Australians are being urged to roll up their sleeves for a flu vaccine amid rising cases of influenza.

It’s an opportune time to think about other vaccines too, particularly because some vaccines can be given at the same time as the flu vaccine.

One is the COVID vaccine.

Should you get another COVID shot?

More than five years since COVID was declared a pandemic, we hear much less about this virus. But it’s still around.

In 2024 there were 4,953 deaths involving COVID. This is nearly 20% lower than in 2023, but still nearly five times that of influenza (1,002).

Vaccines, which do a very good job at reducing the chances of severe COVID, remain an important tool in our ongoing battle against the virus.

Case numbers don’t tell us as much about COVID anymore as fewer people are testing. But based on other ways we monitor the virus, such as cases in ICU and active outbreaks in residential aged care homes, there have essentially been two peaks a year over recent years – one over summer and one over winter.

This doesn’t mean we can predict exactly when another wave will happen, but it’s inevitable and may well be within the next few months. So it’s worth considering another COVID vaccine if you’re eligible.

Who can get one, and when?

There are several risk factors for more severe COVID, but some of the most important include being older or immunocompromised. For this reason, people aged 75 and older are recommended to receive a COVID booster every six months.

In the slightly younger 65 to 74 age bracket, or adults aged 18 to 64 who are immunocompromised, booster doses are recommended every 12 months, but people are eligible every six months.

Healthy adults under 65 are eligible for a booster dose every 12 months.

Healthy children aren’t recommended to receive boosters but those who are severely immunocompromised may be eligible.

What COVID shots are currently available?

We’ve seen multiple types of COVID vaccines since they first became available about four years ago. Over time, different vaccines have targeted different variants as the virus has evolved.

While some vaccine providers may still offer other options, such as the older booster that targeted the Omicron variant XBB.1.5, the recent JN.1 booster is the most up-to-date and best option.

This is a relatively recently updated version to improve protection against some of the newer strains of COVID that are circulating. The new booster only became available in Australia in late 2024.

This booster, as the name suggests, targets a subvariant called JN.1. Although JN.1 has not been the dominant subvariant in Australia for some time, this shot is still expected to provide good protection against circulating subvariants, including new subvariants such as LP.8.1, which is descended from JN.1.

While it’s great we have an updated booster available, unfortunately uptake remains poor. Only 17.3% of people 75 and over had received a COVID vaccine in the six months to March.

Getting a flu and COVID shot together

Data from more than 17,000 people who completed a survey after receiving the JN.1 booster shows that while 27% reported at least one adverse event following vaccination, the majority of these were mild, such as local pain or redness or fatigue.

Only 4% of people reported an impact on their routine activities following vaccination, such as missing school or work.

If you choose to get the flu vaccine and the COVID vaccine at the same time, they’ll usually be given in different arms. There shouldn’t be a significant increase in side effects. What’s more, getting both shots at the same time doesn’t reduce your immune response against either vaccine.

Now is the ideal time to get your flu vaccine. If you’re eligible for a COVID booster as well, getting both vaccines at the same time is safe and can be very convenient.

We’re conducting trials in Australia, as are scientists elsewhere, of combined vaccines. One day these could allow vaccination against COVID and flu in a single shot – but these are still a way off.

If you’re not sure about your eligibility or have any questions about either vaccine, discuss this with your GP, specialist of pharmacist. Australian state and federal government websites also provide reliable information.

Paul Griffin, Professor, Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, The University of Queensland

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

The 2025 federal election coincides with a period of profound global uncertainty, as the Trump administration wreaks havoc on the free trade system and longstanding alliances.

The events of recent months have underscored how, at each election, the voters in a democracy set their country on a path. Here in Australia, voters will be choosing whom to trust with tackling our challenges and making the most of the opportunities before us.

These turbulent times internationally only reinforce the need for us to be clear-eyed about the challenges facing Australia, and where our strengths lie in addressing them.

The big five challenges

We see five overlapping domestic policy challenges that must be tackled by whoever wins the next election, to ensure prosperity for current and future generations.

First, we must plan and deliver over the next 25 years the economic transformation that accompanies decarbonisation.

Addressing climate change is not a task we can delay or abandon, but it will be neither easy nor cheap. The next government can either work to build a credible plan, to orient long-term investment in a renewable energy future, or leave a legacy for the next generation of even greater costs and unreliability, and missed opportunities.

Second, we must increase the availability and affordability of housing in Australia. Housing is a fundamental human need, and when the housing system fails to deliver enough homes in the places people need and want to live, the consequences are both social and economic. In particular, our broken housing system sits at the centre of growing inequality in Australia.

Third, as the structure of our economy changes, becoming less reliant on routine and manual labour, Australia must deepen its talent pools and boost productivity to meet the needs of our society and lift economic dynamism. We must improve our school systems, expand access to high-quality early childhood education and care, dismantle barriers in the labour market that prevent people from making the most of their skills and experience, and be rapid adopters of the best global practices and technology.

Fourth, we are in the midst of the retirement of the Baby Boomer generation. An ageing population is placing increasing demands on public services, government budgets and our workforce. We need to get better at tackling chronic disease in our health system, and we need to shore-up our retirement and aged-care systems for the demographic change that we have long known is coming.

Fifth, we cannot continue to have high expectations for public services and infrastructure, without raising the money to pay for them. Tax reform has sat in the too-hard basket for too long. In particular, income tax breaks for superannuation and housing have become too generous, and unfairly place the tax burden on younger, less wealthy taxpayers.

And we need to implement sensible savings. Swingeing cuts may seem easy and appealing on the surface, but real savings will take more thinking than that: to make hospitals more efficient, to better target the NDIS, to get smarter in how we spend public money in procuring big infrastructure and defence projects.

A position of strength

None of these challenges is new: they were waiting for us as we emerged from the COVID crisis. Fortunately, we are not starting from scratch.

In several areas, the federal government has made a start. But whoever forms government after the 2025 election must stay the course on difficult reforms while also finally confronting the reforms that neither side of politics has effectively tackled since the start of the century.

Australia occupies a position of relative strength to tackle these challenges. We have a highly educated and skilled population, a more manageable fiscal position than many of our counterparts, stronger public institutions, and less polarisation in our politics.

The reform clock is ticking

Why, then, has reform proved so hard in Australia? Perhaps we have taken our strengths for granted, perhaps we have been content to leave problems for our future selves to solve. We cannot continue in this way.

The fundamentals of Australia’s prosperity have been our success in opening our economy and society to the world, while maintaining a strong social safety net, and ensuring economic benefits are broadly shared and that each new generation sees opportunity to build a rewarding life. Failing to tackle the Big Five challenges above risks unpicking these foundations.

Vested interests have been successful in thwarting reforms in the public interest for decades in Australia. Or perhaps the politics of opposition have proved so successful as to kill the prospect for bipartisan agreement on necessary, evidence-backed change.

Equally, it falls to the media to hold politicians to account over the facts and evidence that support their claims. Politicians should be firmly tested on what they propose to do with the power they seek, and how they intend to advance the interests of all Australians. This is one of the most important safeguards against empty promises that will do nothing to make us better off, or even take us backwards.

The reform clock is ticking. The winner of the 2025 election will have to get to work, quickly, on building a better Australia.

Aruna Sathanapally, Chief Executive, Grattan Institute, Grattan Institute

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

About 14% of Australians experienced personal fraud last year. Of these, 2.1 million experienced credit card fraud, 675,300 were caught in a scam, 255,000 had their identities stolen and 433,000 were impersonated online.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics latest Personal Fraud Survey, between July 2023 and June 2024, Australians lost A$2.1 billion through credit card fraud.

This was up almost 9% from the previous year. Even after reimbursements, the loss was still $477 million.

These figures do not include financial loss through identity theft, or phishing, romance, computer support and dodgy financial advice scams.

Why the increase?

Research shows the more frequently we use technology, the more likely we are to be scammed. Monica Whitty from the Cyber Security Centre, University of Warwick, found victims of cyber-frauds were more likely to score high on impulsivity measures like ‘urgency’ and engage in more frequent online routine activities that place them at great risk of becoming scammed.

We communicate via email, we shop online, use dating apps and allow technicians to remotely access our computers. Meanwhile, amazing “get rich quick” opportunities are apparently being liked by our friends on our socials almost every day.

But too many of us do not stop and think, “is this legitimate?” It is no wonder we see personal fraud and scams increase every year.

While the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures suggest older Australians (aged 45 and over) are more exposed to card fraud, research has found demographics are not a significant predictor of fraud victimisation.

Taking risks

Being too trusting, drives complacency, which produces gullibility. Think about an online dating sites. The site uses a multi-factor authenticator, it requires you to authenticate your photo, password protect your profile and read the scam warnings.

A site’s apparent legitimacy increases your trust. Research has found if you perceive a platform to be legitimate you could be exposed to romance fraud. Fraudsters may be operating within a site, even if it is legitimate.

Another strong predictor of exposure to online fraud is self-control. Self-control theory predicts individuals with low self-control tend to pursue their own self-interest without considering the negative consequences.

Simply, if the investment scheme looks “too good”, they will mostly likely click on the link and get scammed.

Giving away too much

Some individuals are prone to self-disclosing personal information online – and scammers love personal information. Self-disclosure is defined as the amount of information a person decides to make common knowledge.

Sometimes, we disclose, even when we don’t intend to. A common phishing technique on social media is status updates that read, “Your porn star name is your first pet’s name and the first street you lived on.”

They’re interesting, funny and bring on a healthy dose of nostalgia, but the answers to those questions that you tap in for all to see are also most likely to be your security questions on your bank accounts.

The most common scams in 2023-2024:

• Buying or selling scams (1.4% or 308,200)
• Information request or phishing scams (0.7% or 148,800)

What is the government doing to protect me?

The Australian government recently passed legislation which targets scams. It places increased responsibilities on banking and finance, telecommunications and digital platforms organisations to protect customers.

Suspicious numbers can now be accompanied a warning of “potential fraud” on your smartphone screen. Banks are also informing customers about the latest scams. Some banking transactions can verify the identity of the payment recipient, to ensure the details you have match the actual account holder.

While these will not stop all scams, they are a step towards reducing the number of victims and the amount of money lost to fraudulent approaches.

Six steps to protect yourself

There are some small but powerful steps we can all take to reduce the likelihood of financial harm.

1. Passwords: it is important to have strong, unique passwords across your accounts. Using a password manager can help with this.

2. Multi-factor authentication: many platforms will allow you to add extra layers of security to your account by using one-time passwords, authenticator apps, or tokens.

3. Review privacy settings: be aware of the different settings on your accounts and ensure you are in control of what information you provide and what can be accessed by others.

4. Be vigilant: know what you see and hear may not be real. The person or company you are communicating with may not be authentic. It is okay to be sceptical and take time to do your own checks.

5. Money transfers: never send money you are not willing to lose. Too often, people will send money before realising it is a scam. Never feel rushed or forced into any financial decision. It is OK to say no.

6. Credit monitoring: if you know or suspect you have been scammed, you can enact a credit ban, meaning no one can access your details or take further action in your name. This can be a good short-term solution.

And if you are scammed …

Anyone can report money lost in a scam to ReportCyber, the Australian online police reporting portal for cyber incidents. If you have received scam texts or emails, you can report these to Scamwatch, to assist with education and awareness activities.

Gary Mortimer, Professor of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour, Queensland University of Technology

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

Once upon a time, children fought for control of the remote to the sole family television. Now the choice of screen-based content available to kids seems endless. There are computers, tablets, phones and gaming consoles offering streaming services, online content and apps.

Children also use devices at school, with digital literacy part of the Australian curriculum from the start of school.

The speed and scale of this change has left parents, researchers and policymakers scrambling to catch up. And it has inevitably led to concerns about screen use, as well as guidelines about limiting their use.

Our new study looks at the links between digital technology use and young children’s wellbeing, specifically for those aged four to six.

Our comprehensive analysis shows children who spend longer periods using digital technologies are more likely to have social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. However, we can’t say at what age or level of screen use these negative effects are likely to become evident.

But for parents trying to navigate a world where technology is all around us, our study also shows there are things they can do to help their kids use screens in healthier ways.

Our study

We carried out a systematic review of the research literature on children’s use of digital devices since 2011 (after the Apple iPad was launched). This means we examined all the available peer-reviewed research on digital devices and their impact on wellbeing for children.

We also focused on ages four to six age as it is a time when children are developing rapidly and beginning school. Other studies have focused on particular types of device. But we included all kinds of digital devices in our search – from televisions to phones, tablets and gaming consoles – to make sure we could provide comprehensive analysis of what kids are using.

The studies came from 20 countries, including Australia, China, the United States, Turkey, Germany and Canada. They were almost exclusively based on parents’ reports of their children and include more than 83,000 parents.

4 areas of child wellbeing

From this, we analysed the relationship between children’s technology use and the following four areas:

1. psychosocial wellbeing: an overall measure that captures children’s happiness, as well as social and emotional adjustment.

2. social functioning: children’s social skills, including how well they get along with their peers.

3. the parent-child relationship: the level of closeness or conflict between parents and their children.

4. behavioural functioning: the absence of behavioural difficulties such as tech-related tantrums, hyperactivity, depression or anxiety.

We did this with a meta-analysis – a statistical method that uses data from multiple studies to draw conclusions.

What we found

Our analysis found more digital technology use in young children was associated with poorer wellbeing outcomes across the four areas.

It is important to note correlation doesn’t equal causation. The scope of the research means at this point, it is not possible to identify the exact reasons behind the negative relationships.

But we do know the more time children spent watching TV, playing on iPads or apps, the more likely they were to have problems with behaviour, social skills, their relationship with their parents, and their emotional wellbeing.

But tech use is more than just time

Our research also brought together emerging evidence which shows the relationship between digital tech use and child wellbeing is complex.

This means the type of content children consume, and the context in which they consume it, can also have a bearing on their wellbeing. The research shows there are several ways parents can guide their children to potentially mitigate the negative links with social, emotional and behavioural wellbeing.

With this in mind, how can you encourage healthier screen use?

3 tips for kids and screens

1. Keep an eye on the clock

The research cannot provide a specific “time limit” for screen use. But you can still be mindful of how much time your child spends on devices both at home and at school – moderation is key.

Try and mix screen time with other activities, such as time outside or time with friends and family, books or imaginary play.

2. Seek out quality

Research shows encouraging high-quality educational content during screen use may curb negative links between tech use and wellbeing.

Consider swapping fast-paced cartoons and time spent on lots of short clips with educational viewing, for example ABC kids programs that promote learning.

Introduce your child to age-appropriate educational and interactive games that challenge them and encourage them to be creative.

3. Use tech together

Tech time isn’t just for kids – parents can also join in.

Solo tech use may reduce opportunities for positive social interactions. But watching or playing with friends or family opens up opportunities for conversation, working together and learning.

This could include watching a movie together and talking about the characters, working on an online puzzle together or learning new coding skills together.

Jacquelyn Harverson, PhD Candidate, School of Psychology, Deakin University; Louise Paatsch, Professor of Education, Deakin University, and Sharon Horwood, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Deakin University

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

You’re about to recycle your laptop or your phone, so you delete all your photos and personal files. Maybe you even reset the device to factory settings.

You probably think your sensitive data is now safe. But there is more to be done: hackers may still be able to retrieve passwords, documents or bank details, even after a reset.

In fact, 90% of second-hand laptops, hard drives and memory cards still contain recoverable data. This indicates that many consumers fail to wipe their devices properly before resale or disposal.

But there are some simple steps you can take to keep your personal information safe while recycling responsibly.

The data security risks

Discarded or resold electronics often retain sensitive personal and corporate information. Simply deleting files or performing a factory reset may not be sufficient. Data can often be easily recovered using specialised tools. This oversight has led to alarming incidents of data leaks and breaches.

For example, 42% of used storage devices sold on eBay still contained sensitive data, despite sellers following methods to erase data. This included passport images, school records, and corporate documents.

Another 2022 study found that improperly erased internet-connected devices stored private data, making them vulnerable to exploitation. European e-waste exported to Ghana also contained classified corporate and government files, exposing security risks beyond personal identity theft.

A major wireless provider in the United States failed to securely decommission storage devices. This lead to a data breach affecting 14 million customers.

Similarly, in 2021 improperly discarded medical hard drives exposed over 100,000 confidential patient records.

Why standard factory resets are not enough

Many people believe performing a factory reset fully erases their data. But this is not always the case.

An analysis of secondhand mobile devices found that 35% still contained recoverable data after being reset and resold. This highlights the risks of relying solely on factory resets.

On older devices or those without encryption, residual data can still be recovered using forensic tools.

iPhones use hardware encryption, making resets more effective, while Android devices vary by manufacturer.

Best practices for secure disposal

To protect your personal and organisational information, consider these measures before disposing of old devices:

Data wiping

Personal users should use data-wiping software to securely erase their hard drive before selling or recycling a device.

However, for solid-state drives, traditional wiping methods may not be effective. This is because solid-state drives store data using flash memory and algorithms, which prolong a device’s lifespan by distributing data across memory cells and can prevent direct overwriting.

Instead, enabling full-disk encryption with software such as BitLocker on Windows or FileVault on Mac before resetting the device can help to ensure data is unreadable.

On Android phones, apps such as Shreddit provide secure data-wiping options. iPhones already encrypt data by default, making a full reset the most effective way to erase information.

Businesses that handle customer data, financial records or intellectual property must comply with data protection regulations. They could use certified data-wiping tools that meet the United States National Institute of Standards and Technology’s guidelines for media sanitisation or the US Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ standard for sanitising storage. These guidelines are globally recognised.

Many companies also choose third-party data destruction services to verify compliance and enhance security.

Physical destruction

If the data is highly sensitive, physically destroying the storage medium (such as a hard drive) is the most secure option. Common methods include degaussing (using a strong magnetic field), shredding, disintegration, melting, and drilling.

However, some of these techniques can be hazardous if not handled by professionals. They also make a hard drive or device unsuitable for resale and instead require it to be taken to a waste recovery centre so the rare earth metal components can be recovered.

Certified recycling services

Use reputable e-waste recyclers who adhere to strict data destruction protocols to ensure your information does not fall into the wrong hands. Look for certifications such as R2, e-Stewards, or AS/NZS 5377, which ensure compliance with industry security standards. An online database run by sustainable electronics organisation SERI of R2-certified facilities around the world can help with this.

Safe selling and donating practices

Before selling or donating devices, conduct a thorough data wipe. Be cautious of devices linked to cloud accounts, and remove all personal information to prevent unauthorised access. Resetting alone may not be enough.

Legal and regulatory considerations for businesses

Different regions have strict data-protection laws that impose legal and financial penalties for improper disposal of sensitive data.

It’s important for businesses to consider the legal standards for handling and disposing personal information in whatever region they’re operating in, whether that be Europe, the United States, Australia or elsewhere.

Before recycling or selling an old device, take the necessary steps to ensure your data is completely erased. Identity theft, financial fraud and data breaches are real risks. But they can be prevented with the right precautions.

A few extra steps now can protect your information and ensure responsible recycling.

Ritesh Chugh, Associate Professor, Information and Communications Technology, CQUniversity Australia

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

Anthony Albanese has announced that the government will ensure the Port of Darwin, currently leased by the Chinese company Landbridge, is returned to Australian hands.

“Australia needs to own the Port of Darwin,” the prime minister declared late Friday.

Albanese rang a Darwin radio station after Labor got wind of the fact that Opposition Leader Peter Dutton would on Saturday announce a Coalition government would return the port back to local control.

Both the government and opposition are promising that, if necessary, they would bring the port’s lease into public ownership.

Albanese said the government had been seeking a local buyer, but was prepared to acquire the port’s lease if that was the only solution.

“We prefer that it be through superannuation funds or some other vehicle that doesn’t mean direct taxpayer’s funds, but we’re prepared to go down the road of taxpayer direct involvement, as well.”

Asked to clarify whether the options were that the port remain privately owned or that it be returned to be a government asset, Albanese said, “yes, they are.”

The Northern Territory government leased the port to Landbridge in 2015 for about $500 million. The lease was for 99 years.

The federal government at the time was not directly involved in the deal, but the Northern Territory government sought advice from the Defence Department and security agencies, which didn’t raise objections. Later, US President Barack Obama chided then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull for not giving the Americans a heads-up.

The Chinese deal has caused serious controversy in the years since.

When Dutton was defence minister in the Morrison government, his department did a review of the lease.

A statement on Friday from Dutton and shadow ministers said a Coalition government would seek a private operator to take over the lease, but if one could not be found within six months, the government would acquire it “as a last resort”.

It would use the Commonwealth’s “compulsory acquisition powers”, and the government would then compensate the Landbridge Group.

“In the current geopolitical environment, it is vital that this piece of critical infrastructure, which is directly opposite to the Larrakeyah Defence Precinct, is operated by a trusted, Commonwealth approved entity.

"We will appoint a specialist commercial adviser to work with the Northern Territory Government and officials from the Departments of Treasury, Finance, Defence and Infrastructure to provide advice and engage with potential new operators of the port.”

Dutton said that a Coalition government would not allow the port to be leased by any entity that is “directly or indirectly controlled by a foreign government, including any state-owned enterprise or sovereign wealth fund.”

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

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

Australia faces crisis-level workforce shortfalls in security and defence. Recruiting more people to the defence force is now an urgent matter of national security.

So, comments – such as those recently made by a Liberal candidate that we “need to remove females from combat corps” in order to “fix” the military – come at the worst possible time.

Such beliefs are not just unhelpful. They are dangerous.

Without women in the national security workforce, and in combat roles, Australia will fail to hit its recruitment targets – at a time of critical international insecurity.

Why is it so hard to attract women to the defence force?

We know women are interested and engaged in international affairs.

So, why don’t they want to join the defence force? In short, we don’t know – but we desperately need to find out.

Women make up just 20.7% of the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

Compared with a decade ago, this is an improvement. But the improvement has stalled. The latest figure represents a mere 0.1% increase compared with 2021 figures.

This is serious.

Australia’s recruitment problems put at risk our ability to:

• conduct maritime patrols
• defend against cyber attacks
• maintain force readiness.

Other democratic states worldwide are also struggling to achieve recruitment targets.

Despite ambitious multi-year government programs aimed a boosting women’s participation in national security, and thousands of pages of reports and reviews on the issue, results have been limited and inconsistent.

Most attempts to attract more women are focused on workplace improvements.

Efforts include:

• improving recruitment and promotion policies
• initiatives to address gender discrimination and sexual harassment
• questioning whether the inherently hierarchical structures of defence agencies is to blame.

Of the many government reviews and audits analysing the question, the vast majority focused on such workplace solutions.

But what if the problem doesn’t lie in the workplace, but rather in wider society?

What if one factor dissuading women was the archaic idea women just don’t really belong in the military at all?

Societal attitudes matter

The Liberal candidate who made the recent comments about women in combat roles has now been replaced. It’s positive to see his party saying such views are “inconsistent with the party’s position.”

However, the incident suggests doubt remains in some quarters about women’s readiness to serve and take up combat roles.

There’s a dearth of research on why exactly Australian women appear reluctant to join the ADF. Some of the reasons may be linked to the perception the ADF has a problem with sexual assault or sexism.

But broader social gender norms matter too. When women hear comments reinforcing the idea national security is primarily a male field, they may simply not see a future for themselves or their daughters in it.

A recent US study found 60% of teenage girls “have never considered joining the military or pictured themselves in uniform”.

A passing glance at American politics demonstrates the often precarious position of women already working in national security. There, in recent months, debate has turned to:

• critics questioning the presence of women in Trump’s Secret Service detail
• coverage of old comments by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth espousing a view women should not fight
• Trump’s claim it was “common sense” a Black Hawk helicopter crash this year was caused by diversity, equity and inclusion policies
• Trump’s broader crackdown on initiatives on diversity and inclusion in the military and decision to fire the Chief of Naval Operations (who was a woman).

Trump’s America is not Australia, of course. But the recent backlash against women in the US security and defence arenas shows how quickly previous progress can be unwound.

Could these debates be having a chilling effect on women in Australia who might otherwise consider a career in the military?

More research is required to answer that question. But it’s possible public denigration of women in these roles deters women from seeking them at all, and may reinforce attitudes of those seeking to keep women out.

Broadening the talent pool

Australia’s own response to supporting diversity in the military has been mixed. In 2013, Chief of Army David Morrison made international headlines for a powerful speech about diversity.

But Morrison faced criticism in the aftermath. Petitions called for his resignation and condemnation after he spoke about gender equality (and not veterans’ welfare) at an awards ceremony. He was criticised for caling for non-gendered language in Defence workplaces.

Women make vital contributions to critical and creative thinking and decision-making in national security.

Women in the military can do jobs men cannot do. Think, for example, of women who served in Afghanistan or Iraq, where it would be culturally unacceptable for a male soldier to talk to and work with local women. These were roles female soldiers were able to take up.

Including women in defence increases the available talent pool, addressing pressing issues of workforce capability in the ADF.

Australia’s national security requires women to be part of our military, including in combat roles. Without them, recruitment targets will fail. It is not diversity, equality and inclusion: it is reality.

It is critically important to Australia’s national security we resist the trend from the United States. We must find out what’s stopping women from joining our defence force and address those problems urgently.

Sarah Percy, Professor of International Relations, The University of Queensland; Danielle Chubb, Associate Professor of International Relations, Deakin University; Elise Stephenson, Deputy Director, Global Institute for Women's Leadership, Australian National University; Maria Rost Rublee, Professor, International Relations Social and Political Sciences, The University of Melbourne, and Rebecca Strating, Director, La Trobe Asia, and Professor of International Relations, La Trobe University

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

“Sometimes you need to eat an entire cucumber.”

So begins a series of viral videos by TikTok “cucumber guy” Logan Moffitt, who has raked in millions of views for his cucumber salad videos. He’s also inspired thousands of copycat videos showcasing cucumbers as a hero ingredient in salads and other dishes.

This trend has reportedly caused a surge in cucumber demand, leading to cucumbers being sold out in several stores in Australia and internationally.

But what’s actually happening in your body when you eat an entire cucumber? Let’s review the science of cucumbers.

Cucumbers 101

Cucumbers (Cucumis sativus) are technically fruit that belong to the gourd family Cucurbitaceae. This family includes pumpkins, melons and zucchinis.

Cucumbers originated from India over 3,000 years ago. They grow on vining plants and are typically harvested while still firm and unripe.

Cucumbers are mostly water (96%), which is why Logan Moffitt has been described as the most hydrated person on the internet.

Based on our calculations using the Australian Nutrient Reference Values, if you “ate an entire cucumber” (300g), you would consume:

• about 11% of your daily carbohydrate needs (an important energy source)

• about 5% of your daily fibre needs (fibre aids in digestion and gut health)

• more than 50% of your daily vitamin K needs (important for bone health and blood clotting)

• about 10% of your daily vitamin C needs (important for immune health, skin health and wound healing)

• about 10% of your daily potassium needs (potassium regulates blood pressure and helps with muscle function).

Unsurprisingly, there are no modern scientific studies that have specifically examined the health impacts of consuming an entire cucumber daily.

However, cucumbers also contain cucurbitacins (especially in the skin) which researchers think may help with inflammation and could be a potential anti-cancer agent.

More broadly, people have used cucumbers to:

• help in digestion and weight loss

• support heart health

• reduce pain from sunburn and swelling on the skin.

Can cucumbers help with hydration?

Given they’re about 96% water, cucumbers could meaningfully increase daily fluid intake when eaten in moderate amounts.

For example, an entire cucumber (about 300g) would contribute roughly 288 millilitres of water, which is just over one cup. We need plenty of water each day, so this additional intake could be helpful for some people.

Their high water content, combined with essential electrolytes like potassium, makes them a refreshing snack, especially in hot weather or after exercise.

While cucumbers can contribute to daily hydration, they shouldn’t replace drinking water. Adding cucumbers to meals or snacks could be a tasty way to stay hydrated, but you still need to drink water.

Can someone eat too many cucumbers?

Cucumbers can be a great addition to a healthy diet. Yet, relying on them too heavily might have unexpected downsides.

Cucumbers are generally easy to digest and low in fermentable carbohydrates (FODMAPs), which means they are unlikely to cause bloating for most people in moderate amounts.

However, when eaten in large amounts, some people may experience digestive discomfort, especially if they’re sensitive to fibre or have a history of irritable bowel issues.

Being low in carbohydrates, fats and protein, cucumbers are unsuitable as a primary food source. In other words, you can’t just live on cucumbers. They don’t provide the essential nutrients needed for energy, muscle maintenance and overall health.

If someone were to primarily eat cucumbers over an extended period, they could be at risk of undernutrition.

What about adding MSG ‘(obviously)’?

Many of the cucumber-based dishes on TikTok also include ingredients such as garlic, soy sauce, fish sauce, sesame oil and sugar – all well known to home cooks who like to boost flavour in their own dishes.

Moffitt is also fond of saying “MSG, obviously”, when listing his favourite cucumber salad ingredients.

MSG is monosodium glutamate, also known as food additive 621, an umami substance added to enhance the flavour of many Asian dishes.

Despite past scare campaigns about MSG, it is safe and authorised for consumption in Australia and other countries.

Typically, MSG is consumed at about 0.5g per serving, but some people report sensitivities at higher doses, such as over 3g.

It’s also worth noting that many foods – including tomatoes, mushrooms, and parmesan cheese – naturally contain glutamate, the main component of MSG.

So, should I eat an entire cucumber?

Well, like any food, moderation and variety are key.

Cucumbers are a refreshing and hydrating addition to a balanced diet, and work best nutritionally when paired with ingredients from other food groups.

For example, to create a balanced meal, try combining cucumbers with protein-rich foods like tuna, chicken, eggs, or marinated tofu, along with whole grains such as wholemeal bread, pasta, or rice. This combination will help you to consume essential nutrients for sustained energy and overall health.

And if you are looking for tailored dietary advice or a tailored meal plan, it’s always best to speak with an accredited practising dietitian.

Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland and Pui Ting Wong (Pearl), PhD Candidate, Culinary Education and Adolescents' Wellbeing, The University of Queensland

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

MyMedicare is a scheme that encourages patients to register with a regular GP practice to improve their health. But few patients have enrolled.

Since its launch in October 2023, only about 10% of patients have signed up.

The Albanese government’s 2023-24 budget allocated A$19.7 million over four years to implement MyMedicare. So if we are to get value for money from the scheme, we need to find out why patients are not signing up, and address any barriers to them doing so.

Other countries have similar schemes, as we outline in recent research. Here’s what we can learn from these to boost uptake of MyMedicare in Australia.

What is MyMedicare?

MyMedicare is a voluntary patient registration scheme. Patients nominate a GP or GP practice as their preferred provider and see the same GP or health-care team over time, a concept known as “continuity of care”.

Continuity of care is linked to earlier detection of health issues, better management of chronic (long-term) conditions, fewer avoidable hospital visits, and improved patient satisfaction.

Patients registered for MyMedicare have longer telehealth consultations. People living in residential aged care have more regular visits from their GP. From July this year, GP practices may offer patients more support for their chronic diseases.

There are also benefits for GP clinics that sign up for MyMedicare. They receive incentives to offer certain patients longer telehealth consultations. Practices also receive incentives to manage the health of registered aged care patients.

These incentives help practices invest in improved services and resources. From July, this may include better chronic disease management and enhanced team-based care (for instance, better liaison between GPs and allied health workers as part of someone’s health team).

How many patients have signed up?

Since MyMedicare’s launch in 2023 until March 19 this year, more than 2.6 million patients have registered for MyMedicare, according to Department of Health and Aged Care statistics provided to The Conversation.

That’s about 10% of Australia’s population. This raises concerns about how aware patients are of the scheme, how engaged they are with it, and possible barriers to registration.

GP practices that provide services to patients who would benefit from the new longer telehealth services or provide care to people in aged care were encouraged to register those patients in MyMedicare as a priority. So perhaps other patients have yet to sign up.

GP practices have been quicker to sign up. Since its launch, health department statistics provided to The Conversation show 6,469 practices had registered for MyMedicare until March 19 this year.

That’s about 80% of GP practices in Australia.

Who’s most likely to register?

We don’t know which patient groups sign up for MyMedicare. The health department told The Conversation patients can provide details of their sex, location (such as metropolitan, regional, rural and remote areas), linguistic background, and disabilities when they sign up. But this is voluntary, and these data have only been available for collection since March 2024.

However, here’s what we learned when we looked at other countries’ patient enrolment schemes:

• men are less likely to enrol than women, and recent immigrants have significantly lower registration rates compared to long-term residents. These highlight potential barriers to access for certain populations

• patients in suburban, rural or small urban areas have higher registration rates, whereas those in large metropolitan centres and lower socioeconomic groups register less

• patients with mental illness or substance use disorders have lower registration rates, pointing to challenges in engaging vulnerable populations.

How do other countries do it?

We also looked at how other countries set up their schemes to see what we can learn.

New Zealand: high uptake through financial incentives

New Zealand has successfully implemented a voluntary patient registration system by offering incentives to enrolled patients. These include lower co-payments for consultations and cheaper prescriptions.

This approach encourages people to register with a general practice rather than a specific GP. Some 95% of the population was registered by January 2025.

Quebec, Canada: tailored registration programs, but low uptake

Quebec has several voluntary registration programs for different groups of patients. These include ones for family medicine, vulnerable patients and a general program.

However, registration rate remains low, at 14.7-32.2%, depending on the program.

British Columbia, Canada: incentive-driven registration

British Columbia offers three voluntary registration programs – one for chronic diseases, another for complex care and a general program.

These use “capitation funding”, where GPs receive payments based on the number of patients they care for.

Participation rates vary widely across the three programs, with 45.5-79% of the population registered.

The differences in registration rates across these systems highlight the importance of how schemes are designed and implemented.

What can Australia learn?

If MyMedicare is to improve access and continuity of care, targeted strategies – such as outreach for immigrants and lower-income groups, and better support for people with mental health issues – will be essential.

Australia could also look to how countries with higher rates of patients signing up have designed their systems. This could include considering whether more financial incentives for patients to enrol is warranted, which has been successful in New Zealand.

Jialing Lin, Research fellow, International Centre for Future Health Systems, UNSW Sydney

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

Being labelled a “nice guy” was once considered a form of flattery. Today, however, anyone privy to the world of dating and romance will know this isn’t necessarily a compliment.

The term has been unofficially reappropriated by women to describe a certain kind of man – one who presents as being “nice”, but feels entitled to some kind of attention from a woman in exchange for this niceness.

We need to take this attitude seriously, since the more it is normalised, the more likely it is to put women at risk.

When flowers become stalking

Plenty of women have shared their experience of being sent abusive texts after they rejected or ignored a man while online dating. The Instagram account @ByeFelipe, which has more than 400,000 followers, frequently features posts of “nice men” weaponizing their niceness on dating apps.

In one example, a woman tells a man she doesn’t want to have sex with him on their first meeting, and he responds by calling her “trash”, “ugly”, “old” and a “bitch”.

In my ongoing research on violence against women I have talked to hundreds of women who’ve been stalked by a man. In Australia, one in five women will be stalked. And women are eight times more likely to be stalked by a man than by another woman.

Often, the stalking is preceded by certain performances, such as the man repeatedly leaving flowers by the woman’s door. As one woman told me:

We are so used to being told that ‘bad guys’ are men who are physically abusive. When a guy is ‘nice’, it’s hard to believe he’s dangerous. It’s easier for women to ignore the signals of danger, because they are told that he has to be a good guy because he’s doing all these things. He even used feminist buzzwords. He’d say, ‘I believe in equality. I’m a feminist myself’.

Another described how a man kept telling her, “I’m in touch with my emotions. I wear my heart on my sleeve” – but that she had to escape the relationship after he threatened her.

Blaming women for feelings of inadequacy

The “nice guy” trope can create a narrative in which men feel victimised by women. As sociologist Michael Kimmel explains, this can lead to a sense of aggrieved entitlement, and men blaming women for their own feelings of inadequacy.

I’ve witnessed this while working with male inmates in a private capacity. Working in prisons in Sweden, I spoke to dozens of men who were convicted sex offenders and/or who had killed their wives or ex-partners.

All of them told me they reacted with violence when women rejected them romantically. None of the men I spoke to took responsibility for killing the woman. Instead, they justified their crimes and/or blamed the women.

The ‘nice guy’ in pop culture

Pop culture and media both have played a role in normalising the “nice guy” trope, which has now taken on different meanings in different groups – from misogynistic men in incel communities to women calling out men on dating apps.

Traditionally, the romance movie genre has portrayed highly persistent men as charming, or even admirable. In films such as There’s Something About Mary (1998) and Groundhog Day (1993), the “nice guy” obsessively pursues the woman while ignoring her wish to be left alone.

In these stories, obsessive behaviour is rewarded because the “nice guy” eventually gets the girl. In real life, the same behaviours can cross the line into harassment and stalking.

A more realistic depiction comes from the 1993 film I Can Make You Love Me, also known as Stalking Laura. This film is based on the true story of mass murderer Richard Farley.

Farley became obsessed with his coworker Laura Black in the 1980s. He love-bombed her, left her gifts such as letters and baked goods, called her every few hours, and even showed up to her apartment and her aerobics class. When he asked her out, Laura politely declined.

Farley would go on to shoot Laura in the shoulder in a killing spree that left her and three others injured, and seven more people dead. This event prompted California to pass the first anti-stalking laws in the United States.

Real-world consequences

Another horrifying example of an entitled “nice guy” was Elliot Rodger. In 2014, the then 22-year-old used knives, guns and his car to murder six people and injure 13 near the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Rodger described himself as a “supreme gentleman” and couldn’t understand why women wouldn’t have sex with him. In a chilling video posted before the attack, he said:

I will slaughter every spoiled, stuck-up, blond .... I see inside there. All those girls I’ve desired so much, they would have all rejected me and looked down upon me as an inferior man if I ever made a sexual advance towards them while they throw themselves at these obnoxious brutes.

More than ten years later, there’s no shortage of men who share Rodger’s victim mentality and violent sentiments. Yet there is a lack of research into how such attitudes can contribute to real-world harm.

As masculinity studies theorists argue, these attitudes are not the product of individual pathology, but are a much larger problem linked to societal ideas about masculinity. They are created by sexist ideology in culture, and are spread through socialisation.

Robert Farley and Elliot Rodger weren’t the first men, nor the last, to think they had entitlements over women just because they followed a social script of acting “nice”. If we can understand how this attitude grows and festers among men, we might be able to stop it at its start.

Jamilla Rosdahl, Senior Lecturer, The University of Melbourne

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

When American soldiers liberated the Mauthausen Nazi concentration camp in Austria 80 years ago this May, Spanish prisoners welcomed them with a message of antifascist solidarity.

The Spaniards hung a banner made from stolen bed sheets over one of Mauthausen’s gates. In English, Spanish and Russian, it read: “The Spanish Antifascists Greet the Liberating Forces.”

Both American servicemen and Spanish survivors remember the camp’s liberation as a win in their shared fight against extremism, my research on the Spanish prisoners in Mauthausen finds. They all understood the authoritarian governments of Nazi Germany, Italy and Spain as fascist regimes that used extremist views rooted in intolerance and nationalism to persecute millions of people and imperil democracy across Europe.

World War II, the Holocaust and the horrors of Nazi violence have no modern equivalent. Nevertheless, extremism is now threatening democracy in the United States in recognizable ways.

As the Trump administration executes summary deportations, works to suppress dissent, fundamentally restructures the federal government and defies judges, experts warn that the country is turning toward authoritarianism.

As a scholar of the Mauthausen camp, I believe that understanding how American soldiers and Spanish prisoners experienced its liberation offers a valuable lesson on the real and present dangers of extremism.

‘We knew then why we had to stop Hitler’

In 1938, the Nazis established Mauthausen, a forced labor camp in Austria, with an international prisoner population. My research shows that the Nazis murdered 16,000 Jews and 66,000 non-Jewish prisoners at Mauthausen between 1938 and 1945, including 60% of the roughly 7,200 Spaniards imprisoned there.

The Spanish prisoners were committed antifascist resistors sent there in 1940 and 1941. Known as Republicans or Loyalists, they had fought against Francisco Franco in the Spanish Civil War and Adolf Hitler in World War II.

The young men with the 11th Armored Division of the U.S. Army who liberated Mauthausen would never forget the moment they discovered the camp. It was May 5, 1945, just days before the war ended in Europe. A platoon led by Staff Sgt. Albert J. Kosiek was repairing bridges in this tucked-away corner of Austria when a Swiss Red Cross delegate alerted them to a large Nazi concentration camp nearby.

Mauthausen’s international survivors were among the Nazis’ last prisoners to be freed.

George Sherman was a 19-year-old tank gunner from Brooklyn when his patrol found Mauthausen. He was Jewish and had read about the Nazi camps in Europe in the Army’s newspaper.

Still, seeing a concentration camp with his own eyes was alarming.

“The piles of bodies” struck him, he remembered in an oral history recorded for the University of South Florida in 2008. So did “these people walking around like God knows – skeletons and whatnot.”

Sgt. Harry Saunders, a 23-year-old radio operator from Chicago, also remembered the moment he saw the Mauthausen survivors. They were men and women of all nationalities.

“The live skeletons, the people that were in the camp, it was indescribable, it was such a shock,” he said in a 2002 interview for the Mauthausen Memorial’s Oral History Collection in Vienna.

One of the Spanish prisoners at Mauthausen, Francesc Boix, had stolen a camera from the SS in the chaotic moments before the camp’s liberation. Boix photographed Sgt. Saunders rumbling into the concentration camp on an armored car.

Saunders kept that photograph for the rest of his life. It captured a moment of clarity for him.

“When we liberated Mauthausen, we really knew then why we had to stop Hitler and why we really went to war,” he said in the interview.

Frank Hartzell, a technical sergeant with the 11th Armored Division, was 20 when he helped to liberate Mauthausen. He turned 100 this year. We met in mid-March 2025 and discussed his wartime experience.

“What I saw and experienced appalled me,” Hartzell told me.

The outrage has stayed with him for 80 years.

‘Starved and crippled but alive’

The American liberators toured the gas chambers and the crematory ovens in Mauthausen.

Maj. Franklin Lee Clark saw the dead stacked up in “piles like cord wood to the point that they had to bring in bulldozers and make mass graves,” and took photos to document it.

Soldiers from the 11th Armored Division directed locals to bury the men and women murdered by the Nazis. The local Austrians claimed they had not known about their town’s concentration camp. But a farmer who lived nearby had been upset about all the dead bodies visible from her property. She filed a complaint asking the Nazis either to stop “these inhuman deeds” or do them “where one does not see it.”

The American liberators made sure that the townspeople could no longer look away from the murderous rampage carried out in their backyards.

While Boix was taking photos of American soldiers during liberation, the soldiers were taking photos of the welcome banner the Spaniards had painted.

On the back of one snapshot, a Signal Corps soldier typed out his impressions of their message: “I really know what that word (antifascist) means. We liberated these prisoners in the Mauthausen concentration camp near Linz, Austria. They were Poles, Hungarians and Spanish Loyalists (remember the Loyalists?). They had men and women in this camp. Starved and crippled but alive.”

After Mauthausen was liberated, the freed Loyalists set to work documenting the Nazis’ crimes. Along with his countrymen Joan de Diego, Casimir Climent and others, Spanish survivor Joaquín López Raimundo compiled lists of Mauthausen victims and their Nazi captors. Using the Nazis’ own typewriters, they spent two weeks listing the names and personal details of Spanish victims of Mauthausen and of the SS who had killed them.

The result was page after page of evidence they handed over to American war crimes investigators and the International Red Cross.

Boix, meanwhile, gave the Americans hundreds of photo negatives he had rescued from the camp’s photography lab.

Boix later testified about these images in the war crime trials at Nuremberg and Dachau. He described seeing the Nazis beat, torture and murder their victims in Mauthausen and then photograph the bodies. For 2½ years, Boix stole the photographic evidence of their crimes.

He “could not keep those negatives because it was so dangerous,” he testified at Dachau, so he “hid them in various places until the liberation.”

A lifelong vaccine against extremism

For the American liberators, their up-close view of the horrors of Mauthausen and their interactions with the Spanish antifascist survivors was a lifelong vaccine against extremism.

They witnessed how a fascist leader tore the world apart. They saw with their own eyes the death and destruction of political extremism.

When I interviewed Hartzell, he expressed concern that the United States is going down a dangerous path.

“The USA today is not the USA I fought and came close to dying for,” Hartzell told me.

As American Mauthausen liberator Maj. George E. King warned an interviewer in 1980:

“This is the lesson we have to learn: It could happen here.”

Sara J. Brenneis, Andrew W. Mellon Professor of Spanish, Amherst College

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