Progress On Digital Identity Seems To Be Glacial Of Am I Missing Something?

This appeared last week:

Australia makes headway in digital ID interoperability

Jul 5, 2024, 5:02 pm EDT | Masha Borak

Categories Biometrics News  |  Civil / National ID  |  Government Services

Australia is making progress in bringing together the country’s digital identity schemes and making them interoperable, including the federal myGov platform and the Service NSW app, created by the New South Wales government.

The government has made several small announcements that prove its commitment to this direction, according to an opinion piece published by The Mandarin.

Signs that point to this direction are the latest Data and Digital Ministers’ Meeting (DDMM) communique which mentioned a “framework for all governments.” Australian Minister for Government Services Bill Shorten also revealed that credentials such as New South Wales licenses will be admissible to the state’s equivalent of a digital wallet.

In June, New South Wales took an important step towards its national digital identity wallet scheme by launching its first digital credential, a digital first-aid certificate. Service NSW also added a  digitized Working with Children Check (WWCC) late last year.

New South Wales government digital ID received AU$21.4 million in new funding for digital ID in its latest budget.

Meanwhile, interstate digital driver licenses (DDLs) became a recognized age document in the state thanks to the 24-Hour Economy Legislation Amendment (Vibrancy Reforms) Act 2023. Several other states in Australia have also created mobile driver licenses.

Banks raise concern about govt spending

An Australian government scheme designed to allow bank customers to switch accounts, known as the consumer data right, has only drawn 174,000 active users, or 0.3 percent of bank customers, at the end of last year according to a new analysis published by the Australian Banking Association.

The report concludes that the AU$ 1.5 billion (US$1 billion) program is at risk of turning into a white elephant and warns that other government projects – including the upcoming digital ID system – may be heading towards a similar failure, the Australian Financial Review reports.

Another example in favor of this argument is the health records data-sharing scheme My Health Record. Despite the government investing AU$2 million (US$1.3 million) in the program, less than 2 percent of documents in the My Health Record system are being looked at by doctors.

Fintech companies, however, are pushing back against the claim and say that it’s too premature to declare the consumer data right a failure. The companies have urged the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to release the actual numbers.

Banks have also shown little enthusiasm towards Australia’s upcoming digital ID system, the Australian Financial Review writes. Instead, banks and big retailers have launched their own identity app, Connect ID.

Here is the link:

https://www.biometricupdate.com/202407/australia-makes-headway-in-digital-id-interoperability

It would be hard to describe this as a roaring success!

Do you think it might be that people have more on their minds than new Government ID systems since there is not apparent benefit flowing from having one in the short term at least.

Of course many are suspicious of such systems – fearful of Government misuse…

Does anyone have any good ideas as to why it seems so slow?

David.

The TGA Really Needs To Get Its Skates On And Get This Stuff Off The Market!

is appeared last week

TGA to review warnings after young father’s supplement death

July 6, 2024 — 6.00pm

Key points

• The TGA will review warnings for immunity supplements containing andrographis.
• The review comes after a man died following a reaction to ArmaForce in June.
• People with a history of severe reactions to any triggers should not use the product. 

The medicines regulator will reconsider warnings for some cold and flu tablets, after a young father died from a severe allergic reaction last month.

There has been an increase in reported adverse reactions to andrographis paniculata, an ingredient in several brands of over-the-counter “immunity” capsules, such as BioCeuticals’ ArmaForce.

Of the 300 reports of anaphylaxis or hypersensitivity reactions to medicines containing the ingredient since 2005, more than 200 have been logged since 2019.

Reported reactions included anaphylaxis, seizure, swelling, nausea, throat tightness and dizziness. The Therapeutic Goods Administration received its first report of a death following use of the alternative medicine in June: 37-year-old Cale Agosta, a Queensland father of two who is suspected to have had a fatal reaction to ArmaForce.
More than 80 per cent of the adverse events reported were for medicines which also contained echinacea, another herbal ingredient from the daisy family which has been reported to also cause allergic reactions.

The regulator introduced labelling requirements for products containing andrographis in 2019, following a safety review.

Labels must warn the ingredient can cause allergic reactions in some people and advise that, if the consumer has a severe reaction, such as anaphylaxis, they should stop use and seek immediate medical attention.

However, the regulator is reconsidering whether this is sufficient to address safety concerns.

The risk factors for severe reactions to andrographis are unknown.

Adverse reports data suggests subsequent reactions may be more severe. However, in some cases the first reported reaction was severe, even when a product was previously used without incident.

In advice published last week, the regulator advised against the use of the supplements in people with a history of severe allergic reactions to any trigger.

“[They] should be cautious using a medicine containing andrographis and stop using it at the first sign of any allergic reaction,” it advised.

Royal Australian College of GPs chair Dr Lara Roeske said winter viruses meant more people were using immunity supplements.

“It is a really timely reminder to read the label and let your health practitioner know if you do have allergies,” she said, noting people with existing allergies were typically at higher risk of having a reaction to a new substance.

“These symptoms will be much more severe than typical cold and flu symptoms, and symptoms of hypersensitivity happen pretty soon after you’ve ingested the medication,” she added.

Dr Ian Musgrave, a pharmicology researcher at the University of Adelaide, said there was a limited understanding of adverse events to alternative medicines because, although some have been used for centuries, reactions may not have been linked to the ingredient. People also may not report using these products to a medical practitioner, he said.

While such reactions are rare, Musgrave said the public needed to realise that “low” risk is not “no” risk, and carefully read warnings.

“People may not necessarily read the warnings, as they believe that ‘natural’ medicines have no side effects,” he said.

“The tragic death is a wake-call for people to be more aware that herbal and alternative medicines have the potential for harm.”

A spokesperson for Blackmores, Bioceuticals’ parent company, said it took adverse events seriously and all of its products complied with TGA regulations.

More here:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/tga-to-review-warnings-after-young-father-s-supplement-death-20240703-p5jqwb.html

This is crazy. If more than 1 person has had a bad reaction – or worse died – just get the stuff off the market!

It is not that hard and is the obvious course – or have I got it wrong? (Maybe the stock has to all be sole to stop a financial loss?)

Really it is not that hard….

David.

Do You Think The Federal Government Has Got The Policy Settings On Vaping Right?

This appeared earlier today:

Pharmacists fume over new law on Australian vape sales

Chemists’ leader says government plan to cut use of tobacco alternative is ‘insulting’ to health professionals

James Salmon  Perth

Sunday July 07 2024, 12.01am, The Sunday Times

At a busy pharmacy in Perth, where customers are waiting for their medicine, the queues are about to get longer.

In an effort to stamp out recreational vaping across Australia, pharmacies have just become the only places in the country allowed to sell vapes of any sort. Soon, controversially, they will be able to sell nicotine vapes without a prescription.

The move has infuriated pharmacists who fear that a step intended to improve national health will effectively turn their premises into modern-day tobacconists. “This is just going to create more hassle for me,” a senior pharmacist said wearily from behind the counter.

Australia has some of the strictest vaping laws in the world. Smoking e-cigarettes containing nicotine has been illegal without a prescription since October 2021 and the import of disposable vapes was banned in January. But vaping rates have surged among younger people and children, as cheap vapes have been brazenly sold anyway in corner shops, petrol stations and online.

As e-cigarettes have infiltrated school playgrounds, the percentage of 14 to 17-year-olds who have tried them has nearly tripled from 9.6 per cent in 2019 to 28 per cent in 2022-23, according to the latest National Drug Strategy Household Survey.

The Labor government has responded to concerns that a new generation is getting hooked on nicotine. Last Monday, Australia became the first country in the world to outlaw the sale of all vapes, whether they contain nicotine or not, apart from in pharmacies.

The domestic manufacture, supply and commercial possession of non-therapeutic and disposable vapes is now illegal, with jail sentences of up to seven years and fines rising up to almost A$2.2 million (£1.16 million) for an individual and A$22 million (£11.6 million) for business.

Vapes must be sold in plain packaging — a move that Australia pioneered with cigarettes more than a decade ago. They are also restricted to three flavours — tobacco, menthol and mint — in an effort to banish the sickly sweet flavours such as bubblegum and candy floss that have proved so appealing to teenagers.

The concentration of nicotine in vapes sold in pharmacies without a prescription will be limited to 20mg per ml — less than half the nicotine content found in many vapes sold on the black market.

The UK appears likely to follow Australia’s lead with Sir Keir Starmer’s new government promising to back legislation introduced by Rishi Sunak to crack down on youth vaping by banning disposable vapes, introduce plain packaging, and restricting sweet and fruity flavours.

However, Australia’s Labor government has found itself at loggerheads with the nation’s chemists, over a deal that it was forced to make to secure support for the latest bill in the senate from the Green party, which is staunchly opposed to prohibition, believing it merely drives consumers to the black market.

Here is the link:

https://www.thetimes.com/world/australasia/article/australian-pharmacists-fume-over-new-law-restricting-vape-sales-tvbgl5qcp

Surely this is going to end badly? Cigarettes are essentially banned for all under 18 and advertising or promotion of cigarettes is illegal in all of Australia. They are legal to purchase but must be in plain packaging. Cigarettes are heavily taxed and the tax rises to keep them very expensive – and a great earner for the Government!

Vapes cannot be sold at tobacconists but cigarettes can be sold for the present.

Here is the current situation:

Vapes cannot be supplied in retail settings 

Vapes can only be supplied through a pharmacy with a prescription. It is illegal for Australian retailers such as tobacconists, vape shops and convenience stores to supply any vapes, even with a prescription.

As of 1 July 2024:

• non-pharmacy retailers are not permitted to sell any vapes, including existing stock
• pharmacies may only sell vapes that comply with the updated product standards.

Here is the link:

https://www.tga.gov.au/products/unapproved-therapeutic-goods/vaping-hub/vapes-information-retailers

So basically it is the pharmacy or nothing!

I am sure pharmacists are going to be less than thrilled about this outcome – as they would feel they have better things to do!

I reckon this is a legislative mess that is going to need to be carefully redone to get the right outcome – which will be vapes are only available from pharmacists and only with a good reason(s) – yet to be clarified!

Right now some quick work is needed to sort out a potential and confusing mess! Watch this space! The Government may have just rushed this one!

David.

AusHealthIT Poll Number 754 – Results – 07 July 2024.

Here are the results of the poll.

Should Politicians Be Forced To Retire When They Reach An Advanced Age - Say 75 or 80?

Yes                                                                              26 (72%)

No                                                                                  9 (25%)

I Have No Idea                                                              1 (3%)

Total No. Of Votes: 36

A very clear cut vote suggesting we are at the mercy of at least one who is probably past it!

Any insights on the poll are welcome, as a comment, as usual!

A good voting turnout. 

1 of 36 who answered the poll admitted to not being sure about the answer to the question!

Again, many, many thanks to all those who voted, and Happy Birthday to my wonderful wife! 

David.

This Man Has Been A Seminal Contributor To The Development Of AI.

A really worthwhile interview with one of the ‘founders’ of AI

The Observer Artificial intelligence (AI)

Interview

AI scientist Ray Kurzweil: ‘We are going to expand intelligence a millionfold by 2045’

Zoë Corbyn

The Google futurist talks nanobots and avatars, deepfakes and elections – and why he is so optimistic about a future where we merge with computers

Sun 30 Jun 2024 01.00 AEST

Last modified on Sun 30 Jun 2024 03.59 AEST

The American computer scientist and techno-optimist Ray Kurzweil is a long-serving authority on artificial intelligence (AI). His bestselling 2005 book, The Singularity Is Near, sparked imaginations with sci-fi like predictions that computers would reach human-level intelligence by 2029 and that we would merge with computers and become superhuman around 2045, which he called “the Singularity”. Now, nearly 20 years on, Kurzweil, 76, has a sequel, The Singularity Is Nearer – and some of his predictions no longer seem so wacky. Kurzweil’s day job is principal researcher and AI visionary at Google. He spoke to the Observer in his personal capacity as an author, inventor and futurist.

Why write this book?
The Singularity Is Near talked about the future, but 20 years ago, when people didn’t know what AI was. It was clear to me what would happen, but it wasn’t clear to everybody. Now AI is dominating the conversation. It is time to take a look again both at the progress we’ve made – large language models (LLMs) are quite delightful to use – and the coming breakthroughs.

Your 2029 and 2045 projections haven’t changed…
I have stayed consistent. So 2029, both for human-level intelligence and for artificial general intelligence (AGI) – which is a little bit different. Human-level intelligence generally means AI that has reached the ability of the most skilled humans in a particular domain and by 2029 that will be achieved in most respects. (There may be a few years of transition beyond 2029 where AI has not surpassed the top humans in a few key skills like writing Oscar-winning screenplays or generating deep new philosophical insights, though it will.) AGI means AI that can do everything that any human can do, but to a superior level. AGI sounds more difficult, but it’s coming at the same time. And my five-year-out estimate is actually conservative: Elon Musk recently said it is going to happen in two years.We do have to be aware of the potential here and monitor what AI is doing – but just being against it is not sensible

Why should we believe your dates?
I’m really the only person that predicted the tremendous AI interest that we’re seeing today. In 1999 people thought that would take a century or more. I said 30 years and look what we have. The most important driver is the exponential growth in the amount of computing power for the price in constant dollars. We are doubling price-performance every 15 months. LLMs just began to work two years ago because of the increase in computation.

What’s missing currently to bring AI to where you are predicting it will be in 2029?
One is more computing power – and that’s coming. That will enable improvements in contextual memory, common sense reasoning and social interaction, which are all areas where deficiencies remain. Then we need better algorithms and more data to answer more questions. LLM hallucinations [where they create nonsensical or inaccurate outputs] will become much less of a problem, certainly by 2029 – they already happen much less than they did two years ago. The issue occurs because they don’t have the answer, and they don’t know that. They look for the best thing, which might be wrong or not appropriate. As AI gets smarter, it will be able to understand its own knowledge more precisely and accurately report to humans when it doesn’t know.

What exactly is the Singularity?
Today, we have one brain size which we can’t go beyond to get smarter. But the cloud is getting smarter and it is growing really without bounds. The Singularity, which is a metaphor borrowed from physics, will occur when we merge our brain with the cloud. We’re going to be a combination of our natural intelligence and our cybernetic intelligence and it’s all going to be rolled into one. Making it possible will be brain-computer interfaces which ultimately will be nanobots – robots the size of molecules – that will go noninvasively into our brains through the capillaries. We are going to expand intelligence a millionfold by 2045 and it is going to deepen our awareness and consciousness.

It is hard to imagine what this would be like, but it doesn’t sound very appealing…
Think of it like having your phone, but in your brain. If you ask a question your brain will be able to go out to the cloud for an answer similar to the way you do on your phone now – only it will be instant, there won’t be any input or output issues, and you won’t realise it has been done (the answer will just appear). People do say “I don’t want that”: they thought they didn’t want phones either!

What of the existential risk of advanced AI systems – that they could gain unanticipated powers and seriously harm humanity? AI “godfather” Geoffrey Hinton left Google last year, in part because of such concerns, while other high-profile tech leaders such as Elon Musk have also issued warnings. Earlier this month, OpenAI and Google DeepMind workers called for greater protections for whistleblowers who raise safety concerns.
I have a chapter on perils. I’ve been involved with trying to find the best way to move forward and I helped to develop the Asilomar AI Principles [a 2017 non-legally binding set of guidelines for responsible AI development]. We do have to be aware of the potential here and monitor what AI is doing. But just being against it is not sensible: the advantages are so profound. All the major companies are putting more effort into making sure their systems are safe and align with human values than they are into creating new advances, which is positive.

Won’t there be physical limits to computing power that put the brakes on?
The computing that we have today is basically perfect: it will get better every year and continue in that realm. There are many ways we can continue to improve chips. We’ve only just begun to use the third dimension [create 3D chips], which will carry us for many years. I don’t see us needing quantum computing: we’ve never been able to demonstrate its value.

You argue that the Turing test, wherein an AI can communicate by text indistinguishably from a human, will be passed by 2029. But to pass it, AI will need to dumb down. How so?
Humans are not that accurate and they don’t know a lot of things! You can ask an LLM today very specifically about any theory in any field and it will answer you very intelligently. But who can possibly do that? If a human answered like that, you’d know it was a machine. So that’s the purpose of dumbing it down – because the test is trying to imitate a human. Some people are reporting that GPT-4 can pass a Turing test. I think we have a few more years until we settle this issue.

Not everyone is likely to be able to afford the technology of the future you envisage. Does technological inequality worry you?

Being wealthy allows you to afford these technologies at an early point, but also one where they don’t work very well. When [mobile] phones were new they were very expensive and also did a terrible job. They had access to very little information and didn’t talk to the cloud. Now they are very affordable and extremely useful. About three quarters of people in the world have one. So it’s going to be the same thing here: this issue goes away over time.

My first plan is to stay alive – reaching longevity escape velocity. I’m also intending to create a replicant of myself

The book looks in detail at AI’s job-killing potential. Should we be worried?
Yes, and no. Certain types of jobs will be automated and people will be affected. But new capabilities also create new jobs. A job like “social media influencer” didn’t make sense, even 10 years ago. Today we have more jobs than we’ve ever had and US average personal income per hours worked is 10 times what it was 100 years ago adjusted to today’s dollars. Universal basic income will start in the 2030s, which will help cushion the harms of job disruptions. It won’t be adequate at that point but over time it will become so.

There are other alarming ways, beyond job loss, that AI is promising to transform the world: spreading disinformation, causing harm through biased algorithms and supercharging surveillance. You don’t dwell much on those…
We do have to work through certain types of issues. We have an election coming and “deepfake” videos are a worry. I think we can actually figure out [what’s fake] but if it happens right before the election we won’t have time. On issues of bias, AI is learning from humans and humans have bias. We’re making progress but we’re not where we want to be. There are also issues around fair data use by AI that need to be sorted out via the legal process.

What do you do at Google and did the book go through any pre-publication review?
I advise them on different ways they can improve their products and advance their technology, including LLMs. The book is written in a personal capacity. Google is happy for me to publish these things and there was no review.

Many people will be sceptical of your predictions about physical and digital immortality. You anticipate medical nanobots arriving in the 2030s that will be able to enter our bodies and carry out repairs so we can remain alive indefinitely as well as “after life” technology coming in the 2040s that will allow us to upload our minds so they can be restored – even put into convincing androids – if we experience biological death.
Everything is progressing exponentially: not only computing power but our understanding of biology and our ability to engineer at far smaller scales. In the early 2030s we can expect to reach longevity escape velocity where every year of life we lose through ageing we get back from scientific progress. And as we move past that we’ll actually get back more years. It isn’t a solid guarantee of living for ever – there are still accidents – but your probability of dying won’t increase year to year. The capability to bring back departed humans digitally will bring up some interesting societal and legal questions.

What is your own plan for immortality?

My first plan is to stay alive, therefore reaching longevity escape velocity. I take about 80 pills a day to help keep me healthy. Cryogenic freezing is the fallback. I’m also intending to create a replicant of myself [an afterlife AI avatar], which is an option I think we’ll all have in the late 2020s. I did something like that with my father, collecting everything that he had written in his life, and it was a little bit like talking to him. [My replicant] will be able to draw on more material and so represent my personality more faithfully.

What should we be doing now to best prepare for the future?

It is not going to be us versus AI: AI is going inside ourselves. It will allow us to create new things that weren’t feasible before. It’ll be a pretty fantastic future.

The Singularity Is Nearer by Ray Kurzweil is published by Vintage (£25). To support the Guardian and Observer order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply

Here is the link:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jun/29/ray-kurzweil-google-ai-the-singularity-is-nearer

Nice to read such an optimistic view of where we are heading?

I agree it is important to recognize the importance of ‘staying alive’ if any interesting future is to be experienced

I hope he is right that we can only do better from here but I must admit to a level of uncertainty!

David.

I Am Glad We Are Not Faced With A Choice Between A Crook And A Probable Dementia Sufferer For Our Leader!

This appeared last week:

Joe Biden crashed in first clash with Donald Trump - and other takeaways from the debate

John McCormick and Catherine Lucey

27 June, 2024

Dow Jones

US President Joe Biden and former US President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump participate in the first presidential debate of the 2024 elections. Picture: AFP.

President Biden, battling a hoarse voice and sometimes stammering, delivered an unsteady performance Thursday evening in his first debate against former President Donald Trump.

It was the sort of showing Democrats feared the incumbent, who polls show faces greater concerns about his age and vitality than Trump, would deliver. It lacked the energy and combativeness Biden mustered for his State of the Union speech earlier this year, an appearance that gave Democrats some optimism about his campaign vigor.

The challenger mostly kept his composure, something he isn’t known for. The much-talked-about mute buttons -- put in place because Trump so frequently talked over Biden when they debated in 2020 -- didn’t seem to come into play often.In an election season where many Americans wish they had other options, the face-off allowed the two rivals to highlight the vulnerabilities of their opponent to the slim set of voters who remain undecided.

Their high-stakes meeting in Atlanta, hosted by CNN and moderated by the network’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, delivered some firsts. It was the first modern debate between a sitting and former president, the first featuring a felon, and the first held in a studio with no live audience since the Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960.

Those factors influenced the dynamics of a 90-minute show that brimmed with insults and policy contrasts, a face-off held much earlier in an election year than is typical. The race is narrowly divided nationally, but Trump leads in several battleground states.

“Biden experienced the worst opening 15 minutes of a presidential debate ever,” said Aaron Kall, the University of Michigan’s director of debate.

Both old, but one looked older

The two men are just a few years apart in age, but Biden looked older in his presentation during an exhausting evening in front of what was expected to be a sizable television audience. A person familiar with the president’s health said he is suffering from a cold.

Biden also had his share of gaffes. As he answered a question about the national debt and started talking about health policy, he stammered and appeared to lose his train of thought at the end of his answer.

“Making sure that we’re able to make every single solitary person eligible for what I’ve been able to do with the Covid. Excuse me, with dealing with everything we have to do with,” Biden said. “Look, if we finally beat Medicare.”

Trump responded: “Well he’s right. He did beat Medicare. He beat it to death.” Trump and his allies in the days leading up to the debate had put forward unfounded accusations that Biden, 81, would arrive on stage with performance-enhancing chemicals in his system. It was an allegation Trump, 78, also made before he debated Biden in 2020.

Age is a top-of-mind issue for many voters, and the current president is the oldest person to serve in the office. Trump, if elected, would be poised to claim that record near the end of a second term.

But the challenger, unlike the incumbent, remained robust in his presentation throughout. He also sought to highlight Biden’s stammers, including after a meandering answer to a question about immigration.

“I really don’t know what he said at the end of that sentence,” Trump said. “I don’t think he knows what he said either.” Asked about the issue of age, Biden had a line at the ready: “This guy is three years younger and a lot less competent,” he said.

Trump responded to a question about his age by saying he would like Biden to take a cognitive test and release the results, triggering a chuckle from the president.

Sharpest attacks

If there was any uncertainty, the debate made clear neither man has any respect for the other, despite their joint status in an elite club of living past and present White House occupants. As they took the stage, neither moved to shake hands as has often been customary.

Biden challenged Trump over reports that he has called Americans who died in war “losers” and “suckers.” Referencing his son, the late Beau Biden, an army officer, Biden said: “My son was not a loser. He’s not a sucker. You’re the sucker. You’re the loser.” Trump again asserted he had never made the comments. Trump’s chief of staff at the time has confirmed he used those derogatory words.

The former president also suggested Biden isn’t fit for office. “He’s not equipped to be president,” Trump said. “His presidency, without question, the worst president, the worst presidency, in the history of our country. We shouldn’t be having a debate about it. There’s nothing to debate.” Biden sought to highlight Trump’s past and potential future legal issues and suggested at one point that the thrice-married man has the “morals of an alley cat.” Soft landing or surging prices The economy is typically listed by the largest share of voters when they are asked by pollsters what their top issues are in this presidential race. Trump talked down the current environment, while Biden argued things are looking up, even though more work remains to be done.

Trump sought to hang the issue of inflation, which has slowed considerably but remains especially painful for lower and middle-income Americans, directly on Biden. “Inflation is killing our country,” he said.

The president pointed to low unemployment and a robust stock market. Economists are no longer talking much about the risk of a recession, something that seemed much more likely earlier in Biden’s term as the Federal Reserve raised interest rates to cool inflation.

“Working-class people are still in trouble,” Biden acknowledged. “We’re working to bring down the price at the kitchen table, and that’s what we’re going to get done.” The president also repeatedly sought to remind viewers of some of the bad things that played out during Trump’s tenure.

“We had an economy that was in free fall,” he said. “The pandemic was so badly handled. Many people were dying. All he said was, ‘It’s not that serious. Just inject a little bleach in your arm.’” Trump at a Covid briefing in 2020 pondered whether treatments involving light or disinfectants should be studied.

Abortion

Trump continued his effort to stake out a Republican abortion position after the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade galvanized voters in support of abortion access.

First he praised the justices he put on the court for the ruling, repeating a baseless claim that “every legal scholar” wanted Roe v. Wade overruled. But then he stressed that he supports exemptions to any abortion law for rape, incest and the life of the mother, arguing that while some don’t agree, “you’ve got to get elected.” Trump also appeared to commit to allowing the abortion pill to remain available across the United States. “The Supreme Court just approved the abortion pill. I agree with their decision to have done that. I will not block it,” Trump said.

Biden, who has made abortion rights a central plank of his campaign and has targeted Trump for appointing three justices to the Supreme Court that overturned Roe, seized on Trump’s statement that the issue should be left to the states, saying it was “a little like saying, ‘We’re going to turn civil rights back to the states.’” The ruling has unfurled a patchwork of laws across the country, and created uncertainty over related issues, including the future availability of abortion pills from mail-order pharmacies. The debate came shortly after the Supreme Court said it would allow emergency abortions in Idaho without deciding key issues in the case.

No rapport

During the commercial break, Biden and Trump remained at their lecterns and looked ahead as photographers took photos, according to a White House pool report. The candidates didn’t say anything or make eye contact with each other.

Toward the end of the debate the two began bickering about golf, as older men sometimes do. “He can’t hit a ball 50 yards,” Trump said of Biden. That prompted a retort from Biden: “I’m happy to play golf with you, if you carry your own bag.”

Dow Jones

Here is the link:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/the-wall-street-journal/joe-biden-crashed-in-first-clash-with-donald-trump-and-other-takeaways-from-the-debate/news-story/a0a3adc98329426667195742b0723c7f

I just found the whole thing pathetic and sad – and a serious worry for Australia going forward with either of these men in the Oval Office.

David.

I Have To Say I Am Very Grateful To Have Had Our Legal System Stay Largely Away From Abortion Rights

This appeared a few days ago:

Supreme Court allows emergency abortions in Idaho but leaves big questions unresolved

Laura Kusisto

28 June, 2024

Dow Jones

The Supreme Court officially announced Thursday (Friday AEDT) that it would allow emergency abortions in Idaho without deciding key issues in the case, closing an unusual episode in which a draft of the decision accidentally became public a day earlier.

Since the court overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago, ending federal protections for abortion, the inability of women in some states to access abortions in medical emergencies has emerged as a top issue, shifting public opinion on abortion rights and galvanising political opposition to bans on the procedure.

The Supreme Court’s non-decision, in which a majority voted to dismiss the case as “improvidently granted,” will do little to end that debate or provide clarity to doctors struggling with how to interpret lifesaving exceptions to abortion bans.

Three different camps of three justices expressed a range of views on the case. In the end, the court voted 6-3 to ditch the case without a ruling.

By stepping back from the case, the justices reinstated a lower-court order allowing doctors broad discretion to perform abortions in Idaho in medical emergencies. The action won’t change anything for physicians nationwide.

The Supreme Court had two abortion cases on its docket this term. It ended up deciding nothing of substance in either of them. The other case involved a challenge to decisions by the Food and Drug Administration to expand access to the abortion pill mifepristone, which is used in the majority of abortions in the country. Earlier this month, the justices said the plaintiffs, anti-abortion medical associations and physicians, didn’t have standing to bring the suit.

The continued legal turmoil could affect races up and down the ballot in November. Abortion has been an important motivator for some voters over the last couple of years and Democrats are trying to persuade them that it remains salient. Republicans plan to focus attention on other issues, such as the economy and immigration, but have struggled to counter emotional stories of pregnant women denied abortions when faced with medical crises.

“Because Trump’s Supreme Court majority overturned Roe v. Wade, women are being turned away from emergency rooms and forced to the brink of death before receiving the care they need,” a senior adviser to President Joe Biden’s re-election campaign said Thursday.

A spokeswoman for former president Donald Trump’s presidential campaign said: “President Trump has long been consistent in supporting the rights of states to make decisions on abortion.”

The Supreme Court had taken up the Idaho case to decide whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act requires doctors to perform abortions to stabilise a seriously ill patient, even when state abortion bans only allow the procedure if a patient’s life is in danger.

The Biden administration, which sued Idaho, had argued the act requires hospitals to provide an abortion to a woman at risk of long-term disabilities, including infertility or kidney damage. The state argued the federal law doesn’t mandate, or even mention, abortion.

More than a dozen states now have bans on most abortions. All of them have some type of exception if a woman’s life is in danger but a handful don’t allow one if her long-term health is at serious risk. Republicans and anti-abortion groups have said such laws balance the mother’s suffering against the needs of her unborn child.

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said he tells doctors around the state that they are empowered to use their good-faith judgment in difficult situations.

“I think they have been told incorrectly by some of these pro-abortion lawyers in the United States that they’re going to be prosecuted all the time and that is just not the case in any way,” Labrador said.

Though the Supreme Court ducked the issue for now, the justices will have to confront it again soon. A US appeals court in New Orleans ruled earlier this year that the federal emergency-care law doesn’t mandate abortion care and Texas should be allowed to enforce the full scope of its near-total abortion ban. The Justice Department has already filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.

In an embarrassment for the court, a copy of the Idaho decision was very briefly available on the court’s website Wednesday before being quickly removed. The court acknowledged the error.

Three justices in the court’s centre – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – effectively controlled Thursday’s outcome, saying time had shown the court had taken up the case prematurely.

The court’s three liberal justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – also voted to dismiss the case but said they believed federal law pre-empts state law in cases where a woman’s health is at risk.

The three most conservative justices – Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch – said the court should have decided the case and ruled for Idaho.

– Catherine Lucey and Alex Leary contributed to this article.

– Dow Jones Newswires

Here is the link:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/the-wall-street-journal/supreme-court-allows-emergency-abortions-in-idaho-but-leaves-big-questions-unresolved/news-story/61c3ed767cacc4eb0b94c5aee8f8399a

I really wonder why the matter of pregnancy termination cannot be a matter exclusively between a patient and their doctor, Just why the State in the US has to involve itself in sch a decision eludes me.

While ever each of the 50 States has its own set of rules and laws we will never see consistent sensible outcomes.

Personally I hate abortion but I recognize that for some women it is a freedom to decide that is both individual and vital and virtually always the source of much careful consideration and unhappiness. I feel very sorry for all those battling with such decisions and the legion implications.

Really Government has no place in such decision making except to facilitate a full range of options needed to assist individuals in such a situation, and to make sure they know their full range of choices.

David.

Yet Again We Are Reminded To Stay Alert In The Health Sector!

 This reminder to stay alert to ‘evil-doer’ attacks appeared a day or so ago!

Cyber protection boosted in critical healthcare sector

Tom McIlroy Political correspondent

Jun 28, 2024 – 5.17pm

Australia’s healthcare sector will get increased cyber protection under an Albanese government plan to establish a new intelligence centre, using a model already in place in the banking and finance industry.

The Information Sharing and Analysis Centre (ISAC) is part of an effort to upgrade the country’s cyber safeguards at a system level, especially across high-risk industries. Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil announced $6.4 million in pilot funding this week.

The ISAC will host a platform for high-speed sharing of threat information. It will connect big businesses, non-profits and government organisations working in health and hospitals, speeding up indicators of cyber compromise, and spread information about successful responses and preventative measures for cybercrime.

Intelligence agency the Australian Signals Directorate hosts a national system which can feed information into the ISAC when appropriate.

Ms O’Neil said government intervention to kick-start the model for high-risk sectors was long overdue.

“Healthcare providers tend to hold highly sensitive data, and they often struggle with building and funding strong cyber protections. That’s why healthcare providers are one of the most common, and most damaging, targets of cyberattack. This is a pattern we see all over the world.”

Health care networks in Australia and overseas are clearly in the sights of hackers, with some in Ireland, North America and Europe already falling victim to debilitating attacks.

“Make no mistake – we expect Australian healthcare providers to step up and protect our citizens wherever possible. But government, too, needs to give them a hand,” Ms O’Neil said.

Labor could look to extend the model to other critical sectors in the future, include energy and water systems.

Michelle Fitzgerald, the chief digital officer at St Vincent’s Health Australia, said the industry had approached the government about boosting protections.

“There’s a lot of focus on the data but in the case of healthcare, we’re also working with patients every single day. So it’s an additional dynamic and brings additional risk.

“We need to co-operate and share knowledge because we’re up working against a very sophisticated global sector.”

In December, St Vincent’s Health revealed it had sustained a major cyberattack, losing data to cybercriminals who gained access through a compromised account.

The breach was considered similar to the one that crippled insurer Medibank almost a year earlier.

St Vincent’s operates hospitals across NSW, Victoria and Queensland, including three public and 10 private hospitals and more than 25 aged care facilities. The company employs nearly 30,000 people nationally.

Applications for the federal government’s grant round are open until late July.

Here is the link:

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/cyber-protection-boosted-in-critical-healthcare-sector-20240627-p5jpbb

Good to see the Government has recognized that the health sector is one that requires special help and is putting its money where its mouth is!

These issues are a wake up call to everyone in the sector!

David.