So what is currently in the SARS-Cov-2 viral soup swirling around us as we go about our daily lives?

 

 

The NSW Perrottet Government decided in late 2021 that it would ignore the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. It no longer publicly report instances of COVID-19 infection in a meaningful way. As well as removing in stages all mandatory health measures, including an obligation to get tested or to isolate if unwell. 

Therefore the general public knows little about the viral soup that now swirls arounds Australia's public spaces, transit systems, workplaces and even our homes.

So as a new cluster of Omicron subvariants make themselves felt this month in New South Wales: the population is generally under-vaccinated; the viral transmission rate is rising; the number of people testing positive is growing by approx. six to eight thousand confirmed cases every 7 days; hospital admissions due to COVD-19 are climbing; and somewhere between 22 to 39 deaths are occurring over 7 day periods.

With all statistics belatedly supplied by NSW Health indicating an increase in the already massive under reporting, once all pretence of a public health approach to this pandemic was abandoned.

So how many SARS-CoV-2 subvariants are there now?

Well since the original subvariants Apha, Beta, Gamma and Delta gave way to Omicron, there have been so many more subvariants of concern spawned in Australia and around the world.

Here is an outline of what is currently in the viral soup......

Doherty Institute, News, 3 November 2022:

From Centaurus to XBB: your handy guide to the latest COVID subvariants (and why some are more worrying than others)

The Omicron variant of concern has splintered into multiple subvariants. So we’ve had to get our heads around these mutated forms of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, including BA.1 and the more recent BA.5.

We’ve also seen recombinant forms of the virus, such as XE, arising by genetic material swapping between subvariants.

More recently, XBB and BQ.1 have been in the news.

No wonder it’s hard to keep up.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has had to rethink how it describes all these subvariants, now labelling ones we need to be monitoring more closely.

What’s the big deal with all these subvariants?

Omicron and its subvariants are still causing the vast majority of COVID cases globally, including in Australia.

Omicron subvariants have their own specific mutations that might make them more transmissible, cause more severe disease, or evade our immune response.

Omicron and its subvariants have pushed aside previous variants of concern, the ones that led to waves of Alpha and Delta earlier in the pandemic.

Now, in Australia, the main Omicron subvariants circulating are BA.2.75, and certain versions of BA.5. More on these later.

 

Viral genomes from Australia: once we had Alpha and Delta waves. Now we have waves of Omicron subvariants. Author provided

We still don’t fully understand the driving forces behind the emergence and spread of certain SARS-CoV-2 subvariants.

We can, however, assume the virus will keep evolving, and new variants (and subvariants) will continue to emerge and spread in this wave-like pattern.

How do we keep track of this all?

To monitor these subvariants, the WHO has defined a new category, known as “Omicron subvariants under monitoring”.

These are ones that have specific combinations of mutations known to confer some type of advantage, such as being more transmissible than others currently circulating.

Researchers and health authorities keep track of circulating subvariants by sequencing the genetic material from viral samples (for instance, from PCR testing or from wastewater sampling). They then upload the results to global databases (such as GISAID) or national ones (such as AusTrakka).

These are the Omicron subvariants authorities are keeping a closer eye on for any increased risk to public health.

Newer versions of BA.5

The BA.5 subvariant that arose in early February 2022 is still accumulating more mutations.

The WHO is monitoring BA.5 versions that carry at least one of five additional mutations (known as S:R346X, S:K444X, S:V445X, S:N450D and S:N460X) in the spike gene.

The spike gene codes for the part of the virus that recognises and fuses with human cells. We are particularly concerned about mutations in this gene as they might increase the virus’ ability to bind with human cells.

Throughout recent months, BA.5 has been the dominant subvariant in Australia. However, BA.2.75 has now established a foothold.

BA.2.75 or Centaurus

The BA.2.75 subvariant, sometimes called Centaurus, was first documented in December 2021. It possibly emerged in India, but has been detected around the globe.

This includes in Australia, where more than 400 sequences have been uploaded to the GISAID database since June 2022.

This subvariant has up to 12 mutations in its spike gene. It seems to spread more effectively than BA.5. This is probably due to being better able to infect our cells, and avoiding the immune response driven by previous infection with other variants.

 

BJ.1

This was first detected in early September 2022 and has a set of 14 spike gene mutations.

It has mostly been detected in India or in infections coming from this area.

We know very little about the impact of its mutations and at the time of writing, there was only one Australian sequence reported.

BA.4.6 or Aeterna

BA.4.6, sometimes called Aeterna, was detected in January 2022 and has been spreading rapidly in the United States and the United Kingdom.

There have been more than 800 sequences uploaded to the GISAID database in Australia since May 2022.

It may be more easily transmitted from one person to the next due to its spike gene mutations.

Early data suggests it is better able to resist cocktails of therapeutic antibodies compared with BA.5. This makes antibody therapies, such as Evusheld, less effective against it.

BA.2.3.20

This was first detected in the US in August 2022. It has a set of nine mutations in the spike gene, including a rare double mutation (A484R).

Like BA.2.75, this subvariant is probably better able to infect our cells and avoid the immune response driven by previous infection.

There are more than 100 Australian genomic sequences reported in the GISAID database, all from August 2022.

XBB

This recombinant version of the virus was detected in August 2022. It is a result of the swapping of genetic material between BA.2.10.1 and BA.2.75. It has 14 extra mutations in its spike gene compared with BA.2.

Although there have only been 50 Australian genomic sequences reported in GISAID since September, we anticipate cases will rise. Lab studies indicate therapeutic antibodies don’t work so well against it, with XBB showing strong resistance.

Although XBB appears to be able to spread faster than BA.5, there’s no evidence so far it causes more severe disease.

 

How about BQ.1?

Although it is not on the WHO list of subvariants under monitoring, cases of the BQ.1 subvariant are rising in Australia. BQ.1 contains mutations that help the virus evade existing immunity. This means infection with other subvariants, including BA.5, may not protect you against BQ.1.

In the meantime, your best protection against severe COVID, whichever subvariant is circulating, is to make sure your booster shots are up-to-date. Other ways to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection include wearing a fitted mask, avoiding crowded spaces with poor ventilation, and washing your hands regularly.

Written by

Dr Ash Porter, Research officer and Dr Sebastian Duchene, Australian Research Council Future Fellow.

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

An insurance crisis grips the flood-ravaged Central West of NSW as state enters 69th day of consecutive flooding

 

The Sydney Morning Herald, A frame grab from aerial drone vision over Eugowra (Postcode 2806) on Tuesday. 15 November 2022. IMAGE: Mat Reid

Mainstream media reports that the entire postcode of 2871 is to be denied future flood cover by insurance industry. Included in this postcode are:

Bandon, Bedgerebong, Bundaburrah, Calarie, Carrawabbity, Corinella, Cumbijowa, Daroobalgie, Fairholme, Forbes, Garema, Grawlin, Gunning Gap, Jemalong, Mulyandry, Ooma, Warroo, Weelong, Wirrinya and Yarragong. 

The Sydney Morning Herald, Morning Edition,17 November 2022:

Insurers drop flood-stricken residents

As floods continue to devastate the state’s central west, exhausted residents have begun receiving letters from their insurers telling them they are no longer covered. Touring the affected areas, acting Prime Minister Richard Marles said the government would continue to talk to its state counterpart about potential land buybacks. But the insurance crisis prompted calls for the federal government to intervene with a reinsurance pool like it did in Queensland, where premiums skyrocketed due to cyclones.

“There’s got to be a suite of measures on the table, from the financial to the physical, like flood mitigation,” said local federal MP Andrew Gee. In 2019, the state government committed to raising the wall of Wyangala Dam, which has been spilling hundreds of thousands of megalitres of water a day as communities downstream are inundated. However, laws allowing the government to fast-track that project expired last year before work commenced, and Opposition Leader Chris Minns will not commit to it if elected next year. He says the multibillion-dollar project is being used by the government to peddle “false hope” for flood-ravaged communities…..

Photo: Alex Ellinghausen, see more here.

• See the latest news in our live flood coverage

Rally To Stop Casino's Incinerator Madness, Saturday 26 November 2022 at Reynolds Road, Casino opp Cemetery

 

 

Quote of the Week

“We live at a moment of civilisational crisis. The threat of nuclear war on the continent of Europe. A growing global economic crisis. Intensified rather than diminished fossil fuel extraction. And the possible return of Donald Trump in 2024. Truly, we seem to have descended into chaos.” [Richard Horton writing in The Lancet, 12 November 2022]

Tweet of the Week

 

The three faces of Kathryn Campbell
a thread:

2018#Robodebt pic.twitter.com/c1D6Tn9kT5

— 🕯️ 💉💉Teresa Randal💉💉 🕯️💧 (@RandaltsRandal) November 13, 2022

 

Has Kyogle Council in Northern NSW become a creature of the timber industry?

In 2018 the NSW Dept. of Primary Industries produced a report that examined the NSW planning and regulatory instruments that interact with private native forestry (PNF) using the entire NSW north coast region as a case study -  from Gosford local government area to the NSW-Qld border - to which was added Tenterfield, Glen Innes Severn, Guyra, Armidale Dumaresq, Uralla, Walcha and Tamworth LGAs for good measure.

The report found planning constraints and exclusions applied to 734,992 ha, which equated to 25.6% of the total area of private native forest on the NSW north coast. In effect, these areas are acting as large-scale informal conservation reserves. With a total of 689,300 ha of that land requiring dual consent from the NSW Environment Protection Agency (EPA) and local councils before private forestry agreements could be applied to this land.

The report noted that: Private native forestry is prohibited by council LEPs on a further 6.5%3 (174,560 ha) of private native forest land. The balance of the private native forest estate (68.5%) has zoning that permits forestry without council consent.

It also found that: The Private Native Forestry Code of Practice for Northern NSW prohibits forest operations within any area identified as core koala habitat within the meaning of State Environment Planning Policy (SEPP) 44—Koala Habitat Protection (SEPP 44). Koalas are known to be present in low densities across all of the North coast’s 34 council areas. It identified SEPP 44 as an impediment with the potential to significantly reduce the availability of private timber resources.

The Berejiklian and Perrottet Coalition Governments, along with the NSW National Party and timber industry lobbyists, appear to have spent the years since 2018 attempting to dismantle protections on any and all land in private hands which has what is considered harvestable native timber stands. In this aim the state government has frequently been successful.

In 2022 they had an unexpected measure of success in the Kyogle local government area, which covers 3,589 square km and has a resident population of est. 9,359 people [ABS Census 2021].

Kyogle Koalas IMAGE: “KOALA COUNTRY” leaflet, September 2017

ABC News, 15 November 2022:

On the day the NSW government was forced into an embarrassing backdown over proposed changes to private native forestry approvals, a council on the state's north coast has voted to give up the powers at the centre of the controversy.

Kyogle Council voted to scrap the dual approval process for native forestry on private land, leaving approvals entirely in the hands of Local Land Services (LLS).

"We've got a history in Kyogle of a strong timber industry, and the fact that it is still functioning today is a testament to generations past and present and how well they're managing their land," Mayor Kylie Thomas said.

"Why would we get in the way of that?"…...

The meeting heard there were 133 private native forestry (PNF) plans in place across the Kyogle Shire which have been approved by the LLS but have not been put forward to the council.

A staff report said the council would struggle to approve any PNF plans, because it could not approve proposals that would have an adverse effect on the environment.

It argued that scrapping the dual-approval process would help address the regulatory stalemate.

The council's vote came on the same day the state government announced it would not proceed with contentious private native forestry legislation.

Under the current law, landholders need approval from both their local council and a state authority (LLS).

The bill would have removed the requirement to go to council, but it was abandoned after concerns were raised about its impact on koala habitat.

The Nationals member for Tweed, Geoff Provest, threatened to cross the floor on the issue.

"In my whole political life, I've never crossed the floor, so to speak, or voted against a government policy," he said.

"In this case I have a strong belief and I think I've got the support of my wider community that this is not good legislation."…….

Read the full article here. 

BACKGROUND

To those who worked behind the scenes, those who emailed, tweeted, agitated - I thank you for this and for 🐨
I note the battle to stop the Bill is won but the Minister continues to champion the policy so it is a reprieve not yet a win. But we getting there! https://t.co/3QHwYQDzJa

— Catherine Cusack (@katieqs) November 14, 2022

In its 14 November 2022 ordinary monthly meeting business paper Kyogle Council asserted that the local government area has the third highest amount of private native forest on the North Coast of NSW with approximately 160,000 hectares. It further stated that: As of 2022, Council records indicate that there are 146 current approved PNF plans in the Kyogle local government area covering 382 parcels of land. Local Land Services advises that over half of all forest under freehold title is subject to an approved PNF. A further 84 PNF plans covering 279 parcels of land have historically been approved, however, it is likely these approvals have expired.

Council officers have discussed the above issue with the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) with a view to finding a solution which ensures that duplication in regulatory processes is removed while ensuring that state and local government interests are protected.

DPE and Council officers agree that the best way forward is to amend the Kyogle LEP to make PNF permitted without consent on land zoned RU1 – Primary Production. This would enable any land owner who obtains an approved PNF Plan from LLS after the proposed amendment to the LEP takes effect, to proceed with PNF without obtaining development consent from Council. The cost to Council of implementing the withdrawal from the dual consent process is optimistically set by staff at $25,000.

IndyNR.com, 1 September 2022:

Logging at a property near the Border Ranges National Park was first noticed by a Kyogle Environment Group member on their way to the park.

Kyogle Council general manager Graham Kennett said the council received a complaint about the logging of native forest at a site along Forest Rd on July 25.

“Council officers inspected the site that day and immediately reported the matter to the Environmental Protection Authority and Local Land Services, who are the two state government agencies responsible for the regulation and approval of private native forests,” Mr Kennett said.

“Council also issued an emergency stop works order the following day.”

The property on Forest Rd is a short drive from the national park and 30km north of Kyogle.

The Kyogle Environment Group contacted Minister for Environment and Heritage James Griffin, Minister for Agriculture Dugald Saunders, State MP Janelle Saffin and MLC Sue Higginson as well as the EPA.

KEG secretary Sue Page received a letter about the logging from the EPA’s Carmen Dwyer.

The letter said the EPA had conducted two inspections at the property and identified alleged non-compliance issues.

“These matters are now subject to a formal investigation,” Ms Dwyer said.

Logging laws require landholders and contractors to comply with the Private Native Forestry Code of Practice.

“The EPA is currently investigating compliance issues at the property. Forestry operations have been suspended at the site following separate regulatory action instituted by Kyogle Council,” an EPA spokesperson said.

Neither council nor the EPA could give further details until the investigation is complete……. 

CLIMATE CHANGE STATE OF PLAY: I keep waiting for Northern NSW to get some really good news - this isn't it

A reputable study was published in September this year which raises some concerns for communities in Northern NSW. 

"Using large climate model ensembles to assess historical and future tropical cyclone activity along the Australian east coast" [Bruy`ere, C.L. et al, Sept 2022] is a collaborative effort supported by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (USA), Insurance Australia Group Limited (Aust), Cyclone Testing Station, James Cook University (Aust) and Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University (South Africa).

The message bottom line is that Australian East Coast Tropical Cyclones (TCs) are now anticipated to extend their range into south-east Queensland and on into Northern NSW as far south as the Clarence Valley and possibly Coffs Harbour City local government area.

At the same time the frequency of strong tropical storms and cyclones are expected to increase, their heavy rainfall areas to widen, intensify and in some instances their wind fields to remain over locations for longer periods. 

The following is an excerpt from the Introduction to the aforementioned study. 

"Building codes can be highly effective at reducing TC losses (Done et al., 2018). They are commonly designed to safeguard people from injury caused by structural failures (e.g., the Australian Wind Loading Standards - ASNZS1170.2).......

A collection of recent work demonstrates that Australian TC statistics are non-stationary. Holland and Bruyère (2014) detected an increasing proportion of the strongest storms. Kossin et al. (2020) found that the absolute numbers of intense storms have increased. Not only are the peak wind speeds increasing, but the latitudes of storm-lifetime peak winds have likely shifted poleward in this region (Kossin et al., 2014). Cyclone forward motion has also slowed down over Australia (Kossin, 2018), meaning that locations experience strong winds for longer, all other things being equal.

TC rainfall is also changing. Studies show heavier TC rain rates in some regions (e.g., Risser and Wehner 2017; Emanuel 2017). Bruyère et al. (2019) showed that when changes in thermodynamical conditions alone are considered (i.e., thermodynamic climate change scenarios), TCs penetrated much further inland with a marked expansion of the heavy rainfall area. Should these wind and rainfall trends continue (as indicated by Knutson et al., 2020; Walsh et al., 2016a; Lavender and Walsh 2011), this raises the prospect that current wind loading codes and flood planning zones may not protect people and property as well as they have in the past and may severely underperform in the future.

The region of southeastern Queensland and northeastern New South Wales (NSW) (referred to as the QLD-NSW sub-region hereafter) may be particularly vulnerable to these anticipated changes. QLD-NSW is located at the current southern limit of TC occurrence and, does not adhere to the stronger building codes implemented further north along the coast (Fig. 1). Consequently, Saffir Simpson scale intensities of high category 1 to low category 2 will exceed the wind loading standards for buildings in this region - designated wind loading region B. Any future southward shift or expansion of the current region of the most intense TCs would threaten structures built to current codes and land planning zones. Moreover, new structures with design lives of 50–100 years will need to account for these expected climate change effects and associated uncertainties." [my yellow highlighting]

NOTE: Click on image to enlarge

Fig. 1. Map indicating the South-West Pacific (SWP) search domain and the Gulf of Carpentaria (northern box) and QLD-NSW sub-region of interest (box around Brisbane). The colored areas indicate where the Australian wind loading standards apply. The wind-load standards for the regions are A: 45 m/s, B: 57 m/s, C: 70 m/s, and D: 87 m/s. The blue circles indicate select Geoscience Australia TC gates (refer to section 3). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

At this point in time it appears that the building code for housing (AS4055-2012) that is applied for most Northern NSW coastal zone housing has a requirement to be built to withstand a 0.2 second wind gust duration at 57m/s for the 500 year return period. This does not appear to be changing when the most recent version of the National Construction Code (NCC 2022) comes into force.