Kategori: News in English

Thomas Piketty’s Nature, Culture, and Inequality is a little book that addresses an issue of great significance: is the social inequality we observe every day natural?

Drawing on historical economic data from around the world, Piketty describes a tendency since the late 18th century toward greater political and socioeconomic equality. This was particularly apparent in Western countries from around 1914 to around 1980. There has since been a pronounced slowing of that trend.

Piketty points out that inequality manifests in different ways in different societies; it also manifests in different ways in the same societies over history. Inequality, he says, has “followed markedly different trajectories – political, socioeconomic, cultural, civilizational, and religious”.

This shows us that human culture is more variable, and therefore more malleable, than many have assumed. “It is culture in the broadest sense,” he argues, “and more particularly political mobilization” that “provides an explanation for the diversity, degree, and structure of the social inequalities we observe.”

As such, there is no reason why we cannot continue the 20th century arc of development towards greater equality in the present century. In fact, without seriously addressing inequality, Piketty argues, we cannot hope to adequately address the climate crisis.

Review: Nature, Culture, and Inequality – Thomas Piketty, translated by Willard Wood (Scribe)

Piketty is a professor at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (EHESS) and the Paris School of Economics, and co-director of the World Inequality Lab. He is best known for his landmark Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013), which became a bestseller and sparked a global debate about capitalism, inequality and taxation policy.

Using historical analysis and statistics, Piketty argued that if the return on capital exceeds the growth rate of the economy, it follows that wealth will become increasingly concentrated. This, in turn, leads to alarming increases in inequality, which are not only unfair but undermine democratic and meritocratic values, trust in institutions and social cohesion.

Piketty’s new book is designed to make his thought available to a wider audience. It is adapted from a 2022 lecture drawing on historical and comparative research on inequality from the World Inequality Database and his book A Brief History of Equality (2021).

Conversational in style, and accompanied by attractive colour charts, the book moves briskly through topics including income and wealth inequality, gender inequality, the rise of the welfare state, education spending, progressive taxation of income and inheritance, the collapse of colonial assets, public debt crises, and the climate crisis.

Piketty distils some of his key insights about the development of income and wealth inequality across history, and presents what he views as the key to a more just and sustainable world.

Income and wealth inequality

When it comes to income (who earns what), the bottom 50% of earners receive 5-6% percent of total income in the most inegalitarian countries (e.g. South Africa). In more egalitarian countries (e.g. those in northern Europe), the bottom 50% earn 20-25% of total income.

The distribution of wealth (who owns what) is even less equal. The poorest 50% do not own more than 5% of total wealth in any country on earth.

As important as they have been, advances towards reducing inequality in the 20th century mainly concerned the distribution of income. “When it comes to the distribution of wealth,” Piketty argues, “things have changed very little.”

As he points out, the “great redistribution” of property in his native France, largely between 1914 and 1980, had “a significant impact on reducing disparity between the richest 10% and the next 40%”, via the emergence of a “property-owning middle class”. Despite this important development, “the poorest 50% have hardly benefited from the redistribution of property in the past two centuries at all”.

Piketty argues that, like the 20th century movement towards greater equality, recent patterns of increasing inequality are not inevitable. Nor are they explainable in terms of “personal talent, native endowment or natural temperament”.

As journalist Jonathan Portes summarises, the idea that “great disparities are somehow ‘natural’, because ability or entrepreneurialism is unevenly distributed across individuals (or countries, or ethnic groups)” is regularly “used to argue that efforts to reduce inequality will either be ineffective or reduce growth and prosperity, or both.”

This claim is not supported by the historical data, says Piketty. He rejects the view, which dominates much contemporary economic thinking and policy discussion, that “very large inequalities are the inevitable outcome of a well-functioning market economy”. The key to understanding reductions in inequality, he argues, is that they are directly related to a country’s political culture and institutions. In particular, they are a result of the historical role of collective political mobilisation to drive policy change.

Thomas Piketty argues that rates of inequality are directly related to a country’s political culture and institutions.
BalkansCat/Shutterstock

What works: Sweden vs. the United States

Sweden in the 20th century, Piketty writes, is an example of the power of political organisation, social struggle and “the ability to build new institutional outcomes”.

Until around 1920, Sweden, like other European countries, was “extremely inegalitarian”. It had an elitist political system. Only the richest 20% of men could vote. Votes were apportioned based on individual wealth: the richer you were, the more votes you could cast.

Then a “collective mobilization” by the trade unions and the Social Democratic Party “put the state capacity of Sweden to the service of a […] different political project”. Rather than use “the records that had made it possible to measure income and property” to allocate the right to vote, they used them to “impose a progressive tax, with the goal of funding access to education and healthcare”.

Piketty argues that the Swedish example is instructive on several fronts. Firstly, it shows that “a country is never inegalitarian or egalitarian by nature”: it “depends who controls the government and to what end”. Secondly, Sweden’s social democratic policies led to it becoming both one of the most equal societies in the world, as well as one of the richest.

The United States makes an interesting comparison. In recent history, the wealth of its middle class has been shrinking. Having at one point reached similar wealth distribution to Europe, it is now headed in the direction of “Europe’s pre-World War I levels”.

Inequality decreased in the United States between 1932 and 1980. During that period, the country had progressive income and inheritance tax rates, and a prosperous economy that “stifled neither economic growth nor innovation”. The totemic Reagan-era slashing of top tax rates in the 1980s did not achieve what its supporters promised. Economic growth in the United States in the period 1990-2020 was half what it was in 1950-1990. Inequality accelerated.

Addressing inequality

Imperfect though the process has been, the development of the welfare state was the most important factor in addressing inequality in the 20th century. Progressive taxation was used to fund increased spending in healthcare, pensions, housing, infrastructure and education. Piketty argues that the roughly tenfold increase in public spending over the century was an important factor in promoting individual freedom, reducing inequality, and raising productivity and living standards.

The question of what might represent “acceptable levels” of income disparity, according to Piketty, is “clearly a question that a democratic process and public deliberation should deicide”. But he proposes a ratio between the poorest and richest somewhere in the order of 1 to 3 or 1 to 10. These levels can accommodate diversity of aspirations, while maintaining the incentives “necessary for social and economic organization”. Nothing, economically or socially, justifies ratios of 1 to 50 or 1 to 100.

A crucial factor in the United States’ historical advantage over its competitors in productivity, especially in the industrial sector, was not low tax rates or astronomical corporate incomes. It was its lead in education. The “near-universal” access to secondary education the United States achieved in the 1950s was not realised in Germany, France and Japan until the 1980s and 1990s.

Since then, despite the significant expansion of access to tertiary education, with its acknowledged advantages, spending on education across Western countries has stagnated.

Inequality and the climate crisis

Returning to the theme of “nature” at the end of his book, Piketty argues that understanding inequality helps us to better understand the issue of climate change, and thus what we need to do to address it. In an interview with New York Times reporter Manuela Andreoni, he succinctly states his main point:

There’s no way we can preserve […] planetary habitability in the long run if we don’t address our inequality challenge at the same time.

This is partly because of the comparatively high carbon emissions from the Global North compared to the Global South. But it is also because of carbon emission inequalities within countries – in particular, the large carbon footprints of the wealthiest 10%.

“It is clear that we’re going to have to change our production and consumption regime throughout the world,” Piketty observes. This will need to be society wide, but with particular focus on the rich and the middle class:

There’s simply no way that the middle class and lower income groups are going to accept the kind of transformation that is needed if you don’t ask for a much bigger effort from the people at the top.

Piketty thinks that the climate crisis “may lead to a greater demand for equality than we’ve recently seen”. In the 20th century, many countries achieved the expansion of access to health care and education – and, “to a lesser extent, transport, housing and energy” – by taking these parts of the economy out of market frameworks and viewing them as a public good.

“A similar shift,” he suggests, “could help the world curb climate change and stop biodiversity loss.” When Andreoni asks about sceptical and cynical responses to such a proposal, Piketty replies:

that’s what we did for education and health. We just decided that it was important for all children at age 6 and then at age 10, and then at age 15 and then at age 18 to learn about this, and that. And we didn’t let the market system decide this. And now nobody wants to go back to the previous situation. Läs mer…

The Albanese government is looking to introduce laws that would give it unprecedented powers to forcibly remove non-citizens from Australia. The newly introduced Migration Amendment Bill, expected to be debated in parliament this week, would:

allow the government to send more people to third countries
give the government immunity from being sued by people harmed when deported
expand its powers to revisit protection findings, meaning people previously found to be refugees could be returned to their home country, and
impose harsh visa conditions on some of those who stay.

The government says the measures are designed to protect the Australian community.

But the sweeping new removal powers are not restricted to the non-citizens with criminal histories who feature so prominently in political speeches and media reports.

They could be used to deport a wide group of people, including refugees and people seeking asylum who have lived in and contributed to the Australian community for years. It could separate families and communities, devastating Australian citizens and permanent residents who are left behind. The bill is already causing widespread fear in affected communities.

How did we get here?

This bill was introduced in response to the High Court’s judgement in the case YBFZ v Minister for Immigration earlier this month.

YBFZ (the pseudonym given to the plaintiff, a 36-year-old stateless refugee) is the latest in a series of cases decided by the High Court after its landmark decision in a separate case, NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, in November 2023.

In that case, the court found the government’s indefinite immigration detention policy was unlawful because it was a form of punishment, which under the Constitution can only be imposed by courts. The ruling led to the release of 224 people from detention.

The government responded to that decision with legislation authorising monitoring conditions, including ankle bracelets and curfews, for many of the people released. Any breach of those conditions could lead to criminal charges and imprisonment.

The YBFZ case challenged these visa conditions. The High Court ruled that they also amounted to punishment in breach of the Constitution.

The government introduced the Migration Amendment Bill a day later.

The new powers in the bill could impact a far larger group of people than those released as a result of the NZYQ case. And the bill’s concerning provisions could be overturned in further court challenges.

There is an urgent need for parliamentary scrutiny of this bill so its full consequences, including any possible unconstitutional elements, can be examined publicly before legislators vote.

Expanding powers to send people offshore

The bill creates new powers to forcibly deport non-citizens to unspecified third countries – without a need to show they pose a risk to the community.

The new provisions would mean certain visas would automatically cease as soon as a person has permission to “enter and remain in” another country that has a “third country reception arrangement” with Australia. They could immediately be put in detention in Australia until they could be removed.

Currently, asylum seekers who reach Australia by boat can be sent to Nauru. The new provisions extend this power to “bridging visa R” (BVR) holders. These visas are issued to people in detention where there is no reasonable prospect of their removal from Australia. This could be because they have been found to be owed protection, they are stateless, or their home country refuses to take them back.

This was the visa given to people released from detention as the result of the NZYQ decision. However, there is nothing stopping the government from issuing the visa to a much broader cohort in the future. Many people living in the community on other bridging visas, for instance, could be moved to this visa and sent offshore.

Some may be genuine refugees whose claims were not properly assessed. This includes those refused protection through the flawed fast-track process, which limited their ability to provide crucial information to the decision makers reviewing their protection claims.

The bill could allow for people to be held in foreign countries with no safeguards to ensure they are treated humanely, at Australian government expense. They could be detained there, potentially indefinitely, and nothing in the bill requires that a lasting solution be found for them.

The harms of Australia’s offshore regime on Nauru and Manus Island are well documented.

The offshore processing system has also come at a great financial cost to Australian taxpayers.

The harms of Australia’s offshore regime on Nauru and Manus Island are well documented.
AAP Image/Eoin Blackwell

Evading accountability

The bill attempts to indemnify the government from being sued for any actions taken to facilitate the removal of a person from Australia or their treatment in a third country.

In the past, such civil liability claims have been a crucial accountability mechanism for those transferred offshore.

For example, dozens of refugees have secured court orders to be brought to Australia to access urgent, lifesaving treatment unavailable in Nauru or Manus Island.

Many have also sued the government for damages. In 2017, the largest human rights settlement to date was agreed between Manus Island detainees and the federal government, following a claim of unlawful detention and negligence. Other cases are ongoing.

By shutting the door to future legal challenges, the government would effectively remove one of the few proven checks on its power in this area.

Sending refugees back to harm

In addition, there are no safeguards preventing people sent to a third country later being returned to their home country where they may face persecution or other serious harm.

And the bill expands the government’s powers to revisit protection findings, meaning people previously found to be refugees could also be returned to their home country.

This power already exists in the Migration Act in relation to people who do not hold a visa. The bill seeks to expand it to people who hold certain bridging and other visas that can be specified later through regulations. This would include people who have been living in the Australian community for years.

Refugee status should be a stable and enduring protection, not something that can be easily revoked or altered based on the government’s changing policies.

Reimposing ankle monitoring and curfews

The bill and associated regulations also seek to reimpose visa conditions, such as curfews and ankle monitoring.

These conditions could be used where the immigration minister is satisfied a non-citizen poses a substantial risk of harming the Australian community by committing a serious offence.

The Human Rights Law Centre has voiced concerns the bill would allow

the government to make assumptions about people’s future behaviour and continue imposing punitive conditions that limit people’s freedom and bodily integrity.

It is unclear whether the changes meet the requirements set down by the High Court in the YBFZ case, given restrictions would continue to be imposed without court involvement.

The bill is the latest in a series of attempts to rush through migration legislation without time for public debate.

This approach places a substantial burden on the court system, where rushed legislation is tested and the Commonwealth often loses.

It is essential these issues are thoroughly examined and debated to ensure that Australia’s immigration policies remain fair, just, humane and legal. Läs mer…

Working practices in the construction industry have been labelled a relic of a bygone era – 64% of employees work more than 50 hours per week.

Long working hours can pose significant risks to people’s physical and mental health, relationships, workplace productivity and safety.

Construction is also struggling to attract and retain women. In New South Wales, about one-third of companies with fewer than 200 employees have no female employees at all.

These are serious problems for an industry under pressure to deliver 1.2 million new homes and A$230 billion of infrastructure over the next five years. Clearly, something needs to change.

One proposal is to mandate a five-day week across the sector. On face value, it may seem like common sense. Making the construction sector a more attractive place to work could attract more talent and, by doing so, alleviate other pressures.

Our research questions this assumption, highlighting that without careful design, such a proposal could have significant unintended negative consequences.

Read more:
Australia’s construction industry needs more hands on deck – so why is it ignoring skilled migrant women?

Work–life balance

To investigate the potential impacts of a shorter work week on work–life balance, we surveyed 1,475 people and conducted interviews with 111 people from across the NSW building and construction industry. We also examined leading international peer-reviewed studies.

We found that the relationship between a healthy work–life balance and a shorter working week is much more nuanced than the current debate suggests.

On average, respondents worked 50-55 hours per week.
sculpies/Shutterstock

There certainly was evidence of unhealthy working hours in some parts of the industry. Of the people we surveyed, 39.8% consistently worked more than five days per week.

We also found 26.1% worked more than 55 hours per week, and 36.7% more than ten hours per day.

But we should be careful not to generalise. Young people, those in relatively junior roles and workers on sites – especially salaried managers and supervisors – were found to be doing the heavy lifting in terms of hours and days worked.

This was especially true on large inner-city commercial, residential and infrastructure projects.

Across all respondents, people worked an average of 50–55 hours per week, and just over five days. More than 60% said they had satisfactory, good or very good work–life balance.

Different needs

We also found that not everyone’s work–life balance will benefit from simply reducing working hours.

For construction workers, this depends on a wide range of factors, such as:

age
caring and family responsibilities
financial circumstances
how easily a particular job can be done in five days
personal attitudes towards work.

It’s also not clear whether a shorter working week would increase female participation.

Across men and women surveyed, high salaries were widely regarded as adequate compensation for the high hours worked. Some research has even shown women might be less likely to leave the industry than men.

Our findings suggested women who take on the weight of family responsibilities could be especially disadvantaged, if they were forced to work even longer hours during the week to make up for the lost weekend.

However, most respondents saw the delineation between men and women as increasingly irrelevant and based on outdated assumptions. Most argued that the industry needs to be made more appealing to both men and women.

The industry needs to be made more appealing to both men and women.
Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

Strong support for a shorter week

Not surprisingly, we found strong support for a shorter working week. However, it’s a bit of a leading question.

We found that few people were willing or able to take a pay cut, work longer hours or lift their productivity during the week.

Many people were also worried about potential impacts on their projects, employers and colleagues. Few employers and clients said they were able or willing to absorb the costs of a shorter working week.

Impact on projects

Depending on a wide range of factors identified in our report, the consequences of moving the industry to a five-day week varied.

We found it could increase the time it takes to complete projects by 5–25%, and costs by 0.4–4%.

The current “hard five-day week” model being advocated for the industry – where sites are shut down on weekends – involved the greatest potential costs.

Importantly, we found subcontractors were currently underpricing five-day-week projects by as much as 20%, because they could spread the costs across other six-day projects.

A move to a hard five-day week could increase costs for subcontractors.
Mikael Blomkvist/Pexels

If a five-day week were mandated across the entire industry, this cost increase could be added to the costs estimates above.

The jury is out

The jury is still out on the pros and cons of a mandatory five-day week in construction.

We found that a healthy work-life balance for everyone is most effectively achieved by providing people with greater flexibility and control over when, where, how and how long they work.

If flexibility can be improved for everyone in the industry, then there is no need to incur the potential risks of a mandatory five-day week to individuals, employers and clients of the industry.

If we insist on adopting a five-day week, then a soft five-day week where sites are flexibly kept open on weekends may be the better option. Läs mer…

The Great Barrier Reef, which supports an estimated 64,000 jobs and has a social and economic value of around A$6.4 billion, is under threat due to human-induced climate change.

Scientists have begun “biobanking”, which involves gathering coral sperm from the reef during annual spawning. These samples are held in special repositories and can be used in future to create baby corals via “coral IVF”.

Until now, much of this research has been done without consultation with, or permission from, the traditional custodians of the sea Countries of origin.

But our recent research looked at how we can do things in a different and more respectful way by involving traditional custodians in decision-making and action.

Woppaburra people believe all things living and non-living, including coral samples, are spiritually connected to Country and people.
Gus Burrows/AIMS, Author provided (no reuse)

What we did and what we found

More than 70 groups of First Nations peoples are traditional custodians of the Great Barrier Reef.

In the summer of 2022, scientists and First Nations peoples gathered on Konomie (North Keppel Island) in Woppaburra sea Country in Central Queensland. We were there for the annual mass coral spawning.

Scientists from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and Taronga Conservation Society trained the Woppaburra people and neighbouring Indigenous Rangers in gathering coral spawn, larval rearing and cryopreservation methods for biobanking.

Scientists trained the Woppaburra people and neighbouring Indigenous rangers in gathering coral spawn, larval rearing, and cryopreservation methods.
Gemma Molinaro/AIMS, Author provided (no reuse)

During the training, it became clear the current scientific approach overlooked some key cultural considerations.

Woppaburra people believe all things living and non-living, including coral samples, are spiritually connected to Country and people.

By sending these samples to a land-based facility, the “biobanking” process removes them from Country, breaking this vital connection. (The samples are held in biorepositories at Taronga CryoDiversity Bank sites on Cammeraygal and Wiradjuri lands, in New South Wales).

Holding samples from another group’s Country also creates cultural concerns for the traditional custodians of the lands on which the samples are stored, and for First Nations staff and visitors to those sites.

As traditional custodians, Woppaburra people are charged with looking after Country. Maintaining an enduring link to these samples is vital for cultural safety.

This realisation led to collaborative brainstorming about the ways in which these goals could be met. We wanted biobanking samples to support reef resilience while also maintaining links to the samples’ rightful custodians.

It also raised new questions, such as:

which group(s) hold custodianship over corals bred via IVF, using sperm and eggs from two different sea Countries?
what if those corals are seeded to a third sea Country?
how can we do this work more respectfully?

During the training, it became clear the current scientific approach overlooked some key cultural considerations.
Gemma Molinaro/AIMS, Author provided (no reuse)

A different approach

We don’t have all the answers. But we started by drafting new protocols to guide the custodial stages. This includes:

how we gather coral spawn for scientific use
how we eventually return coral larvae to Country
how we transfer custodianship of samples to other parties.

We are also building cross-cultural, cross-institutional collaborations to continue working together towards the same goals. These include protecting, preserving and supporting adaptation of corals in the face of climate change.

In a world first, the Woppaburra people worked with the Taronga Cultural Programs team, the AIMS Indigenous Partnerships Team, and Gamay traditional custodians, to transfer custodianship of cryopreserved coral samples.

The Woppaburra and Gamay peoples share the same totem, the humpback whale, and are seen as sister clans. This made the ceremony accompanying the acceptance especially meaningful.

By working together, Western science and Indigenous knowledge were shared and new traditions were born.
Gus Burrows/AIMS, Author provided (no reuse)

While the samples will always be part of Woppaburra Country, cultural custodianship and guardianship has been transferred to the Gamay Rangers.

By working together, Western science and Indigenous knowledge were shared and new traditions were born.

As we describe in our journal paper:

An unexpected and profound outcome that emerged during the nights of spawning was a new cultural practice whereby rather than simply being discarded, the gametes remaining after sperm were sampled were combined in a small bucket and fertilised.

At the end of the night, the Woppaburra women released these early embryos and leftover gametes into the receiving waters around Konomie to ensure their return to Country.

The purpose of this practice was to respect the life potential of these embryos and gametes, either as future coral recruits on surrounding reefs or simply as part of the biocultural ecosystem of Country.

Getting it right is in everyone’s best interests

Traditional owners are increasingly re-asserting their role in managing sea Country.

As climate change continues to affect the Great Barrier Reef and new methods for reef restoration are developed, this blueprint will ensure that cultural safety remains at the forefront of restoration activities.

It is crucial organisations genuinely engage with traditional owners through the process of free, prior and informed consent. This right is recognised by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

This UN declaration sets out the processes for how traditional custodians engage with other parties in their sea Countries, for reef research and restoration.

New practices such as the protocols set out in this project give the Woppaburra people confidence their traditional cultural values are being considered and applied in a respectful manner and will remain so, into the future.

Sadly, the reef is under immense pressure from ocean warming and human-induced stress. Better partnerships between scientists, resource managers and traditional custodians of sea Countries are in everyone’s best interests. Läs mer…

Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has recently approved a new COVID booster. The shot was developed by Pfizer and targets the JN.1 sub-variant of Omicron.

This is now the fifth iteration of the COVID vaccines, which have been updated regularly to keep up with the rapidly evolving virus, SARS-CoV-2.

But nearly five years into the pandemic, you may be wondering, why do we need yet another type of COVID booster? And do we still need to be getting boosters at all? Here’s what to consider.

Targeting the spike protein

Pfizer’s JN.1 booster (and Moderna’s, though the TGA has not approved this one at this stage) is based on mRNA technology. This technology instructs our cells to produce a specific protein – in this case SARS-CoV-2’s spike, a protein on the surface of the virus that allows it to attach to our cells.

This helps the immune system produce antibodies that recognise the spike protein and interfere with the virus getting into our cells.

In response to our strengthened immune responses from vaccinations and previous infections (called immune pressure), SARS-CoV-2 has continued to evolve over the course of the pandemic, modifying the shape of its spike protein so our antibodies become less effective.

Most recently we’ve faced a soup of Omicron sub-variants, including JN.1. Since JN.1 was first detected in August 2023, this Omicron sub-variant has spawned a variety of further sub-variants, such as KP.2 (known as FLiRT), KP.3 (known as FLuQE) and XEC.

The spike protein is made up of 1,273 amino acids, a bit like molecular building blocks. Mutations to the spike protein change individual amino acids.

Certain amino acids are important for allowing neutralising antibodies to bind to the spike protein. This means changes can give the virus an edge over earlier variants, helping it evade our immune response.

Scientists keep updating the COVID vaccines in an effort to keep up with these changes. The better matched the vaccine “spike” is to the spike protein on the surface of the virus trying to infect you, the better protection you’re likely to get.

So who should get vaccinated, and when?

Updating vaccines to deal with mutating viruses is not a new concept. It has been happening for the flu vaccine since around 1950.

We’ve become accustomed to getting the annual flu vaccine in the lead-up to the winter cold and flu season. But, unlike influenza, COVID has not settled into this annual seasonal cycle. The frequency of COVID waves of infection has been fluctuating, with new waves emerging periodically.

COVID is also more transmissible than the flu, which presents another challenge. While numbers vary, a conservative estimate of the reproduction number (R0 – how many people will one person will go on to infect) for JN.1 is 5. Compare this to seasonal flu with an R0 of about 1.3. In other words, COVID could be four times more transmissible than flu.

Add to this immunity from a COVID vaccination (or a previous infection) begins to wane in the months afterwards.

So an annual COVID booster is not considered enough for some more vulnerable people.

For adults aged 65 to 74, a booster is recommended every 12 months, but they’re eligible every six months. For adults over 75, a shot is recommended every six months.

Adults aged 18 to 64 are eligible every 12 months, unless they have a severe immune deficiency. Many conditions can cause immunodeficiency, including genetic disorders, infections, cancer, autoimmune diseases, diabetes and lung disease, as well as having received an organ transplant. For this group, it’s recommended they receive a shot every 12 months, but they’re eligible every six.

Regular COVID boosters are recommended for people who are over 65 or medically vulnerable.
AYO Production/Shutterstock

Making sense of the advice

A vaccine that targets JN.1 should provide good protection against the Omicron sub-variants likely to be circulating in the coming months.

A few things need to happen before the JN.1 shots become available, such as the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation providing guidance to the government. But we can reasonably expect they might be rolled out within the next month or so.

If they hit doctors’ offices and pharmacies before Christmas and you’re due for a booster, the holiday period might be added impetus to go and get one, especially if you’re planning to attend lots of family and social gatherings over summer.

In the meantime, the XBB.1.5 vaccines remain available. Although they’re targeted at an earlier Omicron sub-variant, they should still offer some protection.

While young, healthy people might like to wait for the updated boosters, for those who are vulnerable and due for a vaccination, whether or not to hold out may be something to weigh up with your doctor.

The advice on COVID boosters in Australia, with stronger wording (“recommended” versus “eligible”) used for more vulnerable groups, reflects what we know about COVID. People who are older and medically vulnerable are more likely to become very unwell with the virus.

For young, healthy people who may be wondering, “do I need a COVID booster at all?”, having one annually is sensible. Although you’re less likely to get very sick from COVID, it’s possible. And, importantly, vaccines also reduce the risk of developing long COVID.

While COVID vaccines do a very good job of protecting against severe disease, they don’t necessarily stop you becoming infected. Evidence on whether they reduce transmission has been mixed, and changed over time.

We’ve come to appreciate that vaccination is not going to free us of COVID. But it’s still our best defence against severe illness. Läs mer…

It’s that time of year when students are waiting for school and university results that could change the course of their lives.

Uncertain waiting periods are among our most emotionally challenging experiences. In fact, research shows students are more stressed while waiting for their results than after finding out they have failed. This is because dealing with an uncertain situation is more stressful than dealing with a known negative outcome.

In our new research, we investigated how students can best approach this often agonising time.

Our research

We followed 101 university psychology students in Belgium receiving results that determined whether they could continue their degree.

We surveyed students ten times a day over two periods. We surveyed for two and a half days before they had their results, because previous research suggests uncertainty is hardest immediately before finding out outcomes. We then surveyed for six and a half days after results were received, because strong emotional responses can last several days.

We used a method called “experience sampling”, which involves sending short surveys repeatedly each day. These were done via smartphone.

Every survey, students used a slider scale to tell us how strongly they were feeling four positive (for example, “proud”, “happy”) and six negative (for example, “disappointed”, “anxious”) emotions. We asked questions such as: “right now, how anxious do you feel about your results?”.

Students also used a slider scale to indicate how much they used six common strategies to manage their feelings (for example, distracting yourself, accepting your feelings, or rethinking the situation). We then tested which strategies predicted better emotional outcomes both during the wait, and after results were known.

Waiting for results can be a really stressful time for students finishing school or during university.
Veja/ Shutterstock

What to avoid

We found there are strategies students should avoid while they wait for results. These strategies are associated with stronger negative emotion when used in the waiting period. Two takeaway findings include:

1. Don’t reframe the situation before you know what it is

When managing stress, one generally helpful strategy is reappraisal, which involves rethinking an emotional situation to reduce its impact. For example, a student might interpret failure as a learning opportunity.

Surprisingly, we found the more students reappraised while they waited, the worse they felt. For example, a student thinking “if I fail, I can learn from it”.

But we found the more students reappraised after they received their grades, the better they felt. Reappraisal seems to only help after knowing your grades, when there is a concrete outcome to rethink.

2. Take care with how you share

When feeling bad, people often share their emotions with others. For example, a student might share their worries with a friend.

But the more students in our study shared their emotions with others while waiting for their results, the worse they felt. This may be because students are sharing to vent or complain, leading to a downward spiral. It also could be that students share with friends who are also worried, and their friends’ feelings compound their anxiety.

What can you do instead?

We found students who accepted their emotions as they were, without judgement, felt more positive during the wait. This strategy also worked well after students learned their results, regardless or what they were. This suggests acceptance is a consistently helpful approach.

Research suggests when we accept our emotions, they lose their power. In accepting our emotions, we confront the reality of the situation and let our feelings run their natural course, rather than swimming against the tide.

We found students who just accepted their emotions as they were seemed to cope better with results stress.
Look Studio/ Shutterstock

How can you accept your emotions?

You can practise acceptance in three steps:

1. notice and label your feelings. For example, “I’m feeling anxious” or “angry” or “ashamed”

2. experience these feelings fully, even if they are negative. Don’t try to control, diminish, or avoid them

3. don’t judge these feelings. Recognise they are normal and valid. For example, you might think, “I feel really anxious about my results, but that’s reasonable and OK”.

Acceptance may feel counterintuitive, but our research shows it can help students navigate that long and anxious wait for results. Läs mer…

The original idea for the world wide web emerged in a flurry of scientific thought around the end of World War II. It began with a hypothetical machine called the “memex”, proposed by US Office of Scientific Research and Development head Vannevar Bush in an article entitled As We May Think, published in the Atlantic Monthly in 1945.

The memex would help us access all knowledge, instantaneously and from our desks. It had a searchable index, and documents were linked together by the “trails” made by users when they associated one document with another. Bush imagined the memex using microfiche and photography, but conceptually it was almost the modern internet.

The true value in this early idea was the links: if you wanted to explore more, there was an easy, built-in way to do that. Anyone who has spent hours following random links on Wikipedia and learning about things they never knew interested them will recognise this value. (There is of course a Wikipedia page about this phenomenon.)

Links have made the web what it is. But as social media platforms, generative AI tools and even search engines are trying harder to keep users on their site or app, the humble link is starting to look like an endangered species.

The laws of links

Modern search engines were developed in the shadow of the memex, but at first they faced unexpected legal issues. In the early days of the internet, it was not clear whether “crawling” web pages to ingest them into a search engine index was a violation of copyright.

It was also not clear whether, in linking to information that might help someone build a bomb, defraud someone, or carry out some other nefarious activity, search engines or website hosts were “publishers”. Being publishers would make them legally liable for content they hosted or linked to.

The issue of web crawling has been dealt with by a combination of fair use, country-specific exemptions for crawling, and the “safe harbour” provisions of the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act. These permit web crawling as long as the search engines do not alter the original work, link to it, only use it for a relatively short term, and don’t profit from the original content.

The issue of problematic content was addressed (at least in the very influential US jurisdiction) via legislation called Section 230. This offers immunity to “providers or users of interactive computer services” who deliver information “provided by another content provider”.

Without this law, the internet as we know it couldn’t exist, because it is impossible to manually check every page linked to or every social media post for illegal content.

This doesn’t mean the internet is a complete Wild West, though. Section 230 has been successfully challenged on the basis of illegal discrimination, when a mandatory questionnaire about housing asked for race. More recently, a case brought against TikTok has suggested platforms are not immune when their algorithms recommend specific videos.

The web’s social contract is failing

All of the laws that have created the internet, though, have relied on links. The social contract is that a search engine can scrape your site, or a social media company can host your words or pictures, as long as they give you, the person who created it, credit (or discredit if you’re giving bad advice). The link isn’t just the thing you follow down a Wikipedia rabbit hole, it’s a way of giving credit, and allowing content creators to profit from their content.

Large platforms, including Google, Microsoft and OpenAI, have used these laws, and the social contract they imply, to keep ingesting content at industrial scale.

The provision of links, eyeballs and credit, though, is falling as AI does not link to its sources. To take one example, news snippets provided in search engines and social media have displaced the original articles so much that tech platforms now have to pay for these snippets in Australia and Canada.

Large tech companies value keeping people on their sites as clicks can be monetised by selling personalised ads.

Another problem with AI is that it typically relearns infrequently and holds onto dated content. While the latest AI-powered search tools claim to do better on this front, it is unclear how good they are.

And, as with news snippets, large corporates are reluctant to give credit and views to others. There are good people-centred reasons for social media companies and search engines to want you to not have to leave. A key value of ChatGPT is providing information in a single, condensed form so you never have to click a link – even if one is available.

Copyright and creativity

Is the sidelining of links a good thing, though? Many experts argue not.

Using content without credit is arguably copyright infringement. Replacing artists and writers with AI reduces creativity in society.

Summarising information, without linking out to original sources, reduces people’s ability to fact check, is prone to bias, and may reduce the learning, thought and creativity supported by browsing many documents. After all, Wikipedia would be no fun without the rabbit hole, and the internet without links is just an online book written by a robot.

AI backlash looms

So what does the future hold? Ironically, the same AI systems that have made the link problem worse have also increased the likelihood that things will change.

The copyright exemptions that apply for crawling and linking are being challenged by creatives whose work has been incorporated into AI models. Proposed changes to Section 230 law may mean that digital platforms are safer to link to material than replicate it.

We have power for change, too: where links exist, click on them. You never know where following a trail might take you. Läs mer…

With the ACT Party’s Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill having its first reading in parliament last week, the debate and protests have been – understandably – focused on the local historical and political landscape.

But New Zealand isn’t alone in struggling with ideas about the truth of colonialism and its impacts, and how these should influence policy debates and legislation.

Similar debates are playing out in British Columbia in Canada and Queensland in Australia. In both cases, the question of colonialism’s relevance when thinking about social, political and economic equality has become politically contentious.

ACT leader David Seymour says his Treaty principles bill aims to promote equality by limiting the influence of te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi in public life – because, he argues, it is too often interpreted to give Māori more say in decision-making than others.

The counter arguments have been well canvassed: that te Tiriti does, in fact, protect Māori rights to authority over their own affairs and to participate in public life with a distinctive cultural voice; and that these are essential components of equality.

But in New Zealand, as in Canada and Australia, there is still no general consensus on colonialism’s role in the poor and often violent relationship between the state and Indigenous peoples. And because the truth of these relationships remains contested, so does the possibility of genuine equality.

Indigenous rights in British Columbia

In 2019, British Columbia became the first jurisdiction in the world to enact legislation to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

But this year, the Conservative Party of British Columbia made it a major election issue and campaigned to repeal the province’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

The New Democratic Party government was narrowly returned, but Conservative leader John Rustad claimed the UN declaration “was established for conditions in other countries, not Canada”.

Like the declaration itself, however, the British Columbian law didn’t create any new rights for Indigenous peoples. The declaration simply said human rights belong to them as much as to anybody else, and apply to their cultures, languages and land.

Australia, Canada and New Zealand were three of just four UN member states to vote against the declaration in the first place (in 2007), but all later changed their positions. In 2021, Canada passed federal legislation to implement the declaration.

In 2010, New Zealand’s then prime minister, John Key, said the UN declaration “both affirms accepted rights and establishes future aspirations”. Under the current National-NZ First coalition agreement, however, the same declaration is no longer being considered for legal ratification in New Zealand.

Meanwhile, British Columbia’s law requires annual reporting to parliament on progress towards things such as “ending Indigenous-specific racism and discrimination” and “social, cultural and economic wellbeing”.

The aim is to require accountability and strengthen evidence-based (“truthful”) policymaking as part of a democratic process that works equally well for everybody.

Truth-telling in Queensland

Queensland’s newly elected Liberal National Party government recently confirmed its promise to close down the state’s Truth-Telling and Healing Inquiry and repeal its Path to Treaty Act.

“Truth-telling,” according to the inquiry’s official statements, “is an accurate and inclusive account of Queensland’s history.” In particular, it acknowledges that good public policy, which works equally well for everyone, can’t be based on an assumption that everyone’s experiences, values and expectations are the same.

The then Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, admitted this in 2020 when he said Indigenous policy failed because:

We perpetuated an ingrained way of thinking, passed down over two centuries and more, and it was the belief that we knew better than our Indigenous peoples. We also thought we understood their problems better than they did. We don’t.

In other words, solutions to the problem Morrison identified require an explicit commitment to public institutions that work equally well for everyone. And better outcomes for everyone are a measure of genuine political equality.

Members of Queensland’s Truth-telling and Healing Inquiry in September, before the new government moved to shut it down.
AAP

Open societies thrive on debate and evidence

The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill would require a referendum to become law were it to pass.(That’s unlikely, given the coalition partners won’t support it beyond the select committee stage.)

But referendums reduce complex questions to a simple yes-no binary. Ideas that are simply wrong can have as much weight as any other. In fact, the absence of knowledge, or sheer emotion, can decide an issue with profound impacts on people’s lives.

“If you don’t know, vote no” was the successful slogan (borrowed from elsewhere) used in Australia’s referendum last year on an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament. Ultimately, truth becomes a casualty when “don’t know” prevails.

As the former British minister and last governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, has argued:

Open societies thrive on press freedom, vigorous debate, and evidence-based policymaking. While liberal democracies do not always live up to this ideal, the understanding that this is how things should work […] is the source of their strength.

Liberal democracy means we are all entitled to our opinions, but our fellow citizens also deserve our considered judgment on important issues.

This means bringing truth into the arguments for New Zealand’s Treaty Principles Bill, critiquing British Columbia’s Indigenous rights legislation based on an honest account of what the legislation does, and recognising that genuine equality in Queensland requires truth-telling.

Without truth we can’t know what equality looks like. This remains the challenge for all societies responding to colonialism. Läs mer…

News of the Canadian government’s sudden decision to block TikTok from running a business in Canada landed with a thud last week.

Since then, navigating media coverage in search of concrete information feels like a wild goose chase. There is a definite lack of clarity behind the claim of mysterious “national security risks.”

Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne is well known for his efforts to loosen the North American economy’s ties to China. When pressed by the media for details on how Canadians should interpret the decision, he simply said that Canadians will have to “draw their own conclusions.”

Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne rises during question period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in October 2024.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

While that answer is opaque, back in 2023, TikTok pre-emptively created a Transparency and Accountability Center to offer authorities a behind-the-scenes view into their algorithms and content moderation practices, even as American lawmakers pressed the company to disclose its information access and processing practices.

Read more:
Attempts to ban TikTok reveal the hypocrisy of politicians already struggling to relate to voters

TikTok transparency efforts

Last year, when Canada announced a ban of TikTok on government devices, I supported the move as an expert in fintech cybersecurity, asking why any work devices had access to distracting social media applications in the first place.

TikTok has further offered transparency through Project Texas, a program to relocate data to American servers and undergo third-party audits. Canada, however, has not engaged in or acknowledged such transparency efforts, possibly bypassing a co-operative solution in favour of more drastic restrictions.

I’ve never been a TikTok user and have no more interest in the platform than I have in the outfit formerly known as Twitter, with its well-documented content moderation challenges. But from where I sit, the Canadian government’s handling of TikTok raises critical concerns beyond content moderation, from reliance on secrecy to potential human rights implications.

Claiming — without offering any discernible evidence — that national security risks are so severe that they can’t even be shared with the public means citizens are essentially being told they can continue using the app but at their own risk.

Such an obvious appeal to fear, uncertainty and doubt seems to be intentionally crafted to create cognitive dissonance. It not only reinforces an authoritarian stance but more importantly erodes everyone’s understanding of security, risk and privacy.

Secrecy: Security by obscurity

By opting for a secretive national security review, Canada has avoided releasing specifics about the alleged risks. Such actions set a dangerous precedent, promoting a “guilty until proven innocent” mindset. This opaque approach could also foster a chilling effect, dissuading foreign investment in Canada, especially in digital sectors.

The secrecy surrounding this decision raises questions about its underlying motivations. It suggests a potential inclination toward controlling information of public interest rather than sharing it with stakeholders.

Whether this was intended to send a message to other Chinese companies in Canada remains to be seen, but such firms currently operate in retail, e-commerce, banking, energy and resources sectors and are no doubt closely watching the proceedings. That’s particularly true given five other China-linked companies in Canada have been unceremoniously shut down in the past two years.

As a result, it seems more likely than not that Canadian companies operating in China — like Magna, Bombardier, Saputo and the Bank of Montreal, among others — may soon face some retaliatory headwinds when it comes to doing business in the Asian country.

China’s ambassador to Canada Di Wang takes part in a ceremony to present his credentials to Gov.-Gen. Mary Simon at Rideau Hall in Ottawa in June 2024.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

Setting a risky precedent

If it’s censoring a platform primarily due to foreign ownership, Canada could be setting a precedent that threatens global standards for internet freedom. Such actions risk empowering governments worldwide to impose restrictions on platforms and services in the name of security, potentially stifling freedom of expression and access to information.

When I previously wrote about Zoom and how its obscure development and IP-access practices poses a particular risk to the privacy and confidentiality of children and students during the COVID-19 pandemic, I argued:

“China’s understanding of privacy is vastly different: the data belongs to the organizations that collect it and any such organizations must grant unfettered access for government inspection, in the name of safety and security. Article 77 of its Cybersecurity Law ensures that data is collected and stored in China where full transparency and access must be provided to the Ministry of Public Security. Period.”

Once TikTok’s offices are shut down and hundreds of employees are laid off, it will likely be difficult for Canadians to get access to information about the company’s safety procedures, ask about online moderation and initiate Privacy Commissioner investigations, simply because TikTok will no longer exist in our country.

Impact on government credibility

I certainly don’t expect to have access to privileged information. But the secretive nature of Canada’s expulsion of TikTok (or is it truly aimed at its parent company, ByteDance?) risks undermining public trust in government decisions at a time when it could far better serve as an ideal opportunity for raising awareness among Canadians about genuine security concerns.

If the public perceives this move as an excessive, disrespectful overreach under the guise of security, it may bring into question foreign policy decisions and corporate law enforcement practices.

Ultimately, the manufactured dichotomy between a heavy-handed approach to urgent corporate expulsion and the resulting inability for government agencies to conduct future privacy investigations on behalf of Canadians appears both intentional and calculated.

While it is objectively true of all social media companies that they collect and process user information, it is also factually true that TikTok has, at least by all measures publicly available, demonstrated a degree of transparency on par with their industry peers. Läs mer…

Chances are, you or someone you care about is living with persistent or chronic pain, often defined as pain that lasts for three months or more. Persistent pain is described in many ways, including continuous, consistent or recurrent (or flares).

People living with pain cannot be left in the dark to self-manage. Research has established that pain is as much a social issue as a medical issue and can be addressed with collective action.

Eight million people in Canada live with chronic pain. Often invisible, chronic pain can be associated with other chronic conditions, including arthritis, diabetes and cancer. Other common types of chronic pain include, but are not limited to, migraines, back or spinal pain.

Pain may affect people to the point that they can’t work, eat, take part in physical activity or enjoy their life. According to Health Canada, the total direct and indirect cost of chronic pain in 2019 was $38.2 billion to $40.3 billion.

Eight million Canadians live with chronic pain. Peer support groups offer compassion, understanding and validation by encouraging participants to share their experiences.
(Shutterstock)

While one in five Canadians experience chronic pain, it disproportionately affects people living in poverty, those with mental health or substance use conditions, veterans, Indigenous Peoples, LGBTQ2S communities, people living in rural and remote locations, persons with disabilities, women and those working in the trades.

The reasons why some people or groups are impacted more than others appear to centre on access to care, treatment or support (both perceived and actual), as well as social determinants of health, including sex and gender-based factors.

Intersectionality recognizes that health, wellness and disease are impacted by a combination of these factors. For instance, youth living in poverty and with mental health issues in remote communities are at particular risk, and have specific needs.

While many people living with pain require pharmacological treatment, such as medication, there is growing interest in non-pharmacological approaches.

5 non-pharmacological ways to manage pain

1. Nutrition and food as medicine

Nutrition and food have an established role in preventing and treating pain and chronic disease. For instance, specific dietary patterns (like the Mediterranean diet) and foods (fatty fish, for example) are associated with reduced inflammation, chronic disease and pain.

A registered dietitian can help people living with pain access resources and solve problems while avoiding information overload. Approaches may include food substitutions, food eliminations, home-based accommodations or tools and advice on shopping and meal preparation. Dietitian services are covered by many private insurance plans as well as through additional wellness or extended health plans.

2. Movement as medicine

Well established in both western and complementary medicine, movement of the body — or lack of movement — has significant impacts on pain.

Movement has significant impact on pain.
(Shutterstock)

Physical and movement therapy such as physiotherapy, massage and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation are common pain treatments, but they can also be used to prevent pain.

There is growing evidence that yoga and qigong — a system of meditative movement and breathing exercises — can play a role in pain management and prevention. For instance, regular qigong practice (daily for six to eight weeks) improved quality of life in several ways for people living with fibromyalgia.

Complementary treatments are not always covered by government health insurance plans, though some community programs or workplace, group and private insurance plans offer full or partial coverage.

3. Allyship and addressing stigma and bias

People living with pain can benefit from having knowledgeable allies, especially when confronted with stigma and bias.

People living with chronic pain may be stigmatized by others’ reactions. Examples provided in research include: “You look healthy, you cannot be in pain,” “You just want attention” and “It must be nice to not work.”

Several factors contribute to chronic pain-related stigma. These include intersecting determinants of health (like sex, gender, poverty, body weight and ethnicity), the lack of visible signs and symptoms of pain and the perceived subjectivity of pain assessment. Back-pain stigma and migraine stigma have been well documented.

Social stigma’s potential to negatively affect mental health through increased feelings of stress and shame is well documented, but growing evidence shows it can also have a negative impact on physical health.
(Shutterstock)

Social stigma can negatively affect mental health by increasing feelings of stress and shame, but a growing body of evidence suggests that physical health may also be negatively affected by stigmatization.

Traditionally and currently, people living with pain in larger bodies experience weight bias. People with pain in larger bodies commonly hear the recommendation that they should lose weight, often without adequate evidence, assessment or support. This is something many health-care providers are trying to address in the wake of the joint international consensus statement for ending the obesity stigma.

4. Support peer-to-peer initiatives

Self-management is a critical aspect of chronic pain management. It can be taught within programs with community-based approaches such as peer support, which aims to enhance self-management of chronic pain through interactions with peers who share similar conditions.

Living with chronic pain can be stressful, isolating and has been associated with increased depression and anxiety. Peer support groups offer compassion, understanding and validation by encouraging participants to share their experiences.

They also provide emotional, practical and social benefits, with stronger social connections and some reduced use of health services in addition to improved self-management skills.

5. Advocate for inclusive workplaces

Chronic pain has been shown to have a significant impact on organizational productivity and functioning including absenteeism and presenteeism. Chronic pain is a serious impediment to employee overall well-being. Pain may deplete employee mental and physical reserves, which disrupts performance and job engagement, and increases turnover as well as employee burnout.

Chronic pain also has a socioeconomic impact on employees, who may face issues like career interruptions, income loss, barriers to re-employment and overall income instability. A lack of intentional and compassionate management of employees with chronic pain is detrimental to both workplaces and employees.

Ideally, an employer should give employees both autonomy and support to balance their health and organizational productivity.
(Shutterstock)

Investing in workplace interventions such as structured accommodation policies can help organizations mitigate the impact of chronic pain on employees. More proactive approaches to managing chronic pain at work include work station adjustments, flexible work arrangements and facilitation of support (like physiotherapy, massage, psychology). People living with pain can better manage flare-ups and time off, when trusted with self-pacing in the workplace.

Ideally, an employer should give employees both autonomy and support to balance their health and organizational productivity. Organizational commitment to successful and compassionate management of employee chronic pain — a “culture of caring” — allows employees to feel comfortable discussing issues with their managers and to ask for help when needed.

Online resources

There are many more resources online and in communities, including resources and supports for sexual health while living with pain.

People in Pain Network is a peer support organization that helps people with pain access quality care.
The Power Over Pain Portal provides access to a range of educational tools, self-assessments and self-management strategies for chronic pain, for use by people living with pain, their families and friends, peer support groups and health-care providers.
Pain Canada is made up of people living with pain and pain organizations, including advocates, researchers and clinical experts. Pain Canada provides educational tools, self-assessments and self-management strategies, and runs national Pain Awareness Week every November.
LivePlanBe and LivePlanBe+ are free online educational programs created with the input of people living with pain.
Gentle Movement @ Home offers sessions led by therapeutic movement professionals that are designed to help people with persistent pain learn to feel safe to move again. A free archive of 37 session recordings is available on Pain BC’s YouTube channel.
Solutions for Kids’ Pain includes evidence-based resources for better pain management for children, directed at educators, care providers and the public.

Collective action is needed to more fully address the individual and societal impacts of chronic pain, noting that not everyone experiencing chronic pain has the resources to cover the costs of treatments and supports. Given the complexity and financial impacts of chronic pain in Canada, we need to better understand and address the long-term, biophysical and social aspects of pain. At the very least, pain prevention and treatment requires information and resources that are person-centred and accessible to all. Läs mer…