Good evening and welcome to the impact of information and misinformation on mental health and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic, a webinar produced by the Australian National University in partnership with the Black Dog Institute. My name is Bruce Christensen. I'm a clinical psychologist and the head of professional programs in the research school of psychology and associate dean of culture and well-being in the College of Health and Medicine at the Australian National University. I am pleased to be your host and moderator for tonight's webinar. I want to begin tonight by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the lands we are meeting on, the many and diverse First Nations of Australia. I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples present tonight. The impact of COVID-19 and the associated restrictions designed to thwart its spread has been deep and truly global. We have found ourselves isolated from friends and colleagues, worried about the safety of ourselves and others, adapting to the stress of working and living differently, coping with job loss and financial hardship, and grieving the loss of loved ones. The broader consequences have been profound. The United Nations projects that those living below the poverty line could increase by 580 million and that hundreds of thousands of additional children will be at increased risk for experiencing domestic violence and early death. Researchers have estimated that the direct cost of COVID-19 to the USA alone will be over 153 billion. Moreover, these impacts will be disproportionate among our most at-risk groups, including those living in poverty, the elderly, persons with disabilities, children and youth, and Indigenous peoples. Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that the pandemic has also drastically affected the mental health and well-being of our communities. The Black Dog Institute estimates that one-third of Australians are experiencing high levels of worry and anxiety. Other common responses include panic, depression, anger, confusion, and uncertainty. Such experiences challenge our coping skills and underscore the need for new tools, expert opinion, and trustworthy information. Today, information is bountiful and it travels quickly, but the curatorial role of journalists and mainstream media has decidedly shifted as they struggle against constrained budgets and the lightning speed at which competing information propagates, leaving individuals on their own to sift through the mountain of information and misinformation. Sylvie Brand, director of infectious hazardous management at the World Health Organization, points out that epidemics are accompanied by a tsunami of information, as well as misinformation and rumors. The problem of rapidly spreading misinformation has prompted the World Health Organization to suggest we're not fighting just an epidemic, we're fighting an infodemic. So how can one understand information, its credibility, and its utility? And how can one use information properly to bolster mental health and well-being during crises such as this? To answer these important questions, we've assembled a group of experts to talk about how to separate fact from fiction, how information travels online, the impact of information and strategies to manage this and the challenge of science communication in the context of COVID-19. We will first hear from our panelists and then turn it over to you, our listening audience for questions. Your questions can be sent to us using the questions and answer box on Zoom, and I would like to also make our audience aware that tonight's webinar is recorded. And the questions that you ask will be saved. Tonight, our first speaker is Dr. Erin Newman. She has recently co-edited a book on the psychology of fake news, contributed to policy discourse on misinformation, and contributed in legal context to address biases and jurors decision making. Her talk tonight is entitled, Separating Fact from Fiction. Erin? So thank you very much for the introduction. It's a real pleasure to be here tonight contributing to the webinar. Today I'm going to be talking about how we tend to separate facts from fiction in the brain. And then I'm going to be talking a little bit about how certain misinformation correction strategies may be ineffective and they actually end up increasing the familiarity of misinformation. Then I'll end with some more positive tips about engagement and how we can increase the chances that the truth sticks and that myths fade. So as you'll hear from a moment from Dr. Rob Acklin, there are several ways in which we may end up encountering information online, whether that information is actually true or false. And what has become particularly clear in the context of the coronavirus pandemic is that there's really been a wave of misinformation, supposed cures, preventions, misinformation about how coronavirus came about in the first place. So as the tiny green human here on the screen, our job is to effectively handle which information is true and which is false and keep it a nice, tidy piles. And so when you have a look, there are actually some external efforts to help us keep track of what information is true and what information is false. So for instance, on various social media platforms like Facebook, they've tried to handle misinformation by removing it off their site. So they try to take blatantly false information and remove it from circulation. But a much more common approach that we've seen over the years in the mainstream media is to work to lift the profile of misinformation, making it the sort of star of the show in order to increase misinformation for the general public. And I'm sure many of you are familiar with this type of article, right? So they're usually called sort of myth versus fact articles. And they start off with some sort of bold claim like this one here, myth one, some outrageous claim involved. And then following, there will be a very detailed and thorough explanation for why the science and logic behind it particularly is wrong. Now, when you have a look at the research on misinformation and how these exposure to these myth versus fact articles actually works. What we've learned in that area of research is that if I have you read one of those articles and then test you immediately afterwards, you're going to be pretty good at sorting facts from fiction. You'll get those things in the right piles. So from an immediate retrieval perspective, those articles and interventions can work quite well. But as soon as you walk away or move on to the next thing, what you see is that information can become a little bit blurry. And that's what cognitive psychologists or what we call a delayed retrieval context. So what we know for sure is that over time memory for information fades and certainly in an online environment where you're clicking between different types of information. So when you have a close look at people's memory performance under this delayed retrieval context, what you see is that people are less able to effectively sort information into fact and fiction. And effectively what you really see here is that if it's at correction tend to wear off. And there are several reasons for this. I think one really is that the human memory system is not like a live feed of moments moment information being uploaded to the cloud that is our brain. In fact, what we know about human memory is that it's much more constructive. We tend to lose bits we invite other pieces in. So that's one reason why the delayed retrieval context can hurt our ability to sort fact from fiction. I think one of the very important pieces of the puzzle here when you consider an online information environment. It's really about human behavior in this environment and how we tend to engage with information in this environment. And what we know from research in this area is that when people engage with articles like this where there's a bold headline and then more sort of detailed text that follows. While people spend time on the headline, they tend to spend less time going through and scrolling through the sort of more detailed nuance and text that tends to follow. So that kind of behavior one affects what information people end up learning and taking away from a particular article that they engage in or engage with. And then two, it also affects the extent to which we end up holding on to those more detailed issues that follow. And whether that ends up sort of sticking in our memory systems. So when you think about sorting facts and fiction, ideally, right, our brains would work a little bit like this. We have a section detailed sort of dedicated to true tales and one from misleading claims. In fact, our stacks of fact and fiction often look a little bit more like this. And there are a number of reasons why it can get a little bit blurred. I'll give you a couple of examples. So one thing we know from research on truth assessment and human memory is that while you might remember a certain coronavirus myth or a certain coronavirus claim that you encountered, you may not necessarily remember the context in which you actually encountered that claim. So it's quite possible then that you remember a coronavirus claim. Let's say it's a false one, but you actually initially encountered it in a debunking context where you were actually learning that that claim was wrong. So you learned that it was misinformation, but later on all you can remember is the claim itself. So sometimes we don't remember the context in which we encounter information and sort of relatedly what we know about human memory is that when I give you a piece of information like a claim and I tag it as say true or false. Sometimes that those tags along with the information don't stay connected in our brain. So sometimes we lose the tag and sometimes we don't actually recall and apply the tag when we're making a decision. So given this dilemma, how is it that our brains actually deal with the truth assessment? So when we're trying to sort back from fiction in the brain, we engage in what you might call a kind of cognitive detective task. And research shows that people do lots of very sensible things. So for example, we know that when people are trying to assess truth, we draw on our own general knowledge to establish whether the information we've encountered actually matches with other things we know. We also do things like consider the coherence and consistency of a claim to assess whether it has logical coherence. Does it actually make sense? But with a limited cognitive resources, we also know that people tend to draw on cognitive shortcuts when they assess whether things are right or wrong. So when you look at the research on truth assessment, one of the most robust findings there in terms of the kinds of cognitive shortcuts people use is that they tend to rely on familiarity to assess the truth of the claim. And to put it very simply, if a claim feels familiar, people tend to conclude that it feels right. And so this bias to believe information, stuff we've encountered before, is unfortunately not just limited to when we're guessing. So you can imagine a scenario, right, when people encounter an obscure claim and the more you hear the information, the more that claim feels familiar and the more you are willing to believe it. But it's also the case that familiarity influences people's judgments when they knew more, when they knew better, and this is what is called knowledge neglect. So the familiarity bias influences people even when they had the general knowledge that they could have drawn on to assess the truth of the claim. And the bad news is that it's not just a small subset of us who fall familiar, who fall victim to the influence of familiarity in assessing truth. So we know there are no reliable individual differences that make you more immune to the effects of familiarity in your judgments. So to put it in a very simple way, the scientists who study truth really worry about the repetition of misinformation. And in particular, given the powerful role of familiarity and the tendency for people to lose tags about whether information is factual or whether it is a myth. So while reading these myth versus fact style articles seems quite appealing, the rest that I really want to highlight here is that over time the details can fade from memory. And so you're left with a very steamy that feels very. So what would be the take home points from a cognitive psychologist who studies truth. Well, the first thing I think would be that trusting memory to track what is true and what is false is probably a little bit risky. Increasing exposure to myths and misinformation might increase the extent to which false information actually sticks. And I want to call your attention to this graph. So this graph plots misinformation about coronavirus as a search term which has really spiked in recent months. And so what that really tells us really is that people are keen consumers and people want to know more about misleading claims. This makes sense and in many respects it's very sensible to understand the false information that's floating around. What I really want to highlight today is the risk there is and continuing to expose yourself to misinformation and these myth versus fact sort of context. So when it comes to engagement, what should we be doing? I think being engaged with facts and particularly in the context of a pandemic is very important. And so the question is what should we be doing? Well, as you've been hearing from a number of other sources, right? We should be investing our efforts and sourcing reliable information from channels that we really trust where the approach there is to elevate information regarding truth so that it's easy to remember. And as an individual, luckily you have your own sort of what you might call it your own cognitive tool set that will help you to retain true accounts of information that you encounter. So what we know from human memory is that you can connect facts to other things you know, which increases the chances that you remember, especially when you link it to personal experiences and connecting facts to an image or maybe elaborating with facts and in terms of telling a story. You can also increase the chances that you hold on to information in the long term. And I just want to finish by giving you a couple of websites that really are reliant on evidence based updates as a consumer of science and health information in the pandemic. Thank you. Thanks very much, Aaron. Our next speaker this evening is Dr. Robert Acklin, who is in the School of Sociology at the Australian National University, where he conducts research on research and teaching in the area of online social networks. He also runs a company that provides data analytics and consulting services in this area. The title of Robert's talk this evening is how information travels online. Robert over to you. Okay, hello everyone. I'm very happy to be here tonight to talk to you about how information travels and or travels online and why does it matter in particular in the context of COVID-19, our pandemic. So COVID-19 conspiracies are rampant. Last weekend there was a an anti lockdown protest in Melbourne which featured placards relating to particular conspiracies. And there's also a conspiracy video the pandemic conspiracy video that's been doing the rounds recently so those are examples. This information and conspiracies are an example of misinformation can promote anxiety mistrust discord racism and other things. So there's concern that social media social media is contributing to conspiracy theories and misinformation. In particular, the terms that you may have heard of our echo chambers. So this is where people self select on social media. So for example, by following particular people on Twitter, friending other people on Facebook, such that they only tend to encounter like minded views. Then their views are not being challenged because the people that they connect to on social media all share the same views. Another concern relating to social media is that of filter bubbles. And this is where social media algorithms. So these are used by social media companies to, for example, curate information or news stories that you get to view. These are contend to reinforce a user's preferences for information and news. So if I'm someone who likes cats cat images, Twitter figures that out or Reddit figures figures that out. And next thing you know I'm seeing lots of posts about cats. So this is a reinforcement of my preferences. So the concern about the web and how it's it's social and political impacts have date right back to the early days of the web in the early 1990s. In the 1990s there was a term that was concerned about the potential for the web to lead to a an online fragmentation of fragmentation of online populations. This was because the web was seen as having this narrow casting ability with broadcast TV on you or radio. Everyone hears the same thing. While with the web you can self you can select particular news sources. You could follow particular bloggers. You could only go to particular to particular websites that you're interested in. So this concern led to a concern about fragmentation. And there's a well known image here the divided they blog image. So this is an image of political bloggers in the lead up to the 2004 US presidential election. And each of these dots is a blogger and the lines between them is hyperlinks that they are using to connect to one another. And so the concern was that you can see here that there's a lot of was a very strong clustering on the basis of political identity. Conservatives are red and the blue nodes are liberals. In 2016 concerns about filter bubbles and echo chambers became even more prevalent. Of course the 2016 election was interesting and infamous in lots of different ways. But one of the things that came out of it was an elevation of the concern regarding echo chambers and filter bubbles. So I have an image here of a Twitter map of people who have been identified as Clinton supporters and Trump supporters. And this network is showing how they connect to one another on Twitter. And once again the color coding indicates the political camp that they come from. And what we can see here is there's a divided they tweet phenomenon. There's a very sort of distinct clustering in particular amongst the conservatives. And it was claimed that journalists misread the US presidential election because they were in their own filter bubble. They were in parts of social media that were left or liberal leaning. And so they didn't see the Trump election coming. Some researchers think that echo chambers do not exist. It's been found in research that social media use diversifies users news diet rather than narrowing it. Other research has shown that most people visit politically centrist news sites. So these are news sites that are the political mainstream. Yes, there is a long tail of extremist political websites that exist on the web. But these get very few visitors. And it's also been found that the people who do visit such sites will also visit mainstream political sites. So in this sense, they seem to be getting a balanced diet of information. However, echo chambers might increase the likelihood that a person believes and transmits misinformation through an echo chamber. It's more likely that you're going to be connected to other people who appear to believe the misinformation. So this can lead to social credibility and reinforcement. Secondly, in an echo chamber, you're more likely to be exposed to the misinformation because the people that you know are all forwarding it and sharing it. And this can increase additional exposure can lead to increased likelihood of belief and less likely to be exposed to countering information or countering views. Increased normative pressure to spread the misinformation can also occur in an echo chamber. Your friends might want to know why you haven't shared that video that everyone's been talking about. So what can we do? Well, I guess it's simple for me to say break out of your echo chamber, but that's easier said than done because these are our friends. These are people that we know and people that we like and people that we connect with. I'm not suggesting that you just start randomly making connections to people on social media in order to get out of your echo chamber. However, there are other things that we can seek to do and I guess I'm echoing some of the suggestions that Aaron made. Firstly, it's important to seek out independent peer reviewed information in order to provide a countering view to information that you might be encountering on social media. I also feel that the pandemic has really it's been quite interesting as an expert. I find it interesting to see that the role of experts has some in some ways been elevated. We're interested to see what the talking heads have to say on the news about the pandemic. As much as I may find Norm Swan on the ABC slightly annoying, he's an expert and I'm more likely to believe what he says about the pandemic than some conspiracy video. And then finally, I want to mention that there is this issue of the decline of quality journalism in Australia and elsewhere. And this is to do with the fact that the news media business model has been severely compromised by the Internet. And so this is leading to less resources for quality journalism. And so the 2019 ACCC Digital Platforms Inquiry looked into this. And I think that was also relevant to understanding about how we can find quality information relating to the pandemic. So thank you for your time. Thank you very much Robert. Our next speaker is Jan Orman, a general practitioner and GP services consultant at the Black Dog Institute. She has worked for the last 10 years teaching GPs and allied health professionals about various aspects of the management of mood disorders. Her presentation this evening is entitled swimming pools and doorknobs. Dr Orman, thanks for being with us. It's really nice to be here amongst this company. And in a moment, I'll explain to you why my presentation is entitled swimming pools and doorknobs. But before I start, I'd first like to beg your forgiveness if anything goes wrong technically. I'm in a rural location with a variable internet speed. And if you can't see me, then I hope that you'll be able to hear me through all of my presentation. What I want to do here is talk to you about something that happened in the past. Now, I guess it's prehistory because it's before the internet. And I think you'll find that as I talk about this, you will feel some resonance with what's going on at the moment. If you're old enough, you'll know the answer to this riddle. What do swimming pools and doorknobs have in common? What swimming pools and doorknobs have in common is that once upon a time, many of us thought that we could catch aids from swimming pools and doorknobs and toilet seats and a whole range of other places that were suddenly dangerous as a result of this life-threatening disorder. There were some changes in the way, particularly as clinicians, but also as people in the population. First and foremost is the fact that we had gloves when we were doing anything in relation to collecting blood or examining patients.  So there was a lot of crazy stuff that we'd on in the period before we knew exactly what was going on with AIDS. And that period started in the late 70s. The first case of AIDS, the first person to die in America was a guy called Ken Horne who died in 1981 from proposed psychoma, a complication of AIDS. And it wasn't until 1983 that we started to know something more about how AIDS was happening and just exactly how it was moving from person to person. In that void of information, what did we do? We made things up. So here are some examples of the things that people firmly believed caused AIDS during that period. Some people thought it was just homosexual sex per se or amyl nitrate, which was very popular at that time. Hemophilia or even just blood products on their own got the blame for causing AIDS. Sexual promiscuity, always something good to blame. Malnutrition, contaminated food, poor sanitation and hygiene. And later, when we knew a little more about it, even the antiretroviral drugs got the blame for causing AIDS. In late 1983, the light started to shine on what was going on when human immunodeficiency virus was identified. The blood test came in 1984 and by the end of 1984, enough evidence had accumulated for the scientific community to be firmly of the belief that human immunodeficiency virus was the cause of AIDS. However, some people responded to all of this with conspiracy theories. There's something attractive about conspiracy theories. They simplify issues and make it easier for people to consume and it feeds their paranoia. Was it the CIA that started AIDS? Was it the government that was causing the virus to be spread? Or foreign governments trying to bring down our government? Or the other reaction to the denial denying that it could possibly be true, that it could possibly be a virus that caused such a nasty disease? One of the biggest denialists was a guy called Babel Mbeki. You might have heard of him. You may have heard that he was the president of South Africa between 1999 and 2008. He was a very famous HIV-AIDS connection denialist. In fact, the policies Mbeki's government in South Africa during that period were thought to lead to 330,000 excess deaths in South Africa as a result of there being no HIV testing, none of those drugs available for people to use to treat their HIV because it was believed everywhere as a result of government policy that HIV did not cause AIDS. So you can see that there are strong reverberations and resonances with some of the things that are going on at the moment. We are seeing false and con-series and denialism going on in social media and in the media generally. So remember, I'm a clinician, not an academic, so I can only talk to you about the things that I and my colleagues are seeing in clinical practice. We're seeing community impacts, resistance to prevention measures, for example, by the denialists. And as you're seeing, we're seeing competing agendas driving public policy. What's more important, people's lives or economic survival. That makes it very difficult. In clinical practice, my colleagues and I are also seeing some positive impacts amongst individuals. Surprisingly, we're seeing people with chronic mental health problems actually cope quite well and we're speculating to some extent about why that could be. Because now those people with chronic problems are joined by everybody else in their distress. Or could it be that those people have had lots of help in the past and so have good coping skills to call upon when things go wrong in their lives and in the world? We're seeing some improvement in communication within families. We're seeing building a positive relationships in families. More thought and talk about self-care, which is only a good thing. We're seeing excellent collegiate communication between health professionals and we're seeing a development, as made necessary by working from home, even workplace flexibility. But we're also seeing negative impacts of misinformation. We're seeing people come to see us repeatedly for symptoms that they're afraid might be coronavirus. We're also seeing people not seeking medical attention for other illnesses to fear that they might catch coronavirus if they go to the doctor or the emergency department. We're seeing people who are too anxious to leave the house, who won't let their kids go to school or childcare, or even outside because they're so afraid of the virus as a result of some of the information they've received. We're also seeing falling apart of relationships as a result of often of anxious demands made on family members and the difficulty too of isolation. We're seeing people who are feeling very low and experiencing worsening depression as a result of their concerns about the new world order and how perhaps things are not going to get back to the way they once were. We're also seeing people who've been personally attacked, perhaps as a result of their Asian appearance and are very distressed about the racism that's going on in the community. We're unwilling to change the behaviour at all. These are the denialists who, in fact, are abusing general practitioners for the precautions they're taking. Who knows what's happening when those people are on the streets. So there are a good deal of negative impacts arising directly from the misinformation and the false beliefs that people have about the coronavirus. So when I have a patient who's suffering from, dare I call it, misinformation syndrome in whatever form, the first thing we need to do is talk at great length about the true facts of the situation. And once we've done that, we develop a plan together to help sort the facts from the fiction. That includes limiting exposure to information about the pandemic, not having the news up 24 hours a day on your screen. And even limiting it to just watching the news at night, for example, or just reading the newspaper in the morning. We agree, generally, that they must not trust social media as a source of reliable information. That's not to say they can't read social media. But perhaps they should check anything that they see on social media with more reliable sources of information. And those sources of information include just some of the mainstream media. As Robert pointed out, their quality of journalism is not consistent across the media. Erin mentioned the federal and state-based government websites. I'd like to recommend the WHO website as a terrific source of reliable information. And just for fun, there's the Johns Hopkins University COVID map. I put the URL there. Johns Hopkins University are collating all the statistics about COVID-19 and presenting them in a map form, which is easily accessible and understandable. And consulting that from time to time is a useful thing to do to get your facts straight. Basically, we don't always know what makes us anxious. No, Biggie, pardon. What we don't know makes us anxious. We do know that. To fill a knowledge void and manage anxiety, people are a bit inclined to turn to unreliable sources of information if they don't know, particularly if they don't know how to get to reliable sources of information. There's no doubt about it that misinformation causes harm. And we need to work as clinicians to prevent that harm. And probably as parents too. Thank you. Thanks very much, Jen. Finally, this evening, we will hear from Associate Professor Katie Glass, a mathematical modeler who has been advising government on pandemic preparedness for over 15 years and is working with national teams on modeling COVID-19. Katie's talk this evening is entitled, Mathematical Modeling of COVID-19, The Challenges of Science Communication. Katie, over to you. Thanks, Bruce. So I'm going to take a slightly different tack with this last talk and talk a little bit about what I do as a mathematical modeler and how we can try and communicate this to a general audience. So often when people think about mathematical modelers, they think that they're kind of a crystal ball and that I can predict everything that's going to happen. And so I can tell you what you're going to have for breakfast tomorrow. The reality is that when we use models in this context, particularly when we're looking at a new disease that we don't have a lot of information about, there's a lot of uncertainties. And so we have to rather than predict exactly what we think is going to happen, we have to look at lots of different scenarios and look at the different things that could happen under different circumstances. So to give an example, I'm going to talk through a model that we developed in the early stages of the coronavirus outbreak with a bunch of people that I've pictured here. And the aim of this work was to look at what would happen in Australia if we had an uncontrolled outbreak of coronavirus in Australia. So we're looking at people resenting to healthcare with either mild or severe disease and then either going to GPs or emergency and then having severely ill people admitted towards or to the intensive care unit. And the concern we had in the very early stages when we started using estimates based on what was happening in China was that we were really concerned that there could be a bottleneck at emergency and we'd struggle to have hospitals admit people into hospital where needed and also a real concern that there wouldn't be enough beds in the intensive care unit. Now, two or three months on from doing that work, it now seems pretty blindingly obvious we've seen this happen all around the world. But we first did this work when there were just outbreaks in China and we haven't seen it happen elsewhere. And of course, when we started to see the similar things happening in Italy and then other countries, we realised that there really was a concern if the disease spread unchecked through our population. And so Australia put a lot of measures in place to reduce transmission in the country and to reduce the numbers of people coming inside. And so we helped to avoid a pandemic or an epidemic in the country that really overwhelmed our health system. If I think about how we communicate this, one of the challenges is that if we look at that model now, people say, well, but that didn't happen. Your model must be wrong because our ICUs aren't overwhelmed. And the reality is that the reason they're not overwhelmed is that we took a lot of action based on what we saw from models and from all the information around the world about what the coronavirus outbreak looked like. And the reality, and this is a truth in a lot of public health, is that our aim is often prevention. We're trying to prevent disease happening in the first place. When we're successful there, when prevention works, then nothing happens. So the main aim of our job is to have nothing happen and not see things. Now, because I listened to Erin's talk before, I'm going to get rid of that thought bubble so that you don't remember that, and then you remember the thing at the bottom instead, which is that the aim of public health is prevention. And when we do that well, we don't see disease. What I want to finish with today is talk you through some work that we're doing at the moment, which is looking at how disease spreads in our community and why testing is really important for people with symptoms and what public health does when we find someone with active coronavirus. So the person on my screen at the moment is someone who's just been infected with coronavirus, and we're going to track through the disease in days for them over time. So what we know is initially when someone's infected, they won't likely be showing symptoms and they probably won't be infectious. And there'll be a number of days like that. And then unfortunately, what seems to often happen is that people start being infectious before they show symptoms. This is one of the reasons that coronavirus is quite hard to control because it's hard to stop transmission when you can't see any symptoms. After they start becoming infectious, they will develop symptoms. And then we hope that very shortly after that they'll present to healthcare. So when they present to healthcare, they will be isolated. So if they're very sick, they'll be encouraged to go to hospital. If they're just mildly ill, they'll be encouraged to isolate at home and their test will be taken. And then when they test positive for coronavirus, if they test positive for coronavirus, they'll then be encouraged to isolate for a period of time until we know they won't transmit to anyone else. But what happens in public health as soon as we have that positive test is that people in the public health units will go back and look at all the people that that person had contact with while they were infectious. They'll look at the time they had symptoms and also the period of time before they started showing symptoms, maybe a day before. Now, the number of people they'll have contact with really differ according to who it is. If it was me, I think I'd probably have three or maybe four infectious contacts over the last week because I've been social distancing. I'm still at home. I'm not having a lot of contact. But if this person happened to be someone working in an emergency service or in some field where they're having a lot of contact with people, there might be more people in that contact pool. Now, when the health agencies first contact these people, they're not going to know straight away whether they're infected or not. They can't tell just by talking to someone and they may not yet be showing symptoms. They'll follow them up for a number of days. So in this case, we're assuming that there's two people infected, which is maybe about what would happen on average. And so we'll have a number of days where they don't show symptoms and then they might start showing symptoms. I've also included in this example someone who doesn't ever show symptoms. We do seem to see that occasionally with coronavirus. It's not very common, but some people do seem to be completely asymptomatic. Now, the other thing, an important thing that happens when we have a positive test is that all these people that are contacted are asked to quarantine for a period of time. And if we get to them fast enough, then that quarantine time can include all the period that they're infectious. And so by that stage, we stop any further transmission from them. And so this initial person that could have caused a big outbreak has only infected two people and we've managed to stop the transmission chain at that point. Now, if we hadn't done that, if they hadn't presented to health care when they started feeling symptoms, then, and we hadn't done the contact tracing, then we could well get more transmission from each of these people and then the chain would go on and on and on and we could get quite a big outbreak. So what I want to finish by talking about, so this is work that I've been doing with a whole group of people pictured here. I want to particularly acknowledge Kamalini Lokudje, who's the leftmost face there. So she's been doing these sort of transmission trees for diseases for many, many years. And this is the first thing she does when she deals with an Ebola outbreak is think about the transition tree and how to control it. And so the messaging from the work we're doing and the thing that I want to be your take-home message from today is that really we're encouraging people with symptoms to present to health care. And we know most people are not going to actually have coronavirus. So we saw Josh Frydenberg coughing a lot the other day and he was tested very quickly and found not to have coronavirus. That will be what will happen with most people. But if we want to detect the final hidden cases in the population, we do need to find a few people out there that may still have coronavirus. So rather than getting tested, if you think you do have coronavirus, we're encouraging people to get tested to confirm that they don't have coronavirus. And once they do present, health authorities will then trace the whole tree to try and find anyone that that person has infected. And then by stopping transmission there, we're more confident about releasing social distancing measures and giving us more freedom to go out and about in the world. Thanks very much, Katie. And thank you to all of our speakers for these enlightening and stimulating talks. In the face of COVID-19, information certainly helps us to understand the complexities around us, prepare for action and predict the future. However, misinformation has the power to leave us unready, complacent, anxious, and demoralized. And I think tonight's speakers have provided a deeper understanding of information and how it achieves these paradoxical outcomes. They have uncovered the design properties of human cognition and why we have trouble separating fact from fiction, how information naturally organizes itself on the internet into echo chambers and filter bubbles that can be overly self-reinforcing, how uncertainty can lead to heightened anxiety and false conclusions, and the dynamic nature of mathematical models and the challenges associated with communicating their implications. Once again, thank you for this stimulating conversation. I would like now to take questions from the listening audience. If anyone has questions for our panelists, please send them to us using the Q&A box in Zoom. We've been having some questions coming in and I'd like to start with one from Rachel and Erin. I would like to direct this question to you. Rachel asks, do you think that the media gives too much attention to coverage of false information in an effort to seem unbiased, like what we see in instances of climate change? So that's a really interesting question. So, you know, there does have to be a discussion about facts in an open space. The thing that I think is the issue really here is that it's about pitch. So what I mentioned before is that people tend to get engaged in the bold headline but then move on as they miss the more nuanced detailed explanation about why something is not quite accurate. So I think it's about pitch. It's about engagement. And then there's also an issue with people clicking on things and sharing them with not actually reading them prior to. So there's a bit of behavioural change on the part of the consumer that's required as well if we're going to think about this in a big picture way about how we might address it. I've seen some really neat ways of dealing with coronavirus myths where people have created really sort of fact-based videos and explained something very clearly. And in those circumstances you've got people who are highly engaged and visual cues to help you retrieve the information. So I think that is quite a promising approach. Thanks for that, Erin. Our next question comes from John and I'm going to direct this question to Robert. Robert, John asks, how do we know how large the filter is in a filter bubble? And I'm just curious if there's a way for users to actually diversify what appears in their Google searches, Facebook news, et cetera. Okay, thanks John for the question. So Facebook researchers, see one of the challenges with this is that the information required to answer questions like you're posing, the information is owned by the social media companies and it's difficult to access that information unless you're within the company or you have a contract with them that probably limits the sort of research you can do. But there was a paper that was published which was interesting because the researchers, Facebook researchers were able to compare the impact of the filter, the algorithmic sorting or the filter bubble within Facebook and compare that to the echo chamber effect. So this is the tendency for people to self-select who they're going to be friends with and that influences the information they see. And what these researchers found was that in terms of the impact, they measured the impact in terms of exposure to cross cutting information or cross ideological information. And what they found was that algorithms had a smaller impact on, I guess, reducing people's exposure to cross cutting information compared to this self-selecting effect. So that was, I guess, a convenient finding for Facebook because it meant that they could then say, well, it's not our algorithms doing it, it's actually our users and who they're choosing to be friends with. But just so it's a challenging thing to get data to answer. But I also just wanted to mention about how do you actually diversify the information that you get exposed to? I think with Google searches, it's relatively easy, although Google are very smart and they're very able to know exactly who's using via IP addresses and things. But if you are logged in to your Gmail account, then they know what you're doing and they're tracking it.  If you're not logged in using your Gmail account, then, or if you clear your browser preferences, there are ways for you to not be tracked and that would therefore reduce the filter bubble effect. Facebook, it's a harder thing because it's completely internal within Facebook. And so I'm afraid I don't have a good suggestion for you on that score. Thanks for your question. Thanks very much, Robert. Our next question comes to Jan and Jan. Ben is asking, people need to have coping mechanisms, even if that means holding on to denial and or anxiety. Would you like to comment on this fact? Ben and I have been secretly having this conversation in the chat box that many people might have already seen. And I do agree in fact that the anxiety and denialism are often part of their coping mechanisms. But as with all harmful coping mechanisms, as with all coping mechanisms, they become problematic when they're harmful either to themselves or others. And the dissemination of misinformation, particularly conspiracy theories and denialism is certainly harmful to others if not to yourself. And that's the point at which people need to be encouraged to develop new coping mechanisms. I'm thinking about people who drink too much in order to cope with their anxiety or low mood. We're not going to encourage them to continue along that path just because it's their coping mechanism of choice. And I think the same thing applies to these pathological coping mechanisms, if you like. Thanks for that, Jan. I have a question coming in from Sally and Katie. I'd like to direct this question to you. Why do you think Australia has been so much more effective in containing the virus than some other countries? What did we get right? Yeah, it's a good question, isn't it? I think probably the board decisions have been quite effective. We've also had pretty good testing levels per capita. Our testing levels have been quite high, so we've been able to detect transmission and follow up on it quite quickly. There has been some discussion about how much seasonality may play a role there as well, that maybe we were lucky it happened in our summer initially. And so perhaps it wasn't spreading quite as effectively in Australia as elsewhere. I'm not suggesting for a moment that it's going to suddenly disappear in the Northern Hemisphere summer. I don't think it'll go that low, but I think perhaps that was another factor that helped us a bit. But we were also pretty prepared for it. So I think in the most part we responded quite effectively. Thanks very much, Katie. Janet, I'd like to come back to you. There is a question here from Rachel. Do you think there'll be any long-term and ongoing differences to how people approach their personal health care? Would the negative or positive impacts seen at the moment be more prominent? I actually think there will be long-term differences in the way people approach their health care. Hopefully they're going to seek reliable information more readily. And one thing that's going to happen is they're going to be better with their hygiene in the future, which can only be said to be a positive. I do think people are probably encouraged by all the talk in the media going to seek help for their mental health difficulties and nowhere to find help for their mental health difficulties more in the future. So these are, I think, particularly positive and self-care outcomes. And maybe, too, the flow-on effect of improving their relationships within their families is going to do good things for their health generally and the way they take care of themselves. So I think that's true. The only negative thing that I'm seeing at the moment that I think is sure to happen is that for some time people are going to be a bit more anxious about interpersonal contacts. And unless that gets out of hand, that's not going to necessarily be a negative thing. Thanks very much, Jen. Erin, another question coming in from Nicholas that I'd like you to tackle. How can I tell, he asks, whether information is true slash reliable? Thank you for that one. That one's tricky for a number of reasons. So simply by reading the information yourself, there are a few sort of cues that the brain uses to assess whether information is accurate. So we tend to ask ourselves, does that seem coherent? Does it come from a credible source? Is there general social consensus for that idea? And does it sort of fit with other things that I know? And those can be very useful strategies in assessing whether information is correct. But also we know from research and cognitive psychology that people can really be tricked by a number of different biases. I talked about familiarity, but also simply sort of putting a decorative photograph with a claim or highlighting something in a particular colour can move around people's impressions of information. So I guess the point I'm making there is that people are very sensitive to the way information is presented to them. So the take home there is, can you just use your brain to read something and establish whether you think it's true or false? Yes, but you need to supplement that by also drawing on other sources of information. And as we've all sort of discussed throughout the webinar today, I think the best approach there is to find some information channels that you can trust, read information yourself, but then also make sure that you're drawing on credible sites. Thanks for that, Erin. Katie, we have a question here from Mahin that I think would be best directed towards you. Mahin asks, I'm wondering if networks that are used for modelling, I'm wondering if networks are used for modelling. I understand that the network that is people who've been contact with the sixth person, for example, are used to prevent the spread of the virus, but are they being considered in models or can data from this pandemic be used to improve the models for future? Yes, absolutely. There's lots of approaches. So prior, well prior to the pandemic, there've been a lot of studies where they've gone out and asked people to track how many contacts they have over a period of time and how close the contact is. Do they have physical contact or not? How long were they within a certain range of each other? What age were the person they had contact with? And a lot of that data is used in the models that we use today. We see that mostly people have contact with people about the same age as them, but there's a fair bit of contact between people and their children and some contact between people and their grandchildren. So they have a big different age contacts. But yeah, we use all that data all the time. In terms of whether we can use data from the coronavirus outbreak perhaps, I think most of us don't have as much time to actually be gathering data at this stage. We're trying to use what's already there to inform policy. I don't think, for example, the COVID that the government's produced will be, I think the privacy means that the data from that can't be used for modeling, but certainly this go for it if there was data collection. Thanks very much, Katie. I think we have time for one more question. I'm going to direct this to Jan. Jan, just asking you to be mindful that we are close to finishing, but there's an important question here from Risha. They ask how misinformation can play a role in developing stigma and stereotypes against a particular group or community and what might a lay person do to protect themselves in this regard? I think this is a really good question and a source of great distress for many people in the community. I think misinformation around particular groups is actually being used for political gain at the moment. The coronavirus is referred to as the Chinese virus in various quarters and that has led to particularly nasty stuff going on for people of Asian appearance, as I mentioned earlier. I'm not sure what the answer is to your question about how to protect yourself or how to protect oneself from that sort of bias or racism in the community, because I think it's so painful and so tragic that it's happening. I'm wondering if the clinical psychologists on the panel have got anything to say about how one might protect themselves from that kind of situation. That is a very interesting question and I'm happy to bring panelists in, but I'm also mindful of time, Jan, so perhaps we'll leave it there and bring our webinar to a close. Thank you, everyone, for these excellent questions. Thank you for your interest and engagement in tonight's webinar. This does bring the evening to a close. May I also note that as attendees, you will receive an evaluation survey so that you can give feedback on the webinar. If I can encourage you to complete this survey, it would be very much appreciated. Also, I'd like to remind you that we will be presenting a second webinar next Thursday at 8 p.m. focusing on social emotional and social tools that promote mental well-being during crises such as this one. In closing, I would like to thank the College of Health and Medicine at the Australian National University, the Black Dog Institute, and the many staff at these organizations who have helped organize tonight's webinar. And finally, I'd like to thank the many communities and the members of these communities in Australia who are finding ways to help and support those of us most impacted by COVID-19. We extend our wishes for a healthy and happy week. Good night.


Hello and welcome back. This time we are in Bodo in Norway, so very up north in Norway, we came back from Micheli in Finland not too while ago and yesterday we did the same workshop as we did in Micheli, so the construction assessment workshop where we tried to figure out with the stakeholders here around in Bodo, what does a circular construction sector mean for them? but also how we could improve it. I think what was very interesting here, again a bit like Micheli so Micheli, if I remember well, is 2,300 square kilometers for 55,000 inhabitants Here we have more or less the same number of inhabitants, but we have 1,300 square kilometers Again, this is almost 10 times the size of Brussels, but it's just one neighborhood or one municipality of Brussels and again surprising, they have an airport, they have a big, well, two waste management companies they have composting, they have a number of infrastructure for a city of that size, which for me are very surprising For instance, here behind you can see the new library, that's where we held the meeting yesterday and it was just new, just around the corner over there there is the new concert hall and they also have a new town hall, which is also very, well, very beautiful, to be honest so it's great to come to these new places to figure out that when we talk about small cities, because 55,000 in my book is small I'm still surprised how advanced, how developed they are, in terms of infrastructure, in terms of circular economy progress and in terms of will to progress Anyhow, what was so different with Bodo? Well, I think what was very new for me, it was that despite the large square meters, the large area of Bodo there was no extraction happening, you know, in Finland, in Mikkele there was a lot of wood extraction there were some other extractions over here, there was little to no extraction there was some gravel of low quality that was extracted in terms of manufacture as well, there is almost nothing, there is a bit of concrete happening, a bit of asphalt happening some EPS happening, but nothing much On the used side, of course, there are a number of buildings and there is a number of construction that are happening in terms of roads, in terms of building, in terms of other type of infrastructure so this is rather typical of any city and that means that most of the materials are imported in the city In terms of waste management, well, as I said, there is two waste companies here there is one private one public and most of the construction and demolition waste pass through them, some of the construction and demolition waste are recycled by how you call it, contractors and building companies the rest is treated at the two waste treatment plants and most of them are already sorted on the on the building sites then the concrete and some others are crushed and reused, well, recycled locally others are sent away what was also very interesting is that a lot of waste is exported as well to other places so let me just show you how the sector looks compared to the one of Micheli that's how the sector looks, as I mentioned before, there is little to no extraction here there are a couple of manufacturing companies but not too many of those and then in the use phase you see a number of things, of course, because a number of things are constructed and we had a lot of information in terms of waste some of the of the waste over here is wood waste, this is incinerated and then some other bits over here are landfill, but landfill is mainly gypsum and then contaminated soil, contaminated concrete, nothing else and then, as I mentioned here, down below you can see the exports and the exports are mostly some parts of manufacturing and then a percentage of the waste that is not treated here so again, it's exciting to come to these new places to learn from different contexts we get to also understand that when we when we preach about circular construction sectors or circular solutions that means completely different things based on the context of the city if you have no extraction, if you have no manufacturing then do you start building new companies here that take care of this waste or that try to reduce importing because they have a lot of resources out here in the case of Norway because the wages are so high perhaps this is not so interesting for the economy here, I don't know anyhow that is what we learned so far from the Bodo case, we're gonna come back in a couple of months in June to have a yearly annual meeting of the project, so I'm really looking forward to see their progress towards it and some of the very exciting things for us that Bodo wants to develop is a 3D modeling tool where we will be able to see flows, stocks, but also some perhaps energy use greenhouse gas emissions and SDGs account, well the SDGs might also be visualized there so I hope we're gonna have a fit integration between our circular assessment method and their visualization and this could be used by others, that's it for now, next up is Sevilla and then Copenhagen, so I'll try to catch up with you later in these places, cheers


Alrighty, let's check this out. I actually want to zoom in because I don't want to see more than I need to. All right. Picks it up. I like that. Okay, all right, I got some notes and questions, but I do like this a lot here. Mmm, that's clean silhouette. I like this. So what I would say, I like your little move back, lift, down into, oh, what is this? And then let me just go, I know you're, you're struggling a little bit with kind of the post-to-post aspect of things. And I think this already works. There's enough speed for him to continue. Potentially lean him forward a bit more. He'll be super picky, just because he is not quite over this leg and you're already letting go. But if you look at that in real time, it kind of works.  So it's just the whoops, only fast. It feels like it's almost a little bit like that, spacing-wise. The reason I mention this is because if you don't have enough speeds going forward with this leg pushing off, you would feel a bit more off-balance there and it wouldn't quite make sense physically to make that move forward. Also, watch out. So what I'm saying is that in order to, don't go this far, but in order to re-balance this, you would move forward so that even if this leg is now off the ground, you do a totally different knee, then it's still balanced. But imagine you're like this and imagine now you're taking the leg off, you're gonna fall backwards. If that makes sense. Just because you're letting go here and he's already, he's not quite enough over this for balance, right? So either your leg is like this and the body's like this or your leg is still like this, but the body's forward like that. It's just like a general thing for balance and and all that good stuff here. Watch out the spacing of your root here going to the left and boom, stop. Right there, right? This is your wall right there. Let's put the bunny in the skin there and BOOM! So watch out for that. You got to ease into this. You can overshoot and come back a bit. Then as you go forward, I like that you have there's a bigger move in this, but watch out. You have your your arms together here and then it feels like they're both going down at the same time, especially through here. It was like the spacing here is fairly even on all of them. But again, it helps that suddenly the other arm goes out, but it's it's ever so slightly still everything's moving at the same time. Meaning if you look at upper body, head and arm, arms, they go down at the same time versus what is this? And also watch out. This doesn't work. Eye line wise. Even this looks a bit too to the left. That feels better. So watch out for that. Even this feels like it's here and now it's like that. So in order to help you with offsetting things so it doesn't feel so pose to pose in everything, you could have this, then again, watch out for the spacing here. So it doesn't suddenly accelerate, but then you can have a more distinct head down move. I'm breaking the rig here, but you know, it would be chest down, upper body and head and everything. But imagine this goes down first. So he has to look more like, oh, what is this? Then you could take this arm first. So when you're here, imagine during this move, it might get a bit convoluted in terms of silhouette, but I just want you to practice offsets. Head goes first. Like during this move, you have the head that rotates down very distinctly, and you can always push and exaggerate and make it like way too overanimated. But then at least we can pull back a bit. Then after that, the important thing is that this guy grabs this, right, and he's grabbing it with his right hand. So that is the driver. So first of all, you're moving your head down to indicate to the audience, I'm looking at this. So now the audience understands this connection. Then leave this arm up here, but this arm goes down, right? Even through here goes down. So now you understand, oh, okay, I'm gonna grab this.  Slight tension, not really. It's nice. It's nice. I like the the breakup in all of this. It's a nice clean silhouette. So now you grab this and then let me see. Yeah, not too bad, but it still feels like we go down, stop. Now, see this? Head rotates, wrist rotates at the same time. Helps that this is not moving, but that's a bit twin-sing. So the next thing is that he's getting up. So I think what I would do is once you get down here, don't move the head. Do something with this first where it might, you might do this. You know, it's okay to overlap things where he grabs this and gets up at the same time. But again, to help you with offsets, you would be here and then he could maybe lift this, you know, where it's more upper arm and elbow and he lifts it up all the same pose, but this goes first. That's number one. Then number two is the route going up. Then this, which you kind of have, see that works a lot better. Route two, three, and then again to this. But again, it doesn't quite work, I align. So either you bring the head lower, which might be tricky, but you know, also feel free to just move those arms forward. And now it's here and then lower the head a bit and now you got the right eye line. Then this you're back into pose to pose. Like you're hitting this. Okay. And then what happens? All right, like that.  This comes a bit later, which is good, but generally if you watch this in real time, it feels like arms and head at the same time versus, huh, I wonder what's in here. So you could technically turn the head first because you don't want the guy to, you know, pop this into his face. So you imagine you're rotating the head first. So you're doing this first and watch out spacing wise, you're going up a little bit and then suddenly it pops over. That's a linear key right there. Also your arc is very flat there. That's your arc or lack of arc. So imagine you're rotating up a bit and then why, so that the head is like this and almost there.   And then the arm, both of them go up into this. All right. All right. I like that transition of that. We're like totally different. Like you was hitting and whoa. I like that. Nice offset too, in terms of just, it's not super twin. Like it just has just enough of asymmetry there. Watch out that, that feels a bit stiff there, but linear there. I think that's not too bad. I mean, it's a bit of an overlap, but a tangent with the pinky in this part here, but it still has the structure of the arm here. And then you definitely go into clean silhouette, which is good. I think if you have your pinky, I know you have it. I was going to say you can relax those fingers, but you are. Then see that feels again a bit, even though you're moving with the head first, it feels like head is moving and I see this moving and I see the chest tilting forward. So it feels a bit and everything moves versus what is he doing? He's going to look at his foot. So you might do something where you're going to, was, you know, he's looking here. So the audience might be stuck here visually. So you're going to start relaxing those fingers, bring the elbow down a bit, relax that shoulder and then turn the head. Not like in massive like one second, two second, three second, but versus a couple of frames, right? So that the eye goes here because this is, if you look at this here, he goes, huh, I'm looking here, clean silhouette. He's looking here. That's where my eye is stuck. You want to bring the eye back to here. So imagine your fingers curl. Your eyes are here. The elbow goes down. The eyes travel here. The shoulder goes down. Eyes travel here. Now the head turns. The audience is here to look at. Don't go down yet. Just move the head over so that, you know, you're at this angle, but not so flat towards us. He needs to be angled a bit more here. So you'll be slightly more three quarter, just a bit. So imagine after all of this, the head turns and looks down. So now you're indicating to the audience, I'm looking here. Then you're ready to do this. I like that you're shifting the weight first. That's important for balance. You're not lifting your leg up yet. So that's great. You're doing this. Then the foot goes up. It's a bit straight. You can probably work on the arc. It's a bit more. Also really comes to a hard stop there. Versus, you know, with an arc and then the root might go a bit left and right for balance. And then it feels like, hold on, if your foot is here, look at that. You're straight back into the same pose. Don't do that. You don't want to go A to be back to A. It will be A, B, C. So your landing might be here. Again, in a different pose, you might even have a slight shift. The thing that's confusing at the end to me, and again, you're doing arms moving at the same time. The head is a bit earlier. That's good, right? So you watch this, you go, oh, I like that. See, that's a good separation, head first. But then your arms are moving at the same time. And they don't even, they don't rest enough. You have like a pop. Suddenly they pop down. They both go down at the same time. There's no asymmetrical timing there, you know, in your offset. They hit this at the same time. I don't know. It's just, it's just, and then you're bending your spine towards camera versus he might do this and take a step. And then you are into something where he's like that. And now you have a nice, you know, change in your spine versus anything that bends towards camera. We can't tell. You're just shrinking visually the heights, but we don't quite see the contrast in the spine and the C curve. That's just in terms of posing and camera stuff. But the confusing thing is that he goes, oh, what's this? Okay. Huh. Now he's doing this.  That's a pretty big thing of, okay, what's my foot? So I'm expecting, oh, he's going to do something where he's going to go, you know, something where he might lean over and go, all right. Well, I got, what's up? It's my leg here. I'm going to go back here and go, I can stomp this with my super suit. And that's what causes this. It's totally confusing to me that he goes, oh, foot, fist smash. This is so super weird to me. Like that to me, like he's going to go like that. And then he might even pivot off the heel in dramatic fashion, bring out the leg like that and goes, guess what guys, I am ready. And then goes into like a sumo type of and then as he has this, you know, it's much more exaggerated where he's really, really low and like type of stuff. Anyway, these are my thoughts. As always, these are subjective. Feel free to take whatever you need. But that's what I would tweak and change. And again, definitely better. Still room for improvement or you're getting better at it though. So really, really, really look at what are the actions of the character, what's the next action and where do you lead the audience's eye to, you know, the body parts and everything that will make the storytelling clear. Alrighty. Thanks. All right. There's an email, you can sign up, you can start whenever you want, you can submit whatever you want, you get 16 submissions. Either way, a like and subscribe would be awesome. All right. Thank you.


I am DJ Shockley want to thank you guys for joining me for Falcons film review powered by Microsoft surface big win for about his last Sunday. Let's talk about some of the big plays that happen in that ball game and let's start on the defense society ball. We're talking about growth. We're talking about great execution and we're talking about each guy doing what needs to be done to get the job done. And on this particular play here.  This says OK I think I got to find my best man beater but on the snap of the football watch these guys all these guys are going to bail out they're going to go into what's called cover to Tampa. So this safety is going to go to a cover to half of the field this safety who looks down here is covering the nickel guy he's actually going to bail all the way out into cover to as well and now you're going to get flat guy flat guy here and these guys who you think are playing man are actually going to play zone but the most important thing that happens on this play is these guys reroute the receivers on the outside by rerouting the receivers on the outside it forces the quarterback to get off these particular routes on the outside and he's got to be forced to check the football down on the outside here as the ball is snapped look at everybody bail now you thought it was blitz it's not blitz guys are bailing bailing the cover to and now this is a safety here Deron Harmon he's the middle field player going to cover to go on the cover to and look through reroute up here this is a nice job of paying attention to the details of the defense rerouting these receivers so they don't get free access into these boundary areas while these guys get into their spot so a nice job on the outside by the corners rerouting the receivers and now look there's really nowhere to go for the football covered three guys around him covered only guy open is this guy and this is exactly what you want you got the two high cover safety here and now you're going to check the football down and this is exactly what you want rally to the football look how many guys are coming to the football one two three four all these guys are rallying to the football third and eight you get a nice job of execution on the outside and you come up now you get a big fourth down stop this is exactly what you want in the Dean P style defense show one thing bail out of it rally to the football and get off the field. All right let's jump on the office inside the ball with a run game was the best has been all year we rushed for a hundred and forty nine yards in this ball game over five yards a carry but let's give a lot of love to the offensive line to the tailbacks obviously the receivers on the outside blocking on the edge and our full back we did a good job of creating nice avenues to run and this is how it got done first you talk about what happened in pre snap you get motion to come across now you give the defense a totally different look now the other part of this is usually we had the back here you just run a simple ISO right through here but we're going to do is we're going to bring Keith Smith across in motion to create the angle to block on this defensive end right here because he's coming in motion he gets it on the run he's able to get a good seal on the outside guy you're going to get slight bumpy on the outside and he's going to get up on the next perimeter defender which is the linebacker and by the end of a cow pitch is going to end up on the corner and it's going to be perfectly blocked by the Falcons here comes the motion by Keith Smith he's going to come across and look at the angle that he gets right now this angle here but a nice job by the tight in here of getting a little rub on the decent defensive end so he doesn't run right up field and now you see the angle to come downhill nice job of this offensive line again up here creating the angle that you want to be able to run and that's all because of formation and design by Arthur Smith now you come across and look everybody's perfectly blocked nice seal block good job with office line get up here look at the head on the right side of this guy right here now look at the crease that quarterback and has a run and he has to get touched until these 1520 yards down the field this is an excellent job let's watch it from the backside which makes it even more impressive here cow pitch comes across in motion now we're creating the angles we want now we're creating a formation and then here's Keith Smith when he comes across the emotion file stop it here now you got the angle you want here you're going to get each guy getting up to the next level you see Matthew is always have a seal block nice job of turning his guy here so he has a good crease and now look at every single guy nice job of talking about seal block here this guy is practically covered up here's the edge block you like here good leverage Keith Smith has on the defensive now you get your title on the outside of this particular guy and now the only guy you got to worry about this middle lineback in the middle but he has to make a decision that's quarter cut it back here or does he go here this is what you call a two-way go with your love in a national football to give your back a two-way go and now he gets caught on the wrong side and look at the crease good block nice block only got you got left with the safety and you like Cordell Patterson in space and this is a huge game this is a big reason why the Fox were able to rush for 149 yards great execution up front nice job of formation designed by Arthur Smith and then the execution at the end of it of the Falcons doing a nice job and that's why ultimately you were able to run the football really well in the ballgame want to thank you guys for joining me on DJ Shockley this has been Falcons film review powered by Microsoft Surface we'll see you next week.