Tag Archives: death

The first Indigenous COVID death reminds us of the outsized risk NSW communities face

Posted on by

The second wave of COVID-19 in New South Wales brings concerns about vaccination rates in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Shutterstock

Kalinda Griffiths, UNSWOn Sunday, New South Wales saw four more deaths from COVID-19. One of them was a man from Dubbo who was in his 50s and unvaccinated. It was the first COVID-19 death of a First Nations person in Australia.

Aboriginal communities in remote areas have been pleading with the government for help with medical resourcing and food for families. It was recently found there were pleas for protection against COVID in Wilcannia, with Aboriginal health organisation Maari Ma Aboriginal Health contacting Ken Wyatt about this back in March last year.

There has been some progress in the nation’s vaccination rates with a little over 32% of the eligible population over the age of 12 now vaccinated. However, the second wave of COVID-19 in New South Wales highlights concerns for the unvaccinated and those with multiple risk factors. This includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

New South Wales is now in day 76 of their most recent outbreak with cases reaching over 20,000.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were identified as a priority group early in the vaccine rollout, yet they still have lower vaccination rates than the NSW population.

Almost 12% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are fully vaccinated in NSW compared to almost 30% of the non-Indigenous population.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at risk

It’s well known Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people experience higher rates of disease than non-Indigenous people. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in New South Wales experience two or more health conditions at a rate that is over two and half times greater than non-Indigenous people.

In addition, there is increased risk of spread in families, as larger family groups often live together in regional and remote communities.

These risks, along with extreme yet ignored service gaps in regional and remote areas, mean our Indigenous community is facing severe risk of death and disease from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Children and young people under the age of 20 account for a little over 20% of Australia’s case numbers, with all children aged 12 to 15 now recommended to get the Pfizer vaccine.

Pre-existing conditions such as asthma, gastrointestinal disease, diabetes/prediabetes, as well as children who are immunocompromised and preterm, have been found to be predictors of severe COVID-19 disease.

This is of great concern to Aboriginal communities, considering Aboriginal children are up to two times more likely to be hospitalised for respiratory conditions than non-Indigenous children.



Read more:
The COVID-19 crisis in western NSW Aboriginal communities is a nightmare realised

We need better data

The gaps in COVID-19 publicly available data are concerning, especially data specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

There is currently no information on vaccination rates for children over the age of 12 in out-of-home care. In 2018 there were 45,800 children in out-of-home care. About 40% of these children are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander.

There is also little to no data available on the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people tested for COVID, as well as issues with the accuracy of Indigenous status in the reporting of the case numbers.

Despite the daily high case numbers, this week the New South Wales government announced restrictions in the state will be relaxed across selected local government areas for those people who are fully vaccinated.

While the risk for those people who are vaccinated is relatively low, greater activity could still increase the spread of COVID-19 across the state, putting people in Aboriginal communities at greater risk.

Knowing exactly who is vaccinated and who is at greatest risk will be of the utmost importance as restrictions start to ease.

How the public can help

The increasing case numbers and resultant lockdowns across NSW local government areas have seen Aboriginal communities having limited access to health care and basic necessities due to limitations in the supply of regional and remote supermarkets. A number of First Nations people have rallied together to support their communities.

This has included pages that have been set up for:

People can donate or contact the volunteer group to get involved.

Where to next?

As the Delta variant makes its way across Australia, all people need access to vaccines. This means increasing government resources and health system efforts in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities as well as ensuring all Indigenous people have multiple access points to the vaccines.

This could include door-to-door vaccinations in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, pop-up vaccination clinics in regional and remote local government areas as well as school-based vaccinations.

With the expected mRNA vaccine supplies to be sufficient for the entire Australian population in the coming months, the biggest next step is ensuring their distribution is prioritised to those who need it the most.

This requires moving beyond the rhetoric and supporting health services, particularly Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations, to do the work.The Conversation

Kalinda Griffiths, Scientia lecturer, UNSW

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

Patients with COVID-19 shouldn’t have to die alone. Here’s how a loved one could be there at the end

Posted on by


Shutterstock

Melissa Bloomer, Deakin University and Stephane Bouchoucha, Deakin University

While the number of new COVID-19 cases in Victoria continues to trend downwards, we’re still seeing a significant number of deaths from the disease.

The ongoing outbreaks in aged care, and the fact community transmission is continuing to occur, mean it’s likely there will be many more deaths to come.

As a result of strict infection control measures restricting hospital visitors, tragically, many people who have died from COVID-19 have died alone. Family members have missed out on the opportunity to provide comfort to the dying person, to sit with them at their bedside, and to say goodbye.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. We have cause to consider whether perhaps we could do more to preserve the patient-family connection at the end of life.

Who can visit?

There’s some variation between Victorian health-care facilities in how visitor restrictions are applied. Some allow visitors to enter hospitals for compassionate reasons, such as when a person is dying. But visitors are not permitted for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The latest figures show 20 Victorians are in an intensive care unit (ICU) with 13 on a ventilator. This indicates their situation is critical.



Read more:
Only 25% of older Australians have an advance care plan. Coronavirus makes it even more important

Despite hospitals, and particularly ICUs, being adequately prepared and resourced to provide high-level care for people diagnosed with COVID-19, patients will still die.

Family-centred care at the end of life in intensive care is a core feature of nursing care. So in the face of this unprecedented global pandemic, we realised we needed to navigate the rules and restrictions associated with infection prevention and control and find a way to allow families to say goodbye.

Not having the chance to say goodbye may compound relatives’ grief.
Shutterstock

Our recommendations

We’ve published a set of practice recommendations to guide critical care nurses in facilitating next-of-kin visits to patients dying from COVID-19 in ICUs. The Australian College of Critical Care Nurses and the Australasian College for Infection Prevention and Control have jointly endorsed this position statement.

The recommendations are evidence-based, reflecting current infection prevention and control directives, and provide step-by-step instructions for facilitating a family visit.



Read more:
A coronavirus spike may put ICU beds in short supply. But that doesn’t mean the elderly shouldn’t get them

Some of the key recommendations include:

  • family visits should be limited to one person — the next-of-kin — and that person should be well

  • the visitor must be able to drive directly to and from the hospital to limit exposure to others

  • they should dress in single-layer clothing suitable for hot machine wash after the visit, remove jewellery, and carry as few valuables as possible

  • on arrival, staff should prepare the visitor for what they will see when they enter, what they may do, and what they may not do (for example, it would be OK to touch your loved one with a gloved hand)

  • a staff member trained in the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) should assist the visitor to put on PPE (a gown, surgical mask, goggles and gloves) and after the visit, to take it off, dispose of it safely and wash their hands

  • where possible, the visitor should be given time alone with their loved one, with instructions on how to seek staff assistance if necessary.

We also highlight the importance of intensive care staff ensuring emotional support is provided to the family member during and immediately after the visit.

ICU staff can help facilitate safe visits to patients who are dying from COVID-19.
Shutterstock

Tailoring the guidance

It’s too early to know the full impact a loved one’s isolated death during COVID-19 may have on next-of-kin and extended family. But the effect is likely to be profound, extending beyond the immediate grief and complicating the bereavement process.

These recommendations are not meant to be prescriptive, nor can they be applied in every circumstance or intensive care setting.

We encourage intensive care teams to consider what will work for their unit and team. This may include considerations such as:

  • whether there are adequate facilities in which the visitor can be briefed and don PPE

  • whether social distancing is possible with current unit occupancy and staffing

  • whether an appropriately skilled clinician is available to coordinate and manage the family visit

  • each patient’s unique clinical and social situation.

Rather than just using a risk-minimisation approach to managing COVID-19, there’s scope for some flexibility and creativity in addressing family needs at the end of life.



Read more:
ICU ventilators: what they are, how they work and why it’s hard to make more


The Conversation

Melissa Bloomer, Associate Professor, Nursing, Deakin University and Stephane Bouchoucha, Associate Head of School (International), Deakin University

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

Does anyone know what your wishes are if you’re sick and dying from coronavirus?

Posted on by


Shutterstock/sfam photo

Louise D. Hickman, University of Technology Sydney; Jane Phillips, University of Technology Sydney, and Patricia Davidson, Johns Hopkins University

With more than 170,000 coronavirus deaths worldwide so far, including 71 in Australia, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of talking to your loved ones about dying and your wishes at the end of your life.

If you become seriously unwell with COVID-19 and are likely to benefit from active treatment and need a ventilator or are dying, do those closest to you know what type of care you would want?

COVID-19 steals the luxury of time but these are the questions busy health-care providers assessing you will want to know to inform your treatment.



Read more:
Why are older people more at risk of coronavirus?

If you haven’t had these important conversations, start them today. Have them with someone who will be able to advocate for your care preferences and wishes when you are unable to do it yourself.

Who should be having these discussions?

Older people have more chronic health conditions that place them at higher risk of severe illness or death. They are more likely to find themselves in a variety of situations where health-care decisions need to be made.

Although older people and those with chronic conditions are at more risk, no one is protected against COVID-19, so everyone should have these conversations.

What are the options?

COVID-19 is a respiratory virus that can cause lung infection. If you were likely to benefit, you could be sent to an intensive care unit (ICU). Some patients will need to have a tube put down their throat so they can be attached to a ventilator to help their body breath. Would you want this to happen to you?

In crisis situations, who can be with you in hospital while you are sick or dying changes. You may be allowed one person with you or no-one.

Health-care providers are working creatively to ensure patients and their families remain connected through the use of technology, such as FaceTime, WhatsApp, Viber, Zoom or texting. Would you still decide to go to ICU if you knew you could only communicate with those you love using technology?

What if you don’t want aggressive treatment?

Good health care involves understanding people’s preferences and wishes, and developing clear goals of care. Not everyone will want to have aggressive treatment, which can be burdensome and difficult to cope with if you have other chronic illnesses or are very old.

If you elect to have good symptom management only, rather than aggressive treatment, do you know what palliative care might look like for you in this situation?

Palliative care aims to relieve symptoms and promote quality of life.

Palliative care symptom management is focused on making you as comfortable as possible, by managing any distress, breathlessness, anxiety and pain. The health-care providers will endeavour to communicate regularly with your family and keep them informed about your situation and how you are responding to these comfort measures.



Read more:
Why do more men die from coronavirus than women?

If you want to know more, look at the caresearch COVID-19 website.

If you do not want to receive aggressive medical treatments, then Advance Care Planning Australia has some great resources to help you frame and document your care preferences.

What questions do you need to think about?

This list provides some helpful questions for a written plan. You can also give your answers to your advocate, someone you want to speak to the treating doctor or nurse on your behalf if you’re too sick to talk.

1) Who is the nominated person you want to speak on your behalf?

2) What are your:

  • goals of care?

  • health priorities?

  • current conditions?

3) Do you know what treatment you want or do not want should you be too sick to tell health professionals yourself?

4) If it becomes clear you are dying, what does a comfortable dignified death look like to you?

5) What is your preference if your condition gets worse, even after health professionals try everything? If you are dying, do you want to be put on a ventilator?

6) Do you want be resuscitated (with CPR) if your heart and lungs stop working?

7) Would you rather not go to the hospital and prefer to stay in your home or residential aged care home if given the choice?

8) Have you had your wishes documented and does your advocate have a copy of your care preferences and wishes?

If we fail to have these conversations now and are unfortunate to present to hospital acutely unwell, then there may not be the luxury of time to discuss these issues in detail with our family and the treating health-care team.The Conversation

Louise D. Hickman, A/Professor and Director Palliative Care Studies at IMPACCT (Improving Palliative, Aged & Chronic Care through Clinical Research & Translation), University of Technology Sydney; Jane Phillips, Director of IMPACCT, Professor of Palliative Nursing, University of Technology Sydney, and Patricia Davidson, Professor and Dean, School of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University

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

Why do more men die from coronavirus than women?

Posted on by


Shutterstock/RoMiEg

Jenny Graves, La Trobe University

All over the world – in China, Italy, the United States and Australia – many more men than women are dying from COVID-19.

Why? Is it genes, hormones, the immune system – or behaviour – that makes men more susceptible to the disease?



Read more:
More testing will give us a better picture of the coronavirus spread and its slowdown

I see it as an interaction of all of these factors and it isn’t unique to the SARS-Cov-2 virus – the different response of men and women is typical of many diseases in many mammals.

The grim figures

In Italy and China deaths of men are more than double those of women. In New York city men constitute about 61% of patients who die. Australia is shaping up to have similar results, though here it’s mostly in the 70-79 and 80-89 age groups.

COVID-19 deaths in Australia (last updated April 19, 2020).
Australian Government, Department of Health

One major variable in severity of COVID-19 is age. But this can’t explain the sex bias seen globally because the increased male fatality rate is the same in each age group from 30 to 90+. Women also live on average six years longer than men, so there are more elderly women than men in the vulnerable population.

The other major factor is the presence of chronic diseases, particularly heart disease, diabetes and cancer. These are all more common in men than women, which might account for some of the bias.

But then we must ask why men are more vulnerable to the diseases that put them at greater risk of COVID-19.

Men and women are biologically different

Men and women differ in their sex chromosomes and the genes that lie on them. Women have two copies of a mid-sized chromosome (called the X). Men have only a single X chromosome and a small Y chromosome that contains few genes.

One of these Y genes (SRY) directs the embryo to become male by kick-starting the development of testes in an XY embryo. The testes make male hormones and the hormones make the baby develop as a boy.

In the absence of SRY an ovary forms and makes female hormones.

It’s the hormones that control most of the obvious visible differences between men and women – genitals and breasts, hair and body type – and have a large influence on behaviour.

The Y chromosome and hormones

The Y chromosome contains hardly any genes other than SRY but it is full of repetitive sequences (“junk DNA”).

Perhaps a “toxic Y” could lose its regulation during ageing. This might hasten ageing in men and render them more susceptible to the virus.

But a bigger problem for men is the male hormones unleashed by SRY action. Testosterone levels are implicated in many diseases, particularly heart disease, and may affect lifespan.

Men are also disadvantaged by their low levels of estrogen, which protects women from many diseases, including heart disease.

Male hormones also influence behaviour. Testosterone levels have been credited with major differences between men and women in risky behaviours such as smoking and drinking too much alcohol, as well as reluctance to heed health advice and to seek medical help.

The extreme differences in smoking rate between men and women in China (almost half the men smoke and only 2% of women) may help to account for their very high ratio of male deaths (more than double female). Not only is smoking a severe risk factor for any respiratory disease, but it also causes lung cancer, a further risk factor.

Smoking rates are lower and not as sex-biased in many other countries, so risky behaviour can’t by itself explain the sex difference in COVID-19 deaths. Maybe sex chromosomes have other effects.

Two X chromosomes are better than one

The X chromosome bears more than 1,000 genes with functions in all sorts of things including routine metabolism, blood clotting and brain development.

The presence of two X chromosomes in XX females provides a buffer if a gene on one X is mutated.

XY males lack this X chromosome backup. That’s why boys suffer from many sex-linked diseases such as haemophilia (poor blood clotting).

The number of X chromosomes also has big effects on many metabolic characters that are separable from sex hormone effects, as studies of mice reveal.

Females not only have a double dose of many X genes, but they may also have the benefit of two different versions of each gene.

This X effect goes far to explain why males die at a higher rate than females at every age from birth.

And another man problem is the immune system.

We’ve known for a long time that women have a stronger immune system than men. This is not all good, because it makes women more susceptible to autoimmune diseases such as lupus and multiple sclerosis.

But it gives women an advantage when it comes to susceptibility to viruses, as many studies in mice and humans show. This helps to explain why men are more susceptible to many viruses, including SARS and MERS.

There are at least 60 immune response genes on the X chromosome, and it seems that a higher dose and having two different versions of these gives women a broader spectrum of defences.

Sex differences in diseases – the big picture

Sex differences in the frequency, severity and treatment efficacy for many diseases were pointed out long ago. COVID-19 is part of a larger pattern in which males lose out – at every age.

This isn’t just humans – it is true of most mammals.

Are sex differences in disease susceptibility simply the by-catch of genetic and hormone differences? Or were they, like many other traits, selected differently in males and females because of differences in life strategy?



Read more:
Dry, wet, barking, hacking: a guide to coughs in the time of coronavirus

It’s suggested that male mammals spread their genes by winning competitions for mates, hence hormone control of risky behaviour is a plus for men.

It’s also suggested female mammals are selected for traits that enhance their ability to care for young, hence their stronger immune system. This made sense for most mammals through the ages.

So the sex bias in COVID-19 deaths is part of a much larger picture – and a very much older picture – of sex differences in genes, chromosomes and hormones that lead to very different responses to all sorts of disease, including COVID-19.The Conversation

Jenny Graves, Distinguished Professor of Genetics, La Trobe University

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

Small funerals, online memorials and grieving from afar: the coronavirus is changing how we care for the dead

Posted on by

Tamara Kohn, University of Melbourne and Hannah Gould, University of Melbourne

The coronavirus is not only affecting the way we live, it’s also dramatically affecting the way we die.

In Australia, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced that funerals would be limited to a maximum of ten people to limit the spread of COVID-19. However, the states may have some leeway in permitting an extra one or two.

Funeral directors say they are concerned about the availability of crucial health supplies such as masks, hand sanitiser and body bags.

In Italy, people with COVID-19 reportedly “face death alone”, with palliative care services stretched to the limit, morgues inundated, funeral services suspended, and many dead unburied and uncremated.

In Iran, satellite photography shows trenches being excavated for mass burials.



Read more:
The case for Endgame C: stop almost everything, restart when coronavirus is gone

As Australia’s coronavirus response moves into a critical period, these examples remind us that how we care for the dead must be part of our pandemic plan.

It is extremely difficult to estimate the total number of people who will die in Australia from COVID-19. Predictions range from 3,000 to 400,000.

Our morgues, crematoria, cemeteries and funeral homes will certainly be stretched to capacity.

Family and loved ones may be facing a very different funeral to the one they envisaged.

And while funeral directors and others in the deathcare industry are changing the way they care for the dead, there are clearly challenges ahead.

Can I kiss my loved one goodbye?

Traditions that include kissing, hugging, and dressing the dead have often been abandoned or significantly modified during pandemics.

For instance, during the Ebola outbreak of 2013-16, governments were forced to separate the dying and dead from their communities, enforce new non-contact methods of burial, and in so doing, transform how people mourned.

In Australia, the latest federal guidelines (updated March 25) advise families not to kiss the deceased. However, they can touch the body if they wash their hands immediately afterwards or use alcohol-based hand sanitiser. In most cases, family members do not need to use gloves.

How are funerals changing?

Travel bans and mandatory self-isolation periods can delay some funerals.
And funerals that pull people from distant places into intimate proximity, often including vulnerable people, present a clear health risk.

For instance, in Spain, more than 60 cases of COVID-19 were traced back to one funeral service.

While Australia has limited the size of funerals, other countries have temporarily banned people from attending them altogether.



Read more:
Why are older people more at risk of coronavirus?

Deb Ganderton, chief executive of Melbourne’s Greater Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust, told us:

Everyone has the right to expect a funeral and burial service that respects their individual beliefs. For the families, friends and loved ones of the deceased, an end of life service can also be an important part of the grieving process and help them cope with their loss.

So we need to be creative to find ways to both protect that right and protect public health.

More funerals and memorials going online

In many countries, including the US, UK and Australia, as funeral services are being scaled back or suspended to limit spread of the coronavirus, online services are flourishing.

Our DeathTech Research Team has been following this move to streamed funeral and memorial services. We’ve also been following interest in using hired robots, which people control from afar, to allow people to attend a funeral who can’t be there in person. We predict more innovative use of technology in coming months.

We may also see more people using digital technology such as social media sites for sharing personal memories of the dead and expressing emotions, particularly if they can’t attend funerals in person.

What’s happening behind the scenes?

The coronavirus is also challenging the deathcare industry – which includes funeral homes, cemeteries, morgues and crematoria – for a number of reasons.

International guidelines for funeral directors say that after death, the human body does not generally create a serious health hazard for COVID-19. NSW guidelines say funeral directors and people working in mortuaries are unlikely to contract COVID-19 from deceased people infected with the virus.

However, both sets of guidelines do set out detailed infection control procedures.

Adrian Barrett, senior vice-president of the Australian Funeral Directors Association, told us:

There’s a lot of inconsistency in advice about death and funerals between different states and federal government […] Recommendations around coronavirus can be in conflict. We’d rather have and follow conservative guidelines, to make sure we are doing as much as possible.

Then, there’s the issue of staffing. Although many other sectors can find ways to isolate or temporarily close, cemetery, funeral, and crematoria workers provide an essential service and cannot work from home.

We rarely think about the welfare of those who handle the dead. These workers are too often stereotyped as profiteering in the face of grief, or stigmatised by the taboos surrounding their work. But there is a deep sense of service and care that pervades this professional community.



Read more:
Friday essay: images of mourning and the power of acknowledging grief

For this community, safe working conditions means ensuring the supply of personal protective equipment. However, Adrian of the Australian Funeral Directors Association told us funeral homes across Australia are struggling to source items such as masks and have run into problems with suppliers profiteering by raising prices.

Finally, we need to advertise broadly a public duty of care for those in the deathcare sector. These are the people who safely dispose of bodies and care for people dealing with the loss of loved ones.

Coronavirus has, in such a short time, radically transformed how we live our daily lives as well as urgently reminded us about the fragility of life.The Conversation

Tamara Kohn, Professor of Anthropology, University of Melbourne and Hannah Gould, ARC Research Fellow, University of Melbourne

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

Can you die from a common cold?

Posted on by


shutterstock.
Estrada Anton/Shutterstock

Peter Barlow, Edinburgh Napier University

Most people know that the flu can kill. Indeed, the so-called Spanish flu killed 50 million people in 1918 – more than were killed in the first world war. But what about the common cold? Can you really catch your death?

The cold is a collection of symptoms – coughing, sneezing, a runny nose, tiredness and perhaps a fever – rather than a defined disease. Although it shares a lot with the initial symptoms with the flu, it’s a very different infection.

Rhinovirus causes about half of all colds, but other viruses can cause one or more of the symptoms of a cold, including adenovirus, influenza virus, respiratory syncytial virus and parainfluenza virus.

The rhinovirus causes about half of all colds.
Maryna Olyak/Shutterstock

The common cold is normally a mild illness that resolves without treatment in a few days. And because of its mild nature, most cases are self-diagnosed. However, infection with rhinovirus or one of the other viruses responsible for common cold symptoms can be serious in some people. Complications from a cold can cause serious illnesses and, yes, even death – particularly in people who have a weak immune system.

For example, studies have shown that patients who have undergone a bone marrow transplant can have a higher likelihood of developing a serious respiratory infection. While rhinovirus is not thought to be the main cause of this, other viruses that are associated with symptoms of the common cold, such as RSV, adenovirus and parainfluenza virus, are.

There is, of course, more than one way for someone to become very sick after infection with a respiratory virus. Some viruses, such as adenovirus, can also cause symptoms throughout the body, including the gastrointestinal tract, the urinary tract and the liver.

Other viruses, like the influenza virus, can themselves potentially cause severe inflammation in the lungs, but they can also lead to particularly serious conditions, such as bacterial pneumonia.



Read more:
We have a good chance of curing the common cold in next ten years – a scientist explains

A virus-induced bacterial infection is one way a cold or flu virus can lead to death. While the exact mechanisms of how bacterial infections can be primed by viral infection are still being investigated, a possible way it can occur is through increased bacterial attachment to cells of the lung. For example, rhinovirus has been shown to increase the presence of a receptor called PAF-r in lung cells. This can allow bacteria, such as Streptococcus pneumoniae, to bind more effectively to the cells, increasing the likelihood of it leading to a severe condition like pneumonia.

Higher risk in some people

Unfortunately, a cold can also have more severe symptoms in the very young and the very old. Older people are more likely to develop a more serious infection compared with adults or older children. And people who smoke – or who are exposed to second-hand smoke – are also more likely to get a cold and have more severe symptoms.

Another group of people who are more severely affected by infection with cold-causing viruses are people with an existing lung condition. They can include people with asthma, cystic fibrosis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Infection with a virus that causes inflammation of the airways can make breathing much harder. People with COPD who catch a mild cold virus are also at risk of developing a bacterial infection.



Read more:
Your lungs are full of microorganisms … and that’s a good thing

While the bacterial infection in these patients can be treated with antibiotics, there is no effective antiviral treatment against all types of rhinovirus. For other respiratory viruses, such as influenza, there is an effective vaccine that can help protect vulnerable people from the flu virus, including asthmatics, the very young and the very old.

There is not one single element that dictates how severe an infection with a cold virus will be, but there are many conditions or factors that can raise a red flag.



Read more:
Flu jab: for asthmatics, avoiding the flu vaccine could be a fatal mistake

One of the best ways to avoid catching a cold is to wash your hands properly. This can prevent the spread of many different infections, not just the viruses that cause the common cold. And everyone, not just those classed as vulnerable, should get the flu jab. For viral infections, prevention is key.The Conversation

Peter Barlow, Professor of Immunology and Infection and Head of Research of the School of Applied Sciences, Edinburgh Napier University

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

Tim Fischer – a man of courage and loyalty – dies from cancer

Posted on by


Tim Fischer aboard a one-off passenger train last month to raise money for the Albury Wodonga Cancer Centre trust fund.
Sally Evans/ Albury Wodonga Regional Cancer Centre Trust Fund

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer, who has died aged 73 of cancer, leaves a political and personal legacy as a man of courage, conviction and congeniality.

The support that Fischer as National Party leader gave was crucial in John Howard’s success in achieving his ground-breaking gun control measure after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

While the issue tested Howard, for Fischer it was extraordinarily tough. Howard recalls: “He never tried to talk me out of it but he made it plain how difficult it was going to be in certain parts of the bush”.

Fischer remained resolute despite the fury of many among his party’s base, where hostility lingered for years.

When Fischer became leader in 1990, with the Coalition in opposition, quite a few observers doubted the party’s choice. (They included this writer; Fischer delighted in recalling that misjudgement.)

He defied the sceptics, managing his party and the Coalition relationship to the benefit of each, despite the challenges, which included not just gun control but the Wik issue, constant sniping from the Queensland part of the party, leadership rumblings, and the electoral threat posed by One Nation.

“The boy from Boree Creek” was born in the Riverina, and educated at Boree Creek Public School and then at Xavier College in Melbourne. He was conscripted in 1966 – subsequently saying his birthday being selected in the ballot proved a “great door opener” – and he served in Vietnam.

His long parliamentary career spanned state and federal politics. In 1971 he entered the NSW parliament; in 1984 he won the federal seat of Farrer.

Grahame Morris (who became Howard’s chief of staff) remembers as a young country reporter covering Fischer’s appearance at a hall in the town of Grong Grong, in his first state campaign. The speech seemed to take forever, because Fischer had a dreadful stutter – which in later years he managed to control, although it left him with an unusual speech pattern.

“That a fellow [who started] with a pronounced stutter became deputy prime minister and an effective communicator is remarkable,” says Morris, a friend of Fischer over decades.

Cabinet colleague Peter Reith said once, “You don’t so much listen to what Tim has to say as imbibe it”.

In the Howard government Fischer was trade minister, a powerful economic bastion for the National party in those days. But his time in office was limited. He stepped down from his party’s leadership (and the ministry) in 1999, largely driven by family factors – Harrison, one of his two young sons, had autism.

When he went to tell Howard of his decision, the PM tried to talk him out of it. Fischer, feeling he was losing the argument, played his winning card – revealing he had already told a journalist on a VIP flight from New Zealand earlier in the day. He left parliament in 2001.

The citation when Charles Sturt University awarded him an honorary doctorate in 2001 captured much about his personality: “Tim’s life has been about dogged adherence to goals. It has also been about risk-taking, grabbing opportunities and perseverance.”

The highlight of a busy post-politics career was serving as Australia’s first resident ambassador to the Holy See, a post to which he was appointed by Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd.

Among a myriad of interests and activities, including writing several books, Fischer’s special passion was trains, which saw him leading tours at home and abroad and, while at the Vatican, organising the Caritas Express, a steam train trip from the Pope’s platform to Orvieto in Umbria .

Last month Fischer was among those aboard a one-off passenger train, raising money for the Albury Wodonga Cancer Centre trust fund, that travelled to tiny Boree Creek, where a park was named for him. “It’s nice to be going home, on a special train,” he said.The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

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

Tim Fischer had his blind spots, but he was an unsung champion of an Asian-facing Australia

Posted on by

Tim Harcourt, UNSW

Amid the tributes to former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer and the stories of his authenticity, courage and quirky interests – like trains and military history – what has struck me most are the examples of his personal kindness.



Read more:
Tim Fischer – a man of courage and loyalty – dies from cancer

One of those stories is how Fischer helped a desperate Laotian refugee who in 1986 pulled a gun at the Immigration office in Albury, near Fischer’s office. It turned into a siege. Fischer walked in alone and defused the situation. He then travelled to Thailand in an attempt to get the man’s family out of the refugee camp in which they were stuck.

There are many similar stories – from army mates, farmers, journalist and politicians of all parties. I experienced Fischer’s personal kindness several times.

Austrade memories

The first was when I was appointed chief economist at Austrade in 1999. That made Fischer, who was the federal trade minister as well as deputy prime minister, my boss.

My appointment was heavily criticised in The Australian newspaper – presumably because my previous job was with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It called my appointment “payback” for Fischer’s chief of staff, Craig Symon, getting a senior executive role at Austrade.

I was a bit worried. But then I got a phone call from Fischer. “You got the job on your abilities as an economist,” he said to me. “If you get any political crap, let me know.”

Austrade staff loved working for Fischer. Every time he made a speech at a public event, he would single out an Austrade employee and recall something good they had done. It it made the person feel like a million bucks.

The second was when my book The Airport Economist was published, in 2008. Fischer took a copy to Thailand and gave it to the Thai prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, an avid reader of economic literature.

At a later APEC summit, when world leaders were asked their favourite book, Abhisit replied: “The Airport Economist.” Straight away the Bangkok Post published the book in the Thai language. We had a book launch at the Bangkok Stock Exchange with Australia’s Ambassador to Thailand and Thai TV anchor Rungthip Chotnapalai. The book became a best seller in Thailand, all thanks to Fischer.

An unsung hero of Asian engagement

Fischer is in many ways the unsung hero of Australia’s changed attitudes to Asia in the 20th century. Labor’s legends Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating are all known for championing Asian economic engagement. But Fischer also played a huge role in cementing relationships. He laid his Akubra hat on negotiating tables in most of Asia’s capitals, spruiked deals and hammered out treaties.

A veteran of the Vietnam war, his army days no doubt affected how he thought Australia should view our neighbours. His passion for improved ties with Asia generally, not just in trade, was genuine and authentic. He loved Thailand and Bhutan in particular.

He was in some ways, part of a tradition of Country/National party leaders who pushed Australia towards Asia, largely for economic reasons. For example, John “Black Jack” McEwen negotiated the Commerce Agreement with Japan in 1957, just 12 years after World War II. In the 1970s, Doug Anthony also championed our interests in Asia. Fischer similarly saw Asia as “Our Near North” rather than that quaint old term “The Far East”.

Fischer had his blind spots, to be sure. He failed to appreciate the High Court’s Mabo and Wik decisions, for example. He was a sucker for conspiracy theories at times. But you can’t have everything.

His political career was long, beginning with election to the New South Wales parliament at age 24. But his ministerial career was quite short – just three years. In 1999 he quit his ministerial posts, and the leadership of the National Party, to spend more time to his family – especially his son Harrison, then aged five, who had been diagnosed with autism.

But the impression Fischer made makes it seem he spent much longer at the top. He was like cricketer Mike Whitney and rugby union player Peter Fitzsimmons. Neither played many tests for Australia but they sure leveraged that time into successful subsequent careers. Fischer did the same.

Now the train has finally left the station.The Conversation

Tim Harcourt, J.W. Nevile Fellow in Economics and host of The Airport Economist, UNSW

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