribute — especially so, when they are not yet committed to academic careers but could translate their work into start-ups, industry and work with communities.

Research is a means of creating positive change. New Zealand needs more money for research, but where that money goes and the change it creates matter even more.

Nicola Gaston receives funding from the Tertiary Education Commission, as Co-Director of the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology.

– ref. New Zealand relies on scientific research for good policy. It’s a pity the budget didn’t reflect this – https://theconversation.com/new-zealand-relies-on-scientific-research-for-good-policy-its-a-pity-the-budget-didnt-reflect-this-161340

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John L Hopkins, Innovation Fellow, Swinburne University of Technology

The manufacturing world is facing one of its greatest challenges in years — a global shortage of semiconductors — and there doesn’t appear to be an end in sight any time soon.

According to Acer, one of the world’s largest laptop manufacturers, companies will still be affected by this shortage until at least the first half of 2022.

Semiconductors are an essential component of electronic devices, found in everything from cars and factory machinery to dishwashers and mobile phones. They harness the conducting properties of semiconductor materials (such as silicon), through the use of electric or magnetic fields, light, heat or mechanical deformation, to control the electric current flowing into a device.

Like many current global challenges, this shortage initially began as a result of the COVID pandemic. Staff at semiconductor foundries in China and around the world were unable to go to work, plants were closed and production halted, which led to a lack of supply. The movement of that supply was also slowed down by tighter restrictions at ports and international borders.

Read more:
High-tech shortages loom as coronavirus shutdowns hit manufacturers

At the same time, employees started working from home, children and students started studying from home, and many of us were confined to our homes for long periods. New equipment was needed to support these changes, establish makeshift offices and classrooms in our homes, and upgrade our existing home entertainment options. This prompted a sudden increase in demand for many of the devices that rely on semiconductors.

However, the industries that make these devices also had to stop production for a time, and during that period they stopped ordering semiconductors. This meant there was a sudden increase in demand for goods, but the companies that manufacture these products weren’t making as many as they normally do, or ordering enough components to enable them to meet a rise in demand later.

This is a classic example of the “bullwhip effect”, in which inventory levels suddenly fluctuate in response to unexpected changes in customer demand further along the supply chain.

This didn’t just happen in the electronics sector; it has affected every industry that uses semiconductors in their products, from health care and cosmetics to construction and defence. According to analysis by investment bank Goldman Sachs, this shortage has already impacted at least 169 different industries to some extent.

No time to panic

Unfortunately, panic-buying isn’t restricted just to the toilet paper aisle in Coles and Woolworths. Once rumours of a shortage began to emerge, companies that use semiconductors started panic-buying and stockpiling them. This behaviour adds to the overall impact of the shortage, reduces what little supply is available, and drives up costs.

The automotive industry has been hit particularly hard, illustrating perfectly the scale and complexity of modern supply chains. A car is made of about 30,000 components, sourced from thousands of suppliers around the world. If even one of these components isn’t available at the time of assembly, the system grinds to a halt and new cars can’t be finished or shipped.

General Motors had to stop production at some of its manufacturing facilities as a result of the chip shortage earlier this year, costing the company at least US$2 billion.

What happens next?

The impact of the microchip shortage is already being felt by consumers all over the world, including Australia. Customers hoping to buy a new car or replacement parts can expect to wait up to six months.

Computer manufacturers Dell, HP and Lenovo have warned their prices are likely to rise, and retailers such as JB Hi-Fi have told shoppers to expect shortages of televisions and other electronic goods “for the foreseeable future”.

Even before this crisis, the demand for semiconductors was growing steadily, as products become more sophisticated and technologies such as 5G and the “internet of things” become ever more integrated into our world. The only realistic solution is to increase the supply of semiconductors, and chip maker Intel has already announced plans to scale up its manufacturing of semiconductors, with new factories opening in the United States and Europe.

However, this will take time, so consumers will likely still be feeling the impact of this shortage well beyond Christmas 2021.

Read more:
High-tech consumerism, a global catastrophe happening on our watch

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

– ref. Yes, the global microchip shortage is COVID’s fault. No, it won’t end any time soon – https://theconversation.com/yes-the-global-microchip-shortage-is-covids-fault-no-it-wont-end-any-time-soon-161903

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Professor Steven Larkin, Chief Executive Officer, Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education

Research undertaken by The Healing Foundation has revealed that public health restrictions introduced to contain the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia have had a significant impact on some Stolen Generations survivors, retriggering trauma among already vulnerable community members.

The Healing Foundation’s report outlines how the measures aimed at protecting Stolen Generations survivors instead had a devastating negative effect on their physical and mental health and wellbeing. This research presents input from 60 Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islanders and Stolen Generations survivors.

The report provides data showing significant effects on survivors and their loved ones, including a heightened sense of vulnerability and increased disconnection from family, community, and Country. The report also found that 20% of Stolen Generation survivor respondents said they had no support during COVID-19, while only 58% reported having some support.

While it can be argued Australia’s response to the pandemic was largely successful when compared to other parts of the world, there are key lessons to be learned to prepare for future pandemics, especially for those most vulnerable in the community.

Read more:
Thirteen years after ‘Sorry’, too many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are still being removed from their homes

How restrictions impacted communities

The Healing Foundation is a national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisation that partners with communities to heal the trauma caused by the widespread and deliberate disruption of peoples, cultures, and languages over 230 years. This includes specific actions like the forced removal of children from their families.

Work done by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Group on COVID-19 ensured that infection rates were very low in First Nations populations.

Only minor outbreaks in Aboriginal communities were recorded in Australia, and they were quickly contained. But the COVID-19 restrictions disrupted many cultural, relational, and collective practices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, which included collective healing activities.

Physical distancing put a hold on celebrations and ceremonies, including important and traditional family and cultural occasions like births and funerals.

Lockdowns meant survivors were disconnected from family for Sorry Business and attending community gatherings like NAIDOC Week. Events such as the Apology anniversary were cancelled, keeping people away from marking important cultural dates.

Increased isolation and loneliness

The devastating combination of isolation, loneliness, distance from family, and tight public health directions brought difficult memories back for some survivors of the Stolen Generations, retriggering their trauma.

Survivors highlighted the following findings across the 23 social and emotional wellbeing indicators that were surveyed:

• The vast majority said they had a significantly increased sense of isolation (more than 90% of respondents) and loneliness (more than 80%). A majority also reported having too much time on their own (65%) and feeling trapped in their own thoughts (more than 70%).

• More than 90% reported feeling disconnected from family, community, and culture, while 77% felt disconnected from Country. This is concerning given the degree to which connection to family, community, culture, and Country enhances health and wellbeing for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, especially for Stolen Generations survivors and descendants.

• Two-thirds of respondents reported a decline in their physical health and a decreased ability to cope with stress during COVID-19, while 75% reported a decline in their mental health and wellbeing.

• Importantly, 66% of respondents said the degree to which they felt safe was impacted by COVID-19, and more than 75% were worried about not being able to get places. Half of respondents said they were worried about not being able to get to a doctor/hospital and/or access the services they require.

• And three-quarters experienced an increase in family responsibilities and 70% an increase in cultural responsibilities. Alongside this, more than 90% of respondents experienced stress being placed on important relationships.

Read more:
It’s time for Australia to drop its phased approach to the vaccine rollout

How governments can do better

This research undertaken by the Marumali Program on behalf of The Healing Foundation should assist governments and the broader public health sector to plan for future pandemics and build on Australia’s world-leading response.

It has also raised some important questions, such as how can we use technology and social media to not only communicate important public health messages but also feelings of isolation? Or how can Stolen Generations survivors use technology to connect with family, community, culture, and Country?

Technology is just one area for consideration. But what happens when future restrictions have a negative impact on a survivor’s healing journey? And what strategies or policies can help to support such unavoidable effects?

Researchers Shaan Peeters and Dr John Prince hope the study will lead governments to undertake further analysis to assess the needs, risks, and vulnerabilities of Stolen Generations survivors and their descendants into the future.

Stolen Generations survivors have long told us what they need to heal. Now, we need to understand what they require as Australia emerges from the pandemic and finds its way to a new normal.

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

– ref. COVID-19 restrictions have left many Stolen Generations survivors more isolated without adequate support – https://theconversation.com/covid-19-restrictions-have-left-many-stolen-generations-survivors-more-isolated-without-adequate-support-160168

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane Melville, Senior Curator, Terrestrial Vertebrates, Museums Victoria

Most of the incredible diversity of life on Earth is yet to be discovered and documented. In some groups of organisms – terrestrial arthropods such as spiders and scorpions, marine invertebrates such as sponges and molluscs, and others – scientists have described fewer than 20% of species.

Even our knowledge of more familiar creatures such as fish and reptiles is far from complete. In our new research, we studied 1,034 known species of Australian lizards and snakes and found we know so little about 164 of them that not even the experts know whether they are fully described or not. Of the remaining 870, almost a third probably need some work to be described properly.

Documenting and naming what species are out there – the work of taxonomists – is crucial for conservation, but it can be difficult for researchers to decide where to focus their efforts. Alongside our lizard research, we have developed a new “return on investment” approach to identify priority species for our efforts.

We identified several hotspots across Australia where research is likely to be rewarded. More broadly, our approach can help target taxonomic research for conservation worldwide.

Why we need to look at species more closely

As more and more species are threatened by land clearing, climate change and other human activities, our research highlights that we are losing even more biodiversity than we know.

Conservation often relies on species-level assessments such as those conducted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, which lists threatened species. Although new species are being discovered all the time, a key problem is that already named “species” may harbour multiple undocumented and unnamed species. This hidden diversity remains invisible to conservation assessment.

One such example are the Grassland Earless Dragons (Tympanocryptis spp.) found in the temperate native grasslands of south-eastern Australia. These small secretive lizards were grouped within a single species (Tympanocryptis pinguicolla) and listed as Endangered on the IUCN Red List.

But recent taxonomic research split this single species into four, each occurring in an isolated region of grasslands. One of these new species may represent the first extinction of a reptile on mainland Australia and the other three have a high probability of being threatened.

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

Scientists call documenting and describing species “taxonomy”. Our research shows the importance of prioritising taxonomy in the effort to conserve and protect species.

Taxonomists at work

Many government agencies do take some account of groups smaller than species in their conservation efforts, such as distinct populations. But these are often ambiguously defined and lack formal recognition, so they are not widely used. That’s where taxonomists come in, to identify species and describe them fully.

Our new research was a collaboration of 30 taxonomists and systematists, who teamed up to find a good way of working out which species should be a priority for taxonomic research for conservation outcomes. This new approach compares the amount of work needed with the likelihood of finding previously unknown species that are at risk of extinction.

The research team, who are experts on the taxonomy and systematics of Australia’s reptiles, implemented this new approach on Australian lizards and snakes. This group of reptiles is ideal as a test case because Australia is a global hotspot of lizard diversity – and we also have a strong community of taxonomic experts.

Australia’s lizards and snakes

Of the 1,034 Australian lizard and snake species, we were able to assess whether 870 of them may contain undescribed species. This means we know so little about the remaining 164 species that even the experts could not make an informed opinion on whether they contain hidden diversity. There is so much still to learn!

Of the 870 species experts could assess, they determined 282 probably or definitely needed more taxonomic research. Mapping the distributions of these species indicated hotspot regions for this taxonomic research, including the Kimberley, the Tanami Desert region, western Victoria and offshore islands (such as Tasmania, Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands). Some areas in the Kimberley region had more than 60 species that need further taxonomic research.

We found 17.6% of the 282 species that need more taxonomic research contained undescribed species that would probably be of conservation concern, and 24 had a high probability of being threatened with extinction. Taxonomists know that there are undescribed species because there is some data available already but the description of these species – the process of defining and naming – has not been done.

These high-priority species belong to a range of families including geckos, skinks and dragons found across Australia.

The high number of undescribed species, especially those with significant likelihood of being endangered, was a shock to even the experts. The IUCN currently estimates only 6.3% of Australian lizards and snakes require taxonomic revision, but this is obviously a significant underestimate.

A race against extinction

Beyond lizards, there is a huge backlog of species awaiting description.

Recent projects have used genetic analyses to discover unknown species, including a $180 million global BIOSCAN effort aiming to identify millions of new species. However, genetics is only a first step in the formal recognition of species.

Read more:
About 500,000 Australian species are undiscovered – and scientists are on a 25-year mission to finish the job

The taxonomic process of documenting, describing and naming species requires multiple further steps. These steps include a comprehensive diagnostic assessment using a combination of evidence, such as genetics and morphology, to uniquely distinguish each species from another. This process requires a high level of familiarity and scholarship of the group in question.

Among the Australian lizards and snakes alone, there is a backlog of 59 undescribed species for which only the final elements of taxonomic research are awaiting completion.

To work through these taxonomic backlogs – let alone species that are so far entirely unknown – resources need to be invested in taxonomy, including research funding and increased provision of viable career paths.

Without taxonomic research, the conservation assessment of these undocumented species will not proceed. There are untold numbers of species needing taxonomic research that are already under threat of extinction. If we don’t hurry, they may go extinct before we even know they exist.

Jane Melville undertook this work supported by an Australian Fulbright Commission scholarship.

Reid Tingley receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Hundreds of Australian lizard species are barely known to science. Many may face extinction – https://theconversation.com/hundreds-of-australian-lizard-species-are-barely-known-to-science-many-may-face-extinction-161572

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Conley Tyler, Research Associate, Asia Institute, The University of Melbourne

Does it matter where the virus that causes COVID-19 came from? In terms of frontline medicine, perhaps not — patients still need to be treated and the public health crisis managed.

But when it comes to geopolitics, it matters greatly, particularly to the United States and China. So, a new investigation into the origins of the virus must be seen in the context of a long-running blame game between the US and China.

Biden’s latest move

Last week, President Joe Biden announced he had ordered a further US intelligence investigation into the origins of COVID-19, asking for a report back in 90 days.

He revealed the US intelligence community is split between two likely scenarios — human contact with animals or a lab accident — and could not assess whether one was “more likely than the other”.

This is a significant shift from early scepticism about theories involving the Wuhan Institute for Virology. Last year, The Lancet published a statement from health scientists, who said:

We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.

Why is the US stirring up the investigation now?

The lab accident theory has moved from the fringe to become much more mainstream in the US, most recently with a Wall Street Journal article last month, reporting illness among Wuhan lab workers shortly before the first cases of COVID-19.

With the Biden administration doing an excellent job bringing the COVID crisis under control in America, the fact he is still focusing on the origin of the virus is a reminder of the domestic politics around the issue. Donald Trump promised a conclusive report and Biden can’t afford to be seen as any less tough.

‘Victims’ versus ‘saviours’

When it comes to the pandemic disaster, the US wants history books to show it as the victim of external forces, rather than its own mismanagement.

This was particularly the case during the Trump administration. In the face of the unfolding health crisis, it emphasised the origin of the virus, with Trump and officials referring to the “Chinese Virus” and even “Kung Flu”.

Read more:
Here’s how scientists know the coronavirus came from bats and wasn’t made in a lab

The US rightly criticised early Chinese mishandling, with former secretary of state Mike Pompeo vocal about China’s suppression of early warnings and lack of transparency. The consistent message was the pandemic was “made in China”.

From the Chinese side, it wants to be remembered as the regime that showed the world how to overcome the virus, not the one that unleashed it. China has already tried to muddy the waters around the origin of the virus, even suggesting

it might be [the] US army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan.

It has emphasised its success in battling COVID-19 with enviably low case numbers.

Domestically, this is used to show the superiority of China’s political and governance system. Internationally, China is trying to position itself as a responsible, humanitarian global power, a country that helps others with medical supplies through its “mask diplomacy”.

What do international investigations say so far?

In 2020, the 194 member states of the World Health Assembly tried to get an independent and comprehensive evaluation of the international health response to COVID-19. This was through an Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response, headed by former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark and former Liberian president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.

In its May report, the panel was critical of China’s early handling and the World Health Organization’s delay in declaring an emergency. But it did not make a finding on the origins of the virus, saying the exact transmission cycle remains unknown.

The task of investigating the origins of the virus was given to a joint World Health Organization-China technical mission.

The mission found the lab scenario was “extremely unlikely”. But it was criticised when it came to the data made available. The US said the report provided a “partial and incomplete” picture. Despite China’s hopes, the report did not resolve questions about where the virus began.

Washington DC called on the WHO to open a second phase to its investigation, which China rejected. With this avenue blocked, the Biden administration has said it will publish the results of its own inquiry.

What does this mean for Australia?

In the immediate term, there are no obvious ramifications for Australia. The shape of US-China relations under Biden is clear: competitive when it should be, collaborative when it can and adversarial when it must.

Read more:
China turns on the charm and angers Trump as it eyes a global opportunity in coronavirus crisis

The latest inquiry may bring up memories of Australia’s push for an international inquiry last year, which China saw as “dancing to the tune” of the US. If Australia is seen to get behind the lab leak theory, this will likely be framed by China as “Canberra trying to please Washington”.

So far, foreign minister Marise Payne has simply welcomed Biden’s announcement while prime minister Scott Morrison has placed it within the context of the independent panel’s work. We will see if defence minister Peter Dutton is more fiery, having previously talked up the lab theory after contracting the virus (ironically during a visit to the White House).

While some might say we should wait until the crisis is over to assign fault, this is never going to happen when the US and China are concerned. The battle to control the COVID-19 narrative started the same day as the battle against the virus itself.

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

– ref. Biden’s new Wuhan lab leak investigation ramps up US-China blame game – https://theconversation.com/bidens-new-wuhan-lab-leak-investigation-ramps-up-us-china-blame-game-161885

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kevin Thiele, Adjunct Assoc. Professor, The University of Western Australia

Here are two quiz questions for you. How many species of animals, plants, fungi, fish, insects and other organisms live in Australia? And how many of these have been discovered and named?

To the first, the answer is we don’t really know. But the best guess of taxonomists – the scientists who discover, name, classify and document species – is that Australia’s lands, rivers, coasts and oceans probably house more than 700,000 distinct species.

On the second, taxonomists estimate almost 200,000 species have been scientifically named since Europeans first began exploring, collecting and classifying Australia’s remarkable fauna and flora.

Together, these estimates are disturbing. After more than 300 years of effort, scientists have documented fewer than one-third of Australia’s species. The remaining 70% are unknown, and essentially invisible, to science.

Taxonomists in Australia name an average 1,000 new species each year. At that rate, it will take at least 400 years to complete even a first-pass stocktake of Australia’s biodiversity.

This poor knowledge is a serious threat to Australia’s environment. And a first-of-its kind report released today shows it’s also a huge missed economic opportunity. That’s why today, Australia’s taxonomists are calling on governments, industry and the community to support an important mission: discovering and documenting all Australian species within 25 years.

Australia: a biodiversity hotspot

Biologically, Australia is one of the richest and most diverse nations on Earth – between 7% and 10% of all species on Earth occur here. It also has among the world’s highest rates of species discovery. But our understanding of biodiversity is still very, very incomplete.

Of course, First Nations peoples discovered, named and classified many species within their knowledge systems long before Europeans arrived. But we have no ready way yet to compare their knowledge with Western taxonomy.

Finding new species in Australia is not hard – there are almost certainly unnamed species of insects, spiders, mites and fungi in your backyard. Any time you take a bush holiday you’ll drive past hundreds of undiscovered species. The problem is recognising the species as new and finding the time and resources to deal with them all.

Taxonomists describe and name new species only after very careful due diligence. Every specimen must be compared with all known named species and with close relatives to ensure it is truly a new species. This often involves detailed microscopic studies and gene sequencing.

More fieldwork is often needed to collect specimens and study other species. Specimens in museums and herbaria all over the world sometimes need to be checked. After a great deal of work, new species are described in scientific papers for others to assess and review.

So why do so many species remain undiscovered? One reason is a shortage of taxonomists trained to the level needed. Another is that technologies to substantially speed up the task have only been developed in the past decade or so. And both these, of course, need appropriate levels of funding.

Of course, some groups of organisms are better known than others. In general, noticeable species – mammals, birds, plants, butterflies and the like – are fairly well documented. Most less noticeable groups – many insects, fungi, mites, spiders and marine invertebrates – remain poorly known. But even inconspicuous species are important.

Fungi, for example, are essential for maintaining our natural ecosystems and agriculture. They fertilise soils, control pests, break down litter and recycle nutrients. Without fungi, the world would literally grind to a halt. Yet, more than 90% of Australian fungi are believed to be unknown.

Read more:
How we discovered a hidden world of fungi inside the world’s biggest seed bank

Mind the knowledge gap

So why does all this matter?

First, Australia’s biodiversity is under severe and increasing threat. To manage and conserve our living organisms, we must first discover and name them.

At present, it’s likely many undocumented species are becoming extinct, invisibly, before we know they exist. Or, perhaps worse, they will be discovered and named from dead specimens in our museums long after they have gone extinct in nature.

Second, many undiscovered species are crucial in maintaining a sustainable environment for us all. Others may emerge as pests and threats in future; most species are rarely noticed until something goes wrong. Knowing so little about them is a huge risk.

Third, enormous benefits are to be gained from these invisible species, once they are known and documented. A report released today
by Deloitte Access Economics, commissioned by Taxonomy Australia, estimates a benefit to the national economy of between A$3.7 billion and A$28.9 billion if all remaining Australian species are documented.

Benefits will be greatest in biosecurity, medicine, conservation and agriculture. The report found every $1 invested in discovering all remaining Australian species will bring up to $35 of economic benefits. Such a cost-benefit analysis has never before been conducted in Australia.

The investment would cover, among other things, research infrastructure, an expanded grants program, a national effort to collect specimens of all species and new facilities for gene sequencing.

Read more:
A few months ago, science gave this rare lizard a name – and it may already be headed for extinction

Mission possible

Australian taxonomists – in museums, herbaria, universities, at the CSIRO and in
government departments – have spent the last few years planning an ambitious mission to discover and document all remaining Australian species within a generation.

So, is this ambitious goal achievable, or even imaginable? Fortunately, yes.

It will involve deploying new and emerging technologies, including high-throughput robotic DNA sequencing, artificial intelligence and supercomputing. This will vastly speed up the process from collecting specimens to naming new species, while ensuring rigour and care in the science.

A national meeting of Australian taxonomists, including the young early career researchers needed to carry the mission through, was held last year. The meeting confirmed that with the right technologies and more keen and bright minds trained for the task, the rate of species discovery in Australia could be sped up by the necessary 16-fold – reducing 400 years of effort to 25 years.

With the right people, technologies and investment, we could discover all Australian species. By 2050 Australia could be the world’s first biologically mega-rich nation to have documented all our species, for the direct benefit of this and future generations.

Read more:
Hundreds of Australian lizard species are barely known to science. Many may face extinction

Kevin Thiele has received funding from The Ian Potter Foundation and from relevant sector organisations for the work that led to this article.

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

– ref. About 500,000 Australian species are undiscovered – and scientists are on a 25-year mission to finish the job – https://theconversation.com/about-500-000-australian-species-are-undiscovered-and-scientists-are-on-a-25-year-mission-to-finish-the-job-161793

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marcia Devlin, Adjunct Professor, Victoria University

Across the world, women do not have the same opportunities as men. The 2020 Global Gender Gap Report from the World Economic Forum (WEF) revealed Australia came in at 44th in the Global Gender Gap Index 2020 rankings, slipping five places from the previous year. But wait, there’s more. The 2021 Global Gender Gap Index places Australia at number 50, a slip of another six places in 12 months.

And, at the current rate at which the gender inequality gap is being closed, it is now the case that it will take 135.6 years to close the gap worldwide. In 2020, the WEF had calculated gender parity would not be attained for 99.5 years. The 2020 report concluded:

“None of us will see gender parity in our lifetimes, and nor likely will many of our children.”

Read more:
Why mentoring for women risks propping up patriarchal structures instead of changing them

How is gender parity measured?

The key dimensions used to measure gender parity are:

• economic participation and opportunity

• educational attainment

• health and survival

• political empowerment.

As the reports point out, gender parity has a significant bearing on the extent to which societies can thrive. Fully deploying only half of the world’s available talent has an enormous impact on the growth, competitiveness and future readiness of businesses and economies across the world.

According to the 2021 report, COVID-19 caused the gender gap to widen as women left the workforce at a greater rate than men. Even among those who retained paid work, the report says, women took on more duties in childcare, housework and elder care, increasing the “double shift” of paid and unpaid work. Naturally enough, this has contributed to higher stress and lower productivity among women.

Read more:
COVID-19 is a disaster for mothers’ employment. And no, working from home is not the solution

Australia remains equal first in the 2021 global rankings for educational attainment. So this is not an issue that might be tackled in Australia through improving education, including about inequality.

I propose that this is instead an issue of ingrained and systemic sexism in our country. How else can we explain the fact that Australian women get paid less than Australian men?

The 2020 report from the Australian Workplace Gender Equality Agency shows men take home, on average, $25,534 per year more than women. Contributing to this gap, the average full-time base salary across all industries and occupations is 15% less for women than for men.

Universities have failed to lead

Given the woeful attitudes and behaviours towards women in the Australian parliament, one might hope for much-needed leadership from our intellectual hothouses – our universities. But not only have Australian universities not stepped forward to lead the change needed, they themselves perpetuate the problem. They have pay gaps of around the national average. Universities also continue to place men in the vast majority of leadership roles even where they have significant opportunity to do otherwise.

Read more:
No change at the top for university leaders as men outnumber women 3 to 1

Universities – and other workplaces full of educated, insightful people – are well equipped to lead and make changes to enable gender equality. But they haven’t. And I haven’t seen any credible, funded, adequate plans for any workplace to do so in the near future.

Until recently, women have been too busy and tired doing most or all of the childcare, housework and elder care to have time to do much about the blatant inequality we all experience. But somehow, despite the extra burdens COVID-19 has placed on us, we’ve reached a tipping point. Perhaps the extremity of the inequality – laid bare during COVID-19 – has pushed us to the edge. Whatever the reason, we’ve somehow found the impetus to take action.

Women have waited long enough for things that “should” happen to happen. We’ve waited long enough for the people with power – mostly men – to do the right thing. We’ve followed the rules, done as we’ve been asked to do, helped out, worked hard, kept quiet and generally been very good girls.

This evidently hasn’t worked in our favour, nor in the favour of women worldwide. And so, for the sake of growth, competitiveness, society and the future readiness of businesses and economies, as well as our own advancement, we must take matters into our own hands.

Personally, I’m starting with the sector I have worked in for three decades – universities. Despite being home to some of the country’s brightest minds, we have some of the most sexist practices and embarrassing gender inequality figures a developed nation could have. The result is a workplace with 86% more male than female professors, as one example of many.

Read more:
The fatherhood penalty: how parental leave policies perpetuate the gender gap (even in our ‘progressive’ universities)

What can women do about this?

I’ve written a book calling on women (and enlightened men) to take action to improve gender inequality in Australian universities.

Among other suggestions, I recommend women reduce the volume and quality of the housework they do at home and at work. Office housework includes things like taking notes in meetings. Women are often expected to do this, no matter their role or level.

This uses up our valuable time and energy, as Facebook chief operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg and her colleague, university professor Adam Grant, point out in their humorously titled Madam CEO – Get Me a Coffee. And it is hard to make the killer point in a meeting when you are busy doing other things.

Reducing the volume and quality of housework undertaken will provide time, energy and goodwill that can be redirected to more fruitful ends. Redirecting their labour in this way will reduce support for the sexist structures that discriminate against women. The advice is relevant to those working in all industries.

Since posting on social media about this topic late in 2020, I’ve had hundreds of women who work in universities contact me about the contents of this book. The sentiment is a combination of fury about their current situation and steely determination to bring about change. Like the women who led, participated in and supported the 2021 marches, including a rally at the Australian parliament, women in universities also believe “enough is enough”.

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

– ref. Time to gender parity has blown out to 135 years. Here’s what women can do to close the gap – https://theconversation.com/time-to-gender-parity-has-blown-out-to-135-years-heres-what-women-can-do-to-close-the-gap-160253

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanna Mendelssohn, Principal Fellow (Hon), Victorian College of the Arts, University of Melbourne. Editor in Chief, Design and Art of Australia Online, The University of Melbourne

In 2008, when I first visited Canberra’s newly opened National Portrait Gallery, my first response was an overwhelming sense of déjà vu. I knew many of those paintings. They had once hung on the walls of the Art Gallery of New South Wales as part of the annual Archibald Prize exhibition, or been seen in the Salon des Refusés — home to the best of the rejects.

Over 49 years I have seen the Archibald from both the inside, as a curator, and the outside as a critic. My first Archibald was in 1972, the year Clifton Pugh won with his portrait of Gough Whitlam. Along with other art history students, I had never been especially interested in this festival of popular culture, but as the recently appointed most junior of all curators my job was to administer the prize.

It is fair to say the gallery trustees who voted for the winning portrait (all appointed by Sir Robert Askin’s Liberal government) were not fans of the newly elected Labor Prime Minister. But Pugh’s painting dominated the longlist, the shortlist and the final exhibition, where I took great pleasure in hanging it so it was the first work people saw on arrival.

Since then I have seen almost every Archibald, and although some of my colleagues continue to loathe the annual feast of novelty portraiture, I have come to appreciate it as an annual snapshot of the kind of society we are, and who our heroes may be.

Proudly Australian

As the gallery celebrates the prize’s centenary and the ABC prepares to screen a documentary hosted by Rachel Griffiths, Finding the Archibald, which looks at the history of the prize and asks what the selected paintings say about us, it is worth remembering exactly why Archibald bequeathed some of his considerable estate to create an Australian portrait prize – and to give thanks for his vision.

The man born John Feltham Archibald in 1856, who later renamed himself Jules François Archibald because he loved France, was an Australian nationalist.

As founding editor of The Bulletin he fostered the literary careers of Henry Lawson, Banjo Paterson, Miles Franklin and Steele Rudd – writers whose work defined the country as we moved towards Federation. His illustrators included Phil May, Will Dyson, D. H. Souter, George Lambert and Norman Lindsay. All projected a sense of an independent Australia.

At the beginning of last century, it was assumed an Australian’s success was made in England.

In 1900, when private philanthropy paid for Henry Lawson to travel north to London, the Melbourne artist John Longstaff painted his portrait, purchased by the Art Gallery of NSW the following year. Longstaff then also left for London.

Lawson soon returned home, but the absence of Longstaff and other talented Australians is one reason for the precise wording of Archibald’s will, enacted on his death in 1919.

He wanted our artists to see Australia as home, so he carefully wrote the prize would be for:

the best portrait of some man or woman distinguished in Art Letters Science or Politics painted by any artist resident in Australasia during the twelve months preceding the date fixed by the Trustees for sending in the Pictures …

Those words have been the subject of argument by generations of artists, critics and lawyers. When Longstaff first entered the prize in 1921 he was ruled ineligible as he had only just returned from England. In 1988, the same rule disqualified Sidney Nolan as he, too, was a UK resident.

A prize of the trustees

As the prize must be judged by the gallery’s trustees, it is possible to track the nature (and prejudices) of those trustees by looking at the artists awarded it, as well as their sitters.

The initial seriousness of the prize and its generous funding led to a bias towards the dull tonal work of W B McInnes who won a total of seven times.

This record was beaten by Sir William Dargie with eight wins, the last one being in 1956 for his powerful portrait of Albert Namatjira, the first time a portrait of an Aboriginal person had won.

In 2020, Vincent Namatjira — Albert’s great-grandson — was the first Aboriginal artist to win the prize with Stand Strong For Who You are, a double portrait with Adam Goodes.

Archibald welcomed women writers throughout his journalistic career and made a conscious decision to include both genders in his will. Many women entered, but it was not until 1938 that Nora Heysen won with a portrait of Madame Elink Schuurman, wife of the Consul-General for the Netherlands.

The commentary that followed was especially distasteful as the artist, still the youngest ever winner at 27, had chosen as her subject a woman of mixed race. In 100 years, the prize has only been awarded to women artists ten times. Six of those occasions have been in the last 20 years.

Sadly, this lively painting remains overseas and is unavailable for the centenary retrospective exhibition.

Read more:
Friday essay: Nora Heysen, more than her father’s daughter

Another absence is William Dobell’s 1943 portrait of Joshua Smith, effectively destroyed in a fire many years ago. As is the way of artists, Dobell and Smith had painted each other’s portraits. The year’s two finalists were Dobell’s portrait of Smith, and Smith’s portrait of the poet Dame Mary Gilmore.

Lionel Lindsay, well-known as an anti-modernist, recognised the superior quality of the Dobell and so advocated for it, as did the only woman trustee, Mary Alice Evatt, recently appointed to the board by her brother-in-law, the Minister for Education.

After Dobell’s victory two unsuccessful artists, Mary Edwards (later known as Mary Edwell-Burke) and Joseph Wolinski, were persuaded by colleagues in the Royal Art Society to mount a court case to dispute the result, claiming Dobell’s work was not a portrait but a caricature.

They lost, but in the aftermath the Archibald became the most popular event for artists wishing to make their name.

Paintings of ideas

This year 938 works were entered and only 52 were hung. The inability to guarantee a sitter their portrait will be hung is one reason for the many self-portraits, portraits of fellow artists and family members.

Read more:
From Grace Tame to Craig Foster: distinguished public figures but only one politician in a telling 2021 Archibald shortlist

These more intimate portraits have been among the most successful exhibits. For me, the most memorable of all is Janet Dawson’s 1973 portrait of her husband, the pioneering playwright, food writer, gardener, Michael Boddy.

I was in the packing room when it was being unwrapped. I still remember getting a shiver down my spine. Even under plastic it was so beautiful.

It is an especially lush and loving work. At the time Daniel Thomas, the gallery’s senior curator, wondered if women secretly wanted to eat their husbands.

One truth about the Archibald rarely discussed is the influence of individual trustees. When Wendy Sharpe won in 1996 with her exuberant Self-portrait as Diana of Erskinville, there had just been a changing of the guard with the appointment of new trustees.

The announcement was delayed for almost an hour as the trustees deliberated. Word is, it was the advocacy of one of the newly appointed board members that gave her the prize by one vote.

It is true to say the trustees of 1920 would not share the aesthetic values of much of the art in recent exhibitions. Celebrations of cultural difference and gender and the presence of many works by Aboriginal artists would almost certainly be beyond their comprehension.

With the exception of the photo-realist works and the occasional academic portrait, realistic depictions of the subject are now the exception rather than the rule.

But what would Archibald think? He was, above all, a man of ideas. He wanted us to look to our own history in preference to that of England. He wanted Australians to debate our artists, writers, actors – even politicians.

I think he would be pleased.

Archie 100: A Century of the Archibald Prize is at the Art Gallery of NSW June 5 – September 26, then touring nationally.

Joanna Mendelssohn has received funding from the Australian Research Council

– ref. ‘I think Archie would be pleased’: 100 years of our most famous portrait prize and my almost 50 years watching it evolve – https://theconversation.com/i-think-archie-would-be-pleased-100-years-of-our-most-famous-portrait-prize-and-my-almost-50-years-watching-it-evolve-161575

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jesse Whitehead, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Waikato

Reports of potentially higher rates of vaccine hesitancy among Māori and Pacific populations have seen the government target COVID-19 vaccine and information campaigns at those communities.

And there are excellent reasons for such a targeted approach, designed and delivered by Māori and Pacific leaders for Māori and Pacific people. More so, given existing inequities within the health-care system that have fostered unequal health outcomes and distrust in health institutions themselves.

But it is also important to confront the inference that Māori and Pacific people are more prone to believe COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy theories, and that this might be the most significant barrier to vaccination uptake.

Using data collected from a diverse sample of New Zealanders, we found no basis for this. When modelling accounts for the key factors we know are associated with vaccine hesitancy, such as education and age, ethnic differences are no longer statistically significant.

That is, differences in vaccine hesitancy rates for Māori and Pacific communities are explained by their younger age structure and lower educational attainment. Indeed, across all communities, these are the main factors associated with vaccine hesitancy.

These findings are, of course, fairly intuitive when we look at the successful leadership from Māori and Pacific communities during the early pandemic response, including initiatives such as a contact tracing card trial and community checkpoints.

The risk of inequitable vaccination rates

The real risk is that the intention to be vaccinated doesn’t translate into actual uptake. Early data on the COVID-19 vaccine rollout suggests fewer Māori and Pacific people are fully immunised.

This matters because these populations have a greater risk of COVID-19 transmission, severe infection, ICU admission or even death.

Read more:
A year after New Zealand’s first COVID-19 lockdown, discrimination and racism are on the rise

Despite the Ministry of Health’s phased rollout plan, it seems some populations could be protected sooner than others due to the geographic and other barriers faced by Māori and Pacific people.

This mirrors known trends in health-care access in Aotearoa where services are inequitably distributed. Wealthier, healthier and whiter populations tend to have the best access to facilities and high-quality care.

Time and distance are the real barriers

Our analysis shows that offering vaccination at existing health facilities and pop-up sites would be inequitable. Māori, older people and poorer communities would be disproportionately affected by distance and travel times from where they live.

Schools and GP clinics are clearly the most easily accessible sites. However, converting schools into vaccination centres might not be feasible. The best option could be combining effective outreach programs with vaccination centres run from GP clinics, Māori providers and Pacific health services.

While some will find ways to overcome access barriers, others won’t have the time, money or resources. These obstacles become mountains if people are already vaccine-hesitant — regardless of ethnicity.

If they postpone or forgo the vaccine altogether it will make existing inequities worse and challenge the overall COVID-19 elimination strategy, especially when borders open and the risk of community transmission increases.

Read more:
Vaccination alone will not provide full protection. When borders open, NZ will still be managing COVID-19

The threat of other infectious diseases

We know many people have deferred routine health care during the pandemic, including childhood immunisation against other infectious diseases. This has happened against a backdrop of already declining immunisation rates among children in general, and among tamariki Māori and Pacific children in particular.

The result has been worsening coverage rates in some regions with persistently low coverage anyway, as people stayed away from primary health-care providers.

Closing the borders and restricting movement to stop COVID-19 transmission also reduced the spread of other infectious diseases. When these controls are lifted the risk of serious childhood disease outbreaks, such as measles and pertussis, will increase.

Read more:
How to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and decrease vaccine hesitancy in young people

High childhood vaccination coverage must be prioritised to counter the vulnerability of Māori and Pacific communities to the immediate and long-term burdens of these diseases.

Avoiding a perfect storm

This winter’s influenza immunisation campaign and the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) catch-up program are particularly focused on young Māori and Pacific adults. The priority is to prevent further devastating outbreaks of measles.

However, the resources currently prioritised for the COVID-19 vaccine campaign inevitably affect other immunisation campaigns.

Read more:
COVID vaccine hesitancy: spell out the personal rather than collective benefits to persuade people — new research

Communities across Aotearoa may soon face a perfect storm: fewer resources available to address low childhood immunisation rates, delayed influenza protection and MMR catch-ups, and the potential for the inequitable delivery of COVID-19 vaccines.

These factors, combined with increasing freedom of movement, are likely to result in infectious disease spread, particularly in Māori and Pacific communities.

For the health system to be adequately responsive, it should engage Māori and Pacific leadership in the governance, design and delivery of vaccination campaigns. It will require resourcing, monitoring and accountability to build adaptable solutions that ensure community aspirations are met.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The real challenge to COVID-19 vaccination rates isn’t hesitancy — it’s equal access for Māori and Pacific people – https://theconversation.com/the-real-challenge-to-covid-19-vaccination-rates-isnt-hesitancy-its-equal-access-for-maori-and-pacific-people-161676

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

The expert advice changes, not infrequently, during this pandemic. And that applies even when that “advice” comes in the form of a one-liner.

As criticism mounted over the slowness of the vaccine rollout, Scott Morrison and his ministers have been increasingly dogged by the PM’s claim, especially early on, that the vaccination rollout was “not a race”.

Despite it being very obvious it was indeed a race to get the job done, once the line was in the script, ministers parroted it or struggled with it.

And it has become a media favourite for “gotcha” questions, as we saw at the weekend.

On Sunday Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack said on Sky, “It’s not a race – it has to be systematic, it has to be rolled out in a way that Australians obviously need to know that they have to get the jab, but we can’t have everyone getting it at the same time.”

Trade Minister Dan Tehan, over on the ABC, ranged widely to explain the nature of “races”.

“The Melbourne Cup’s a race, the Stawell Gift’s a race. When it comes to vaccines, what we’re trying to do is make sure we get as many people vaccinated as quickly as we possibly can.”

In question time on Tuesday, Labor asked whether Morrison still said vaccinating all Australians, including aged care residents and workers, is “not a race”.

Morrison reached immediately for a human shield – an expert.

It was Brendan Murphy, the secretary of the health department, who first made the statement, the Prime Minister said. And his words – which he stood by – were based on Murphy’s “expert advice”.

Murphy, formerly chief medical officer, has become a well-known face during COVID-19 from all those news conference appearances with Morrison and Health Minister Greg Hunt.

Morrison said he “affirmed” Murphy’s remarks – “because all the way through this pandemic our government, the governments around the country […] have always been mindful of the expert advice informing the decisions we have taken”.

For good measure he tabled Murphy’s words.

By happenstance, Murphy was appearing before a Senate estimates hearing on Tuesday afternoon, so he was quickly interrogated by Labor about whether the PM had thrown him “under the bus”.

Murphy indicated his own language has now changed. (Not that it was his place to advise Morrison on language, he stressed; the PM “has his own advice on language”.)

“I think I did say it way back in January at a press conference, when there was this discussion about racing through the TGA [Therapeutic Goods Administration] approval process, and I think I did say it’s not a race at that time,” he said.

“It is a term that I did use, way back then.”

But “we’ve moved on”.

“It’s not a very helpful phrase now because we’re going, we’re in action, we’re fired up and we’re doing it as quickly as possible.”

The critics dispute strongly the extent of the firing up. And key details continue to be lacking, as was evident, to the government’s embarrassment, on Tuesday.

The Minister for Aged Care Services, Richard Colbeck could not say how many of the aged care workforce have been vaccinated.

Because these workers are getting their jabs in various places – including their work sites, GPs, hubs – total figures are not available. Another complication is they don’t have to inform their employer whether they have been vaccinated.

Belatedly, the government is making arrangements for more extensive data to be quickly collected.

“We’re asking the aged care providers who hold the data to report that information back to us,” Colbeck said. “We’ve asked them to report that alongside their flu vaccination data.”

On the latest figures, produced in Senate estimates after confusion, 39,874 doses have been administered to aged care workers nationally – 10,608 in Victoria. Some 32,833 people have been fully vaccinated, 8027 of them in Victoria.

The aged care workforce is about 366,000 nationally. Of these 235,764 work in residential aged care, and the rest in home care.

Whatever the number actually vaccinated, Colbeck said he was “comfortable” with the pace of the rollout.

Hunt, who every day bombards the media with numbers, had to admit he had been wrong in his figures about the aged care facilities covered in the vaccination program.

He said on Monday that Australia-wide, six were still to get initial doses, On Tuesday he said he’d misread the advice and it was 20. “Nobody else’s fault but mine,” he said, offering a rare apology.

Tuesday night came an update saying only 14 facilities remained. All but one are scheduled to be done by June 8. None is in Victoria.

There were sighs of relief from federal and Victorian governments that the latest three COVID cases in Victoria had not involved aged care workers or residents.

The state government has announced a drive to get workers in aged care and disability vaccinated over the next few days, with special lanes at hubs so they avoid the queues.

“This is very much a call to arms for those workers on the frontline to come out,” the state Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers, Luke Donnellan, said.

Very obviously a race.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: New ‘expert’ advice is in – don’t say ‘it’s not a race’ – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-new-expert-advice-is-in-dont-say-its-not-a-race-161935

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kylie Quinn, Vice-Chancellor’s Research Fellow, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University

Amid Victoria’s worrying COVID outbreak, perhaps the point of greatest concern is the fact the virus has again found its way into aged care.

On Sunday, the state government announced an aged-care worker had tested positive for COVID-19, despite having received their first vaccine dose on May 12.

We’ve since found out another staff member, who worked alongside the original staff member at Arcare Maidstone, has returned a positive result, along with a resident.

The resident had received a first dose of the Pfizer vaccine and reportedly has only mild symptoms, but is being monitored in hospital. The original worker’s son has also tested positive.

The cases in the first staff member and the resident, both of whom had received a first vaccine dose, highlight the fact you need both doses for maximum benefit.

It takes a couple of weeks

Clinical trials show COVID vaccine protection is optimal from about two weeks after your second dose. This means they:

• nearly completely protect against severe disease and death in healthy people

• dramatically reduce the likelihood of symptoms with COVID-19

• reduce the likelihood of infection with the virus

• if you do get infected, they reduce the amount of virus you make. Emerging evidence suggests this reduces the likelihood you will pass the virus to other people.

Each dose of a vaccine essentially shifts the odds in your favour. One dose gives you a lower chance of reaping some of these benefits, while two doses gives you a much higher likelihood of these benefits.

Though even with two doses, you could still be unlucky and get infected, develop disease or pass on the virus.

What do we know about a single dose of Pfizer?

Clinical trials of the Pfizer vaccine were designed to test the efficacy of the vaccine more than one week after the second dose. However, these trials also provided the first hints that a single dose could offer some protection as early as 12 days afterwards.

“Real world” data now supports these early observations — a single dose is highly effective against hospitalisation four weeks after vaccination.

Meanwhile, early research and reports suggest a first dose of Pfizer could be between 50% and 90% effective at preventing infection.

Preliminary data also suggest people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 after one dose of the Pfizer vaccine are up to 50% less likely to transmit that infection to other members of their household.

Read more:
Mounting evidence suggests COVID vaccines do reduce transmission. How does this work?

And what about a single dose of AstraZeneca?

The AstraZeneca vaccine was initially developed as a single-dose vaccine, estimated to have an efficacy of 76% against disease in clinical trials.

These trials were later amended to include a second dose when other work showed two doses significantly increased antibody levels in volunteers.

Real-world data, though yet to be peer reviewed, has shown one dose is roughly 65% effective at protecting from infection and up to 50% effective at preventing vaccinated people from passing the virus on if they do become infected, like Pfizer.

Also similar to Pfizer, a single dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine offers very good protection against hospital admission four weeks afterwards.

What takes so long?

Despite differences in mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and viral vector vaccines like AstraZeneca, both take similar amounts of time to generate antibody responses. After a single dose of AstraZeneca, antibodies can be detected after 14 days and further increase over the next two weeks.

But why does it take time for these responses to develop? When researchers track the antibody response to the first dose of vaccine, they find it takes at least ten days for the immune system to start making antibodies that can recognise SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein (a protein on the virus’ surface which it uses to enter our body’s cells).

It also takes at least a week for T cells, a type of white blood cell important in our immune response, to start to react to the vaccine. Over the next few weeks, these responses become even stronger.

Read more:
What’s the Valneva COVID-19 vaccine, the French shot that’s supposed to be ‘variant proof’?

In contrast, the second dose activates the immune system much more quickly. Within a week of dose two, your antibody levels increase by more than ten times, providing much stronger and longer-lasting protection from infection.

So the first dose of a COVID vaccine gets your immune response going, but the second dose is essential to ensure immunity is strong, consistent from person to person, and longer-lasting.

Partial vaccination can be risky

While a single dose of either vaccine provides some benefits, relying on partial vaccination for people who are vulnerable or working in high-risk roles is problematic. It’s critical we fully vaccinate frontline health-care workers, quarantine workers and people who work and live in aged and disability care as soon as possible.

Another challenge is that all current COVID vaccines are based on the original virus strain but variants now make up the majority of infections in many countries. Some variants are targeted less effectively by vaccines, particularly after only one dose.

Preliminary data suggests that while two doses of the Pfizer vaccine are 88% protective against symptomatic infection with the B.1.617.2 variant, a single dose is only 33% effective.

A similar variant, called B.1.617.1, is behind the current outbreak in Victoria and may respond similarly. This makes it even more important to ensure frontline workers receive both vaccine doses as quickly as possible.

It’s also worth noting immune responses to one dose of either the Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccines decrease with age.

In a pooled analysis of Pfizer and AstraZeneca, older people had lower rates of protection than younger people after a single dose, although older people were protected just as well as younger people after two doses.

Although this study is yet to be peer-reviewed, it tells us administering the second dose in a timely manner is particularly important for older people to realise the full benefits of vaccination.

Read more:
Can I get AstraZeneca now and Pfizer later? Why mixing and matching COVID vaccines could help solve many rollout problems

Kylie Quinn receives funding from the Rebecca L. Cooper Foundation, the CASS Foundation and RMIT University. She consults on the Advisory Board for the Vaccine Alliance of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Jennifer Juno receives funding from the NHMRC.

– ref. How long do COVID vaccines take to start working? – https://theconversation.com/how-long-do-covid-vaccines-take-to-start-working-161876

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

In walking away from his defamation action against the ABC, cabinet minister Christian Porter has opened a fresh round in the battle over the allegation of historical rape against him by a now-deceased woman, known just as Kate.

Jo Dyer, a friend of Kate – whose claim Porter denies – on Tuesday threatened to sue him, accusing him of impugning “my honesty and integrity”.

There is also now a battle over the settlement concluded between Porter and the ABC.

The federal court has yet to ratify the settlement, which involves expunging from the court record part of the ABC’s defence in the defamation case. But news organisations are seeking to have the material made public.

Justice Jayne Jagot said on Tuesday the issue might not be a matter for the parties. “There has to be a reason for the removal of a document from a court file,” she said. “It’s not done just because a party wants to do it.”

If a document is removed from the court file, there cannot be applications to see it.

ABC journalist Louise Milligan, who Porter also sued in his case against an ABC article reporting the accusation without naming him, tweeted on Monday “We are still absolutely committed to the 27 redacted pages being in the public domain”.

Dyer brought the successful legal action that resulted in Porter’s high profile barrister Sue Chrysanthou being prevented from appearing in the defamation case because of a conflict of interest.

Dyer said in her statement her lawyers had sent a second “concerns notice” to Porter over his “continuing defamatory comments”. “He should be on notice that if I launch legal proceedings, I tend to see them through to their conclusion,” she said.

She alleged two defamations by Porter. She said that on May 12, he implied her legal proceedings were “part of an improper last minute legal strategy to disrupt his now discontinued action”.

“He did this despite knowing the real reason for the court action, and the lengths to which I had gone over the preceding two months to avoid court,” she said.

“Yesterday Mr Porter alleged that, after ‘coaching’ from Ms Milligan, I had destroyed important communications that may have had a bearing on his now discontinued action against Ms Milligan and the ABC.

“This is absurd. As I stated in court under oath, a number of people, of whom Ms Milligan was but one, encouraged me to treat all communications about our dear friend Kate, and the allegations she made against Mr Porter, with the care and respect she and they warranted.

“I endeavoured to do so by both filing and deleting correspondence between me and other individuals as appropriate.

“There was nothing improper, illegal or sinister in my decisions to save or delete certain messages, decisions that were taken well before Mr Porter launched his now discontinued action against Ms Milligan and the ABC.”

Dyer said the allegations Kate made against Porter “remain completely untested. Until they have been investigated, it is untenable for Mr Porter to remain in cabinet.”

Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said an independent inquiry was needed into whether Porter was fit to continue as a cabinet minister. Dreyfus also said the ABC material should be publicly available.

Michelle Grattan ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Now Kate’s friend threatens to sue Christian Porter – https://theconversation.com/now-kates-friend-threatens-to-sue-christian-porter-161911

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Holly Seale, Associate professor, UNSW

Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt has asked the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee to revisit whether COVID vaccinations should be mandatory for aged care workers and provide fresh advice to national cabinet.

In January, the committee said aged care workers should be “strongly encouraged” to get vaccinated, but given there was little data about the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing the spread of COVID-19, it stopped short of mandating the jabs.

The Victorian government said it expects all front-line aged care and health workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19. In an attempt to increase coverage, from Wednesday it will allow aged and disability care workers to jump the queue in state-run mass vaccination clinics.

Data from places which have made influenza vaccination mandatory in the past suggests it’s clear vaccine coverage will increase after a mandate.

However, before moving forward we need to make sure we have exhausted the other options. The Victorian government is making a good start by reducing the barriers to access.

However to really understand whether mandates are needed it’s critical we get a good handle on the number of health and aged care workers who have received the vaccine, and whether we are getting equity in coverage across and within organisations.

It’s important to remember the term “health workers” includes clinical and non-clinical staff. Tracking vaccine uptake for health workers can be challenging for a range of reasons, including that staff can receive their vaccine onsite or at other locations.

We already have various vaccine requirements for health workers

Australian hospital staff are required to show evidence they’re protected from a range of vaccine preventable diseases.

The list of diseases differs slightly depending on the state or territory. In New South Wales, for example, front-line staff must show evidence they’re vaccinated against measles, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), and varicella (chickenpox).

Annual flu vaccines are highly recommended for health-care workers in NSW, but not required. It’s currently only mandatory for those in high-risk situations for example intensive care and oncology ward staff.

Internationally, mandates for influenza are more common in parts of the United States, while countries in Europe often require health workers to show evidence of protection from other vaccine preventable diseases.

What happens when voluntary programs fail?

In an attempt to support flu vaccine uptake, staff members running vaccine clinics in Australia would tell me they offered extended opening hours, had mobile clinics, offered raffles and lollipops, had education sessions with influenza experts, and used declination forms (a legal document that signals an individual’s intent to refuse a recommended treatment) — but coverage remained the same. One staff member I spoke to likened it to banging her head on the wall. Nothing she did increased coverage at her hospital.

At this point, organisations or governments often shift away from voluntary based programs and introduce mandatory requirements.

While vaccine requirements in Australia for influenza are still in their infancy, they have been in place in some settings in the United States for much longer and have been shown to work.

One study from the United States looked at flu vaccine uptake in healthcare workers at University of California Irvine Healthcare. It found that after introducing measures and incentives like the ones above, coverage rose from 44% of staff to 62.9%. But it was only after the vaccine became mandatory that coverage reached over 85%.

What’s more, in 2016–2017, influenza vaccination was highest among US hospital workers who were required by their employer to be vaccinated (98.3%). When vaccination wasn’t required, promoted, or offered on-site, rates were as low as 45.8%.

What are the pros and cons of mandating vaccination?

Multiple arguments are used to support mandatory vaccination but the focus tends to be the obligation for staff to “do no harm” and patients’ and residents’ (and staff members’) right to a safe environment, free from the risk of infection from a staff member. This right is both an ethical and a legal requirement.

Those who oppose mandates often draw on the rights of health workers to autonomy, question the data supporting the rationale for the mandate, or criticise the level of effect the vaccine has in reducing transmission from staff members to patients. Others suggest adding a mandate will drive staff to quit their jobs. But research shows that isn’t the case.

For COVID-19, what should we try first?

We urgently need to reduce the chance of COVID-19 transmission in health and aged care organisations to patients and staff members. But are we at that tipping point of needing to mandate a COVID-19 vaccine?

In attempt to answer that question, we need to consider the following:

• have we ensured there are no physical barriers to vaccination? Have we overcome logistical issues impacting on staff getting vaccinated?

• have we tried other options to nudge health workers to get vaccinated? Have we considered incentives or reimbursements such as a coffee voucher or free parking? Or could we introduce a competition with a prize for the department with the highest uptake?

• do we understand the reasons some staff members may be indecisive about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine? Have we developed purpose-built instruments to measure changes in vaccine hesitancy that focus on understanding the attitudes of staff towards issues such as safety, efficacy, and trust? Based on this knowledge, have we modified our communication approaches?

• do we have strategies in place to help those staff who are having trouble reaching a decision about whether to have a COVID-19 vaccine? Could we offer decision aids or guides (which account for variations in health literacy) to assist people to balance up the benefits and risks?

And if that doesn’t work?

When we’ve tried these strategies and haven’t seen improved coverage, we need to accept voluntary approaches probably won’t cut it. Every study on influenza vaccination of health workers points to a ceiling effect that will not be broken unless the vaccine gets mandated.

If we accept the same situation will occur for COVID-19 vaccination, mandatory policies may be the only way forward in ensuring high coverage of staff.

However, in moving forward with a mandate, it’s critical we work with the health workers at the receiving end of the policy, as well as those staff members tasked with introducing and enforcing it.

Holly Seale is an investigator on a study funded by NHMRC and has previously received funding for investigator driven research from NSW Ministry of Health, as well as from Sanofi Pasteur and Seqirus. She is the Deputy Chair of the Collaboration on Social Science and Immunisation.

– ref. Mandatory COVID vaccines for aged and health care workers could increase uptake, but we need to exhaust other options first – https://theconversation.com/mandatory-covid-vaccines-for-aged-and-health-care-workers-could-increase-uptake-but-we-need-to-exhaust-other-options-first-161875