According to this research, eight percent of Americans always refuse vaccines. Why?
- New research found that 22 percent of Americans identify as somewhat or fully resistant to vaccination.
- Researchers used two social psychology theories to explore the causes of vaccine resistance.
- The more one identifies with an anti-vaccine group, the harder it is to dissuade them from their ideas.
Vaccine hesitancy is top of mind for global public health officials, and the reasons for this resistance are manifold. A group of American researchers recently focused on social identity as a motivating factor. Their study, published in the journal Politics, Groups, and Identities, found that group identification was an important factor for just over one-fifth of citizens.
Anti-vaxx social identification (AVSID) includes 22 percent of Americans — 14 percent of whom identify as "sometimes" resistant, while eight percent claim to "always" refuse vaccines. While on its face this appears to be a medical decision, the research team, led by Oklahoma State University political scientist Matt Motta, sought to discover the relevance of group acceptance.
Social psychology really matters
Previous research has found that anti-vaxxers conform to in-group norms by expressing skepticism against anyone that questions their autonomy and rejecting broader public health recommendations by out-group experts. Such resistance, they write, may result from identity protective cognition, that is, the avoidance of anything that challenges deeply held beliefs.
For this study, the team relied on the following two psychological theories:
- Social identity theory (SIT). Coined by social psychologists Henri Tajfel and John Turner, this theory predicts in-group behavior is due to perceived status differences as well as the legitimacy and stability of such differences. SIT predominantly focuses on the psychological motivations for group membership and attachment.
- Self-categorization theory (SCT). This social psychology theory is focused on the cognitive motivations for defining group membership. Also developed by John Turner, SCT investigates the consequences of perceiving people in group terms.
SIT argues that categorization can lead to identification depending on how personally each individual takes the content matter. In this case, when vaccine resistance provides self-esteem and personal meaning, then heightened group identification will merge with their identity. SCT steps in to cement the individual relationship to the content (vaccine resistance) and provides context for the group to flourish.
"Upon socially identifying with a group, people come to understand group membership in comparison to those not in the group, or to those in opposing groups. People then tend to favor members of the in-group and imbue positive characteristics onto them, whereas members of the out-group are viewed with suspicion and oftentimes are seen negatively."Rally goers protest vaccines and the current administration during the "World Wide Rally for Freedom", an anti-mask and anti-vaccine rally, at the State House in Concord, New Hampshire, May 15, 2021.
Rally goers protest vaccines and the current administration during the "World Wide Rally for Freedom", an anti-mask and anti-vaccine rally, at the State House in Concord, New Hampshire, May 15, 2021. Photo by Joseph Prezioso / AFP via Getty Images
Following the herd, but not the immune kind
This mindset has profound social implications. While the U.S. has a goal to vaccinate 70 percent of American adults by July 4, public health officials are still concerned that another wave of COVID-19 will hit this summer due to millions of Americans refusing the jab.
While social psychology theories cannot explain all 22 percent of vaccine-hesitant individuals, the researchers are confident that they provide meaning for at least part of that population. People in this group often refuse to have their children vaccinated and also are more likely to express interest in "intuitive" thinking around health and medicine rather than accept empirical data offered by professionals.
Surveying over 5,000 Americans, the team discovered that full-blown anti-vaxxers (8 percent) were more likely to identify as a group than vaccine-hesitant respondents (14 percent). They also found that such respondents were more likely to engage in conspiratorial thinking. They write:
"People who embrace folk theories about medicine — i.e., inter-generationally transmitted beliefs about medicine that are widely held, but factually inaccurate — have been shown to be more likely to think about the world in conspiratorial ways, and less knowledgeable about basic scientific facts."
The power of tribalism
The team notes that this is more than a barrier to herd immunity. Individuals that score high on the AVSID scale are more likely to share misinformation about vaccines and disrupt important public health communications. The challenge of combating such trends, they note, is especially difficult when anti-vaxx identity is bound to the group.
Reaching the 14 percent of vaccine-hesitant individuals will prove easier than trying to convince the 8 percent of anti-vaxxers. As long as their identity is tied with the group, changing their minds will be nearly impossible.
Stay in touch with Derek on Twitter. His most recent book is "Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."
Virtual tourism has thus far been a futuristic dream, but a world shaped by Covid-19 may be ready to accept it.
- The COVID-19 pandemic has upended the travel and tourism industries;
- Businesses in this sector must build infrastructure and practices that allow people to travel safely in a post-pandemic world and support local communities that benefit from tourism;
- Augmented, virtual and mixed reality technologies can offer alternative ways to travel the world and an exciting new model for the industry.
The tourism industry has hit a nadir owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. It will continue to feel the effects for at least the first three quarters of 2021 – according to a recent UN report, tourist arrivals globally in January 2021 were down 87% when compared to January 2020.
Travel will prevail over post-pandemic anxiety, making it incumbent on the aviation and tourism industry to build safer infrastructure and practices that take care of travellers' well being.
After a year thwarted by the pandemic and with the future not looking too upbeat for the industry at this juncture, tourism business owners should look at alternative modes of interaction for holidaymakers that can also aid the people and economies who depend on tourism.
The COVID-19 pandemic has noticeably hastened the testing and rollout of forward-looking technologies. Technology has not only enabled citizens globally to interact with loved ones, but also helped industries such as healthcare, information technology, education and many more to work remotely.
In the last few decades, technology has helped travel and tourism industries increase their reach through travel booking websites, videos, blogs and travel photography. Digital tools and content are a vital source of information for vacationists organizing their next holiday or creating a destination wish list. Whilst remote or virtual tourism has been a futuristic theme within industry forums for some time, the world today, shaped by the COVID-19 pandemic, might now be ready to accept it.
A human-centric design that draws insights from cognitive behaviour, social psychology, neuroscience and behavioural economics applied with cutting edge technologies such as augmented, virtual or mixed reality (AR, VR, MR) could be a game-changer. AR, VR and MR can enable a seamless, uninterrupted interactive experience for viewers from their own private space. The design principles will create a frictionless digital user experience and construct a positive perception of a tourist destination.
There have been previous attempts to achieve this feat: if you are an aqua sightseer, you might be aware of a documentary exploring the Great Barrier Reef. Through an interactive website, one can view the clear, tranquil currents of the Pacific Ocean and the biodiversity of the reef, and experience the sounds of a healthy coral reef. Another much-discussed VR experience is Mission 828 which allows you to take a virtual parachute jump from the world's tallest building, Burj Khalifa in Dubai. The Official Tourist Board of the Faroe Islands has also crafted a virtual experience to entice post-pandemic visitors from across the world.
Imagine a human-centric designed, interactive space online that makes a destination accessible and so real for a sightseer with sound captured by electro-acoustics researchers. You could view holiday sites in a video or through self-navigation using voice or joystick controls, interact with people using video-calling platforms, travel through the streets of said location, eavesdrop on local music and much more. This could be stitched together in a single platform individually or in silos on the internet and further enhanced by setting up physical experience tourism centres locally. Such a setup would allow tourist guides, artisans, craftspeople, hoteliers and transport business to create their own digital and virtual offerings and interact with possible customers.
Here's how it might look: a vacationer starts their experience from the time their flight commences. The plane descends to the destination runway and pictures of the vicinity from the aircraft window pane are captured. The airport signage welcomes passengers and directs them to a pre-booked taxi. The vacationer gets to choose their first destination and travels through the streets in a chauffeur-driven car whose interactions en route become part of their cherished memories. On arrival, a tourist guide walks you through the destination all controlled with just a tap on your gadget. During the sightseeing, you hear random people speaking, posing for photographs and more. You take a photo to post on social media, go shopping and negotiate with a local vendor to purchase an artwork and get it delivered to your door. You learn how a local dish is prepared and get familiar with local customs.
A virtual platform could even provide an opportunity for people to explore areas that are affected by or fighting terrorism. For example, imagine seeing the diverse wildlife and snow leopard of the Gurez Valley, in the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir, India. It doesn't stop there: if thought through, one could experience travelling to the South Pole, space and beyond. It could also serve as a learning portal for students to understand geographies, culture, art and history.
With technology improving lives globally, virtual tourism could reignite the tourism industry and its people and help build a more sustainable economic model. As a human-centric platform, it can establish local tourist guides, artisans and others as global citizens in the tourism industry.
Contact-tracing apps can be a useful tool for public health, but they have considerable false positive and false negative rates.
- The COVID-19 pandemic witnessed the widespread adoption of contact-tracing apps.
- Research shows that these apps aren't as accurate as we might think.
- There are several physical and biological factors than can interfere with the accuracy of contact-tracing apps.
The following is an excerpt adapted from People Count: Contact-Tracing Apps and Public Health.
To stop an epidemic, public health authorities focus on lowering R0. Even for a given illness, this number varies tremendously according to the protective measures a society takes (wearing masks, practicing social distancing, and other measures). In early March 2020, COVID-19's R0 was just below 4 in New York State. Once the state instituted a shelter-in-place order and virtually no one was on the streets, R0 dropped below 1. It continued to hover quite close to 1 for the summer and into the fall, even after the state came back to life and began to open bars and restaurants.
By helping to keep spread in check, could contact-tracing apps have lowered R0 enough to allow people to safely work, participate in social life, and be with their families? Lacking a real-life human experiment to answer this question, epidemiologists turn to models; these are in turn based on existing data. In the case of COVID-19, some of the best data comes from a citizen-science app developed by the BBC to accompany its 2018 documentary on the Spanish flu, Contagion! The BBC4 Pandemic. Participants agreed to provide a twenty-four-hour snapshot of their locations and self-reported contacts, which epidemiologists then used to model how a similar epidemic would spread in twenty-first-century Britain.
The BBC database ultimately included the locations and contacts of 36,000 people. It showed their movements over the course of a day, including how many people they saw at work, at school, and elsewhere. The data allowed researchers to develop a model that could simulate various interventions at the population level, from isolation, testing, contact tracing, and social distancing to app usage.
The resulting model showed that if 90 percent of ill people self-isolated and their household quarantined upon learning of their infection, 35 percent of cases would have already spread the disease to another person. If 90 percent of the contacts of those infected also isolated upon learning of the previous person's infection, only 26 percent of cases would have infected someone else. The contact tracers, in other words, bought time. By having potentially infected people isolate, contact tracing prevented new rounds of infections. In another iteration, the researchers added apps to the mix and assumed that 53 percent of the population would use them. By notifying people of potential infections faster than a contact tracer could, the apps lowered the infection rate further, so that only 23 percent of cases infected another person. At that high adoption rate, the disease doesn't disappear, but it also doesn't cause a pandemic.
Models, of course, are only as good as the assumptions on which they're based. The idea that 53 percent of any given population would voluntarily use a contact-tracing app and that anyone receiving an exposure notification would isolate is doubtful, at best. Still, because the apps appear to help lower R0, governments and public health officials have jumped to add them to the mix of public health tools available to combat COVID-19's spread.
Signal strength varied depending on whether a person carried their phone in their back pocket, their front pocket, or in a backpack or handbag. The signal strength varied by device model, by the shape of the room, even by the construction materials.
Given the high stakes involved, we need to look at how apps are deployed in real life. How well do apps actually work? Are they more effective than more traditional, and less invasive, public health tools? Can they usefully supplement manual contact-tracing efforts? COVID-19 has hit low-income and Black, Latinx, and indigenous communities particularly hard. The possibility of public health organizations embracing contact-tracing apps as a line of defense against epidemics raises new questions about equity and the balance of individual privacy and public safety. Will contact-tracing apps exacerbate inequities already present in society?
A robust public debate about the implications of deploying what is effectively a public surveillance system didn't occur; instead, many officials deployed these apps essentially overnight. We need that debate, but first we must look at efficacy. If the apps aren't efficacious, then there is no reason to consider them further.
The many problems with contact-tracing apps
Following advice from the WHO, most public health agencies have promoted the idea that "social distancing" is the safest way to guard against exposure to the coronavirus. For the CDC, the magic number is six feet (in metric-based nations, it's usually two meters). Stay at least that far away from other people, so the theory goes, and you're safe. Since the BLE [Bluetooth Low Energy] technology on which contact-tracing apps run depends on proximity, engineers hoped that phone-to-phone contacts could serve as a reasonable proxy for risky exposures. In practice, this has turned out to be not entirely straightforward.
In theory, the strength of the BLE signal that a phone receives from another indicates the distance of the device emitting it. To test the accuracy of this assumption, researchers at Germany's Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft simulated the experiences of people sitting on a train, waiting on line, being served by a waiter in a restaurant, and attending a cocktail party. Over 139 tests, the phones correctly determined time and distance exposure 70 percent of the time. This information seems encouraging, but the simulation took place in a test facility that lacked walls. The "train car" had no metal sides, the people waiting on line encountered no checkout counters or supermarket shelves, and neither the restaurant nor the cocktail party included walls or serving stations. This matters because radio waves often reflect off surfaces.
When researchers from the University of Dublin tried these tests in actual train cars, they obtained different results. Seven volunteers with phones running GAEN [(Google/Apple) Exposure Notification]-based apps distributed themselves around a train car and measured the signals their phones received over a fifteen-minute period. Radio waves are supposed to vary inversely according to the square of distance, so the researchers were surprised to find that the signals stayed constant at a distance of 1.5–2.5 meters and began to increase after that. Apparently, a flexible metal joint between train carriages concentrated the signal.
As they looked more closely at the results, the researchers found more surprises. Signal strength varied depending on whether a person carried their phone in their back pocket, their front pocket, or in a backpack or handbag. The signal strength varied by device model, by the shape of the room, even by the construction materials. Depending on the construction material, BLE signals can indicate that people are near each other when they are actually in neighboring apartments.
Epidemiologists understand that the six-foot measure is somewhat arbitrary; engineers know that BLE signals don't measure distances precisely. If the rest of us come to use these systems, we also need to understand their limitations.
Apps don't account for real-life circumstances
Credit: Jeff J Mitchell via Getty Images
Measurement imprecision isn't the only problem for contact-tracing and exposure-notification apps. The apps are not built to record the real-life circumstances that affect the likelihood of transmission in any given case. If Alyssa is six feet away from Ben in a small room for fifteen minutes, there's likely risk of exposure. But if Alyssa is four feet from Ben, outside, and wearing a mask, she's likely to be safe. Large gatherings of people indoors carry risks of spread, while similarly sized groups of masked people outdoors are less dangerous. Apps can't distinguish between these situations. Nor do apps know if the person standing eight feet away from you is belting out a song — dangerous if they're infected — or just standing quietly.
The apps are also ignorant of a room's ventilation, an important factor in how the virus spreads. When an infected person breathes — or speaks, sings, coughs, or sneezes — they emit viral particles packaged in a mixture of mucus, saliva, and water. The smallest of these, aerosols, evaporate as they travel, losing some of their potency. The bigger ones, droplets, typically fall to the ground within three feet. Sometimes, though, air flow, particularly air conditioning, can push these along, putting people at further distances at risk of infection. This is apparently what happened in a restaurant in Guangzhou, China, when two people sitting well beyond the six-foot measure — and on different sides of the ill person — were infected. One was at a table more than a dozen feet away.
Biology also confuses apps. A review of published reports indicates that as many as 30–40 percent of people never show symptoms. While these studies are not based on random samples, a single study based on a large random sample of Icelanders showed a similar result: a startling 43 percent of participants tested positive without showing symptoms. Even if one assumes that only 30 percent of cases are asymptomatic — a not unreasonable assumption — then epidemiologists believe that 7 percent of transmission will arise from asymptomatic cases. This matters for the apps' effectiveness. Asymptomatic people are less likely to get tested than those who are sick — and if there's no test, there's no trigger for exposure notifications.
Contact-tracing and exposure-notification apps nevertheless do have value. They pick up cases that people, including contact tracers, wouldn't. Aliyah might not remember a chance hallway encounter with Bobby, but her app will. And the app will be ready to notify Aliyah if Bobby's phone reports a positive COVID-19 test. Perhaps even more critically, Aliyah's app will register encounters with nearby strangers in the bar or theater lobby — as long as they are also using the app. If those strangers later test positive, Aliyah will learn she's been exposed. Without a phone app, she'd have little chance of discovering this.
False positives and false negatives
These technical and practical limitations of contact-tracing apps mean that they can produce both false positives and false negatives. (Note that these are false positives and false negatives of exposure, not false positive and false negatives of having COVID-19.) Virginia's website for the state's GAEN-based app, for example, warns that students in adjacent dorm rooms might receive exposure notifications of close contact while being in different rooms. When tested in August 2020, the UK exposure-notification app had a 45 percent false positive rate and 31 percent false negative rate.
These numbers sound bad, but the false positives aren't entirely "false" — most of them represented exposures at 2.5–4 meters away rather than 2 meters. Depending on the circumstances, a person might well have been exposed at 3 meters. In the case of false negatives, however, users received no notification whatsoever that they had been in the presence of someone infected with COVID-19.
The apps are not built to record the real-life circumstances that affect the likelihood of transmission in any given case.
Both types of inaccuracies present challenges for users and public health agencies — some more obvious than others. If Aliyah receives a false positive notification, she might quarantine unnecessarily, losing a paycheck. If she's following the rules, she should also urge her roommates and family members she's in close contact with to do so, causing more disruption. Alternatively, if this is the second time that the app warns Aliyah that she's been exposed without her developing any symptoms, she might just ignore the notification and disable the app.
False negatives place the public's health at risk. If Bobby was asymptomatic and never tested, Aliyah will not receive a notification even though she may have spent fifty minutes sitting six feet away from Bobby in a classroom. False negatives can also be produced by circumstance: from an air conditioner dispersing aerosols farther than expected or an infected singer who propels droplets farther than six feet.
Some communities are at higher risk for false positives than others. Many low-income people, for instance, hold jobs that bring them in constant contact with a stream of strangers (e.g., grocery store clerks, health care workers, workers in food service and production). For these workers, a small variation in the proximity measurement (say, nine feet instead of six) can multiply into a high risk of false positives from contact-tracing apps. What's more, many of these workers routinely wear protective gear or work behind barriers that reduce their risk from even four-foot interactions. Similarly, people who live in high-density housing situations, whether multifamily housing units or apartment complexes, are more likely to receive false positives than people who live in stand-alone suburban or rural houses.
Hourly workers living paycheck to paycheck can't afford to take time off unless it's absolutely necessary. A false positive keeps them from clocking in. Alyssa, in Singapore, or Amelie, in Switzerland, can each expect to receive financial support from the government if they isolate after an exposure notification. But in the United States, few low-income or gig workers receive paid time off, even for isolating during a pandemic. The privilege of staying at home is not evenly distributed. Workers who realize that the apps consistently generate false positives are less likely to use them voluntarily — or to heed them when they provide alerts.
False negatives, too, have a differential impact. White-collar workers who already work from home and who drive their own vehicles on necessary errands have fewer contacts than those who take public transportation to jobs that have been deemed "essential." The fewer contacts each of us has with other people, the less chance we have of spreading COVID-19. A false negative of exposure for someone who works outside the home and uses public transit carries greater risk of infecting others than the same false negative for someone who works at home and uses their own transportation.
Contact-tracing apps were supposed to resolve this problem, allowing people to emerge from lockdowns with the ability to interact with friends, family, and strangers. It's not clear that they will.
Adapted excerpt from People Count: Contact-Tracing Apps and Public Health by Susan Landau. Reprinted with Permission from The MIT PRESS. Copyright 2021.
Noise causes stress. For our ancestors, it meant danger: thunder, animal roars, war cries, triggering a 'fight or run' reaction.
Noise is a belittled threat that disrupts the functioning of people, animals, even plants. It causes stress, provokes aggression, increases the risk of heart disease. Blocking the issue of noise can bring catastrophic consequences for us.
Morning coffee. I set up my laptop in the garden. All I can hear is the morning chirping of birds. Nothing to bother me. Suddenly, the roar of a chainsaw tears into the idyllic scenery. Actually, it's two chainsaws, which the new neighbours are using to massacre trees on the plot next door. Construction work has started. I hide in the house. Unfortunately, even with my windows shut, my ears register a muffled yet distracting roar. Noise has caught up with me here, in the countryside, the place I escaped to from the city. Is there any way to protect myself from it?
The necessary cost of progress?
Or maybe I'm just sowing needless panic? After all, noise has been accompanying us for ages and we have been dealing with it somehow. In Ancient Rome, there was a ban on riding chariots at night to prevent the rattling of wheels from waking the residents, in the Middle Ages streets were sound-proofed with hay, while today we set up noise barriers along roads and railroad tracks, and install sound-proof windows. But the noise level is increasing along with the expanding networks of motorways, railway lines and new airports; we are all experiencing noise, and it's affecting not only the inhabitants of big cities, but also small villages like the one I live in. The most common source of undesired sounds is road traffic; research shows that that 125 million Europeans are subject to sound intensity levels exceeding 55 decibels (which is considered to be harmful). To give you something to compare that to: rustling in the woods is around 10 decibels, a whisper is 30–40 decibels, while a regular conversation is about 50 decibels. One passenger car generates sound of an intensity exceeding 65 decibels, a lorry over 70 decibels, and a plane taking off 120 decibels. In large European or American cities, such as New York or Los Angeles, the average sound intensity is 80–90 decibels. If for an extended period of time we hear noise exceeding 85 decibels, we expose ourselves to hearing damage, balance disorder or even pain. Noise at a lower level of intensity causes us to be nervous and fatigued.
Why do most of us trivialize the issue then, saying You can live with it. It's something you can get used to? I pose that question to Agata Stasik, a sociologist from Kozminski University in Warsaw. "Noise is one of those harmful factors that has a delayed effect on us; it's hard to detect the negative influence of noise on our health without going through costly long-term testing. Indeed, it is easy to notice the unfavourable effect of noise on our well-being. Yet the fact that noise bothers us can be quickly put off as a sign of our oversensitivity, which has no place in a big city. For many people, noise is quite justified and viewed as a necessary cost of progress. Even more so as it usually appears as a side effect of processes like mobility or the effect of industrial activity that serves to meet commonly accepted needs. As a result, any discussion usually goes in the direction of having an only choice between pre-modern life and life in noise," the expert explains.
1.6 million years of life in good health
Maybe it's high time to stop drowning out the issue of noise and confront the effects it has? "Noise pollution is the second threat to public health right after air pollution," is the conclusion of the research of the Environmental Burden of Disease Project presented by the World Health Organization (WHO). As far as eight years ago, the WHO estimated that each year we lose 1.6 million years of good health due to the noise coming from our environment. And this pertains to Europe only! Let's add to that the calculations made by the European Environment Agency (EEA), which show that on the Old Continent, noise is responsible for 10,000 premature deaths, 43,000 hospitalizations and 900,000 cases of hypertension. Yutong Samuel Cai, an epidemiologist from Imperial College London, analysed the data of 356,000 British and Norwegian people. Noise considerably increased the risk of cardiovascular disease; the impact was stronger than the effects of smog, for example. Francesca Dominici from the Harvard School of Public Health came to similar conclusions when she took a good look at the data of over six million Americans (aged 65 years and older) who lived in the vicinity of 89 airports. The results of her research published in 2013 in The BMJ show that an increase in noise intensity of 10 decibels translates into an increased (on average 3.5%) number of patients with cardiovascular diseases: heart attacks, cardiac dysrhythmia or ischaemic heart disease. Why does that happen?
"Noise causes stress. For our ancestors, it meant danger: thunder, animal roars, war cries, triggering a 'fight or run' reaction," explains Bart Kosko, a professor of electrical engineering from the University of Southern California and the author of Noise, published in 2006. And although modern noise, such as the sound of cars on the streets, does not usually pose a threat, our body reacts to it by secreting stress hormones, adrenaline and cortisol, leading in turn to higher blood pressure, higher pulse rates, increased glucose levels in the blood and increased lipid metabolism; excessive lipid levels can build up in the blood vessels.
Add to that sleep disorders. "Our auditory system has a watchman function. It's constantly monitoring our environment for threats even while we're sleeping. [...] However we are often not aware of this noise and our sleep disturbances because we are unconscious while we're sleeping. In the past we've done studies on the effects of traffic noise on sleep, and research subjects would often wake up in the morning and say, 'I had a wonderful night, I fell asleep right away, never really woke up.' When we would then go back to the physiological signals we had recorded during the night, we would often see numerous awakenings and a severely fragmented sleep structure. These awakenings were too brief for the subjects to regain consciousness and to remember them the next morning, but they may nevertheless have a profound impact on how restful our sleep is," noted Mathias Basner from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine during his presentation at TEDMed in 2018. He has been researching the effects of noise on sleep for years, he is also an advisor of the WHO and President of the International Commission of Biological Effects of Noise (ICBEN). Poor quality of sleep disrupts not only circulation, but also metabolism, which increases the probability of the onset of type 2 diabetes, as confirmed by Swiss studies involving the participation of over 2500 people. The risk of the onset of depression also increases considerably, as much as 25%. Recent research conducted by the National University in Seoul showed that poor sleep may also increase the risk of infertility in men.
Be quieter in school and at work!
The sound of the school bell can hardly be heard over the whirring of power drills and rattling of hammers. The primary school in our village is going through a new phase of construction, as it needs to be expanded due to the latest educational reform and the need to provide room for Year 7 and Year 8 pupils. The operation is being performed on a live organism, during the school year. Nobody seems to have given any thought to issues like constant headaches, lack of concentration or lack of motivation for learning. It's strange, because back in the 1970s, Arline Bronzhaft, a professor in environmental psychology, had already looked into the matter. "One of my students at Lehman College was complaining that at the elementary school his child was attending it was so loud that children were not able to study," the researcher mentions in a recently published book by David Owen, Volume Control: Hearing in a Deafening World. Passing next to Public School 98 in northern Manhattan was an elevated subway line. Some parents were thinking of suing the city, but Bronzhaft convinced them that they needed proof that the noise was in fact harmful to their children. She compared three years of test results of pupils who were in classrooms located right next to the line with the results of pupils who were studying in the quieter parts of the school. On average, the first group had an 11-month delay in terms of its level of knowledge when compared to the second group. Bronzhaft's research not only ignited a heated discussion in scientific circles, but also forced city authorities to sound-proof the ceilings in the school, while special rubber pads were installed between the rails and the tracks (the solution was later introduced on all New York subway lines). The tests were repeated six years later and showed that eliminating the noise helped the pupils even out the results. The level of noise at school as well as at home has an influence on the development of children. Studies conducted at Cornell University show that children growing up in a noisy environment are significantly more often subject to development problems and have to deal with disorders like dysgraphia, are slower learners, understand less from a text they've read, or find it more difficult to remember new information.
Problems with concentration, nervousness, or even aggression affect adults as well, both at home and at work. The sectors that are most exposed to noise naturally include construction, mining and entertainment, but the issue also troubles people working in the increasingly more common open space offices. Based on tests conducted on urine samples, Gary Evans, a psychologist from Cornell University, determined that open space employees had an increased level of the stress hormone, adrenaline. Their motivation to work was also weaker when compared to people working in small, yet separate rooms. Vinesh Oommen from the Australian Queensland University of Technology believes that in open spaces, we are "confronted with a number of issues, such as the lack of privacy or the flood of stimuli, which in turn lead to health issues, reduced productivity and a low level of job satisfaction." Even a regular conversation between two colleagues at adjacent desks can significantly reduce concentration.
Why doesn't the whale sing?
Noise also has a negative effect on plants and animals. The first discoveries confirming this hypothesis were made accidentally by researchers who were measuring the level of stress hormones in whale stool samples in the Bay of Fundy on the coast of Canada. They found that the level of the hormone drastically fell in September 2001, after which it grew again in a few months. The scientists, who were using hydrophones (microphones to receive sounds underwater) noticed that during that time the level of noise generated by ship traffic had significantly decreased, which was the effect of the September 11 terror attacks. The researchers decided to take a closer look at the effects of noise on marine life, and the results of their research showed that it is harmful to animals, disrupting their communication, foraging and reproduction. "Visibility underwater can reach ten metres, but sound spreads over hundreds of kilometres," explains Peter Tyack, an ecologist from The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on Cape Cod. The main source of noise are ships, but the greatest threat is posed by the so-called impulse sources used to search for crude oil. These sources generate a seismic wave underwater, and the signal can be detected by acoustic monitors even thousands of kilometres away. As Tyack's research shows, some animals react negatively even to the sound of a sonar. "Whales stop foraging then, leave the given area and don't return for many days. The sound of the sonar scares them away, even if they are swimming a kilometre deeper than the source of the sound," Tyack explains in his book, Volume Control. Sometimes the sound causes the animal to have a panic attack and suddenly rise to the surface, where it dies from decompression sickness. Impulse sources also kill zooplankton which is food for many marine creatures. Robert McCauley from Curtin University in Perth, Australia took plankton samples before and after a seismic wave was 'triggered'; after the wave was emitted, the abundance of plankton fell by 60% and the number of dead species doubled. Certain animals, like turtles, which react to noise by hiding in their shells, stop to seek shelter in the shells due to the increased frequency of that stimulus; as a consequence, they fall prey to predators more often.
Noise also disrupts the reproduction process in marine mammals. Researchers observing humpback whales near the Japanese island of Ogasawara noticed that in response to noise from ships, males change their mating songs or stop singing altogether. At a distance of 500 metres from the route that ships often sail on, the number of humpback whales was significantly less, while at a distance of 1.2 kilometres from the wake, whales either sing less often or not at all. The whales that stop singing don't start again until at least half an hour has passed after the ship sailed by, according to the article published in PLOS ONE magazine.
And the robin went silent too...
Noise is also harmful to animals on land: the most common source here are roads, production plants, or logging locations near animal habitats. Yet it's not only noise that is a threat to the animals; excessive intensity of artificial light or air pollution are also culprits here. How can we check to what degree noise specifically is harmful to them? Pondering that question was Jesse Barber from Boise State University in Idaho. In 2012, together with his team, he built a half-kilometre stretch of phantom road in Glacier National Park. Speakers mounted on the trunks of fir trees emitted traffic noise. Although the sounds were not deafening (an average inhabitant of a large city would find it to be a delicate hum), the effect they had was dramatic. The number of migrating birds fell by 28% during emission, while certain species completely left the area. Those who stayed suffered; the MacGillivray's warblers did not gain weight like they should have, and they need a supply of fat to migrate successfully. Other research confirmed the observations of Barber's team. Gareth Arnott from Queen's University Belfast demonstrated that noise drowns out the singing of European robins. "In effect, the robins obtain incomplete information regarding the intentions of other birds and their reactions are sometimes inadequate to the situation. In certain cases, the males fight more ferociously, while in others they resign from fighting early on," the researcher says. Noise also disrupts the functioning of bats, which use echolocation to navigate and look for food.
"Noise has a cascade effect on entire ecosystems; it disrupts the functioning of not only animals, but plants as well," Rachel Buxton, a biologist from Colorado State University explains. Insects become more aggressive under the influence of noise; for example, beetles start to attack each other. Bumblebees pollinate plants less frequently; as a result, these plants give lower yield.
Let's make some noise about noise
"The sounds you hear when you walk through the woods, the bustling river, tree branches swaying in the wind or the singing of birds make even us, people, feel better. They are important for our physical and emotional welfare. We should protect them," Buxton argues. But how can we do that? In accordance with EU guidelines (based in turn on WHO recommendations), we should not be subject to noise levels that are a threat to health or quality of life: "At no point in time may exposure to noise exceed 85 dB, and the permissible level of noise in built-up areas during the day should be 60 dB (during the night – 50 dB)." Unfortunately though, things look rather bleak when it comes to implementing these guidelines. The Polish National Inspectorate of Environmental Protection evaluates "facilities that are especially damaging to the environment" and also creates "acoustic maps of areas surrounding airports and entire localities".
The most popular solution is to install acoustic barriers along roads or railroad lines which, as many local residents complain, distort the landscape (accessing the road is also often more difficult). Solutions such as hiding traffic in tunnels are not applied due to their high cost. "The negative impact on health due to noise is not easy to observe on one's own, making it difficult to encourage politicians and citizens to stand up and fight against it. It seems that proposing alternative solutions is key here; in many situations, noise is not inevitable, even if any change in the technologies used and change of habits could be associated with cost at the beginning," Agata Stasik argues.
The so-called third sector, or non-governmental organizations, are introducing effective solutions. In the US, one of the more thriving organizations is The Quiet Coalition (one of its co-founders is Arline Bronzhaft), which is trying to make the authorities realize how negative the effect of noise is on health, work and education. It also supported New York City authorities in creating new regulations regarding noise limits in the city (the so-called noise code), which became the benchmark for other American cities. "While in Poland we have thriving nationwide social movements battling smog, such as Polish Smog Alert (Polski Alarm Smogowy), organizations fighting for silence are usually active on a local level, such as the Quiet Sky over Warsaw association (Ciche Niebo nad Warszawą), which challenges users of Babice Airport in the city to comply with the law. As a result of the pressure exerted by activists, city authorities have announced that they will enforce compliance with noise level standards by users of airports," says Stasik. Yet a nationwide movement in Poland advocating silence is still lacking. Which is a shame, since as our experience with battling smog shows, it could be instrumental in increasing awareness of the issue and exerting pressure on authorities and the private sector. Such a movement would support the activities of citizen science; the idea would be to have citizens create their own noise maps using their smartphones and appropriate software (The Sounds of New York City does that, for example).
Noise pollution has a socio-economic dimension. In her book, The Soundscape of Modernity, Emily Thompson notes that quite often large cumbersome investments, such as production plants or airports, are located in poorer districts, because their residents do not have enough clout to protest against them. Wealthier citizens escape noise by settling in quieter and more expensive districts. "This is a pattern we can also observe in Poland," Stasik confirms.
Let's not forget that we can start the fight against noise with ourselves. "Very much like a carbon footprint, we all have a noise footprint, and there are things we can do to make that noise footprint smaller. For example, don't start mowing your lawn at 7am on a Saturday morning. Your neighbours will thank you. [...] Whenever you're looking to buy a new car, air-conditioning unit, blender, you name it, make low noise a priority," suggests Mathias Basner during his TEDMed presentation. The 'Quiet Mark' programme, active since 2012 and led by the UK Noise Abatement Society, has already started cooperation with over 70 key equipment manufacturers (including Electrolux, Bosch, Logitech and Samsung), ranging from home appliances to lawn mowers and computers. Agata Stasik is also urging us to change our transport habits: opt for a walk, go by bike or use public transport whenever possible.
Contrary to what we might expect, our individual actions can translate into improved social relations. Noise caused by annoying neighbours is, after all, the main reason for an increase in aggressive behaviour, or even violence. Every third person surveyed by Rockwool admitted that loud neighbours deprive us of sleep and cause nervousness and aggression. Nearly two million Brits claim that 'loud neighbours have made their life a nightmare'. Attempts to defuse the stress not only result in increasingly more complaints year after year, but such issues are often solved through the use of force, leading to serious bodily injuries and even the death of those participating in the dispute. So it's probably better to turn down that music.
As Mathias Basner concludes: "Robert Koch once said that one day humanity will fight with noise like it once did with cholera or the plague. It seems that we've reached this point and I hope we will win this fight. And when we win, we'll celebrate in silence."
Translated from the Polish by Mark Ordon.
The pandemic has many people questioning whether they ever want to go back to the office.
If one thing is clear about remote work, it's this: Many people prefer it and don't want their bosses to take it away.
When the pandemic forced office employees into lockdown and cut them off from spending in-person time with their colleagues, they almost immediately realized that they favor remote work over their traditional office routines and norms.
As remote workers of all ages contemplate their futures – and as some offices and schools start to reopen – many Americans are asking hard questions about whether they wish to return to their old lives, and what they're willing to sacrifice or endure in the years to come.
Even before the pandemic, there were people asking whether office life jibed with their aspirations.
We spent years studying “digital nomads" – workers who had left behind their homes, cities and most of their possessions to embark on what they call “location independent" lives. Our research taught us several important lessons about the conditions that push workers away from offices and major metropolitan areas, pulling them toward new lifestyles.
Legions of people now have the chance to reinvent their relationship to their work in much the same way.
Big-city bait and switch
Most digital nomads started out excited to work in career-track jobs for prestigious employers. Moving to cities like New York and London, they wanted to spend their free time meeting new people, going to museums and trying out new restaurants.
But then came the burnout.
Although these cities certainly host institutions that can inspire creativity and cultivate new relationships, digital nomads rarely had time to take advantage of them. Instead, high cost of living, time constraints and work demands contributed to an oppressive culture of materialism and workaholism.
Pauline, 28, who worked in advertising helping large corporate clients to develop brand identities through music, likened city life for professionals in her peer group to a “hamster wheel." (The names used in this article are pseudonyms, as required by research protocol.)
“The thing about New York is it's kind of like the battle of the busiest," she said. “It's like, 'Oh, you're so busy? No, I'm so busy.'"
Most of the digital nomads we studied had been lured into what urbanist Richard Florida termed “creative class" jobs – positions in design, tech, marketing and entertainment. They assumed this work would prove fulfilling enough to offset what they sacrificed in terms of time spent on social and creative pursuits.
Yet these digital nomads told us that their jobs were far less interesting and creative than they had been led to expect. Worse, their employers continued to demand that they be “all in" for work – and accept the controlling aspects of office life without providing the development, mentorship or meaningful work they felt they had been promised. As they looked to the future, they saw only more of the same.
Ellie, 33, a former business journalist who is now a freelance writer and entrepreneur, told us: “A lot of people don't have positive role models at work, so then it's sort of like 'Why am I climbing the ladder to try and get this job? This doesn't seem like a good way to spend the next twenty years.'"
By their late 20s to early 30s, digital nomads were actively researching ways to leave their career-track jobs in top-tier global cities.
Looking for a fresh start
Although they left some of the world's most glamorous cities, the digital nomads we studied were not homesteaders working from the wilderness; they needed access to the conveniences of contemporary life in order to be productive. Looking abroad, they quickly learned that places like Bali in Indonesia, and Chiang Mai in Thailand had the necessary infrastructure to support them at a fraction of the cost of their former lives.
With more and more companies now offering employees the choice to work remotely, there's no reason to think digital nomads have to travel to southeast Asia – or even leave the United States – to transform their work lives.
During the pandemic, some people have already migrated away from the nation's most expensive real estate markets to smaller cities and towns to be closer to nature or family. Many of these places still possess vibrant local cultures. As commutes to work disappear from daily life, such moves could leave remote workers with more available income and more free time.
The digital nomads we studied often used savings in time and money to try new things, like exploring side hustles. One recent study even found, somewhat paradoxically, that the sense of empowerment that came from embarking on a side hustle actually improved performance in workers' primary jobs.
The future of work, while not entirely remote, will undoubtedly offer more remote options to many more workers. Although some business leaders are still reluctant to accept their employees' desire to leave the office behind, local governments are embracing the trend, with several U.S. cities and states – along with countries around the world – developing plans to attract remote workers.
This migration, whether domestic or international, has the potential to enrich communities and cultivate more satisfying work lives.