5 ms·

It’s been proven that shifting between the two time offsets kills people. Here’s one example article that discusses this. https://www.businessinsider.com/dayl

It’s been proven that shifting between the two time offsets kills people. Here’s one example article that discusses this. https://www.businessinsider.com/daylight-saving-time-is-deadly-2018-3?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/daylight-saving-time-is-dead... Stopping this is more important than picking the right offset to stop it at.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
You switch the clocks 2x per year, or you switch every schedule that operates on them 2x per year. People would still have to deal with the change either way.
- dontlaugh 4y ago
  1h is not enough to make up for the difference in light, yet changing the clocks is disruptive. Much better to change schedules as often and by as much as suitable in each case.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    So instead of changing clocks 2x, every business and school have different schedules that change >2 times per year and you think that is the better option?
    - dontlaugh 4y ago
      Changing the clocks does almost nothing, so most schedules don’t have to change. Where it matters, changing schedules can make an actual difference and it’s what people already do anyway.
b112 4y ago
It’s been proven that shifting between the two time offsets kills people. It's also been "proven" that not time shifting is bad, too. SAD is worse without it, up North, and SAD results in an increase in suicides in the winter. And there are other "it helps" claims from pro-DST advocates, too. As per the referenced study, it even states it is not actually validated. I'm all for the additional research, however, there is a problem here. What if this is only delaying or spiking heart attacks at these choke-holds? EG, how do we know that without DST, said attacks wouldn't be 2 week delayed? A month? And while I certainly think a month of life is worth living, does that actually offset the SAD improvements, and the (unproven, but hypothesized reduction in suicides)? This bit of the study, I don't get: Results There was no difference in the total weekly number of PCIs performed for AMI for either the fall or spring time changes in the time period analysed. After adjustment for trend and seasonal effects, the Monday following spring time changes was associated with a 24% increase in daily AMI counts (p=0.011), and the Tuesday following fall changes was conversely associated with a 21% reduction (p=0.044). No other weekdays in the weeks following DST changes demonstrated significant associations. So there were no differences at all, until they applied a model? They applied 'trend and seasonal effects', and suddenly, it shows people dying and not dying? I feel there should be more focus on what this model was.
- danaris 4y ago
  > It's also been "proven" that not time shifting is bad, too. Do you mean "it's proven that not changing the time twice a year is bad", or "it's proven that having winter on a particular time is bad"?
  - b112 4y ago
    Simply, that early light affects SAD significantly.
pixelesque 4y ago
If you stopped DST, you'd surely have to also change things like school schedules as well to compensate for darker mornings? Studies (in both the US and Europe) have shown that DST improves road safety for both cars and pedestrians at dawn/dusk times.
- apple4ever 4y ago
  I hope so! School schedules on optimize for kids, either, especially high school kids.
- falcolas 4y ago
  I live in the north US. Kids are already going to school in the dark for a vast majority of the school year. In fact, it’s just recently been getting light at the time to go to school, and tonight that will be pushed back to pitch darkness for another month or two. Or, to put it another way, switching isn’t making this specific issue better.
gameman144 4y ago
Thirty deaths from car crashes nationwide over ten years isn't a scale that warrants such things, IMO. There are lots of things that serve no unique functional purpose that we still love and that still increase death rates (e.g. marathons, hamburgers, skiing). Having risk doesn't mean that we automatically shouldn't do something.
- falcolas 4y ago
  It's not just the 30 additional car deaths (backed up by a large number of non-fatal incidents). https://aasm.org/sleep-experts-want-to-stop-springing-forward-to-daylight-saving-time/ https://aasm.org/sleep-experts-want-to-stop-springing-forwar... https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)31678-1?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982219316781%3Fshowall%3Dtrue https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)... And having risk also doesn't automatically mean that we should sit on our thumbs and go "there's nothing we can do, not enough people are dying from it yet!"
s1artibartfast 4y ago
3 deaths a year seems laughably trivial compared to the comfort of 350 million. I also suspect that more people will die from the additional hour of morning dark in the winters. If you want to save lives, Permanent Standard Time would make more sense
- falcolas 4y ago
  Oh, look, yet another bike shed color opinion. Thanks!
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I find it interesting that you came into this with a concern for lives, but now think that saving more lives is a bike shed opinion.
    - falcolas 4y ago
      Sorry, I was not clear. Your offering is one of the two colors already being considered. It offers nothing new. And as for myself, I couldn’t care less which time offset is picked, I just want them to pick one and stop changing the offset twice a year. Will there be long term problems from picking one over the other? Doubtful; there’s enough states/countries/etc which are stopped at various offsets to solar noon that we’d know if there was a significant advantage or disadvantage to being offset from solar noon. That data seems speculative at best right now, telling me there advantages and disadvantages to each. Which reinforces my “just fucking pick one” opinion.
apple4ever 4y ago
Absolutely. I prefer daylight savings time over standard time, but I honestly care more about just picking one then which one it is.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

You switch the clocks 2x per year, or you switch every schedule that operates on them 2x per year. People would still have to deal with the change either way.

dontlaugh 4y ago
1h is not enough to make up for the difference in light, yet changing the clocks is disruptive. Much better to change schedules as often and by as much as suitable in each case.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  So instead of changing clocks 2x, every business and school have different schedules that change >2 times per year and you think that is the better option?
  - dontlaugh 4y ago
    Changing the clocks does almost nothing, so most schedules don’t have to change. Where it matters, changing schedules can make an actual difference and it’s what people already do anyway.

b112 4y ago

It’s been proven that shifting between the two time offsets kills people. It's also been "proven" that not time shifting is bad, too. SAD is worse without it, up North, and SAD results in an increase in suicides in the winter. And there are other "it helps" claims from pro-DST advocates, too. As per the referenced study, it even states it is not actually validated. I'm all for the additional research, however, there is a problem here. What if this is only delaying or spiking heart attacks at these choke-holds? EG, how do we know that without DST, said attacks wouldn't be 2 week delayed? A month? And while I certainly think a month of life is worth living, does that actually offset the SAD improvements, and the (unproven, but hypothesized reduction in suicides)? This bit of the study, I don't get: Results There was no difference in the total weekly number of PCIs performed for AMI for either the fall or spring time changes in the time period analysed. After adjustment for trend and seasonal effects, the Monday following spring time changes was associated with a 24% increase in daily AMI counts (p=0.011), and the Tuesday following fall changes was conversely associated with a 21% reduction (p=0.044). No other weekdays in the weeks following DST changes demonstrated significant associations. So there were no differences at all, until they applied a model? They applied 'trend and seasonal effects', and suddenly, it shows people dying and not dying? I feel there should be more focus on what this model was.

danaris 4y ago
> It's also been "proven" that not time shifting is bad, too. Do you mean "it's proven that not changing the time twice a year is bad", or "it's proven that having winter on a particular time is bad"?
- b112 4y ago
  Simply, that early light affects SAD significantly.

pixelesque 4y ago

If you stopped DST, you'd surely have to also change things like school schedules as well to compensate for darker mornings? Studies (in both the US and Europe) have shown that DST improves road safety for both cars and pedestrians at dawn/dusk times.

apple4ever 4y ago
I hope so! School schedules on optimize for kids, either, especially high school kids.
falcolas 4y ago
I live in the north US. Kids are already going to school in the dark for a vast majority of the school year. In fact, it’s just recently been getting light at the time to go to school, and tonight that will be pushed back to pitch darkness for another month or two. Or, to put it another way, switching isn’t making this specific issue better.

gameman144 4y ago

Thirty deaths from car crashes nationwide over ten years isn't a scale that warrants such things, IMO. There are lots of things that serve no unique functional purpose that we still love and that still increase death rates (e.g. marathons, hamburgers, skiing). Having risk doesn't mean that we automatically shouldn't do something.

falcolas 4y ago
It's not just the 30 additional car deaths (backed up by a large number of non-fatal incidents). https://aasm.org/sleep-experts-want-to-stop-springing-forward-to-daylight-saving-time/ https://aasm.org/sleep-experts-want-to-stop-springing-forwar... https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)31678-1?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982219316781%3Fshowall%3Dtrue https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)... And having risk also doesn't automatically mean that we should sit on our thumbs and go "there's nothing we can do, not enough people are dying from it yet!"

s1artibartfast 4y ago

3 deaths a year seems laughably trivial compared to the comfort of 350 million. I also suspect that more people will die from the additional hour of morning dark in the winters. If you want to save lives, Permanent Standard Time would make more sense

falcolas 4y ago
Oh, look, yet another bike shed color opinion. Thanks!
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I find it interesting that you came into this with a concern for lives, but now think that saving more lives is a bike shed opinion.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    Sorry, I was not clear. Your offering is one of the two colors already being considered. It offers nothing new. And as for myself, I couldn’t care less which time offset is picked, I just want them to pick one and stop changing the offset twice a year. Will there be long term problems from picking one over the other? Doubtful; there’s enough states/countries/etc which are stopped at various offsets to solar noon that we’d know if there was a significant advantage or disadvantage to being offset from solar noon. That data seems speculative at best right now, telling me there advantages and disadvantages to each. Which reinforces my “just fucking pick one” opinion.

apple4ever 4y ago

Absolutely. I prefer daylight savings time over standard time, but I honestly care more about just picking one then which one it is.