Four-Day Workweek Wins Praise.

"Findings from one of the largest experiments with a four-day workweek offers new ballast for people hoping to adopt the same schedule: The longer people worked in new, more efficient ways, the shorter their workweeks became.

The results come from a series of four-day-workweek trials conducted in the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and Ireland over the past 18 months. Dozens of companies ranging from design agencies to manufacturers and nonprofits tested the four-day concept, an approach that is gaining traction as employers and employees rethink the traditional ways of work. Workers were given a paid day off a week but the same workload to see whether they could get as much done working more effectively.

After six months, workers said they had less burnout, improved health and more job satisfaction, and had cut their average work time by about four hours to 34 hours a week. Those who continued the schedule a full 12 months reduced working times even further, to about 33 hours a week, researchers say. Meanwhile, they continued to report better mental and physical health and work-life balance.

The idea of working less than the conventional 40 hours over five days a week has been kicked around for years but has found new momentum recently. Some employers and policy makers are exploring whether a four-day week can improve employee well-being and loyalty and help them compete for workers.

Up to now, most studies of four-day weeks examined the short-term effects. The new findings are the first that look across multiple companies over a longer, 12-month period. They suggest that businesses and employees both benefit in the long run as workers get accustomed to shorter weeks, companies and researchers say.

Most companies didn't ask workers to "speed up and cram five days of tasks into four," said Juliet Schor, an economist and sociologist at Boston College whose team helped conduct the study with the nonprofit advocacy group 4 Day Week Global. Instead, they reduced meetings and dedicated more time to uninterrupted focus work, she said.

Companies in the U.S. and Canada recently concluded a smaller pilot program of a four-day week led by the same researchers, and similar trials are in the works in Australia, Brazil and elsewhere. In a U.K. trial involving 61 British companies last year, the majority of the participants said they would stick with the four-day week after logging sharp drops in worker turnover and absenteeism while largely maintaining productivity.

The vast majority of jobs are likely to stick to the conventional five-day schedule for the foreseeable future. Most companies trying shorter weeks are small employers. And some workers in four-day experiments report struggling to get everything done in that time.

Jenise Uehara, chief executive and co-owner of Search Engine Journal, a digital marketing publication that participated in one of the U.S. trials, said she proposed moving to a four-day workweek last year. Some of the company's three dozen remote employees had become overwhelmed with the increase in work, and turnover was rising.

As part of the experiment, the company declared a "meeting bankruptcy," wiping all meetings from the calendar for a month, then thinking about which were really necessary.

Within six months, the company's turnover had dropped, productivity held up, and clients didn't notice the business had moved to a four-day week, Uehara said. The company plans to continue operating on the four-day week, with staff taking Fridays off." [1]

1. Business News: Four-Day Workweek Wins Praise. Fuhrmans, Vanessa. 
Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 27 July 2023: B.5.

Keturių dienų darbo savaitė laimi pagyrimų

   „Vieno didžiausių keturių dienų darbo savaitės eksperimentų išvados suteikia naują balastą žmonėms, kurie tikisi laikytis to paties grafiko: kuo ilgiau žmonės dirbo naujais, efektyvesniais būdais, tuo trumpėjo jų darbo savaitės.

 

     Rezultatai gauti iš keturių dienų darbo savaitės bandymų, atliktų JAV, Kanadoje, JK ir Airijoje per pastaruosius 18 mėnesių. Dešimtys įmonių, nuo projektavimo agentūrų iki gamintojų ir ne pelno organizacijų, išbandė keturių dienų koncepciją – požiūris įgauna populiarumą darbdaviams ir darbuotojams permąstant tradicinius darbo būdus. Darbuotojams buvo suteikiama apmokama poilsio diena per savaitę, bet toks pat darbo krūvis, siekiant išsiaiškinti, ar jie gali efektyviau nuveikti tiek pat darbo.

 

     Po šešių mėnesių darbuotojai teigė, kad jų perdegimas sumažėjo, pagerėjo sveikata ir pasitenkinimas darbu, o vidutinis darbo laikas sutrumpėjo maždaug keturiomis valandomis iki 34 valandų per savaitę. Tie, kurie tęsė grafiką ištisus 12 mėnesių, dar labiau sutrumpino darbo laiką iki maždaug 33 valandų per savaitę, teigia mokslininkai. Tuo tarpu jie ir toliau pranešė apie geresnę psichinę ir fizinę sveikatą bei darbo ir asmeninio gyvenimo pusiausvyrą.

 

     Idėja dirbti mažiau, nei įprasta 40 valandų per penkias dienas per savaitę buvo kurstoma daugelį metų, tačiau pastaruoju metu ji įgavo naują pagreitį. Kai kurie darbdaviai ir politikos formuotojai tiria, ar keturių dienų savaitė gali pagerinti darbuotojų gerovę ir lojalumą bei padėti jiems konkuruoti dėl darbuotojų.

 

     Iki šiol dauguma keturių dienų savaičių tyrimų nagrinėjo trumpalaikį poveikį. Naujos išvados yra pirmosios, kurios apžvelgiamos keliose įmonėse per ilgesnį, 12 mėnesių laikotarpį. Jie teigia, kad įmonės ir darbuotojai ilgainiui turi naudos, nes darbuotojai pripranta prie trumpesnių savaičių, teigia įmonės ir mokslininkai.

 

     Dauguma įmonių neprašė darbuotojų „paspartinti ir suskirstyti penkias dienas užduotis į keturias“, – sakė Bostono koledžo ekonomistė ir sociologė Juliet Schor, kurios komanda padėjo atlikti tyrimą su ne pelno siekiančia advokacijos grupe „4 Day Week Global“. Vietoj to jie sumažino susitikimų skaičių ir daugiau laiko skyrė nepertraukiamam dėmesio darbui, sakė ji.

 

     JAV ir Kanados įmonės neseniai baigė mažesnę bandomąją keturių dienų savaitės programą, kuriai vadovavo tie patys mokslininkai, o panašūs bandymai atliekami Australijoje, Brazilijoje ir kitur. Praėjusiais metais JK tyrime, kuriame dalyvavo 61 Didžiosios Britanijos įmonė, dauguma dalyvių teigė, kad laikysis keturių dienų savaitės po to, kai užfiksavo staigų darbuotojų kaitos ir pravaikštų sumažėjimą, tačiau iš esmės išlaikys produktyvumą.

 

     Tikėtina, kad artimiausioje ateityje didžioji dauguma darbų laikysis įprasto penkių dienų grafiko. Dauguma įmonių, bandančių sutrumpinti savaites, yra smulkūs darbdaviai. Kai kurie keturias dienas trukusių eksperimentų darbuotojai pranešė, kad per tą laiką sunkiai stengiasi viską padaryti.

 

     Jenise Uehara, skaitmeninės rinkodaros leidinio „Search Engine Journal“, dalyvavusio viename iš JAV bandymų, vadovė ir bendrasavininkė, sakė, kad praėjusiais metais pasiūlė pereiti prie keturių dienų darbo savaitės. Kai kurie iš trijų dešimčių bendrovės darbuotojų, dirbančių nuotoliniu būdu, buvo priblokšti dėl darbo padidėjimo, o kaita augo.

 

     Vykdydama eksperimentą bendrovė paskelbė „susirinkimo bankrotą“, mėnesiui išbraukdama iš kalendoriaus visus susitikimus, tada pagalvodama, kurie iš tikrųjų buvo reikalingi.

 

     Per šešis mėnesius bendrovės kadrų apyvarta sumažėjo, produktyvumas išaugo, o klientai nepastebėjo, kad verslas perėjo į keturių dienų savaitę, sakė Uehara. Bendrovė planuoja ir toliau dirbti keturių dienų savaitę, o darbuotojai penktadieniais neateis į darbą." [1]

1. Business News: Four-Day Workweek Wins Praise. Fuhrmans, Vanessa. 
Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 27 July 2023: B.5.

Very Hot, Polluted Days Raise Heart-Attack Risk.

"Extreme heat and air pollution can be dangerous for the heart. Enduring both at the same time can be especially deadly, new research shows.

The risk of having a fatal heart attack doubles during heat waves that last several days and overlap with periods of poor air quality, according to an analysis of heart-attack deaths published Monday in the journal Circulation.

On their own, higher-than-normal temperatures or air pollution increased the risk of deadly heart attacks, showed the analysis of more than 200,000 heart-attack fatalities between 2015 and 2020 in the Chinese province of Jiangsu. But when both occurred simultaneously, they were found to amplify each other's effects.

High temperatures and polluted air have been linked in studies to both short-term and chronic health problems, including heart and kidney disease, and cognitive issues. Older people, smokers and people with heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes or other conditions are especially vulnerable.

For the recent analysis, researchers in China and the U.S. used a statistical technique to uncover possible links between the incidence of fatal heart attacks in Jiangsu and hotter- or colder-than-average temperatures, as well as poor air quality. Air quality was considered poor when concentrations of fine particulate matter, a type of pollutant, exceeded a 24-hour average of 37.5 micrograms per cubic meter of air. Fine particulate matter, also known as PM2.5, is defined as particles that are 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter.

Risk of a deadly heart attack increased the higher the heat and the more prolonged it was, the study found. Two consecutive days of temperatures at around 100 degrees Fahrenheit increased the risk of fatal heart attack by 30%, researchers said. Four days in a row of similar heat increased the risk by 50%.

Exposure to high levels of PM2.5 on its own was associated with a 2% increased risk of deadly heart attacks, the study said. When high-heat days coincided with poor air quality, the risk shot up significantly. Two days in a row of 100-degree heat, plus polluted air, was associated with an 84% increased risk. Four consecutive days of similar heat and pollution doubled the risk, the paper showed.

Very cold temperatures also enhanced the risk of fatal heart attacks, the analysis said, though slightly less than very warm days." [1]

1. U.S. News: Very Hot, Polluted Days Raise Heart-Attack Risk. Mosbergen, Dominique. 
Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 25 July 2023: A.3.

 

Labai karštos, užterštos dienos padidina širdies priepuolio riziką

   „Itin didelis karštis ir oro tarša gali būti pavojinga širdžiai. Ištverti abu tuo pačiu metu gali būti ypač mirtina, rodo nauji tyrimai.

 

     Remiantis pirmadienį žurnale Circulation paskelbta mirčių nuo širdies priepuolio analize, mirtino širdies priepuolio rizika padvigubėja per karščio bangas, kurios trunka keletą dienų ir sutampa su prastos oro kokybės laikotarpiais.

 

     Iš esmės aukštesnė nei įprasta temperatūra arba oro tarša padidino mirtinų širdies priepuolių riziką, parodė daugiau, nei 200 000 mirčių nuo širdies smūgio 2015–2020 m. Kinijos Dziangsu provincijoje. Tačiau kai abu pasireiškė vienu metu, buvo nustatyta, kad jie sustiprina vienas kito poveikį.

 

     Aukšta temperatūra ir užterštas oras tyrimais buvo siejami su trumpalaikėmis ir lėtinėmis sveikatos problemomis, įskaitant širdies ir inkstų ligas bei pažinimo problemas. Ypač pažeidžiami yra vyresnio amžiaus žmonės, rūkaliai ir žmonės, sergantys širdies ligomis, aukštu kraujospūdžiu, diabetu ar kitomis ligomis.

 

     Neseniai atliktai analizei Kinijos ir JAV mokslininkai naudojo statistinę techniką, kad atskleistų galimus ryšius tarp mirtinų širdies priepuolių Dziangsu mieste ir aukštesnės ar žemesnės, nei vidutinės temperatūros, taip pat prastos oro kokybės. Oro kokybė buvo laikoma prasta, kai smulkių kietųjų dalelių, tam tikros rūšies teršalų, koncentracija viršijo 24 valandų vidurkį – 37,5 mikrogramų viename kubiniame metre oro.

 

 Smulkios kietosios dalelės, taip pat žinomos, kaip PM2,5, apibrėžiamos, kaip dalelės, kurių skersmuo yra 2,5 mikrometro arba mažesnis.

 

     Tyrime nustatyta, kad mirtino širdies priepuolio rizika didėja, kuo karštis didesnis ir ilgesnis. Dvi dienas iš eilės esant maždaug 100 laipsnių pagal Farenheitą temperatūrai, mirtino širdies priepuolio rizika padidėjo 30%, teigia mokslininkai. Keturios panašios karščio dienos iš eilės padidino riziką 50%.

 

     Tyrime teigiama, kad vien tik didelis PM2,5 kiekis buvo susijęs su 2% padidėjusia mirtinų širdies priepuolių rizika. Kai karščių dienos sutapo su prasta oro kokybe, rizika gerokai išaugo. Dvi dienas iš eilės 100 laipsnių karštis ir užterštas oras buvo susijęs su 84% padidėjusia rizika. Straipsnyje teigiama, kad keturios iš eilės panašių karščių ir taršos dienos rizika padvigubėjo.

 

     Analizėje teigiama, kad labai šalta temperatūra taip pat padidino mirtinų širdies priepuolių riziką, nors šiek tiek mažiau, nei labai šiltomis dienomis." [1]

1. U.S. News: Very Hot, Polluted Days Raise Heart-Attack Risk. Mosbergen, Dominique. 
Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 25 July 2023: A.3.

The Covid Lab-Leak Deception.

"The controversy over the origins of Covid-19 refuses to die, despite efforts early in the pandemic to kill it. It was natural to doubt it was a coincidence that an outbreak caused by a SARS-like coronavirus from bats began in Wuhan, China, the only city where risky experiments were being done on diverse and novel SARS-like coronaviruses from bats. The Chinese Communist Party did its utmost to dismiss such suspicions, but so did a group of influential Western scientists.

On March 17, 2020, the journal Nature Medicine published a paper by five scientists, "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2," that dismissed "any type of laboratory based scenario" for the origin of the pandemic. It was cited by thousands of news outlets to claim that the virus emerged naturally. But Slack messages and emails subpoenaed and released by the House Oversight Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic suggest that some of the authors didn't believe their own conclusions. Before, during and even after the publication of their paper, they worried privately that Covid-19 was caused by a laboratory escape, perhaps even of a genetically engineered virus.

The lead author, evolutionary biologist Kristian Andersen of the Scripps Institution, told the journal's chief editor, Joao Monteiro, that he would edit the paper "to make clearer that this [virus] does have a natural origin" (emphasis in original). The paper stated boldly: "Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus."

Shortly after publication, Francis Collins, then director of the National Institutes of Health, wrote on the NIH website that "this study leaves little room to refute a natural origin for COVID-19." Anthony Fauci, then director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, said from the podium of the White House that the paper showed that the data were "totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human." In private, the authors celebrated the traction their paper was gaining despite angry emails from the public. "We RUUUUUUULE. That's tenure secured, right there," Mr. Andersen wrote.

The mainstream media frequently cited the paper in ridiculing any discussion of a lab leak as a conspiracy theory favored by racists and right-wing extremists. Facebook censored the topic for a year. Yet now the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Energy Department -- the U.S. intelligence agencies with the strongest scientific expertise -- have assessed that the pandemic likely had a research-related origin.

Mr. Andersen's messages confirm that senior scientists who controlled the purse strings of large funding bodies prompted them to draft the paper after a conference call on Feb. 1, 2020. They were Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins and Jeremy Farrar of the Wellcome Trust. Shortly before their paper went public, evolutionary biologist and virologist Edward Holmes of Sydney University reported to his fellow authors that "Jeremy Farrar and Francis Collins are very happy" with the final draft. Two of the authors wrote in private messages that they had rushed their paper out under pressure from unidentified "higher-ups." The role of these senior scientists went unacknowledged in the paper.

When asked at a July 11 subcommittee hearing -- before the latest release of messages -- about the contrast between their public and private opinions, one of the authors, virologist Robert Garry of Tulane University, replied: "I was doing what scientists often do, and that is take a devil's advocate position." Mr. Andersen said that changing your mind in the light of new evidence "is simply the scientific process."

Yet the newly revealed messages show that the scientists didn't change their minds. They continued to advocate privately for the devil even after a preliminary version of the paper went online on Feb. 16, 2020. On Feb. 20, Mr. Andersen wrote to an editor at Nature (which was offered the paper first but passed it to Nature Medicine) that new data from pangolins didn't help refute a lab origin, adding that "we all really, really wish that we could do that (that's how this got started), but unfortunately it's just not possible given the data." Another author, evolutionary biologist Andrew Rambaut of Edinburgh University, wrote: "I literally swivel day by day thinking it is a lab escape or natural."

On April 16, a month after publication, Mr. Andersen wrote that "I'm still not fully convinced that no culture was involved" and "we also can't fully rule out engineering" -- i.e., that the virus not only was released from the lab but had been genetically manipulated there. He worried about the Wuhan lab's research on live SARS-like viruses from bats at low biosafety levels: "it's definitely concerning work, no question about it."

So why did they publish a paper denying that laboratory origin was plausible? The answer may lie in their messages. In early February 2020, Mr. Rambaut wrote: "Given the s--- show that would happen if anyone serious accused the Chinese of even accidental release, my feeling is we should say that given there is no evidence of a specifically engineered virus, we cannot possibly distinguish between natural evolution and escape so we are content to ascribing it to natural processes."

Mr. Andersen replied: "I totally agree that that's a very reasonable conclusion. Although I hate when politics is injected into science -- but it's impossible not to." On Feb. 19, the group became aware that Mr. Farrar had signed a public letter in the Lancet "to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin."

To adjust the conclusions in a scientific paper for political reasons isn't part of the scientific process. The world was misled with serious consequences. If experts hadn't shut down the rational possibility of a laboratory origin of Covid-19, a credible investigation might have taken place (it still has not), the World Health Organization might not have taken Chinese government assurances at face value, and governments might have done more to detect and deter laboratory-based outbreaks in the future.

---

Mr. Ridley and Ms. Chan are the authors of "Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19."" [1]

1.  The Covid Lab-Leak Deception. Ridley, Matt; Chan, Alina. 
Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 27 July 2023: A.17.