Podcast appearances and mentions of sunanda creagh

Australian voters ousting a nine-year-old Coalition government. A step towards instituting a First Nations Voice to Parliament. Grace Tame. Entrenched structures of authority have been challenged at home and around the world this year. But what will the impact of these momentous events be on the way we live, and the way our domestic and international parliaments govern? The Conversation's latest collection of insightful essays from leading thinkers, 2022: Reckoning with Power and Privilege, unpacks this very question.   Hear Tim Soutphommasane, Professor of Practice at University of Sydney and Michelle Arrow, Professor of Modern History at Macquarie University as they explore the potent forces that continue to shape our world and how those with the privilege of power don't always prevail in a panel discussion chaired by The Conversation's Senior Editor, Sunanda Creagh. To access a transcript of this podcast please head here. This event was presented by the UNSW Centre for Ideas and The Conversation.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Uncle Fred Deeral as little old man in the film The Message, by Zakpage, to be shown at the National Museum of Australia in April. Nik Lachajczak of Zakpage, Author provided (No reuse)Captain James Cook arrived in the Pacific 250 years ago, triggering British colonisation of the region. We’re asking researchers to reflect on what happened and how it shapes us today. You can see other stories in the series here and an interactive here. Editor’s note: This is an edited transcript of an interview with John Maynard for our podcast Trust Me, I’m An Expert. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains names of deceased people. There are a multitude of Aboriginal oral memories about Captain James Cook, right across the continent. As the research from Deborah Bird Rose shows, many Aboriginal people in remote locations are certainly under the impression that Cook came there as well, shooting people in a kind of Cook-led invasion of Australia. Many of these communities, of course, never met James Cook; the man never even went there. But the deep impact of James Cook that spread across the country and he came to represent the bogeyman for Aboriginal Australia. Even back in the Protection and Welfare Board days, a government car would turn up and Aboriginal people would be running around screaming, “Lookie, lookie, here comes Cookie!” I wrote about Uncle Ray Rose, sadly recently departed, who’d had a stroke. Someone said, “How do you feel?” And he said, “No good. I’m Captain Cooked.” Cook, wherever he went up the coast, was giving names where names already existed. Yuin oral memory in the south coast of NSW gives the example of what they called Gulaga and Cook called “Mount Dromedary”: […] that name can be seen as the first of the changes that come for our people […] Cook’s maps were very good, but they did not show our names for places. He didn’t ask us. Cook has been incorporated into songs, jokes, stories and Aboriginal oral histories right across the country. Why? I think it’s an Aboriginal response to the way we’ve been taught about our history. Read more: Captain Cook wanted to introduce British justice to Indigenous people. Instead, he became increasingly cruel and violent Myth-making persists but a shift is underway I came through a school system of the 50s and 60s, and we weren’t weren’t even mentioned in the history books except as a people belonging to the Stone Age or as a dying race. It was all about discoverers, explorers, settlers and Phar Lap or Don Bradman. But us Aboriginal people? Not there. We had this high exposure of the public celebration of Cook, the statues of Cook, the reenactments of Cook – it was really in your face. For Aboriginal people, how do we make sense of all of this, faced with the reality of our experience and the catastrophic impact? We’ve got to make sense of it the best way we can, and I think that’s why Cook turns up in so many oral histories. I think wider Australia is moving towards a more balanced understanding of our history. Lots of people now recognise the richest cultural treasure the country possesses is 65,000 years of Aboriginal cultural connection to this continent. That’s unlike anywhere else in the world. I mean no disrespect, but 250 years is a drop in a lake compared to 65,000 years. From our perspective, in fact, we’ve always been here. Our people came out of the Dreamtime of the creative ancestors and lived and kept the Earth as it was in the very first day. With global warming, rising sea levels, rising temperatures and catastrophic storms, Aboriginal people did keep the Earth as it was in the very first day to ensure that it was passed to each surviving generation. There was going to be a (now-cancelled) circumnavigation of Australia in the official proceedings this year, which the prime minister supported. But James Cook didn’t circumnavigate Australia. He only sailed up the east coast. So that’s creating more myths again, which is a senseless way to go. A painting of Captain Cook and the Endeavour journal on display at the National Library of Australia. AAP/ALAN PORRITT ‘With the consent of the Natives to take possession’ Personally, I have high regard for James Cook as a navigator, as a cartographer, and certainly as an inspiring captain of his crew. He encouraged incredible loyalty among those that sailed with him on those three voyages. And that has to be recognised. But against that, of course, is the reality that he was given secret instructions by the Navy to: With the consent of the Natives to take possession of the convenient situations in the country in the name of the king of Great Britain. Well, consent was never given. When they went ashore at Botany Bay, two Aboriginal men brandished spears and made it quite clear they didn’t want him there. Those men were wounded and Cook was one of those firing a musket. There was no gaining any consent when he sailed on to Possession Island and planted that flag down. Totally the opposite, in fact. And the most insightful viewpoint is from Cook himself, who wrote that: all they seem’d to want was for us to be gone. Cook’s background gave him insight James Cook wasn’t your normal British naval officer of that time period. To get into such a position, you normally had to be born into the right family, to come from money and privilege. James Cook was none of those things. He came from a poor family. His father was a labourer. Cook got to where he was by skill, endeavour, and, unquestionably, because he was a very smart man and brilliant at sea. But it’s also from that background that he’s able to offer insight. There’s an incredible quotation of Cook’s where he says of Aboriginal people: They live in a Tranquillity which is not disturb’d by the Inequality of Condition… they live in a warm and fine Climate and enjoy a very wholsome Air. Now, Cook is comparing what he is seeing in Australia with life back Britain, where there is an incredible amount of inequality. London, at the time, was filthy. Sewerage pouring through the streets. Disease was rife. Underprivilege is everywhere. In Australia, though, Cook sees what to him looks like this incredible egalitarian society and it makes an impact on him because of where he comes from. But deeper misunderstandings persisted. In what’s now called Cooktown there are, at first, amicable relationships with the Guugu Yimithirr people, but when they come aboard the Endeavour they see this incredible profusion of turtles that the crew has captured. They’re probably thinking, “these are our turtles.” They would quite happily share some of those turtles but the Bristish response is: you get none. So the Guugu Yimithirr people go off the ship and set the grass on fire. Eventually, there’s a kind of peace settlement but the incident reveals a complete blindness on the part of the British to the idea of reciprocity in Aboriginal society. Read more: 'They are all dead': for Indigenous people, Cook's voyage of 'discovery' was a ghostly visitation A collision of catastrophic proportions The impact of 1770 has never eased for Aboriginal people. It was a collision of catastrophic proportions. The whole impact of 1788 – of invasion, dispossession, cultural destruction, occupation onto assimilation, segregation – all of these things that came after 1770. Anything you want to measure – Aboriginal health, education, employment, housing, youth suicide, incarceration – we have the worst stats. That has been a continuation, a reality of the failure of government to recognise what has happened in the past and actually do something about it in the present to fix it for the future. We’ve had decades and decades of governments saying to us, “We know what’s best for you.” But the fact is that when it comes to Aboriginal well being, the only people to listen to are Aboriginal people and we’ve never been put in the position. We’ve been raising our voices for a long time now, but some people see that as a threat and are not prepared to listen. An honest reckoning of the reality of Cook and what came after won’t heal things overnight. But it’s a starting point, from which we can join hands and walk together toward a shared future. A balanced understanding of the past will help us build a future – it is of critical importance. New to podcasts? Everything you need to know about how to listen to a podcast is here. Additional audio credits Kindergarten by Unkle Ho, from Elefant Traks. Marimba On the Loose by Daniel Birch, from Free Music Archive. Podcast episode recorded and edited by Sunanda Creagh. Lead image Uncle Fred Deeral as little old man in the film The Message, a film by Zakpage, to be shown at the National Museum of Australia in April. Nik Lachajczak of Zakpage.

What do you need to know about COVID-19 and coronavirus? We asked our readers for their top questions and sought answers from two of Australia’s leading virus and vaccine experts. Today’s podcast episode features Professor Michael Wallach and Dr Lisa Sedger – both from the School of Life Sciences at the University of Technology, Sydney – answering questions from you, our readers. An edited transcript is below. And if you have any questions yourself, please add them to the comments below. New to podcasts? Everything you need to know about how to listen to a podcast is here. Transcript Sunanda Creagh: Hi, I’m Sunanda Creagh. I’m the Digital Storytelling editor at The Conversation, and I’m here today with two of Australia’s leading researchers on viruses and vaccines. Lisa Sedger: Hi, my name’s Lisa Sedger. I’m an academic virologist at the University of Technology Sydney. And I do research on novel anti-viral agents and teach virology. Michael Wallach: I’m Professor Michael Wallach, the Associate Head of School for the School of Life Science (at the University of Technology Sydney) and my expertise in the area of development of vaccines. Sunanda Creagh: And today, we’re asking these researchers to answer questions about coronavirus and COVID-19 from you guys, our readers and our audience. We’re going to kick it off with Dr. Sedger. Adam would like to know: how long can this virus survive in various temperatures on a surface, say, a door handle or a counter at a public place? Lisa Sedger: Oh, well, that’s an interesting question, because we hear a variety of answers. Some people say that these types of envelope viruses can exist for two to three days, but it really depends on the amount of moisture and humidity and what happens on that surface afterwards, whether it’s wiped off or something. So potentially for longer than that, potentially up to a week. But with cleaning and disinfectants, etc, not very long. Sunanda Creagh: And what’s an envelope virus? Lisa Sedger: Well, viruses are basically nucleic acid. So DNA like is in all of the cells in our body or RNA. And then they have a protein coat and then outside of that they have an envelope that’s made of lipids. So it’s just an outer layer of the virus. And if it’s made of lipids, you can imagine any kind of detergent like when you’re doing your dishes, disrupts all the lipids in the fat. That’s how you get all the grease off your plates. Right? So any detergent like that will disrupt the envelope of the virus and make it non-infective. So cleaning surfaces is a good way to try and eliminate an infective virus particle from, for example, door handles, surfaces, et cetera. Sunanda Creagh: And Professor Wallach, Paul would like to know: should people cancel travel plans given that this virus is already here? Does travelling make the spread worse? And that’s international travel or domestic travel. Michael Wallach: So this question has come up to many different governments from around the world who’ve reacted very differently. Australia’s been very strategic in banning travel to certain places. And of course, those places you would not want to travel to at the time when there’s an outbreak like China, Italy, Iran, etc.. I was also asked the question on ABC Tasmania: should the Tasmanians restrict domestic travel to Tasmania? At the time, they had a single case. And I said to them, if you have one case, you most likely have more. You will not prevent the entry of the virus into Tasmania. But what restricting travel can do is restrict the number of people who are seeding that area with virus and make it more manageable. So it’s a question of timing. As I was saying to you earlier, the cost-benefit of closing off travel has to be weighed very carefully because the economic impacts are very great. So I think it’s a case by case basis. Ultimately, the planet is now seeded. And we’re moving into the stage of exponential growth and that it will affect travel very severely, where in all likelihood, travel will be very much curtailed now. Sunanda Creagh: And this question’s from our reader, David. He wants to know: with the flu killing more people each year than coronavirus and mostly the same demographic, why is this outbreak receiving so much attention? Can’t we just catch the flu just as easily without cancelling events and travel plans? Lisa Sedger: Yes, and I understand the question. Flu exists. We get it seasonally every year and then we get pandemic flu. And yes, people do die from influenza. I think it was 16,000 people in the US died last US winter. But the issue with this virus is that we don’t yet know how to treat it particularly well. We’re trialling anti-viral drugs in China at the very moment. There’s clinical trials on experimental drugs. There’s drugs that doctors are using. But until that data comes in and we actually know what regime of anti-viral drugs (are best) to use, then we don’t really yet know how to treat it with anti-viral drugs. The other thing is with flu, we have a vaccine. People can take the vaccine. Somebody gets sick in their family, the other family members can take the vaccine and prevent the spread of the virus. So the difference is with flu, we have ways to control it. We know about the disease. We know how it presents. This virus, we’re still understanding the clinical presentation and in different cohorts. So different age groups, different countries, different situations, we’re still understanding the symptoms. And we don’t yet fully know how to control it by antivirals. And we don’t have a vaccine yet. Michael Wallach: Can I just add to that a bit? I think one of the reasons we’re being so careful is when it broke and Wuhan, at the beginning the mortality rate was extremely high. And with related viruses like SARS, and MERS that went as high as 35%, whereas flu mortality rates is usually around 0.1%. So it was that very high mortality rate that gave a real shock. Had it continued, it would have been devastating. We’re very fortunate that now we see it dropping down to the 2 to 3% level and some say much lower. Lisa Sedger: And we also know now that some people get COVID, have very minimal symptoms and almost don’t even know that they’ve been sick. So I think that fear and anxiety, in that sense, is lowering. Sunanda Creagh: And Molly wants to know: how far off is a vaccine? Michael Wallach: So, we are working on vaccines in Australia. The group in Melbourne was the first to be able to isolate and grow the virus. And I’ve been in touch with them, in fact, this morning. We’re working collaboratively nationally as well as internationally, collaborating with people at Stanford Medical School who through Stanford, in collaborations we have with them, we have worldwide about 15 vaccine projects going, plus all sorts of industry companies are aiming to make vaccines. In fact, one company in Israel early on announced that they believe that they can get to a vaccine within a few weeks. The problem with the vaccine is you may produce it even quickly, but it’s testing it and making sure that it’s actually going to help. There’s a fear, with COVID-19, that if it is not formulated correctly, to make a long story short, it can actually exacerbate the disease. So everyone has to take it slowly and carefully so that we don’t actually cause more problems than we currently have. But I’m optimistic and believe that we’ll get there. The WHO declared it would take 18 months. I would like to present a more optimistic view, not based on anything that substantial, but I think we can do better than that. And it is a great learning curve for the next time this happens. Lisa Sedger: Can I make a comment on that, too? Recently, we’ve just seen Africa experience a very significant outbreak of Ebola virus, and there’s been an experimental vaccine that’s been administered that has largely controlled that outbreak. I think the people working in vaccines and the people who do the safety and efficacy studies, we’ve learnt a lot from how to administer vaccines, how to get the data we need to show safety more quickly than we might have in the past. So in the sense we’ve learnt, we’re learning lessons constantly from viral outbreaks. It might not be the same virus, might not be the same country, even the same continent. But we’re learning how to do these things more efficiently and more quickly. And always the issue is weighing up safety versus the ethics of the need to administer all get it, get the drug out there as quickly as possible. Sunanda Creagh: This reader asks: isn’t lining up at fever clinics for tests just going to spread it even more? Michael Wallach: So for sure, the way in which people are processed at clinics is crucial and the minimal distance you should keep from a person who’s infected is, according again to the WHO, is one metre. So the clinics have to ensure that spread is minimised, not only spread between people waiting in line, but to the health workers themselves. We’ve had real problems for health workers in China. Several died. And we face that problem here. One of the things we have to do is ensure that we protect our health workers because otherwise they’re not going to want to go in and actually see the patients. Unfortunately, masks alone do not work. We can’t rely on them. So it’s a problem. In Israel, for example, testing for COVID-19, takes place in one’s home. An ambulance pulls up and takes the swab and then takes it to the lab. That actually would be the ideal approach. True, the ambulance services in Israel now are swamped and having great difficulty in coping. But as much as we can keep people separated from each other when they’re infected, it’s crucial for the success of any campaign. Sunanda Creagh: And these questions from Jake. He wants to know for people like myself living in Victoria. How likely is it that we can catch the virus and is hand-washing really the only thing we can be doing to protect ourselves? Lisa Sedger: I think we now know that the virus is definitely in Australia. If you go to the New South Wales or Victorian Health government websites, you can see them update the statistics daily, even less than a day so that the truth is it’s here and it’s probably in more people than we realise because we haven’t tested as many people and we now realise some people are asymptomatic or don’t show classic flu like symptoms. So it’s here and you can’t say that you’re not going to get sick. Alright? That’s the first thing to say. The second thing is, though, we can minimise what we do. Okay. So we can wash our hands constantly. We can try not to touch our face, our eyes, our ears, our nose. We’ve learned, for example, even how do you dispose of a tissue when you sneeze or cough or, you know, sneeze into your elbow? So it’s just about common sense. This is what I think. It’s no different really than protecting yourself from any respiratory virus infection. So seasonal flu or even a pandemic flu. Sunanda Creagh: And how do you dispose of a tissue safely? Lisa Sedger: Well, I guess you fold it in and then you put - you don’t touch it, you don’t put it up your sleeve, OK? - you put it in the garbage bin and wash your hands afterwards. Sunanda Creagh: Michael would like to know: what can we learn from other countries that are handling this well? He says basically South Korea, as far as I can tell. Michael Wallach: So the country that handled this outbreak the best so far has been Taiwan. The Taiwanese have been amazing in the sense that after the pandemic commenced in China, many Taiwanese returned to Taiwan. And you would have expected they’d seed that island very strongly and it would be a major outbreak. They were ready before the pandemic commenced. And that was largely because they went through a SARS outbreak. Previously, they had in place all the testing, all the people. They have the best health system in the world. And they kept the numbers down to 45 cases during a period when in China it was going into the tens of thousands. And they should be commended on that. It’s quite amazing the way they did that. The issue now in Taiwan, which concerns them, is in the end, that’s a great start. But their population now is unexposed and susceptible. So how do you release them from this sort of quarantine situation? That is the next phase. And that’s what we’re looking to see how that works, because same in Wuhan. The minute you put everyone back out to work and in the street, will there be a second wave? Most virologists, I think, would expect there will be a major second wave, third wave and maybe continued into the future. So we have to continue with our preparedness and with the hope that the vaccine will come into effect sooner rather than later. And then bringing the quarantine approach, enabling that peak of viral infection to occur when the vaccine is available. That would be the goal. Lisa Sedger: If I could just add one point there. When you look at the number of cases on a per day basis in Wuhan, it was escalating very quickly. And then they brought in their very strict quarantine and self-isolation. But the cases continued to increase until a point where it started to look like it was under control and going down. And that was after two weeks. So quarantine only works until after the quarantine period, because only after that will you see the effect. So I would argue there’s two factors for why isolation worked in Wuhan: One was you limited the spread through the self-isolation and imposed quarantine, but at the same time, the number of people who are infected and asymptomatic were building their own immunity. The number of people who were infected and sick but who survived, one would imagine, have a robust immune response to that virus. So at the same time as limiting spread, you have also slowly built or actually quite quickly built a community with much higher levels of what we call herd immunity. So this second outbreak may come, but it may be considerably less significant. Michael Wallach: In fact, that the areas where there are the major outbreaks maybe have better herd immunity than places where you keep it down to nothing. So it works both ways. Sunanda Creagh: And Jane would like to know: when do we stop testing for this disease and basically just assume that everybody with the sniffles has it? Michael Wallach: So first of all, the major symptoms are not sniffles, they are fever and coughing and shortness of breath. It’s the sniffles, though, that causes it to be spreadable more easily. That’s a good question: what the health authorities will decide to do at various stages of this pandemic. We’re now at what I would consider the early seeding phase. The world is now seeded with virus and different countries were going through exponential phases like described in Wuhan at different times. And how do they handle that will be a crucial question. I’ve seen all the different approaches from US, Israel, Iran. I think that a mixture of very strategic quarantine with travel restrictions, with bringing in other types of… certainly health authorities will need to control the number of beds that are being occupied. For example, again, in Israel, they just went over their bed limits, so patients are starting to be treated at home. So at some point, I think depending on how the epidemic goes, if we can keep it under control, we can keep the testing going. We can keep control. If the exponential rise is too fast, we will lose control and the testing will become meaningless. So the hope is that things will be sorted and I think Australia has the opportunity to do really well and big decisions have to be made now. Lisa Sedger: There’s already a paper just this week published in The Lancet that profiles survivors versus those who have succumbed from the infection. And we’re starting to learn what some of those factors are. So as as clinicians can better predict who are likely to be the more seriously ill people, they can better predict who should go to hospital for treatment, and as Michael has said, who are better actually just treated at home. Sunanda Creagh: And Dr. Sedger, Kardia would like to know: how does this virus respond to cold or warm temperatures? Is it like the flu, which thrives in cold weather? Lisa Sedger: I have heard so many different things about this. I will be completely honest and say I’m not certain that we really know. What we know is when this high humidity viruses can exist for longer because they don’t dry out. So that envelope we talked about is less likely to be dried out. And once that’s dried out, the virus is less infective. It’s not actually infective at all if it’s disrupted that envelope. But whether it likes cold temperatures, high temperatures, we think it’s not a warm temperature virus. We think it’s more a cold temperature virus. China’s just been going through their winter. Maybe one of the reasons it’s been big in Italy is they’ve just had winter. We also think the coexistence of seasonal flu in Italy at the same time is probably one of the factors that’s made it more severe. So, yeah, look, different circumstances in different countries, different climates. It’s not just about climate, though. It’s about susceptibility of various populations. Therefore, it’s a hard question to answer (at the moment). Michael Wallach: Look, I would say in working in infectious diseases for many years, it’s a very difficult thing to predict. Remember with, it doesn’t matter which disease I was working on, everyone said it can’t transmit in dry climates. And it transmitted beautifully in the desert. And you think everything’s totally dry and it still transmits and vice versa. Lisa Sedger: Well, you’ve got MERS is another coronavirus, which is your Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome, and that’s in the desert climates. So that’s why I wanted to hedge my bets on my answer. Sunanda Creagh: And Professor Wallach, this reader wants to know: once you’ve recovered from coronavirus, can you just go back to your normal, non-isolating life? Michael Wallach: So the current understanding, according to colleagues also in the U.S., is if you go through one infection, you’re probably rendered immune against re-infection. There have been reports of cases of people getting re-infected. But the opinion that I heard so far is that it’s probably recurrence of the same infection that probably went down in terms of clinical symptoms. But the virus remained that just came back up. It happens with the flu all the time. The question is, what should be your behaviour after you go through a bout? I guess I would still be careful, which Lisa can maybe add to, it could be that the virus will continue to mutate. Although again, I fortunately heard this morning that they’re not that worried about this virus mutating at the rate that flu does. And we’re hopeful that we will develop herd immunity. People have gone through it then will be fairly safe unless, you have some immune disorder. And then it will become part of our environment just like flu is. Sunanda Creagh: And here’s a question from me. It seems like there’s two camps. There’s the people who genuinely really concerned, quite worried about the situation. We see that in the panic buying. And then there’s the other camp of people who are saying it’s all been blown up. It’s all hype. We don’t really need to worry about it. It’s too early to panic. And I just wondered, how do you reconcile those two views out there in the community? Michael Wallach: So early on in this outbreak, when I was interviewed also on the ABC and speaking to other groups, I took a very low panic view, maybe because I’ve been thinking about a pandemic for many years. And for me, it was always not a question of if, but when. I actually look at this, in a way, in a positive sense. We’re facing a pandemic that, yeah, as terrible as it is, is nothing in comparison to what could be if it’s a pandemic flu. For example, we experienced the Spanish flu in 1918, which killed somewhere between 20 to 50 million people. So the order of magnitude of mortality right now is extremely low compared to other potential pandemics. If you take China out of the equation, we’re at about 1500 people who died worldwide. That’s not to say we shouldn’t show great respect for the value of their lives. It’s mainly very elderly people with complicating illnesses and probably would have had the same effect if they were infected by flu. So my take on this whole thing is we all have to stay calm. We all have to accept the fact that this is part of nature. These viruses are out there all the time. We know them. I can detect now flu viruses in wildlife, birds that are coming into this country now, that can mutate and start affecting humans. So we have to be prepared. We have to face up to them, together in a collaborative way, in a scientific and professional way. And we could win. If we panic and react the way the market is, for example, of course, that’s that’s an improper way to react. Rather, this is part of being, of our biology. Viruses exist that can hurt us and they will always exist. Lisa Sedger: Yeah. Look, I think there are a few factors that we can really learn from. So one is to work out where these viruses come from. And a lot of these RNA viruses exist in bats. They seem to be transmitted into wild animals through bat droppings. And I think one of the lessons we, the world all over, might need to learn is how we deal with the marketing and selling of wild animals that are then used for foods. That may then prevent these viruses from getting into the human population. So I think there are lessons to be learned, number one. But Michael, I would disagree with you in one sense “that it is maybe not as bad as pandemic flu”, on the other hand: we do have vaccines for flu, we do have anti-virals. And we have a whole world that has various levels of immunity to flu and different strains of flu. Whereas this virus is entering into a naive (non)-immune population. And that’s what’s so significant to start with. It may be that as our immunity at a population level increases, as a disease this will become far less significant. But the first outbreak of it in a naive, (non)-immune, (and a) “naive population” will always have the highest level of morbidity and mortality. And that’s where we have learned from other diseases like Ebola. As I mentioned, what we already know about flu, how we already control flu and the development of new and novel antiviral agents will be just as effective and important, I believe, as will the development of vaccines. So I think there’s a lot to learn to prevent this or limit, I should say, to limit these the severity of the outbreak and maybe even prevent it from happening again. As I say, if we stop trapping wild animals and eating them, we might prevent the outbreak of some of these type of RNA viruses. Michael Wallach: So I certainly agree with that. And China is now putting into law a restriction on the sale of wildlife in their markets. What I’m trying to do, and I hope we both agree, is that in proportion to, for example, influenza, even seasonal flu that killed in one year I think up to 600,000 people worldwide, I’m just trying to put things into proportion. To prevent people from panicking. To understand that, yes, this is affecting the elderly. And anyone who is elderly, suffering from heart or respiratory conditions would certainly isolate themselves. So where my wife’s parents live, where they live in a retirement village, they made a decision to close off the entire village. Nobody’s allowed in, as a means of preventing - because they’re an elderly population - people bringing in COVID-19 and infecting that area. And I certainly agree with that sort of strategy. Sunanda Creagh: And John would like to know: are the death rates likely to be lower in a country like Australia with lower rates of smoking than places such as China, Iran and Indonesia? Lisa Sedger: Again, I think this is a little bit we have to watch and just wait and see. It’s very hard to predict these things. It was intriguing that some of the highest death rates in China appeared to be men as well as just the elderly. And that might be because there’s a high rate of long term smoking. So almost like an endemic lung pathology within that community that somehow exacerbated the disease. In Australia, we may find that there are different populations that are the most at risk. So we know, for example, the virus uses a receptor to get inside of cells that is a protein present on cardiac tissue. So people with known cardiac conditions may turn out to be at higher risk. And in a non-smoking type country, maybe people with existing heart conditions will turn out to be the most at risk. In America, we might find something quite different. What we might find is it’s more socio-economic. Maybe people without health insurance. Maybe people who are homeless and live on the streets will turn out to be the most affected because they have limited resources to be able to get treatment and they can’t afford treatment. So I think each country will be different. We mentioned earlier Italy has one of the highest fatality rates at the moment. That may be because they actually have a large number of people within their population that are over 65. So it might actually be not that surprising given that demographic. It might also be that they’ve had an outbreak of seasonal flu at the same time. We don’t know whether one type of virus limits the other. It’s quite possible you can get co-infections and that’s where people get the most sick. I think it’s going to pan out in different countries slightly differently. I think it’s a case of watch this space. Michael Wallach: The other thing, just on the rate of transmission. What they go according to is the people who show up to the clinic. And the results from a study done in China indicate that they may have only picked up 5% of the people that have COVID-19. So it’s about 20-fold more than actually recorded because it’s mild and very little symptoms. The other thing that’s becoming a little disconcerting for scientists is there may be two strains of the virus. And the initial outbreak, as I said, the mortality rate was very high. It could be the virus, in order to transmit, went through a mutation that aided its transmission. And I would hope that would probably occur in pandemic flu. Maybe a little less pathogenic than the original strain was. I was surprised to see at the beginning such high mortality and then how it dropped down. That’s the results also put online by the CDC. And we’re looking and following that. Lisa Sedger: Yes, viral evolution is a really key topic at the moment. We think RNA viruses and the rate that they mutate is much higher than DNA viruses. And it’s really a factor of how quickly the virus mutates and how quickly a person’s immune response is able to effectively control the virus replication. So the viruses that sometimes persist longer in a community are not necessarily the most virulent. So what we might also be seeing is a population, a group within the population who get a less severe disease, maybe even asymptomatic, but that may, long term, prove to be the bigger - how could I put this? - the bigger population of viruses that exist within that community. Sunanda Creagh: And Michael would like to know: if I could shrink myself down to microscopic size and watch a virus invade a cell, what would I see? Lisa Sedger: Well, a virus is not like a bacteria. A bacteria is a entity all of its own, and it can replicate and make another copy of itself and grow on a nutrient source. A virus, however, is sometimes called a non-living entity because outside of a human cell, it can’t replicate. It just exists as an entity. A virus is essentially just a piece of DNA, which is, you know, in the nucleus of every cell. It’s what our chromosomes are made of. So it’s either DNA or RNA surrounded by a protein coat and sometimes it’s also a lipid-based envelope outside of that, again. The virus will somehow encounter a cell. And for respiratory viruses, it’s largely by us inhaling water vapour droplets. They may contain hundreds of viruses. Those viruses then will attach or be exposed to our respiratory epithelium. If the virus can actually bind to the respiratory epithelium cell, then it might get inside. Once inside, it may or may not have the capacity to actually undergo replication, but it has to uncoat from that protein shell. Then the nucleic acid, the DNA or RNA has to make another copy of itself. Then all the genes that are in the virus have to get expressed as proteins. They then reassemble into a new viral particle and then the virus will get out of the cell. Sometimes it lyses (breaks) the cell, sometimes it will just buds out from the cell and leave the cell intact. And that’s what a virus is. That’s why we, some people call them living or non-living because they can only replicate in inside a cell, a host cell. Michael Wallach: And it’s not like viruses have a will. So if they want to do this, it’s just part of evolution. Lisa Sedger: Yes, I’m never a favour of the argument you sometimes see people say “it’s warfare, it’s the virus vs. immune system!” But there’s no will involved, it’s just capacity of life to replicate itself. Sunanda Creagh: And Deidre writes in to say, I heard on the radio today that half the population is likely to get this. And with, say, a 1% death rate, the body count will add up. And I wondered what you thought of that. Michael Wallach: So there was an announcement actually by Angela Merkel preparing Germany for 70% of the population being infected. Lisa may say the number is lower, I don’t know, until we build up herd immunity. The question of the mortality rate, as I alluded to before, I think based on what again, CDC and WHO are writing, is probably overestimated. Some estimate the mortality rate as being much lower. That’s not to say… every death is a family and has to be looked at and be concerned about. So again, I think and would like to hope that as we develop new vaccines, as we develop drugs, as we develop approaches to quarantine people, test them, keep them at home, isolate them, we’ll get the mortality rate under control. And I’m going to express an optimistic view. This world has amazing capabilities of doing amazing science. And if we apply it and work together, I think we can control this problem. Lisa Sedger: Yes, absolutely. I would endorse that. And I’d say that the mortality rates at the moment simply reflect who is being tested. And it’s primarily people who are turning up with symptoms. But we’re now beginning to appreciate that there is a large number of people who could be quite asymptomatic, who are never tested. This virus will certainly have infected many more people than will be tested. And if we did have surveillance of every single person being tested, then there’s two questions here: Are you testing for the presence of the virus? If they’ve had virtually no symptoms and not a big illness, you might not find the virus. But if we test for the presence of an immune response to the virus, we would truly know how many people have been infected. And then we could get a true estimate or at least a much closer estimate of what the mortality rate really is. So at the moment, there’s hyperbole. Sunanda Creagh: And Catherine asks, what is the likelihood of transmission through using a public swimming pool? Lisa Sedger: I would think quite small because a) the virus would be quite diluted in a swimming pool. Secondly, swimming pools are all treated with chlorine, for example, and chlorine is a very effective anti-viral agent. You’d have to drink a lot of swimming pool water to get the virus. Michael Wallach: I agree with that. Sunanda Creagh: Candy would like to know: there are conflicting symptoms lists circulating on Facebook. One says it starts with a dry cough and if your nose is running, it is not COVID-19, which I suspect is incorrect. Can we please have an accurate list? Michael Wallach: So, again, the major symptoms are, in fact, the cough and shortness of breath and fever. But, it’s not to say it’s not possible that you’ll have also upper respiratory effects. The virus goes into the lung and attaches to the alveolar cells or to the cells that make up our air sacs and that help our breathing. And it has to get there to really cause this disease. So if there’s upper respiratory involvement, which includes sneezing and runny nose, et cetera, it’s probably not the main effect of the virus. Again, I would say if you see that somebody is sneezing and wheezing and and that’s it, it’s probably an allergy, but it does frighten people. I was on the train this morning, and I know if I, God forbid, sneezed the whole train would empty out pretty quickly. Lisa Sedger: You know, we’re just coming into winter. And actually, it’s a really good question because at the moment, what’s building is a sense of fear. But we must keep in perspective that there will also still be the normal seasonal cases of flu. So just because somebody sneezes or has a sore throat does not mean that they’ve got COVID-19. And we need to make sure, I think it’s really important that we don’t stigmatise people who have symptoms because it may not even be COVID. And we’re all at risk from any respiratory tract infections and already have been for years. That’s not a new thing. We just need to keep things in perspective. Sunanda Creagh: A question from Karen: can you catch it twice? Lisa Sedger: Normally, I would have said no, because we imagine that there’s a good immune response that will then provide you protection from re-infection. That’s what our immune system does. But this is a new virus. We don’t yet fully understand how our immune system clears it. We don’t know whether virus can remain for a longer period of time. I would would say, though, that there are only a few cases of people who have been treated, appear to have recovered, they’ve gone home, they’ve then had another relapse. There’s only a very few number of cases that have been like that. So for all intents and purposes, I don’t think that’s something we should fear and it’s not something we’ve seen with the previous SARS outbreak in 2003. Sunanda Creagh: And Tim would like to know: how will quarantine work in a family? Lisa Sedger: Yeah, it’s interesting, isn’t it? We think of quarantine as being away from work or away from public places. But really, if you have been infected, then the people in your family are as at risk as your work colleagues would be at work. Again, I think it’s about just common sense. Don’t share food utensils, wash your hands, don’t keep touching your face and your mouth and your nose. Get rid of tissues in a nice sort of clean manner. It’s about minimising transmission. Michael Wallach: Let me just add to that, that all the data indicates that children likely will only get very mild symptoms, if at all. So if you’re a family member and you’re worried about your children, this is one time that you can be happy about this. All the results so far indicate that children aged zero to nine, there’s not been a single death. Lisa Sedger: Whereas what we do know is the elderly appear to be more susceptible to a more severe disease. So that’s where if I’m sick, it’s better not to go and visit my grandparents or something like that. That’s where quarantine within the family works in a practical sense. Sunanda Creagh: And just to finish up, is there anything else that you’d like to add? Lisa Sedger: Yeah, I think I’d just want to finish with a really positive note. I mean, we live in an amazing era of medical research and science. Within within a very, very short period of time, parts of the virus had been sequenced. We now track the virus in its entire sequence. We know, we have clinical trials for the drugs. We have people working on vaccines. We have epidemiologists better understanding the disease susceptibility within a population. I mean, we learn a lot from other existing outbreaks of infectious diseases. And I remain positive that, you know, the medical and scientific community working together will be able to solve this. I’m quite confident that there’s a really strong response. That’s not to diminish that people have died and it’s been tragic. But we live in an era where we’re exposed to infectious agents and we are getting better and better at controlling most of those infections. Michael Wallach: So I’ll just add and put in a plug for a program I’m very much involved with called Spark working with people at Stanford. We established a program for exactly this time, when there’s sudden outbreaks. And the program now involves 23 countries and around 70 institutions, all working together for outbreaks of Zika, Ebola and now coronavirus. It gives me great hope that, apart from what you said, we’re now working together collaboratively like never before. We’re putting our egos outside and we’re saying we have social responsibility to do better. Certainly, in the case of a pandemic. And we’re doing it. And we’re very proud to be able to say we have 15 projects going on now collaboratively that we just formed over the past two weeks, together with our colleagues all over the world. I also believe in a very bright future. Production credits Recording by postgraduate.futures at the University of Technology Sydney. Audio editing by Sunanda Creagh. Theme beats by Unkle Ho from Elefant Traks. Read more: Coronavirus is stressful. Here are some ways to cope with the anxiety

When we are imagining this time, next year, are we limiting our thinking to how we avoid the conditions we faced in this summer? Or are there bigger questions we can ask? ShutterstockEditor’s note: Today, on Trust Me, I’m An Expert, we hear from Clare Cooper, design lecturer at the University of Sydney, on how futuring techniques can help us think collectively about life under a drastically hotter climate. Her accompanying essay is below. Australians, no matter where we are, are coming to acknowledge that our summers – and our autumns, winters and springs – are forever changed. We are, bit by bit, reviewing our assumptions. Whether we need to radically rethink our calendars, or question where and how we rebuild homes and towns, we face a choice: collective, creative adaptation or increased devastation. How might this time next year feel - anxious, hot and sticky? How might it smell - like bushfire smoke? How might it taste - would seafood and berries still be on the menu in future summers as our climate changes? (One of my favourite placards at a recent climate rally was “shit climate = shit wine”). When we think about this time next year, are we freaking out, or are we futuring? How might the Australian summer of the future look, taste, smell? Shutterstock Read more: Why we should make time for remembering the future Collaborative futuring in a climate crisis “Futuring” is sometimes called futures studies, futurology, scenario design or foresight thinking. It has been used in the business world for decades. Futuring means thinking systematically about the future, drawing on scientific data, analysing trends, imagining scenarios (both plausible and unlikely) and thinking creatively. A crucial part of the process is thinking hard about the kind of future we might want to avoid and the steps needed to work toward a certain desired future. But futurists aren’t magical people who sweep in and solve problems for you. They facilitate discussions and collaboration but the answers ultimately come from communities themselves. Artists and writers have been creatively imagining the future for millennia. Futuring is a crucial part of design and culture-building. My research looks at how futuring can help communities work toward a just and fair transition to a drastically warmer world and greater weather extremes. Collaborative futuring invites audiences to respond to probable, possible, plausible and preposterous future scenarios as the climate crisis sets in. This process can reveal assumptions, biases and possible courses of action. Cars lie damaged after a surprise hailstorm hit Canberra in January. Extreme weather events are predicted to worsen as the climate changes. AAP Image/Mick Tsikas Read more: How we forecast future technologies Getting creative Futuring is not predicting futures. It’s a way of mixing informed projections with imaginative critical design to invite us to think differently about our current predicaments. That can help us step back from the moment of panic and instead proactively design steps to change things for the better – not 20 years from now, but from today. If you peeked into a futuring workshop with adults, you might see a lot of lively conversations and a bunch of post-it notes. For kids, you might see them making collages, or creating cardboard prototypes of emerging technology. You might have done some futuring today, talking with friends and family about changes you might make as it becomes obvious our summers will grow only hotter. I’ve seen futuring occur at my daughter’s school, where children are invited to imagine being on the other side of a difficult problem, and then work out the steps needed to get there. 13-year-old protester Izzy Raj-Seppings poses for a photograph outside of Kirribilli House in Sydney late last year. AAP Image/Steven Saphore Read more: 'This situation brings me to despair': two reef scientists share their climate grief Futuring a just transition to a warmer world When we are imagining this time next year, are we limiting our (mostly city-dwelling) thinking to how we avoid the conditions we faced in this summer? For example, are we thinking about staying away from bushfire-prone areas, or buying air purifiers and face masks? For those who can afford it, are we thinking about booking extended overseas holidays? Or are we challenging each other to think beyond such avoidance strategies: to imagine a post-Murdoch press and a post-fossil fuel lobby future? Can we imagine ways to respond to extreme weather beyond individual prepping? Including a diverse range of voices, especially Indigenous community members, is crucial to a just transition to a warmer world. We can’t allow a changed climate to mean comfortable adaptation for a wealthy elite while everyone else suffers. Many of us have joined climate protests in recent months and years. But more work needs to be done and bigger questions asked. What steps are needed to meet demands for public ownership of a renewable energy system: more support for those battling and displaced by bushfires? How do we work toward First Nations justice, including funding for Indigenous-led land management, jobs on Country, and land and water rights? It is not enough to pin an image of our future to a wall and pray we get there. Short term fixes in the form of drought or emergency relief won’t address the fact that extreme weather events are not going away. Responsible, useful futuring mixes equal parts of imagination and informed projections. It’s not wild speculation. Futuring practitioners draw on scientific and social data, and weave it with the stories, concerns and desires of those present to find new ways into a problem. Short term fixes in the form of drought or emergency relief won’t address the fact that extreme weather events are not going away. Shutterstock Read more: What would a fair energy transition look like? Speaking of catastrophe to avoid it Former Labor prime minister Paul Keating last year criticised the Morrison government for what he saw as a lack of vision: If you look, there is no panorama. There’s no vista. There’s no shape. There’s no talk about where Australia fits in the world. Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s performance during the unfolding bushfire horrors – widely perceived as lacklustre – suggests growing thirst for bolder vision on dealing with “the new normal.” In their book Design and the Question of History, design scholars Tony Fry, Clive Dilnot and Susan Stewart argue that we should speak of catastrophe “in order to avoid it”. Polish-born sociologist Zygmunt Bauman wrote prophesying the advent of that catastrophe as passionately and vociferously as we can manage is the sole chance of making the unavoidable avoidable — and perhaps even the inevitable impossible to happen. We owe it to those worst affected by the climate crisis – and to ourselves – to dedicate time to collaborative futuring as we rethink life in an increasingly hostile climate. The next time you’re having a chat about this time, next year, are you collectively fretting or collaboratively futuring? New to podcasts? Everything you need to know about how to listen to a podcast is here. Additional audio credits Kindergarten by Unkle Ho, from Elefant Traks. Not Much by Podington Bear, from Free Music Archive Above Us by David Szesztay, from Free Music Archive Pshaw by Podington Bear, from Free Music Archive Podcast episode recorded and edited by Sunanda Creagh. Lead image Shutterstock Clare M. Cooper has an ongoing residential subsidy from Inner West Council for Frontyard Projects, a community research space. She is a member of the NTEU and Workers for Climate Action.

Have you been told by your doctor to consider dropping a few kilos? The good news is that often even a small amount of weight loss can improve your health outlook. shutterstockEverywhere you turn these days, there’s a diet ad, or family member or friend raving about some new diet that apparently works wonders. But what does the research actually say about how to lose weight - and if you even need to lose it in the first place? To find out, The Conversation’s Alexandra Hansen interviewed Clare Collins, a professor in nutrition and dietetics at the University of Newcastle. Professor Collins, who recently wrote an article titled The science behind diet trends like mono, charcoal detox, Noom and Fast800, also designed a free online course called The science of weight loss – dispelling diet myths. Alexandra began by asking Clare Collins how a person would know if they needed to change their diet. Read more: The science behind diet trends like mono, charcoal detox, Noom and Fast800 New to podcasts? Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click here to listen to Trust Me, I’m An Expert on Pocket Casts). You can also hear us on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Trust Me, I’m An Expert. Read more: Health Check: what's the best diet for weight loss? Additional reading: The Australian Guide to Healthy Eating Credits: Recording and editing by Wes Mountain and Chynthia Wijaya, additional editing by Sunanda Creagh. Additional audio Kindergarten by Unkle Ho, from Elefant Traks. CNN report. BBC report. Images Shutterstock

Are southern-born politicians talking about a state they essentially don't understand? ShutterstockThe dust has well and truly settled on Scott Morrison’s surprise victory in this year’s federal election but opinion is still divided on exactly what happened in Queensland. Why did Labor perform so poorly in the Sunshine State? Is Queensland an inherently conservative part of Australia? During the campaign, were southern-born politicians talking about a state they essentially didn’t understand? And – #Quexit jokes aside – is it time to redraw state lines in Australia, or even add new states? Today on Trust Me, I’m An Expert, we bring you a discussion organised by The Conversation, recorded at Avid Reader bookshop in Brisbane and broadcast by Big Ideas on the ABC’s RN. In this chat, political scientist Anne Tiernan from Griffith University speaks with the University of Southern Queensland’s John Cole, who has research expertise in the history of Australian federation, regional development and regional communities. Host Paul Barclay began by asking them to name the biggest misconceptions floating around about Queensland. New to podcasts? Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click here to listen to Trust Me, I’m An Expert on Pocket Casts). You can also hear us on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Trust Me, I’m An Expert. Credits: Recording and editing by RN’s Big Ideas, additional editing by Sunanda Creagh. Additional audio Kindergarten by Unkle Ho, from Elefant Traks. CNN report. BBC report. Images Shutterstock

Protesters holding umbrellas amid heavy rain march in an anti-government rally in Wan Chai, Hong Kong. AAP/EPA/VIVEK PRAKASHLast weekend, hundreds of thousands of people again took to the streets in Hong Kong to protest against the government – the 11th straight weekend of demonstrations that began in June over a proposed extradition bill. But after more than two months of increasingly violent clashes between demonstrators and the police, this protest was peaceful. No tear gas was fired. China expert Graeme Smith, one of the hosts of The Little Red Podcast, devoted this week’s episode to the Hong Kong protest movement, with his co-host, Louisa Lim, on the ground in Hong Kong talking to people about their perseverance in the face of a potentially severe military crackdown from Beijing. In this episode of Trust Me, Smith discusses where the protests go from here, whether there’s any chance for dialogue between the two sides, and the impact of the increasingly nationalist vitriol aimed at protesters on social media – and on the streets of Hong Kong. Read more: Beijing is moving to stamp out the Hong Kong protests – but it may have already lost the city for good Smith believes the protests aren’t going to stop until Chief Executive Carrie Lam definitively withdraws the contentious extradition bill and launches an inquiry into police violence against the protesters. And this is unlikely so long as Lam – and her backers in Beijing – continue to stand firm in their positions and refuse to negotiate. So, no one knows how this might end, Smith says. A lot of the protesters, especially those in their 20s, feel they basically have nothing to lose and they’re going to dig in for the long haul. New to podcasts? Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click here to listen to Trust Me, I’m An Expert on Pocket Casts). You can also hear us on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Trust Me, I’m An Expert. Credits: Recording and editing by Graeme Smith, Justin Bergman and Sunanda Creagh. Additional audio Kindergarten by Unkle Ho, from Elefant Traks. CNN report BBC report The Little Red Podcast Images AAP/EPA/VIVEK PRAKASH

Should academics present their work to the public? What are the differences between independent and traditional forms of media? In this episode we talk with Sunanda Creagh, journalist and Digital Storytelling Editor at 'The Conversation'. Sunny tells us about her journey from zines to The Sydney Morning Herald and her many roles as an editor and fact checker at The Conversation. We discuss the benefits of writing for a public audience, and how media is changing in a world that is becoming increasingly 'online'. Trust Me I'm an Expert Podcast - https://theconversation.com/au/podcasts/trust-me-podcast The Conversation - https://theconversation.com/au ITunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/blab-coats/id1243851473?mt=2 Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/hamid-sediqi/blabcoats Website: www.BLabCoats.com Facebook: www.facebook.com/BLabCoats/ Twitter: www.twitter.com/blabcoats

Today, experts reveal the tips and tricks spin doctors use to shape the political messages you’re hearing every day - especially during election campaigns. AAP Image/Mick TsikasIt’s February, the holidays seem like a distant memory and here we are barrelling toward a federal election, which the government has indicated will be in May. Remember in the olden days – as in, a few elections ago – we used to have a fairly set election campaign period of usually about six weeks? Now, of course, politicians seem to always be in campaign mode. They’re not doing that all by themselves, of course. There’s a small army of spin doctors, social media strategists, political campaign advisers and press secretaries behind the scenes, finessing every utterance so it fits with the overall campaign strategy. And that’s what we are talking about on the podcast today – the art of political spin. Read more: It's reputation that matters when spin doctors go back to the newsroom We’ll hear from Caroline Fisher, political communication and journalism researcher from the University of Canberra. She began her career as a journalist with the ABC, but went on to work as a media adviser for Labor’s Anna Bligh, a former Queensland premier. Today, she’s talking to Michelle Grattan, political journalist and Professorial Fellow at the University of Canberra about the tips and tricks spin doctors use to shape the political messages you’re hearing every day. And you can read Caroline Fisher’s article on the spin tactics over here. Read more: The vomit principle, the dead bat, the freeze: how political spin doctors' tactics aim to shape the news All year round and especially during election season, you’re going to hear a lot of competing claims about the state of the economy. Has school funding been cut or is it at a record high? Do tax cuts make the economy better or worse? Why are the government and the opposition saying seemingly contradictory things about debt and deficits? To find out, Lucinda Beaman – who was our FactCheck editor but has just moved to the ABC – spoke to Fabrizio Carmignagni, a professor of economics at the Griffith Business School, Griffith University. He’s authored many FactCheck articles for The Conversation, where he tests statements by key public figures against the evidence and his special super power is pulling back the curtain to reveal why certain claims you hear about the economy don’t stand up to scrutiny. Today, Professor Carmignani reveals why you should be suspicious when you hear a politician claim their government has created jobs, how to spot a bit of causation vs correlation spin doctoring, and other political porkies that make economists’ skin crawl. Read more: FactCheck: have the Trump tax cuts led to lower unemployment and higher wages? Trust Me, I’m An Expert is a podcast where we ask academics to surprise, delight and inform us with their research. You can download previous episodes here. And please, do check out other podcasts from The Conversation - you can find them all over here. The segments in today’s podcast were recorded and edited by Sunanda Creagh, with additional recording and editing by Dilpreet Kaur and Eliza Berlage. Read more: Pencils ready: it's time for Politics 2019 Bingo! New to podcasts? Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click here to listen to Trust Me, I’m An Expert on Pocket Casts). You can also hear us on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Trust Me, I’m An Expert. Additional audio Kindergarten by Unkle Ho, from Elefant Traks Minister for Finance Mathias Cormann, RN Breakfast Channel 9 news report. Bill Shorten’s 2018 Budget reply speech. Sky News report. Today Show segment. ABC news report. Labor Facebook video. Nick Xenophon SA Best ad. The Greens ad. Podington Bear, Pshaw, from Free Music Archive. Bloomberg news report. Image: AAP Image/Mick Tsikas

Ready for all the research-backed tips and tricks for setting a goal and meeting it? www.shutterstock.com, CC BYIt’s that time of year when we all start to make promises to ourselves about how this year it’ll be different. This is the year I’ll get my health in order, exercise more, save money, cut that bad habit, do more of this, less of that, and just be better. But the fact is, change is hard. Most of us need help. So, we found some. Today, experts who have researched this terrain will be sharing with us insights into how to make a change – big or small – using evidence from the world of academic research. Read more: Trust Me, I'm An Expert: the science of sleep and the economics of sleeplessness We’ll hear from Amanda Salis, a professor of obesity research at the University of Sydney’s Boden Institute of Obesity, Nutrition, Exercise and Eating Disorders in the Charles Perkins Centre. She explains exactly is happening inside your body when you get that feeling you’ve eaten too much this silly season, that it’s time to step away from the festive feasts, put down the bubbly beverages and do a bit of exercise: CC BY1.25 MB (download) If you’re interested in participating in one of Amanda Salis’ weight loss trials, please contact her. Also on the podcast episode Lisa Williams, a social psychologist from UNSW, shares with us all the research-backed tips and tricks for setting a goal and meeting it: Read more: Trust Me, I'm An Expert: Competition We’ll also hear from Amy, our case study, on how she stuck to her goals and made some big changes in her life: Trust Me, I’m An Expert is a podcast where we ask academics to surprise, delight and inform us with their research. You can download previous episodes here. And please, do check out other podcasts from The Conversation – including The Conversation US’ Heat and Light, about 1968 in the US, and The Anthill from The Conversation UK, as well as Media Files, a podcast all about the media. You can find all our podcasts over here. The segments in today’s podcast were recorded and edited by Sunanda Creagh, with additional editing by Dilpreet Kaur Taggar. New to podcasts? Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click here to listen to Trust Me, I’m An Expert on Pocket Casts). You can also hear us on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Trust Me, I’m An Expert. Additional audio and credits Kindergarten by Unkle Ho, from Elefant Traks Refraction by Podington Bear, Free Music Archive Gruyere by Podington Bear, Free Music Archive

You know you're not supposed to do this -- but you do. ShutterstockHow did you sleep last night? If you had anything other than eight interrupted hours of peaceful, restful sleep then guess what? It’s not that bad – it’s actually pretty normal. We recently asked five sleep researchers if everyone needs eight hours of sleep a night and they all said no, you don’t. Read more: Does everyone need eight hours of sleep? We asked five experts In fact, only about one quarter of us report getting eight or more hours of sleep. That’s according to the huge annual Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey which now tracks more than 17,500 people in 9500 households. We’ll hear today from Roger Wilkins, who runs the HILDA survey at University of Melbourne, on what exactly the survey found about how much and how well Australians sleep. But first, you’ll hear from sleep expert Melinda Jackson, Senior Research Fellow in the School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, about what the evidence shows about how we used to sleep in pre-industrial times, and what promising research is on the horizon. Here’s a taste: Listen. Trust Me, I’m An Expert is a podcast where we ask academics to surprise, delight and inform us with their research. You can download previous episodes here. And please, do check out other podcasts from The Conversation – including The Conversation US’ Heat and Light, about 1968 in the US, and The Anthill from The Conversation UK, as well as Media Files, a podcast all about the media. You can find all our podcasts over here. The two segments in today’s podcast were recorded and edited by Dilpreet Kaur Taggar. Additional editing by Sunanda Creagh. Read more: I can't sleep. What drugs can I (safely) take? Additional audio and credits Kindergarten by Unkle Ho, from Elefant Traks Morning Two by David Szesztay, Free Music Archive.

Detail from Little Big Woman: Condescension, Debra Keenahan, 2017. Designed and made by Debra Keenahan, Photograph by Robert Brindley., Author provided (No reuse), Author providedFor centuries, women with dwarfism were depicted in art as comic or grotesque fairytale beings. But artists are challenging these portrayals and notions of beauty and physical difference. Essays On Air, a podcast from The Conversation, brings you the best and most beautiful writing from Australian researchers. Today, Western Sydney University researcher Debra Keenahan is reading her essay, titled The female dwarf, disability, and beauty. Find us and subscribe in Apple Podcasts, in Pocket Casts or wherever you get your podcasts. Additional audio Snow by David Szesztay Oboe Sonata in C minor “Farewell” by Dee Yan Key Game of Thrones quote from HBO (used under fair dealing) Sound effects from Orange Free Sounds and Free Sound Today’s episode was recorded by Sunanda Creagh and edited by Jerwin De Guzman.

Our first episode is from Paul Salmond, an expert on the Classics and Ancient History at La Trobe University, reading his essay 'Journeys to the underworld – Greek myth, film and American anxiety'. Wes Mountain CC-BY-ND, CC BYThe Conversation is launching a new podcast, Essays On Air. It’s the audio version of our Friday essays, where we bring you the best and most beautiful writing from Australian researchers. In each 10 to 15 minute episode, we’ll read aloud fascinating, meticulously researched essays penned by academics who are experts in their fields. These authors bring real knowledge, depth and love to the topics they unpack – and they write beautifully. Our first episode is from Paul Salmond, Honorary Associate in Classics and Ancient History at La Trobe University, reading his essay Journeys to the underworld – Greek myth, film and American anxiety. We’ll also be hearing a moving and deeply personal essay from Michael Adams, Associate Professor of Human Geography at the University of Wollongong, on the cultural meanings of horses. Join us as we read to you here at Essays On Air, a new podcast from The Conversation. Find us and subscribe in Apple Podcasts, in Pocket Casts or wherever you get your podcasts. Additional music Theme music: Snow by David Szesztay, Free Music Archive Ambient Acoustic guitar by Stranger Eight, Freesound.org Additional audio McCarthyism in America (Youtube video) Cosmician - Meadow, fly, horse, crickets Paul Salmond’s audio track and Sunanda Creagh’s reading of Michael Adams’ essay on horses were both edited by Sarah Matthews.

Women in Media NSW is pleased to announce that the third Women in Media networking event on July 30, featuring a panel of successful and thought-provoking journalists speaking on The Confidence Trick, was a huge success. The panelists included Chris Bath (anchor, Channel 7), Sunanda Creagh (news editor, The Conversation), Kate Torney (director of news, ABC) and convenor Catherine Fox (journalist, author and former AFR columnist), as well as special guest Angela Priestley, founding editor of Women’s Agenda and author of Women Who Seize the Moment. The panel discussion focused on the long-held belief that women are less confident in professional settings and the so-called “confidence gap” between women and men.