Big Ideas Forum - Beyond COVID Northern Beaches Council Webinar

Image via fertilityroad.com

Last night I attended the online Big Ideas Forum Webinar through the Northern Beaches Council called Beyond COVID. It was initially an interview with Dr Norman Swan, a health journalist and physician, then went on to a panel discussion which included Lucinda Brogden AM, Chair of the National Mental Health Commission, Dr Sean Turnell, Associate Professor of Economics at Macquarie University and Greg Jones, former school principal and executive member of Community Co-op Northern Beaches. It is available to watch here.

Before I delve into it, I just want to comment on the Acknowledgement of Country that takes place at the start of these gatherings and how disappointed I always am at the irreverence and insincerity. I know it's an awkward forced protocol that many simply read off a piece of paper without actually thinking about the meaning of what they're saying, but it has become so tokenistic that it feels like an insult to even bother. I refuse to accept that in the whole of the northern beaches, the council can not find one Traditional Owner or First Nations person or group to do a genuine and heartfelt Welcome to Country - particularly NOW, with everything that is going on around the world. My guess is that there has been absolutely no attempt to connect or collaborate. If indeed there has been no progress, then the Acknowledgement itself needs to be better. It's not just something you rattle off, it's something you feel and make people feel and understand so that we can all start off on the right foot. This needs to change. It's confronting, but it needs to happen. We need to acknowledge that we are on stolen and unceded land, we need to address sovereignty, the lack of treaty and pay our respects genuinely to elders past, present and emerging. This is a significant step forward that requires honesty and truth, many are not yet ready to face.

The interview with Dr Swan, as always was informative and evidence based. If you haven't already, get acquainted with The ABC podcast he does called Coronacast. They are short 10 minute episodes released daily, covering the basic updates of what is happening around the country and around the world. 

Dr Swan explained many aspects of the Australian experience with COVID 19 and commented on why we did so well as a country. The main thing we got right was that we closed borders, particularly to China early, back in February 2020 - the first case being discovered on the 25th January. The pandemic was then managed collaboratively by government, particularly the states, business/workplaces and the community. It became a unified movement, largely communicated through social and digital media which forced people to act and the federal government to respond on an evidence based approach. This was to act strongly and intervene as early as possible. The World Health Organisation (WHO) urged immediate lockdown action, as it is impossible to make these decisions retrospectively and undo harm. Australia's early response and heeding of this advice was able to maintain COVID related deaths to just over 100, which while extremely regrettable and tragic, are comparatively good. Locking down early, closing borders and taking advantage of being islands, insisting on physical distancing and later extensive testing to identify clusters saw Australia and New Zealand become world leaders in flattening the curve and keeping numbers down. It gave us time to prepare health services and hospitals for possible case increase and slowed the spread of the virus. In comparison, the US and UK waited much longer and are bearing the tragic consequences now.

The discussion then turned to the recent increase in numbers in Victoria. Dr Swan stated that referring to COVID cases in terms of 'waves' isn't very accurate and applies more to illnesses like Influenza as there are things in place like vaccinations and herd immunity. With COVID it is more accurate to refer to spikes in cases, whereby transmission rates tend to double daily with no cure, no vaccine and still very little predictability about how the disease will impact people, taking into consideration things like co-morbidities, age, and social/economic factors. While Victoria is experiencing high numbers, Dr Swan mentioned the case in Balmain in Sydney which indicates the disease is still present in NSW and it is not yet time to relax.

He talked at length about the difference between NSW and Victoria in terms of the way health services are structured. In NSW we have Area Health Services which include the local hospitals, but also health service provision on the ground in each geographical location. This structure allows bigger areas to be covered in order for the population of that area to receive health services aside from the local hospitals. This infrastructure is not present in Victoria which seems to only have stand alone hospitals and GP/Specialist services. This impacts testing, treatment and service provision.

Locally, Dr Swan discussed the cases around Manly and Dee Why early on in the pandemic and how immediate lockdown and extensive testing was able to contain the clusters, area health and hospitals were able to oversee treatment, isolation and recovery, and this prevented community transmission. This did not work as well in Bondi where community transmission was allowed to travel a little further out. 

It is evident that social distancing has a huge impact on community transmission. Dr Swan talked about the demographic of people who contract COVID and while globally, for example in places like Italy, there was a lot of publicity around the elderly, it is a much younger demographic that can contract the disease, show few symptoms and then transmit through large gatherings and socialisation. In Italy, for example, there was the tragic circumstances around cut off ages for access to ventilators being around the age of 40 mark, when the hospitals were bombarded with extreme cases. Big social networks, which young people are more likely to have, pose the biggest threat, particularly in gatherings that take place indoors, with lots of people and over an extended period of time.

In regards to a vaccine, Dr Swan thinks this is a long way away and while there is promising research coming out of Oxford University, there are many barriers to a vaccine for a respiratory illness due to the nature of the membranes and organs involved and how they function. Usually treatment relies on activating an immune system response and then needs to be administered annually. In some cases like with SARS, vaccines were found to create a hyper immune response which can cause autoimmune disease. The good thing is that any vaccine progress coming out of the UK will likely be publicly funded and therefore widely available and shared. The opposite is happening in the US where research and funding will likely be privately conducted and therefore not shared. Finding a vaccine is condensing 10 years of research into 1. It's obviously urgent.

Discussion turned to the effectiveness of wearing masks. Dr Swan is of the opinion that masks are a good idea when there are high rates of community transmission, as is happening in Victoria. Wearing a mask is not about protecting yourself from getting infected, although that's a bonus. It's about preventing transmission of the disease to others if you are carrying it and have no symptoms or if you are indeed ill. Masks are particularly useful indoors, for example whilst shopping and on public transport. The main factors to consider are things like the quality of the mask and availability. Both issues are easily addressed, but the culture of wearing masks is a bit harder to change. 

The health implications during this pandemic are complex, particularly in relation to how each individual is likely to recover from infection and all the factors that contribute to their well-being before and after having COVID. Another matter to consider is how people have responded to healthcare generally during lockdown to minimise risk. Telehealth in Australia has been particularly effective as people have been able to consult with GPs remotely and continue any ongoing or chronic health issue management. An area of concern was the decrease in cancer screening numbers whereby people have avoided going to routine screening while in lockdown. There is some unease around people delaying testing for early detection and risking delayed diagnosis. 

The impact of the pandemic has not only been on public health but also the economy. Dr Swan mentioned that data from the 1918 influenza pandemic demonstrated that places where lockdown happened earlier were able to recover economically much quicker. It focuses on the idea that in the long run prevention is better than cure and the impact on the economy will happen either way but will have more long term consequences and will be harder to recover from if we allow people to get sick, overwhelm our health services and create more trauma.

At this point the panel joined the discussion. I was disappointed but not surprised that it consisted of four white men, including Dr Swan and the facilitator and one white woman. Until we allow diverse voices in these discussions we continue to assume that the majority of people are white and middle class. This is simply not the case and while divergent groups are often referred to as 'minorities', they are not in fact less than in number and importance but instead are marginalised as such. This is prevalent in the local area.

The panel discussion was mainly an exchange of ideas about community support, focusing on mental health and connection. There were some examples of the local community exchanging material necessities like donations of food, volunteering of time and provision of support to those impacted by lockdown. It's nice to live in a community where everyone is doing great and can help those doing a little bit less than great and then taking comfort in the ease with which we got through hardship working together. However there was no mention of people who may fall through the cracks and the reasons why, which can erase the experience of many people. 

At one point there was mention of the suffering experienced by self-funded retirees. How they have paid taxes all their lives and never needed government assistance and now suddenly their investments might be worth less and they may be embarrassed or ashamed to ask for assistance. It is important to express empathy and to consider anyone who may be impacted by this pandemic in a substantial way. We just need to truthfully define what substantial means. Not having enough money to pay rent or feed your children is very different to a decrease in wealth that does not impact your day to day survival.

Mental health was discussed extensively, particularly community connection and loneliness, but the discussion stopped short of addressing issues like individualism, capitalism, cultural diversity and wealth inequality. There is still a long way to go in facing some of these issues in this demographic.

Some talk centered on things like working from home, how this has been a necessity and many have adapted well, but for so many businesses and organisations, there needs to be a face-to-face market place and people are social animals that need human interaction. All this is true, however it shouldn't take a pandemic to provide people with flexibility and work/life balance. There was brief mention of people who benefit from the ability to work from home occasionally, but it wasn't discussed adequately. Parents/guardians of young children for example can benefit greatly from flexibility in the workplace. Current employment structures and culture can increase the exclusion of women from the workforce and public life when they have very young children and this inflexibility can also prevent men from spending quality time with their children. Many people take care of aged parents, family members with disabilities or themselves experience mental health issues that are alleviated with working from home options. It's important to maintain a functioning economy but not at the expense of a healthy and balanced society. There was no acknowledgement of front line workers who never had the option to stay home; doctors, nurses, teachers, community workers, supermarket staff, delivery drivers. Essential workers were not mentioned at all. There was also no recognition that for many, online options are still unavailable and inaccessible due to cost, access to devices and reception issues. Connectivity was a big local issue. Just ask anyone who worked from home or home schooled.

It was a valuable webinar, and I appreciate the limitations of time that don't allow every single aspect to be covered, but the panel discussion fell short. It was out of touch and outdated, particularly in the face of the global sociopolitical movements that have emerged rapidly in response to and simultaneously with the pandemic. The ideas seemed to come from very traditionalist and conservative perspectives that are no longer relevant or are only true for some people. We now have the information and technology to question the systems and structures that are only serving a small number of people and it isn't justified for those people to declare that everything is working, when it clearly isn't for many. It was a missed opportunity to address broader issues and failed to acknowledge that to come out of this pandemic relatively well is to have access to immense privilege.

This Is 42 - Roxane Gay and Christina Hoff Sommers

Pic author's own

There are 2 things I took away from the Dr Roxane Gay and Christina Hoff Sommers talk for This Is 42 at Town Hall in Sydney last night. Firstly, the notion that some people believe Feminism is now too radical, divisive and exclusionary, as Ms Sommers suggests. Secondly, that the way to address this is for women to come together and, in particular, to reach out to the most disadvantaged women in “developing” nations to progress forward.

My take is that Feminism is absolutely radical and militant right now and needs to be because we find ourselves at a time when misogyny is no longer an open secret, but a full blown, in your face, mainstream and acceptable way to behave both in everyday and political life. Whether this is a backlash to the supposed gains that women have made or simply the scum rising to the surface, scum that has always been there but has been allowed to flourish and is now undeniably seen, is just a chicken and the egg argument, futile.

We have Trump in the White House, right wing misogynist politicians, both men and women, in every developed country on the globe, in our media, judicial and education systems. In Australia, 1 woman is killed a week by an intimate current or ex-partner. We are not doing fine!

The democratisation of information through social media, has meant that women have come forward to disclose their experiences, can come together to support each other globally, organise and mobilise in real time, in response to individual events and broader social issues. Whether these events are tokenistic, few and far between, selective only to demonstrate who is deserving of support and who maintains power is debatable. Perhaps people who feel that feminism is too radical are those who have held onto power for so long and think they own feminism. Suddenly marginalised women have a voice. Marginalised people are seen. “Equality feels like oppression when you’re accustomed to privilege.” Privilege isn’t necessarily wealth either, white skin is a privilege, as is an abled body, being a CIS hetero, being raised in a Judeo-Christian religion, not ever having experienced war, having access to education.

Feminism is radical and militant because it is responding to a capitalist, patriarchal, colonial, imperialist and white supremacist world that is destroying not only the planet and subsequently our species’ existence on it, but also the lives of othered people that don’t fit the dominant paradigm of that narrative on a daily basis.

People that DO fit the narrative of the dominant paradigm; white, male, able bodied, straight, Christian, wealthy, educated, ‘western’ or any of those combinations are having those values and traits questioned and measured against an alternative lived experience, one that is not any of those things and can never be and that applies to the majority of people. Suddenly, aspiring to this narrative, the impossibility of it and the demand that people do that to the exclusion of everything else is being rejected.

We need to go back to talking about ideologies. Yes, the bodies we inhabit matter hugely. The intersections of our privileges and oppressions, individually and collectively are important and dictate our lived experiences as citizens and as nations.

We need to continue to shed light on these individual experiences but that does not eliminate the need to talk about structures that continue to be racist, white/western supremacist, sexist, heteronormative, homogenised and classist.

IQ2 2017 - Political Correctness Has Failed Itself

The first debate in the IQ2 series was entertaining and thought provoking. Upon entering, we were asked to vote on whether we were For the statement that political correctness (PC) has failed, Against or Undecided. I chose Undecided. While I was leaning towards being Against the statement, (I believe PC hasn't failed and we still need it, now more than ever), I wanted to hear both sides of the argument and make a better choice at the end.

31% were Undecided at the start, 22% were Against and the remaining 47% were For. This means that at the beginning of the debate, most people felt that political correctness was failing, but many weren't sure and perhaps, like myself, hoped it wasn't and wanted to hear an informed discussion that confirmed its necessity or obsoleteness.

There were two speakers on each team who took turns presenting their arguments. At the end, we were asked to vote again and while the votes were tallied, the floor was opened to questions or statements from the audience. I'll disclose the result at the end.

Here are the speakers:

Image via: The Ethics Centre website

Simon Longstaff hosted the debate and immediately summarised the crux of the argument. Is there a conservative backlash against political correctness or is it a failed movement in itself?

Chris Kenny was the first speaker. He suggested that political correctness was a way in which our thoughts are controlled and shaped. He described this as some sort of dystopian or Orwellian nightmare whereby we are brainwashed into thinking a certain way to police our thoughts and words. You know, like how advertising, education, popular culture, television, movies etc. are dominated by a mostly white, male, hetero/cisgender ideal and shape our identities. He remarked that the Left of the political discourse aims to promote a Utopian ideal. So far, Chris was convincing me to vote for the other team. Perhaps PC works to undo the stereotypes and negative representations that all those other bias mediums communicate in order to condition us, and perhaps PC is a way in which we can achieve a balance. Chris suggested that PC as a tool to achieve this balance had gone too far and in its extremity has instead caused the mainstream to resist. PC has become a buzz word whereby its original intent and meaning has been distorted and has thus failed, becoming a "springboard to all it despises". I can see how anything in its extreme can do that. How over policing language can water down the intention, making it seem absurd and how "political posturing" and "virtue signalling" can become antithetical to common sense. But did that mean that we could or should do away with it all together? Chris' main argument was that political correctness had become alarmist and so prevalent that it was now irrelevant and counter productive. He gave examples of how people and governments can opt for preventative responses to serious events and ideas instead of making a commitment to practical action. Some of the examples he gave were the way in which the Lindt Cafe siege was handled. He suggested that in an effort to protect the feelings of Muslim Australians, police and the public responded in a hypersensitive manner (with hashtags such as #illridewithyou), effectively abandoning the actual victims of the crime. He also mentioned the way in which environmental science is often exaggerated, causing excessive preventative expenditure that doesn't address scientific reality, like responding to droughts by increasing expenditure into ventures like desalination, that were then prevented from going ahead due to flooding. 

Mikey Robbins spoke next for the Negative side, arguing that political correctness was not only succeeding, but was necessary and desirable. He asked if PC was such a failure, then why is it still so prominent in our media? Why do we discuss it so often? Surely if it was failing it would have disappeared, like Trotskyism? If there is such a prevalent need to decry political correctness, doesn't that prove that it's working? It provokes debate and shifts apathy. Mikey talked about how the phrase political correctness originally came about. He said it was a tongue-in-cheek description given to the Left, by and to themselves, to make fun of the way in which language was modified in a changing world to reflect contemporary values and agreed upon phrases and labels that respect marginalised groups in particular. Mikey said he was an advocate and regular participant in exercising free speech, even if it caused offense sometimes, but that didn't mean that PC was unnecessary or failing. He was suggesting that the context and intention of our words can make all the difference. For example, being critical of someone's actions is different to criticising their condition. Saying someone is behaving unjustly is not the same as suggesting the colour of their skin is inferior. PC is simply the term we use to describe something that has always existed; a discourse around what is socially acceptable and known and how we progress these ideas with sensitivity, respect and inclusivity. 


Jacinta Price was the next speaker for the Affirmative and claimed that political correctness distracts us from the real issues, preventing real solutions, particularly for Aboriginal people. She talked about the way her people spoke to one another and while in the mainstream, it can be considered politically incorrect, like referring to herself as a blackfulla, it was a cultural way of communicating that wasn't hurting anyone. Again, like Mikey, she was alluding to the idea that context and intention are very important when we consider how we use language and when it is appropriate to call it out as not being PC. She gave the example of how her mother, a respected Aboriginal Elder who participated extensively in elevating the status and well-being of her people, was denied the right to speak at a prominent Queensland university. Apparently she had been on the SBS program Insight and had said to a young person that she didn't think she looked like a blackfulla, inadvertently suggesting she was too white. People were offended and accused her of being politically incorrect and as a result she was denied the platform to speak publicly, effectively silencing her. Jacinta argued that her mother didn't have any ill intent, it was just the way she spoke. She didn't mean to cause offense and wasn't being "racist", it was benign language and its criticism deflected from the real issues that her mother wanted to address. It got me thinking about context again. Surely, most people in that room understood that Jacinta's mother wasn't being abusive and had ownership over that language as a cultural way of communicating. However, flagging those words as politically incorrect, don't necessarily condemn her or her ideas, they simply point out that better words can be chosen in another context. It prevents giving license to people who would use those words to denigrate or abuse people by suggesting the darkness of your skin determines how Aboriginal you are. I think they should have let her speak at the university, but I'm glad the discussion about her words happened. Of course she isn't racist, but it's necessary to talk about how her words can impact on others and what the consequences may be. Jacinta, like Mikey, talked about the place that humour and offense has in delivering often heavy and serious messages and how if we police our language too closely, we risk silencing vital voices. She suggested that in denying fundamental truths because we are afraid to speak about them and saying the wrong thing, we further enforce incorrect stereotypes. So do we say whatever we want to get our facts straight, or do we say what we want in a way that allows us to examine the facts sensitively? Jacinta mentioned the Bill Leak fiasco and how his cartoon about Aboriginal fathers was perhaps taken out of context and blown out of proportion. She said many Aboriginal fathers who did not identify with the derogatory portrayal, still understood its meaning and that the fact is those fathers do actually exist. She noted that nobody suggested that the cartoon was portraying all Aboriginal men as policemen, as the policeman in the picture was indeed Aboriginal. Both Chris and Jacinta suggested that Bill Leak was being unfairly targeted for his controversial cartoons and it was an example of PC being used in its extreme. She didn't talk about the unequal platform that white journalists and cartoonists have in society generally, compared to Aboriginal fathers who are still experiencing the effects of colonisation, poverty, unemployment and attempted genocide. Jacinta also talked about how Aboriginal women in remote areas are being threatened by their own people, with violence, if they dare to break traditional lore. She said nobody wants to talk about it out of fear of being politically incorrect. It seems that in order to be PC, people refuse to acknowledge that black on black violence has taken more lives that white on black violence and this is hypocritical in the face of the #blacklivesmatter campaign. Again, I thought about the context of privilege and discrimination in which violence happens generally. Shouldn't we be asking why and in what circumstances black people are dying compared to white people? Jacinta stated that she believes that racism and political correctness were two sides of the same coin. That's when she lost me.


Tasneem Chopra was the final speaker and argued for the Negative. Her concerns centred around the notion that when the conversation is dominated by a certain group of people and when those whose lives the issues impact are excluded from the debate, PC is a way in which we address imbalances of entitlement, privilege and representation. Political correctness provides boundaries. It defines the checks and balances that keeps the discourse honest and ensures a level playing field. When there is a lack of representation and when marginalised groups are spoken about instead of being allowed to speak, bigotry and misinformation becomes casualised and eventually becomes acceptable and mainstream; sometimes those who hold those bigoted beliefs can even become POTUS or PM (who in the case of Tony Abbott, a white, male, conservative, suddenly and inexplicably to many, declared himself Minister for Women and Minister for Indigenous Affairs). Tasneem pointed out that PC helps us to identify the issues that divide us and eliminates the Us vs Them mentality that often causes bigotry to escalate, as it is currently, despite the influence and prevalence of political correctness. PC is a siren of the non acceptance of hatred and it helps us to ensure respectful discourse. 

The debate was then handed over to the audience. A few people brought up some excellent points. One man argued that PC is a form of self-censorship that occurs when we have freedom of information. It is a way in which we can police our own thoughts as opposed to censorship being imposed on us by the state. Another person talked about stereotyping and how accurate stereotypes are a way in which we make sense of the world around us. It is when stereotypes become inaccurate assumptions that can cause harm, that PC can help us to keep these inaccuracies in check. Another woman reminded us of when words like kaffir, nigger, wog, faggot and other derogatory terms were an acceptable part of the lexicon and how those insults have been eliminated due to political correctness. It made me wonder if political correctness has gone too far, or if in fact it has forced the scum to the surface. When people get defensive about being PC, are they just showing their true colours, indulging in their cognitive dissonance and refusing to admit that they are out of line and learning from it? Is it PC that is stifling debate or privileged people using it to deflect from the real issues? Which is the argument that is twisted around to minimise political correctness. As Mikey said, surely political correctness has done more good than harm. That quote kept coming to my mind. "When you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression". I'd made my decision. I voted Against the statement and went with my initial thoughts. Political correctness hasn't failed. It's working, it's agitating and it's changing the way we see the world, for the better.

The final vote was counted and the results spoke for themselves. It was one of the biggest swings seen in IQ debate history.

Undecided - 13%
For - 18%
Against - 69%

Summer Olympics in Brazil 2016

Image via: The Sun

The Summer Olympics are an exciting spectacle, but Olympic Games hosting cities are rarely without controversy. Rio De Janeiro is no exception. The money spent to host such an immense global event, when there is such financial inequality, poverty and as a consequence crime in a host city, means ordinary people are torn. Between being proud of their country’s hosting capabilities, showcasing their culture, world heritage sites and tourism, whilst at the same time being understandably angry at the injustice of governments producing the resources to accommodate a huge event, when funds for local infrastructure, economy, housing, employment and social services are lacking. 

Brazil’s economy has been growing steadily for the last decade and this is why it was awarded both the Summer Olympics in 2016 as well as the FIFA World Cup in 2014. The middle class has been expanding in Brazil and governments generally see events such as these as opportunities to invest in the infrastructure and economy and eventually generate jobs, tourism, revenue and improve public works for the locals. No doubt Brazilians have welcomed such a huge honour to host these events, particularly the World Cup – Football being a cultural phenomenon in Brazil and being without a doubt, the number one sport played in the country. Soccer is an institution in Brazil, having its own style and mystique renowned the world over. However, it is inevitable that the working classes are not only skeptical of the value these events will add to the Brazilian way of life, but also justifiably demanding of greater equality for the locals.

When projects go over budget, take exceedingly long periods to complete, or are not completed at all and when money is spent on hosting these events at the expense and detriment of governance that benefits the locals, people respond with demonstration. Events such as the Summer Olympics, while putting a spotlight on unity, sportsmanship, peaceful competition and inspiration, inevitably highlight societal inequality, corruption and conflict. 

In Brazil, protestors threatened to extinguish the Olympic Flame as it traveled to its destination. One of the torchbearers himself participated in protesting the current Brazilian government, bearing a slogan painted on his arse. Consequently, security has been on high alert and this raises questions about people’s civil liberties and human rights, particularly in a country like Brazil where the police and security forces have a reputation for being especially brutal. It has been reported that processes of ‘pacification’ have been used to clean up the favelas to make them safe and accommodating to tourists and spectators. While drug traffickers are often the target, civilian collateral damage is not unusual and Amnesty International has been keeping a close eye on human rights violations in Rio.

While the Summer Olympics demonstrate the strength of the human spirit (for the first time ever, a team representing refugees – there are more than 60 million displaced people worldwide according to the UN – is competing), the Olympics is also a time to consider the greater imbalances and inequalities that plague our world and perhaps inspire the desire to want to make change.