We’re in the midst of a bad cold and flu season in Australia. Along with the usual viral suspects, such as influenza, RSV, and rhinoviruses (which cause the common cold), bacterial pathogens are also causing significant rates of illness, particularly in children. These include Bordatella pertussis (whooping cough) and Mycoplasma pneumoniae.

Meanwhile, SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID) is responsible for recurring waves of infection as it continues to evolve and mutate into new variants which keep it a step ahead of our immunity.

The latest variant is nicknamed “FLuQE”, and is reportedly gaining traction in Australia and other countries. So what is there to know about FLuQE?

From FLiRT to FLuQE

In recent months, you may have heard of the “FLiRT” subvariants. These are decedents of the Omicron variant JN.1, including KP.1.1, KP.2 and JN.1.7.

KP.2, in particular, significantly contributed to COVID infections in Australia and elsewhere around May.

The name FLiRT refers to the amino acid substitutions in the spike protein (F456L, V1104L and R346T). Amino acids are the molecular building blocks of proteins, and the spike protein is the protein on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 which allows it to attach to our cells. These changes in the spike protein arise from mutation – random changes in the genetic code of the virus.

SARS-CoV-2’s goal is to select mutations that produce a spike protein that binds strongly to our cells’ receptors to support efficient infection (sometimes called viral fitness) while avoiding neutralising antibodies in our immune system (immune pressure).

The FLiRT mutations seem to reduce the ability of neutralising antibodies to bind to the spike protein, potentially enabling the virus to better evade our immunity. But at the same time, it appears the immune pressure which has selected for these mutations may have affected the ability of the virus to bind to our cells.

These findings are yet to be peer-reviewed (independently verified by other researchers). However, they suggest the FLiRT variants may have traded in some ability to infect our cells for a spike protein that’s more resistant to our immune system.

According to experts in Australia and internationally, what appears to have occurred with FLuQE is an additional mutation has restored fitness that may have been lost with the FLiRT mutations.

FLuQE (KP.3) is a direct descendant of FLiRT, meaning it has inherited the same mutations as the FLiRT variants. But it has an additional amino acid change in the spike protein, Q493E (giving FLuQE its name).

This means the amino acid glutamine at position 493 has changed to glutamic acid (the spike protein is 1,273 amino acids long). Glutamine is a neutral amino acid, whereas glutamic acid has a negative charge, which changes the properties of the spike protein. This could improve the ability of the virus to infect our cells.

It’s still early days for FLuQE and we don’t have peer-reviewed research on this yet. But it appears we now have (another) immune evasive virus that is also well adapted to infecting our cells. It’s no surprise, then, that FLuQE seems to be becoming dominant in many countries.

What next?

We would expect with widespread transmission of and infection with FLiRT and FLuQE variants, population immunity to these variants will mature, and in time, their dominance will be supplanted by the next immune-evasive variant.

The tug of war between our immune system and SARS-CoV-2 evolution continues. The issue we are dealing with now is vaccines don’t sufficiently protect from infection or suppress virus transmission. While they’re very good at protecting against severe disease, the virus still infects lots of people.

As well as the burden on people and health care, lots of infections means more opportunities for the virus to evolve. The more “rolls of the dice” the virus has to find a mutation that helps it evade our immune system and infect our cells, the more likely it is to do so.

Next-generation vaccines and therapies really need to boost immunity in the upper respiratory tract (nose and throat) to reduce infection and transmission. This is where infection initiates. A human challenge study, where volunteers are experimentally exposed to SARS-CoV-2, showed people who didn’t become infected had a robust anti-viral immune response in their upper respiratory tract.

To this end, there are immune-stimulating nasal sprays and nasal vaccines in clinical development. The hope is this approach will slow down the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 and the emergence of new subvariants that continue to drive waves of infection and disease.

Fortunately, so far these mutations have not generated a virus that is obviously more pathogenic (causes worse disease), but there are no guarantees this won’t happen in the future.

Nathan Bartlett, Professor, School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, University of Newcastle

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

As a mother, I know the dread of hearing a gastro bug is going around the daycare, school or netball team. Diarrhoea and vomiting can stun a healthy child for days and wreak havoc on a family for weeks.

As a paediatrician, with extensive research experience in acute gastroenteritis (gastro), I also understand the effects on the community, our hospitals and our most vulnerable patients.

In the past year, Australia has experienced a surge in gastro cases due to a bug called cryptosporidium, which particularly affects children.

Cryptosporidium is not the only cause of gastro, but its spread provides a timely reminder to think about what we can do to manage and prevent this nasty illness.

Symptoms and causes

Gastro is characterised by the rapid onset of diarrhoea, or vomiting, or both, which lasts fewer than 14 days. These symptoms may be accompanied by tummy pain, nausea, appetite loss and fever.

Hundreds of strains of different pathogens may infect the gut to cause gastro. Worldwide, viral pathogens (such as rotavirus or norovirus) are the most common cause, but bacterial pathogens (such as Salmonella or E. coli) and parasites (such as Giardia and cryptosporidium) also cause gastro. Traveller’s diarrhoea may involve pathogens rarely seen in Australia, such as typhoid and cholera.

Gastro is usually transmitted from person to person, including through contact with saliva, vomit or faeces. It may also be acquired by ingesting contaminated water or food (food poisoning), swimming in contaminated water (in pools, dams, estuaries or water parks), or contact with farm animals.

What about cryptosporidium?

Cryptosporidium is a relatively common cause of gastro, called cryptosporidiosis. It especially affects young children, but the elderly and people with suppressed immune systems are also vulnerable.

Cryptosporidium is spread by spores called oocysts excreted in the faeces of humans and animals.

People often become infected through ingestion of contaminated water or contact with contaminated water, including in swimming pools.

When the parasite escapes the gut, it may survive in pool or spa water, even if it’s chlorinated, for days. So outbreaks often occur in spring or summer months when children are more likely to be swimming.

We saw this over the summer in Australia, when outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis led to pool closures and general alerts in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland.

The infection can also be spread from person to person.

Cryptosporidium causes symptoms typical of gastro, notably watery diarrhoea and tummy pain. Fever and vomiting are less common. Symptoms usually begin a few days after infection but may come and go over a few weeks.

Children may be infectious for two weeks. People with poor immune function may carry and shed cryptosporidium (and therefore infect others) for longer.

An upward trend

Data from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System confirms an upward trend in cryptosporidiosis cases across Australia this year. Some 11,860 cases have been recorded so far in 2024, compared with 3,716 during all of 2023.

From February to May, cases were more than ten times higher than the five-year average for that period. Cases have been particularly high in Queensland.

We don’t know the reason for this cryptosporidiosis epidemic, but it may be related to changing weather patterns and extreme weather events, perhaps reflecting climate change.

Rates may be higher in Queensland because more kids swim year-round in a warmer climate.

What to do if your child is sick

The mainstay of managing gastro at home, including cryptosporidiosis, is to prevent and treat dehydration. This can best be achieved by offering frequent drinks of a commercial oral rehydration solution which is formulated to promote absorption of water and electrolytes by the gut and replace fluids lost through diarrhoea and vomiting.

If your child’s symptoms are severe or ongoing and you’re worried, contact a doctor, as it’s possible they may need hospital treatment.

Keep any child with diarrhoea or vomiting away from other children or vulnerable adults and home from daycare, pre-school or school until 24 hours after their symptoms have resolved. Parents, child-care workers and teachers are also at risk of infection and should isolate if symptomatic.

If your child has had cryptosporidiosis, they should not swim in a public pool for at least two weeks after the diarrhoea has stopped. Likewise, don’t share towels, linen or utensils with them during this period.

Simple measures can go a long way

To prevent gastro generally, the approach is similar regardless of the pathogen. Some worthwhile precautions include:

• don’t drink untreated water from tanks, bores or wells

• don’t eat or drink unpasteurised milk or dairy products

• wash all fruit and vegetables before eating raw

• wash your hands with soap for at least 20 seconds, particularly after changing nappies, using the bathroom, gardening, before preparing food or drinks, or after contact with animals

• follow local advice and avoid swimming at beaches and in other waterways after heavy rain or flooding, as run-off and sewage overflow may result in contamination.

• make sure your child is vaccinated against rotavirus.

Gastro is a global problem

Despite advances in diagnosis (improved identification of gut pathogens), prevention (notably rotavirus vaccination), and treatment (particularly use of oral rehydration therapy), gastro remains a major cause of illness and death in young children, particularly in developing countries.

According to the World Health Organization, each year there are nearly 1.7 billion cases of diarrhoeal disease in children globally.

It’s worth taking extra care when travelling, especially to low- and middle-income countries where food and water may be less safe. Take advice from your doctor regarding appropriate vaccination for specific destinations, such as for cholera or typhoid.

Elizabeth Jane Elliott, Professor of Paediatrics and Child Health, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Following the release of a review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) late last year, reform is on the cards for the scheme in 2024.

The first step, the proposed NDIS Amendment Bill, has, however, generated political controversy and significant concerns in the disability community.

The bill had been moving forward to a final vote, but the Opposition demanded more time to study the bill. It now faces a second senate inquiry.

So why has the bill generated concern? And what issues will the new inquiry examine?

From concept to detail

In December last year the NDIS review proposed key reforms to ensure the sustainability of the scheme and improve outcomes for people with disability.

It recommended NDIS plans should shift from arguing line by line over each requested support to an overall funding amount for each participant. That global budget would be based on a standardised assessment of defined categories of needs.

This would replace the current subjective rules centred on contestable ideas of what’s reasonable. Too often the operation of these has been marred by gruelling and complex bureaucracy for people claiming support.

The review also called for state and federal governments to cooperate in improving support across the lifecycle of disability. There would be greater focus on early intervention rather than letting people languish until they meet the NDIS entry criteria, for example.

In March, the federal government introduced a bill to implement a limited number of the review’s recommendations (the NDIS Amendment Bill). I would argue three dynamics in the bill have clouded the original vision of the NDIS review.

1. An uncertain ‘method’

The bill replaces the existing test for funding with an as yet unwritten “method” for calculating budgets for individual participants. This would occur after a transition period of up to five years.

The method will be created by rules which, unlike the current approach, can be passed without the consent of the states and territories. This provoked an outcry from state premiers. NDIS participants, meanwhile, have been left wondering if the co-operation needed for effective reform will eventuate. If not, this could lead to people going without the supports they need in areas like health and education.

Other elements of the bill also risked narrowing the supports available. For example, the original definition of NDIS support did not fully reflect Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. That definition was removed from the bill after the Disability Discrimination Commissioner warned it risked the NDIS not being “holistically responsive” to individuals’ needs.

Further, the bill proposed using an unclear 2015 policy document – a series of bulletpoint tables – to set the interface between state and federal services. Fortunately, this was also removed from the bill as it risked disputes between governments over who was responsible for what.

Finally, the bill stated assessments would only fund needs resulting from “impairments” which meet the NDIS entry criteria. This deficit-focused language risked not fully addressing complex and overlapping disabilities and the barriers people face in society. In the past fortnight, the federal government has moved amendments to moderate this, but complexities remain.

The federal government was responsive on these issues, but only to a point. The bill does little to stop such flaws re-emerging as the rule-making process moves forward. So what protections apply at that point?

2. Ensuring co-design and oversight

If a bill is passed, rules, or “legislative instruments”, are used to fill in the detail needed to implement chosen policy. In this case, such instruments will determine fundamental issues like what supports NDIS participants receive.

But rules made through legislative instruments are subject to much more limited parliamentary oversight than primary legislation (acts). They receive accelerated and condensed examination – which will mean far less opportunity for disability organisations to be heard.

Disability representative organisations have stressed co-design and transparency are absolute essentials in the making of future rules. Co-design requires government to work in partnership with people with disability when designing policies, programs and services.

This must be protected by the bill. But the government has only consented to inserting vague assurances of consultation, which lack mechanisms for enforcement. This contrasts sharply with other countries, which regularly subject bureaucrats to enforceable consultation requirements.

Responsible government should mean more than just promising standards of behaviour. It should mean holding people accountable to them. Otherwise, what will stop future governments abandoning today’s promises?

3. Bureaucratic power

The bill comes replete with broad powers allowing the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) to regulate the supports people receive or impose administrative requirements upon them. In the hands of one government these might drive a vision of quality services. Under another they could lead to damaging forms of conditionality or administrative burden.

One key area is what happens when the NDIA believes a participant has spent money in a way that’s not compliant with their plan (debt raising). While public commentary has been awash with “rorts” rhetoric, the bill leaves vital duty of care questions under-addressed.

In reality, most “rorts” are cases of abuse involving the costly non-delivery of supports to people who need them. Yet the bill fails to spell out exactly when a debt will be raised against a third party versus a participant. It should do more to protect the person with a disability who acted under duress, was misled or was the victim of abusive practices.

Trust

This bill commences a long reform process that can only succeed if it’s based on clarity, accountability and transparency. The voices and experiences of NDIS participants and their representatives are key to delivering people-centred reform.

The question is whether Australia’s political class – federal and state – is capable of living up to the trust which this bill will place in them.

Darren O'Donovan, Senior Lecturer in Administrative Law, La Trobe University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

At dawn on June 27, a journalist for Indonesia’s Tribrata TV, Rico Sempurna Pasaribu, was killed in a suspected arson attack at his home, along with his wife, son and grandchild.

Before his death, Rico investigated and reported on a gambling business in North Sumatra, which he alleged was backed by a member of the military. The police have arrested two suspects.

The incident is not the first suspected arson involving journalists in North Sumatra. On March 21, the house of Junaidi Marpaung, a journalist from Utama News, was also burned down by unknown individuals. Junaidi and his family narrowly escaped.

The attack happened after Junaidi reported on drug trafficking in the region and received several threats via social media.

Press freedom is increasingly under attack in Indonesia. The Indonesian Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) has recorded more than 1,000 cases of violence against journalists since 2006, with the single highest year coming in 2023 (87 incidents).

AJI’s 2023 report found that the journalists who were targeted largely reported on issues of public accountability, corruption, social and criminal issues, and environmental issues. And the attacks included verbal and physical threats (including torture, confinement and kidnappings), gender-based sexual harassment and assaults, terror and intimidation.

Police reports were only filed in 20 of the 87 incidents, and just seven cases were followed up. Two of those ended with convictions in a court, while four others led to arrests. One closed case was reopened for further investigation.

Given this, it should come as no surprise that Indonesia sits at a lowly number 111 out of 180 countries in Reporters Without Borders’ press freedom index this year.

Digital attacks and confiscated devices

Beyond this disturbing rise in violence and intimidation, journalists are also frequently forced by the authorities or sometimes even angry members of the public to delete their interview recordings, photos and videos, particularly when covering a highly controversial story or case in court.

Computers and cameras are often confiscated or destroyed. And journalists are routinely kicked out of the scenes of breaking news, or denied entry to facilities to cover the news.

Digital attacks against journalists are on the rise in Indonesia, too.

Those reporting on extremely sensitive topics, such as Indonesia’s oligarchs, often experience doxing, online harassment and the hacking of their social media accounts and electronic devices.

Media outlets are similarly targeted with malware attacks. Their websites have been defaced and had articles disappear, and their social media accounts have been hacked.

Two of the most prominent investigative media outlets in Indonesia, Tempo and Tirto, for example, were subject to such attacks during the height of the COVID pandemic. On one day in 2020, Tempo’s homepage was replaced with a black screen and the word “hoax”.

Concerning legal restrictions

In addition, media outlets are increasingly being targeted through legal channels.

In 1999, Indonesia passed a Press Law at the start of the post-Suharto “Reformasi” era that guaranteed the protection of the media, as well as citizens’ right to information.

Press freedom advocates say, however, that this law has been disregarded as journalists have been targeted through other laws, namely the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (ITE Law) and the criminal code.

Both the criminal code and ITE Law contain provisions that have been used to bring journalists and media outlets to court to face allegations of blasphemy, defamation, hate speech or spreading fake news. The definitions of these offences under the laws are vague and ambiguous, making them easy to deploy against critics.

The website SemuaBisaKena.jaring.id (Anyone Can Be Targeted), a joint initiative of civil society organisations to push back against the ITE Law, recorded 27 cases of journalists being targeted through this law from 2013 to 2024. In the last five years alone, three journalists have been sentenced to jail time.

In addition, Indonesia’s parliament has been considering concerning revisions to the country’s Broadcast Law.

Not only has the revision process been hidden from the public, therefore lacking transparency and meaningful public participation, the draft bill also contains provisions that could be very damaging to press freedom if it passes.

Perhaps the most onerous one would be a ban on broadcasting exclusive investigative journalism, which the country’s Press Council chairman said would “result in our press not being free and independent”. Reporting on the LGBTQI+ community would also be restricted.

The revision process has been halted for the moment amid widespread media and public condemnation. However, this is not the first time legislators have attempted to weaken the press – and it certainly will not be the last.

Why this matters

With democracy increasingly under threat in Indonesia, the role of an independent media has become even more crucial and pressing. Journalists are needed now more than ever to monitor a government that has adopted increasingly authoritarian practices, in addition to rising corruption and human rights violations.

And with the shrinking of civic space in Indonesia, the media is necessary as a platform to broadcast the voices of critics from civil society and academia.

Without them, the demise of Indonesian democracy would be imminent. As Nelson Mandela once said,

A critical, independent and investigative press is the lifeblood of any democracy […] It must enjoy the protection of the constitution, so that it can protect our rights as citizens.

Anita Wahid, PhD candidate, Australian National University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Judging by recent headlines and policy ideas, you might think screen time is the only lifestyle behaviour influencing teen wellbeing.

But with young people struggling to deal with mounting mental health issues, it’s crucial we don’t get tunnel vision and instead remember all the lifestyle levers that can play a role.

Our research, published today, tracked Australian high school students from 71 schools across New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. Over time, improvements in sleep, fruit and vegetable intake, and exercise were associated with small but significant improvements in mental health.

The reverse was also true when it came to unhealthy behaviours like screen time, junk food, alcohol use and tobacco.

A comprehensive look at adolescent lifestyles

Our new study of more than 4,400 Australian high school students looks at a suite of lifestyle behaviours: sleep, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, sedentary (inactive) recreational screen time, fruit and vegetable intake, consumption of junk food and sugary drinks, alcohol use and smoking.

Firstly, we asked year 7 (students aged 12–13) to report their levels of these lifestyle behaviours and to rate their psychological distress (a general indicator of mental ill-health) using a well-known measurement scale.

Then we examined how changes in each of the lifestyle behaviours between year 7 and year 10 (age 15–16) were linked to psychological distress levels in year 10. Importantly, we accounted for the level of psychological distress participants reported in year 7, as well as their lifestyle behaviours in year 7. This means we can see the average benefits associated with behaviour change, no matter where people started out.

Our research showed increases over time in healthy behaviours were associated with lower psychological distress. Conversely, increases in health risk behaviours were associated with higher psychological distress.

How much makes a difference?

On average, when looking at the change between year 7 and 10, every one-hour increase in sleep per night was linked to a 9% reduction in psychological distress.

Each added day of 60 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week was linked to a 3% reduction in psychological distress. Each added daily serve of fruit or vegetables was linked to 4% lower psychological distress.

By contrast, each added hour of screen time was linked to a 2% increase in psychological distress, as was each unit increase in junk food or sugary drinks.

Because drinking alcohol and smoking are less common in early adolescence, we only looked at whether they had or hadn’t drank alcohol or smoked in the past six months. We saw that switching from not drinking in year 7 to drinking in year 10 was associated with a 17% increase in psychological distress. Switching from not smoking to smoking was linked to a 36% increase in psychological distress.

It’s important to note our study can’t definitively say lifestyle behaviour change caused the change in distress. The study also can’t account for changes in a student’s circumstances such as in their home life or relationships. With the baseline survey done in 2019 and the year 10 survey done in 2022, there was also the potential impact of COVID.

But our longitudinal design (tracking the same subjects over an extended period) and the way we structured the analysis does help illustrate the relationship over time.

Our study didn’t measure vaping, but evidence shows that, like smoking, it has clear links with adolescent mental health.

What does this mean for teens and parents?

National guidelines for these behaviours set out aspirational targets based on optimum health goals. But movement guidelines and dietary guidelines might seem out of reach for many teens. Indeed, most participants in our study were not meeting guidelines for physical activity, sleep, screen time, and vegetable consumption in year 10.

What our research shows is that a healthy lifestyle change doesn’t have to be all or nothing.

Even relatively small changes – getting an extra hour of sleep each night, eating one extra serve of fruit or vegetables each day, cutting out one hour of screen time, or adding an extra day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week – are linked to improvements in mental health. And stacking changes in multiple areas is likely to stand you in even better stead.

Parents can play a major role in shaping lifestyle behaviours (even into the teenage years!). Expense and time can be barriers, but anything parents can do within their means is a step in the right direction.

For example, modelling healthy social media use, making affordable changes to your grocery shop to improve nutritional content, or even introducing set bedtimes. And parents can gather information so young people can make positive choices around alcohol, tobacco and other substance use including vaping.

The bigger picture

Lifestyle changes can support better adolescent mental health, but they’re only one piece of the puzzle. We can’t place the burden of addressing the youth mental health crisis solely on teen lifestyles. There is plenty to be done at a school, community, and policy level to create a society that supports youth mental health.

Young people who are struggling with their mental health may need professional support, which parents and carers can support them to access. Teenagers or young people can also contact ReachOut or Kids Helpline directly for resources and support.

Scarlett Smout, PhD Candidate (under examination) and Research Associate at The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health & Substance Use and Australia's Mental Health Think Tank, University of Sydney; Katrina Champion, Senior Research Fellow & Sydney Horizon Fellow, The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use and School of Public Health, University of Sydney, and Lauren Gardner, Senior Research Fellow & Program Lead of School-Based Health Interventions, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A 40-year-old private in the Australian army and her 62-year-old husband been arrested for allegedly spying for Russia.

Both Russian-born Australian citizens, they have been accused of obtaining Australian Defence Force material to share with Russian authorities.

The woman, Kira Korolev, has been employed in the Australian Defence Force for several years as an information systems technician. Her husband, Igor Korolev, is a self-employed labourer.

Each is charged with one count of preparing for an espionage offence, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years jail. They were due to appear in court on Friday. This is the first time an espionage offence charge has been laid since new laws were introduced in 2018.

At a Friday news conference, the Australian Federal Police commissioner, Reece Kershaw, and the head of ASIO, Mike Burgess, announced the Thursday arrests of the pair at their Brisbane home.

Kershaw said the AFP alleged the couple worked together to access ADF material relating to national security.

“We allege the woman was undertaking non-declared travel to Russia, whilst she was on long term leave from the Australian Defence Force [since 2023],” he said.

“We allege that whilst she was in Russia, she instructed her husband, who remained in Australia, on how to log into her official work account from their Brisbane home.

"We allege her husband would access requested material and would send it to his wife in Russia.

"We allege they sought that information with the intention of providing it to Russian authorities.”

Whether the information was handed over is still being investigated, Kershaw said. Also being investigated is whether the woman joined the ADF intending to commit espionage.

Kershaw stressed that “no significant compromise has been identified”.

“Our Five Eyes partners and the Australian government can be confident that the robust partnerships within the counter foreign interference task force mean we will continue to identify and disrupt espionage and foreign interference activity.”

The pair have been in Australia more than ten years. The woman obtained Australian citizenship in 2016 and her husband became a citizen in 2020. They had Russian passports.

Burgess told the news conference the espionage threat was “real”.

“Multiple countries are seeking to steal Australia’s secrets,” he said.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Political donations would need to be disclosed in “real time” during elections under reform legislation that also would restrict spending on individual seat campaigns to an amount that will be less than $1 million per candidate.

The package, which Special Minister of State Don Farrell aims to introduce in the next parliamentary sitting fortnight beginning August 12, also includes a truth-in-advertising provision, and is expected to boost public funding for elections. Total election funding paid by the Australian Electoral Commission for the 2022 election was nearly $76 million.

All donations of $1000 and above would have to be disclosed, under the proposed measures. At present the disclosure threshold is more than $16,900. There would also be caps on donations.

Under the real-time disclosure provision, donations outside election periods would have to be made public within weeks. During an election campaign, they would need to be disclosed weekly, then daily as polling day approached.

Some details of the package are still being finalised. One major issue is the need to minimise the risk of a successful High Court challenge on the grounds of limiting the implied freedom of political communication.

The plan includes caps on parties’ campaign spending at a national and a state level (the latter covers campaigns for the Senate) as well as on spending at the seat level.

Parties, candidates and others involved in elections would be required to have dedicated Commonwealth campaign accounts for all donations and spending, which would be subject to audit by the Australian Electoral Commission.

Parties would receive some funding for their administration.

Farrell says his package will “address the growing threat of big money in politics”.

During Farrell’s extensive negotiations there has been blowback from some crossbenchers. Some “teal” MPs ran highly expensive campaigns which saw them elected in 2022.

Independent member for the Victorian seat of Goldstein, Zoe Daniel, one of the teals, said she supported a lower disclosure threshold for donations and real-time disclosure. “Above everything else, the priorities are transparency and accountability,” she said.

But she warned, “I remain suspicious that the major parties will dress up their proposals as electoral reform when their real goal is self interest. We must make sure they don’t collude to lock out newcomers and tilt the playing field in their own favour, in contrast to the demonstrated wishes of voters at large.”

The Coalition parties have been in negotiation with Farrell over the measures, but where they will land is unknown.

The package will have provisions covering “associated entities”, which are funding-raising arms for parties, and “significant third parties”, which spend on and raise money for elections. They include unions, advocacy groups such as Advance and organisations such as Climate 200. Details of the provisions covering them are not known.

Earlier consideration of increasing the number of senators from the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory (at present two each) has been abandoned.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

You may have seen some new ways to describe when someone is autistic and also has attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The terms “AuDHD” or sometimes “AutiADHD” are being used on social media, with people describing what they experience or have seen as clinicians.

It might seem surprising these two conditions can co-occur, as some traits appear to be almost opposite. For example, autistic folks usually have fixed routines and prefer things to stay the same, whereas people with ADHD usually get bored with routines and like spontaneity and novelty.

But these two conditions frequently overlap and the combination of diagnoses can result in some unique needs. Here are five important things to know about AuDHD.

1. Having both wasn’t possible a decade ago

Only in the past decade have autism and ADHD been able to be diagnosed together. Until 2013, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) – the reference used by health workers around the world for definitions of psychological diagnoses – did not allow for ADHD to be diagnosed in an autistic person.

The manual’s fifth edition was the first to allow for both diagnoses in the same person. So, folks diagnosed and treated prior to 2013, as well as much of the research, usually did not consider AuDHD. Instead, children and adults may have been “assigned” to whichever condition seemed most prominent or to be having the greater impact on everyday life.

2. AuDHD is more common than you might think

Around 1% to 4% of the population are autistic.

They can find it difficult to navigate social situations and relationships, prefer consistent routines, find changes overwhelming and repetition soothing. They may have particular sensory sensitivities.

ADHD occurs in around 5–8% of children and adolescents and 2–6% of adults. Characteristics can include difficulties with focusing attention in a flexible way, resulting in procrastination, distraction and disorganisation. People with ADHD can have high levels of activity and impulsivity.

Studies suggest around 40% of those with ADHD also meet diagnostic criteria for autism and vice versa. The co-occurrence of having features or traits of one condition (but not meeting the full diagnostic criteria) when you have the other, is even more common and may be closer to around 80%. So a substantial proportion of those with autism or ADHD who don’t meet full criteria for the other condition, will likely have some traits.

3. Opposing traits can be distressing

Autistic people generally prefer order, while ADHDers often struggle to keep things organised. Autistic people usually prefer to do one thing at a time; people with ADHD are often multitasking and have many things on the go. When someone has both conditions, the conflicting traits can result in an internal struggle.

For example, it can be upsetting when you need your things organised in a particular way but ADHD traits result in difficulty consistently doing this. There can be periods of being organised (when autistic traits lead) followed by periods of disorganisation (when ADHD traits dominate) and feelings of distress at not being able to maintain organisation.

There can be eventual boredom with the same routines or activities, but upset and anxiety when attempting to transition to something new.

Autistic special interests (which are often all-consuming, longstanding and prioritised over social contact), may not last as long in AuDHD, or be more like those seen in ADHD (an intense deep dive into a new interest that can quickly burn out).

Autism can result in quickly being overstimulated by sensory input from the environment such as noises, lighting and smells. ADHD is linked with an understimulated brain, where intense pressure, novelty and excitement can be needed to function optimally.

For some people the conflicting traits may result in a balance where people can find a middle ground (for example, their house appears tidy but the cupboards are a little bit messy).

There isn’t much research yet into the lived experience of this “trait conflict” in AuDHD, but there are clinical observations.

4. Mental health and other difficulties are more frequent

Our research on mental health in children with autism, ADHD or AuDHD shows children with AuDHD have higher levels of mental health difficulites than autism or ADHD alone.

This is a consistent finding with studies showing higher mental health difficulties such as depression and anxiety in AuDHD. There are also more difficulties with day-to-day functioning in AuDHD than either condition alone.

So there is an additive effect in AuDHD of having the executive foundation difficulties found in both autism and ADHD. These difficulties relate to how we plan and organise, pay attention and control impulses. When we struggle with these it can greatly impact daily life.

5. Getting the right treatment is important

ADHD medication treatments are evidence-based and effective. Studies suggest medication treatment for ADHD in autistic people similarly helps improve ADHD symptoms. But ADHD medications won’t reduce autistic traits and other support may be needed.

Non-pharmacological treatments such as psychological or occupational therapy are less researched in AuDHD but likely to be helpful. Evidence-based treatments include psychoeducation and psychological therapy. This might include understanding one’s strengths, how traits can impact the person, and learning what support and adjustments are needed to help them function at their best. Parents and carers also need support.

The combination and order of support will likely depend on the person’s current functioning and particular needs.

Do you relate?

Studies suggest people may still not be identified with both conditions when they co-occur. A person in that situation might feel misunderstood or that they can’t fully relate to others with a singular autism and ADHD diagnosis and something else is going on for them.

It is important if you have autism or ADHD that the other is considered, so the right support can be provided.

If only one piece of the puzzle is known, the person will likely have unexplained difficulties despite treatment. If you have autism or ADHD and are unsure if you might have AuDHD consider discussing this with your health professional.

Tamara May, Psychologist and Research Associate in the Department of Paediatrics, Monash University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Our brain is an extremely complex and delicate organ. Our body fiercely protects it by holding onto things that help it and keeping harmful things out, such as bugs that can cause infection and toxins.

It does that though a protective layer called the blood-brain barrier. Here’s how it works, and what it means for drug design.

First, let’s look at the circulatory system

Adults have roughly 30 trillion cells in their body. Every cell needs a variety of nutrients and oxygen, and they produce waste, which needs to be taken away.

Our circulatory system provides this service, delivering nutrients and removing waste.

Where the circulatory system meets your cells, it branches down to tiny tubes called capillaries. These tiny tubes, about one-tenth the width of a human hair, are also made of cells.

But in most capillaries, there are some special features (known as fenestrations) that allow relatively free exchange of nutrients and waste between the blood and the cells of your tissues.

It’s kind of like pizza delivery

One way to think about the way the circulation works is like a pizza delivery person in a big city. On the really big roads (vessels) there are walls and you can’t walk up to the door of the house and pass someone the pizza.

But once you get down to the little suburban streets (capillaries), the design of the streets means you can stop, get off your scooter and walk up to the door to deliver the pizza (nutrients).

We often think of the brain as a spongy mass without much blood in it. In reality, the average brain has about 600 kilometres of blood vessels.

The difference between the capillaries in most of the brain and those elsewhere is that these capillaries are made of specialised cells that are very tightly joined together and limit the free exchange of anything dissolved in your blood. These are sometimes called continuous capillaries.

This is the blood brain barrier. It’s not so much a bag around your brain stopping things from getting in and out but more like walls on all the streets, even the very small ones.

The only way pizza can get in is through special slots and these are just the right shape for the pizza box.

The blood brain barrier is set up so there are specialised transporters (like pizza box slots) for all the required nutrients. So mostly, the only things that can get in are things that there are transporters for or things that look very similar (on a molecular scale).

The analogy does fall down a little bit because the pizza box slot applies to nutrients that dissolve in water. Things that are highly soluble in fat can often bypass the slots in the wall.

Why do we have a blood-brain barrier?

The blood brain barrier is thought to exist for a few reasons.

First, it protects the brain from toxins you might eat (think chemicals that plants make) and viruses that often can infect the rest of your body but usually don’t make it to your brain.

It also provides protection by tightly regulating the movement of nutrients and waste in and out, providing a more stable environment than in the rest of the body.

Lastly, it serves to regulate passage of immune cells, preventing unnecessary inflammation which could damage cells in the brain.

What it means for medicines

One consequence of this tight regulation across the blood brain barrier is that if you want a medicine that gets to the brain, you need to consider how it will get in.

There are a few approaches. Highly fat-soluble molecules can often pass into the brain, so you might design your drug so it is a bit greasy.

Another option is to link your medicine to another molecule that is normally taken up into the brain so it can hitch a ride, or a “pro-drug”, which looks like a molecule that is normally transported.

Using it to our advantage

You can also take advantage of the blood brain barrier.

Opioids used for pain relief often cause constipation. They do this because their target (opioid receptors) are also present in the nervous system of the intestines, where they act to slow movement of the intestinal contents.

Imodium (Loperamide), which is used to treat diarrhoea, is actually an opioid, but it has been specifically designed so it can’t cross the blood brain barrier.

This design means it can act on opioid receptors in the gastrointestinal tract, slowing down the movement of contents, but does not act on brain opioid receptors.

In contrast to Imodium, Ozempic and Victoza (originally designed for type 2 diabetes, but now popular for weight-loss) both have a long fat attached, to improve the length of time they stay in the body.

A consequence of having this long fat attached is that they can cross the blood-brain barrier, where they act to suppress appetite. This is part of the reason they are so effective as weight-loss drugs.

So while the blood brain barrier is important for protecting the brain it presents both a challenge and an opportunity for development of new medicines.

Sebastian Furness, ARC Future Fellow, School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The 2024 Paris Olympics are fast approaching and we can imagine the elite athletes maintaining a strict and gruelling training regimen in order to give themselves every chance of standing on the podium with a gold medal.

Unrelenting discipline and structure. Blood, sweat, and tears. That’s what it takes to excel, right?

But what if that’s not the only way?

Thinking outside the box

Earlier this year, world champion Australian swimmer Cameron McEvoy spoke about the benefits of a new training schedule, which included a reduced training load:

I can do the Olympics, worlds, then have 12 months exploring other stuff and come back. And I’ve got tonnes of side quests I want to do […] train for 100m track sprinting and see how low I can go, the world street lifting competition.

McEvoy also suggested that exploring other interests has “extended the longevity of this career” and alleviated the “bad relationship” he has had with the sport – all while improving his performance.

McEvoy is not the only athlete sharing experiences of exploration. A 2021 study that interviewed runners soon after an exceptional performance found exploration played a key role in their highly positive experiences.

One interviewee stated:

By going somewhere different to run, [the route] was something different to look at; it was different when you turn the corner, and you go up a different path. I was less [thinking about] running and more about exploring.

And it’s not just elite athletes who are interested in exploration. Complementing their high-performance sports strategy – “win well” – the Australian Sports Commission recently published an inaugural national sport participation strategy – “play well”.

“Play well” is designed to ensure everyone has a place in sport, with a core focus being “to break down barriers and empower individuals to explore, create and connect through sport”.

So, what does it actually mean to explore in sport? And why might exploration be beneficial for all of us?

What is exploration?

Exploration is defined as “the activity of searching and finding out about something”.

Or, as astrophysist Neil deGrasse Tyson says:

exploration is what you do when you don’t know what you’re doing […] if a scientist already knew what they were doing, they wouldn’t be discovering anything.

At first glance, we might assume exploration is only for those who are embarking on epic journeys to unknown parts of the world or climbing mountains for the first time. In fact, it’s something we can all do on a daily basis.

For example, when we go to a new city and walk down the street to see what shops and cafes they’ve got, that’s exploring. And it’s good for us.

What are the benefits of exploration?

Psychologists believe we’re born with an innate desire to explore the world around us. And opportunities to do so lead to positive outcomes in sport.

For instance, similar to McEvoy’s exploration of other interests, researchers have noted the importance of participating in a variety of different sports rather than focusing on just one sport.

While this recommendation is typically directed toward young athletes, this flexible approach to sport was adopted by Norway – known as “joy of sport for all” – and has been credited with a huge increase in winter Olympic medals.

Researchers also suggest children should engage in less structured versions of sports, which can promote flexibility. As well, sports with informal rules – think backyard cricket – can maximise enjoyment and can lead to long-term participation.

Much of our own research indicates that exploratory experiences are at the heart of our most positive and memorable experiences in sport.

We’ve previously reported that exploration appears to be fundamental to the experience of “flow state”, where you become completely absorbed in what you are doing and you perform the task effortlessly.

Indeed, the founder of flow, Hungarian-American psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, said the types of activities that promote flow “give participants a sense of discovery and exploration – in other words, a feeling of novelty and challenge”.

Lessons from athletes on how to explore

Exploration is certainly not limited to elite athletes but there are useful lessons we can take from them about how to incorporate exploration into our own sport participation.

Like McEvoy, you might consider varying your training routine or trying a new sport. Or like the Norwegians, you might play a modified version of your sport with fewer rules, less emphasis on competition and more focus on fun.

It could be as simple as taking a different route on a run or setting an open-ended goal (like “how far I can run in 25 minutes”?), which can help facilitate exploration and reduce pressure. Or if you’re playing football, you might try out a new position or tactic.

Sometimes, it’s okay to not have a plan. Without a specific plan (like which restaurant to eat in), we need to go exploring to find out the best option (like stumbling across a place you’ve never heard of that has a great menu).

So, as we anticipate the upcoming Olympics and marvel at the athletes’ achievements, let’s remember their success might not only be the result of relentless discipline but also the joy and benefits of exploration.

Whether we are elite athletes or weekend warriors, heading out with the intention to “search and find out about something” can enhance our engagement, performance, and enjoyment in sport.

Scott Goddard, Postdoctoral research fellow, Southern Cross University; Christian Swann, Associate Professor in Psychology, Southern Cross University, and Stewart Vella, Associate Professor, University of Wollongong

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Think of the Olympic Games and for many of us it conjures images of the traditional marquee events: track and field, swimming, weightlifting, gymnastics. But the games are changing – and the Paris Olympics will take it to a new level.

As well as bringing back youth-oriented sports such as surfing, skateboarding, sport-climbing and BMX freestyle, these games will see breaking (or breakdancing) and kiteboarding introduced.

These programme changes have been on the International Olympic Committee (IOC) agenda for many years, part of an effort to reverse a decades-long decline in younger audience numbers, particularly in the key US consumer market.

But the new look is also part of a larger strategy designed to improve inclusivity and gender balance. In fact, Paris claims to be the first gender-balanced Olympics, with the new sports key to reaching that milestone.

None of this has been smooth, with the inclusion of new events a highly political process. On the one hand, traditionalists have resisted change. On the other, the countercultural origins of some of the new sports have seen them wary of being incorporated into the world’s largest and most powerful sporting establishment.

New events, new venues

Of the two newest entrants, breaking will probably surprise the most spectators. What began as an urban dance style within US hip hop culture in the 1970s has gone mainstream, successfully trialled at the 2018 Youth Olympic Games in Buenos Aires.

Breakdancing was always competitive, of course. In its Olympic format, teams of 16 (called B-boys and B-girls) will have one-on-one contests involving a range of spectacular acrobatic movements.

Athletes must improvise, adapting their style and routines to fit the beat of the DJ’s chosen tracks. The role of the DJ and MC during these “battles” will give the new sport a very different feel to other Olympic events.

Kiteboarding almost made it into the Olympic sailing programme at the 2016 Games in Rio Di Janeiro, in place of windsurfing. The International Sailing Federation eventually overturned that decision, but the dynamic event finally makes its debut. In Paris, kiteboarders will be using the latest foiling technologies, making it a showcase attraction.

These games will also see the IOC’s “urban park” concept finally realised. Originally planned for the Tokyo Olympics, COVID disrupted the vision of an X Games-style atmosphere of music, fun and athlete-fan interaction.

Rather than building expensive new venues, the host nation will use existing infrastructure combined with temporary facilities. Skateboarding, sport climbing, breaking, 3x3 basketball and BMX freestyle will all be hosted in a temporary park built in the iconic Place de la Concorde.

All these innovations are an expression of the IOC’s Agenda 2020 and Agenda 2020+5. These major policy reforms are focused on urban cultures, youth and sustainability.

Going mainstream

Olympic climbing will also evolve in Paris. Introduced at the Tokyo Games, it initially combined three quite different climbing styles – speed, bouldering and leading (where climbers use ropes to ascend).

Many climbers were unhappy with this merger within a single medal event, and Paris will see it broken into two: a combined bouldering and leading event, and a speed event.

At Tokyo, skateboarding had the greatest media visibility of the new sports. In particular, global audiences and media were captivated by the joy and camaraderie of the women’s competition.

The average age on the women’s skateboarding medal podium was 14, and the young competitors were hailed as evidence of a truly inclusive Olympic spirit. This success might have also shifted perceptions of skateboarding being fringe or even antisocial, to being a legitimate and highly-skilled sport.

It has also opened new opportunities for women skaters in a previously male-dominated culture. There have been anecdotal reports of an increased willingness by parents to let their children learn skateboarding, with local councils building more facilities and reviewing rules around skating being a “nuisance” in public spaces.

Waves of change

Perhaps the most radical aspect of the Paris Olympics is the location of its surfing competition in Tahiti, 16,000 kilometres from the host city.

Using the legendary reef break at Teahupo’o will almost certainly overcome the wave quality problems at the Tokyo games. But the decision has also proved controversial, with local residents concerned about the event’s potential impact on the fragile ocean ecosystem and surrounding areas.

In particular, a new aluminium judging tower, involving drilling into the delicate coral reef, has prompted months of local and international protest.

In a sense, the surfing controversy is emblematic of the IOC’s overall struggle to modernise the games, and respond to a rapidly evolving sporting landscape, while not alienating traditional audiences.

The IOC has invested heavily in these new sports and events, and we will likely see more on the programme in Los Angeles in 2028 and Brisbane in 2032. There is also a push for their inclusion in the Paralympics.

Whether those elusive younger viewers are lured back, however, remains to be seen. Our research suggests the full impact of inclusion – on both the Olympics and the sports themselves – can take years to become evident. In the meantime, settle in and enjoy the show.

Holly Thorpe, Professor in Sociology of Sport and Gender, University of Waikato and Belinda Wheaton, Professor, School of Sport, Health and Human Performance, University of Waikato

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Five eagerly anticipated events in the Paris Olympics will be the mens and womens 10 kilometre marathon swimming races, as well as the 1,500 metre swimming section of three triathlon events. Why? Because all will be held in the Seine River in the centre of Paris. The swimmers – including four Australians – will pass famous landmarks such as the Musee d'Orsay as they swim through the historic heart of the city. This will have enormous scenic appeal for spectators.

But will it be safe for swimmers? Rivers running through large cities are often polluted, whether from stormwater, chemical pollution or wastewater spills. As the marathon swimmers pass the Paris Sewer Museum, they may well wonder if they’re in clean water.

For more than 100 years, swimming in the Seine has actually been illegal, due to concerns over what the water could do to human health. Authorities have been working to clean up the water, spending A$2.2 billion (€1.3 billion) on improving water quality. The goal: cut bacterial contamination by 75% before the first swimmer touches the water. These measures are having an impact – but recent heavy rains have seen bacteria levels spike.

While officials have put on brave faces, there’s now a contingency plan in case the Seine isn’t safe.

Why swim in the Seine at all?

Urban rivers have a questionable reputation. But this isn’t the first time the Seine River has been used for Olympic swimming.

In the 1900 Paris Olympics, seven swimming events were all held in the river. These games were the first modern Olympics where women could compete in some sports, but swimming was not one of those permitted.

The Australian swimmer who competed, Frederick Lane, had to swim under the United Kingdom’s flag as Australia did not have a flag until Federation the following year. He won two gold medals. One was for the 200 metre freestyle race, and the other for a bizarre race never held again: the 200m swimming obstacle race, where swimmers had to climb over poles and boats. These Olympics also saw the first and last underwater swimming race, which was also in the Seine.

Back then, the waters of the Seine were cleaner. That’s because there was a great demand for human waste on farms – and cities were the main source. Back then, “night soil” (human waste) had a real market value. No one would think of dumping it in rivers.

But as time went on, sewerage systems developed and other fertilisers such as guano and mineral fertilisers arrived. By the early 20th century, most of the city’s wastewater went into the Seine. In 1923, the swimming ban came into effect. A year later, Paris hosted the Olympics for its second time – and swimmers competed in 50 metre pools.

In recent years, many cities around the world have worked to clean up their urban waterways. River swimming is now common in cities such as Copenhagen, Berlin and Vienna, where river health has improved dramatically.

How can you clean a river like the Seine?

Cleaning the Seine is a challenge. Paris is home to 11 million people, with plenty of industry. Urban rivers are almost inevitably polluted by waste from the surrounding city.

Leaking and overflowing sewage systems are a major source of pollution. In places like the UK, sewage spills into waterways have become a major political issue.

When wastewater spills into rivers, it carries pollutants and dangerous loads of disease-causing microorganisms, such as Escherichia coli (commonly known as E. coli). Untreated water can have viruses, bacteria and disease-causing protozoa.

In the lead-up to the Paris games, authorities have been working to improve water quality enough to bring some Olympic swimming back to the Seine. Stormwater – often contaminated by dog poo or sewage overflows – is being cleaned before it is released into the river.

Despite the money and effort, there are still real questions over whether it will be enough to guarantee swimmer safety. Bacterial levels hit risky levels most days in June due to unseasonally heavy rains, but the water has improved in July.

This week, French sports minister Amélie Oudéa-Castéra swam a few metres in the Seine in an effort to douse concerns.

By contrast, the other Olympic swimming events will take place in a recently constructed 50 metre pool, which will have very good water quality. The pool water is filtered and treated with a disinfectant such as chlorine or bromine. It will be regularly tested to ensure optimal water quality.

At the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, triathletes had to swim in polluted Tokyo Bay. But similar concerns over sickness proved unfounded. The real challenge was the oppressive heat.

What’s at risk?

The most likely outcome if races are held when bacterial levels are unsafe would be getting a gastrointestinal bug.

Officials have some control over this. Contamination is worst after heavy rain. Races could be delayed if need be.

Many swimmers – especially those who compete in open-water competitions – are familiar with swimming in water with some level of pollution. Some see it as worth the risk. Italian double world champion swimmer Gregorio Paltrinieri said in January:

Even if the water is dirty, I would rather swim in an electric atmosphere in the centre of Paris than in an anonymous stretch of water.

Paris 2024 organisers previously warned there was no plan B for the 10 km marathon races in the Seine if water quality testing is unsuitable. But this has now changed. If the river isn’t clean enough, open water swimming will be moved to the rowing venue.

The Olympic triathlon is planned around a swimming leg in the Seine. But triathletes have been told the swim leg could be skipped if the water is unsafe, which would turn the race into a running and cycling duathlon.

As the world’s attention turns to Paris, there will be many anxious officials behind the scenes hoping their hard work on making the Seine swimmable pays off.

Ian A. Wright, Associate Professor in Environmental Science, Western Sydney University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.