If you support daylight saving time, that’s what you are supporting. DST kills people. It has no measurable benefits, and it kills people. There’s no defensible way to support it.
Even with 2 sigma confidence lines there is barely a correlation in a lot of this data. If we looked at the 3 sigma confidence lines there would be nothing here.
I remember one study had such a small sample size that a single man having a heart attack on his way to work was the bulk of evidence used to criticize the time switch. A scientist with an agenda can usually get their position published even if it’s questionable.
The overall evidence weakly suggests there are negative health effects here when we make a time switch. But if it was truly a large statistical shift with high confidence values then we probably would have a much stronger scientific case to address time shifts in our society cycles. We would also have to include a much wider study. Are there papers looking at the possible beneficial effects of these time switches out there? And lastly, is this even worth the research time and potential implementation cost?
As it stands now, it’s basically just a bunch of people’s personal preference of when they want more light relative to the standard work day. Personally I would be happy to use UTC worldwide and just shift the hours appropriately with location, but that won’t fly with most people.
Dude wtf is your problem? Why are you simping so hard for something that the scientific literature is very clear on? Every study done has shown that it’s detrimental to people’s health.
Are there papers looking at the possible beneficial effects of these time switches out there?
There are. One of the most popular claims is that DST might reduce energy usage. And there have been some studies that find that it does:
It’s quite a difference from the health effects, where studies unanimously (or at least nearly unanimously—I’m sure some studies disagreeing exist out there, but I struggled to find them) agree it’s bad.
If you support daylight saving time, that’s what you are supporting. DST kills people. It has no measurable benefits, and it kills people. There’s no defensible way to support it.
Can you recommend any good reading around that?
Sure, here are a bunch of papers on the subject:
dude, more people are fucking killed by coconuts per year.
Even with 2 sigma confidence lines there is barely a correlation in a lot of this data. If we looked at the 3 sigma confidence lines there would be nothing here.
I remember one study had such a small sample size that a single man having a heart attack on his way to work was the bulk of evidence used to criticize the time switch. A scientist with an agenda can usually get their position published even if it’s questionable.
The overall evidence weakly suggests there are negative health effects here when we make a time switch. But if it was truly a large statistical shift with high confidence values then we probably would have a much stronger scientific case to address time shifts in our society cycles. We would also have to include a much wider study. Are there papers looking at the possible beneficial effects of these time switches out there? And lastly, is this even worth the research time and potential implementation cost?
As it stands now, it’s basically just a bunch of people’s personal preference of when they want more light relative to the standard work day. Personally I would be happy to use UTC worldwide and just shift the hours appropriately with location, but that won’t fly with most people.
Dude wtf is your problem? Why are you simping so hard for something that the scientific literature is very clear on? Every study done has shown that it’s detrimental to people’s health.
There are. One of the most popular claims is that DST might reduce energy usage. And there have been some studies that find that it does:
But there have also been ones that find it actually increases energy usage:
All agree that the effect size is very small.
It’s quite a difference from the health effects, where studies unanimously (or at least nearly unanimously—I’m sure some studies disagreeing exist out there, but I struggled to find them) agree it’s bad.