TO WARN OR NOT TO WARN, THAT IS THE SAFETY QUESTION
The coronavirus story, to date, has been a warnings story the likes of which I have never seen before in my 43-year career as a warnings expert. On a good day, most warnings professionals would do cartwheels if we got 20-30% compliance with safety warnings. In fact, the literature in my field has overwhelmingly concluded that most warnings fail to get either the attention of or compliance by their intended audiences. Certainly, we have discovered key demographic differences over the years as to which groups are more likely
to follow warnings (e.g., older people, women, people who are more risk aversive, people with low familiarity with a product or situation, people who perceive warning compliance to be of low cost in terms of their time, dollars or ego and/or perceive a product or situation to be hazardous) and those less likely
to follow warnings (e.g., teens and young 20-year olds, males, people with a high school degree or less, risk-takers, people familiar with products or situations, perceive a high cost to comply or fail to perceive a product or situation as hazardous). But, in general, as a society, we tend to pick and choose our own poison, and more often than not, while most of us don't drink bleach or lysol, we do tend to err on the side of either not perceiving or ignoring warnings, or both.
But, as the vernacular seems to go, this time feels different....or at least, it did for a while. Before Memorial Day and despite the politicizing of the coronavirus by The White House, the American public, in overwhelming numbers, voted with their voices, masks and feet to follow health and safety guidelines provided by national folk hero, Anthony Fauci and select truth-telling Governors, led by Andrew Cuomo and Mike DeWine. If the polls were accurate, between 75-90% of the public believe that face masks and coverings, along with social distance practices would help protect them from getting infected by the coronavirus. And most either always or most of the time follow their beliefs. And the best available research, readily available from the CDC, confirms the public's opinion and beliefs. A recent issue of the prestigious medical journal, Lancet, published a study by Dr. Derek Chu and his colleagues which concluded that maintaining social distance of 6 feet or more reduced the chance of virus transmission to less than 2%. They further concluded that wearing a face covering or even a paper surgical mask can be 75-80% effective in preventing transmission. Of course, the best safety triad involves keeping socially distant, wearing a mask or face covering and frequently washing or disinfecting your hands. Until Memorial Day, most Americans got it!
And then, the perfect storm hit. The sun came out, many politicians eagerly pushed the economy to the front of the line while drowning out the scientists, and the protests began. False prophets, interested only in their own profits, offered promises of instant and even dangerous cures (hydroxychloroquine with a shot of lysol), warp speed vaccines, viruses that would magically fade away into the summer heat, coupled with clarion calls to protest any state whose governor had the nerve to put safety over short-term economic gain. In some states, mostly in the South and Southwest, scientists and doctors, the arbiters of truth and protectors of our very lives, were demonized and even threatened, while weak politicians led by selfish, uninformed voices from Washington encouraged people to ignore the very safety warnings that had protected our populace through Memorial Day. And who is ignoring the warnings, especially in those regions I referred to above? The very same people that my research and others have predicted and wrote about in our studies for the last 40 years: younger people, males, people with a high school degree or less, people who incorrectly think they are familiar with the virus and are convinced that the virus isn't as hazardous as first believed (dare I say, "fake news?") and who think the cost to comply (keep wearing masks and keeping social distance) is just too high a price to pay for their ego and masculinity to endure, even at the risk to their own health and that of their loved ones.
If the demographics of those most likely ignoring safety warnings about the coronavirus sound familiar to you, I doubt it's from reading the warnings scientific literature. It's because they are almost the same demographics that pollsters have consistently described as our current President's "political base". As a warnings expert who has worked for over 43 years to prevent injuries and protect lives, I find it unconscionable, even obscene, that our President is not only ignoring the warnings from our health and scientific authorities (most obviously by refusing to role model for all of us, the need to wear a mask, especially when social distancing is challenging), but he is encouraging, even applauding a large segment of our population to engage in behaviors that are highly risky and could lead to serious health consequences or even death. Just as the pied piper led throngs of eager children expecting a cheery and fun outcome, only to be horrified by the kidnapper-in-disguise, so does it seem that our President, through his magical and ignorant thinking and false prophecies, is leading his poorly informed and eager "baseniks" over a cliff that might seriously injure or even kill many of them.
Our nation is at a turning point with regards to the coronavirus. We have to decide whether to follow the warnings or not. As Governors Cuomo and DeWine have shown us, it is not a false choice between being safe and being gainfully employed. We can be both and, in many states, my own included (New York), we are following the scientific data and heeding the warnings, while we cautiously but steadily regain our economy. Our loved ones, especially our parents and grandparents, will thank us for listening to and following the warnings.

Recent budget cuts at the Health and Safety Science Services (HSSS) have sent shockwaves through the scientific and public health communities, threatening the very infrastructure designed to protect us from disease outbreaks, food contamination, and medical crises. These cuts have affected food inspectors, vaccine scientists, Alzheimer’s researchers, and experts studying bird flu, among others—positions that are essential to ensuring public safety and advancing critical medical research. The consequences of these decisions will be dire, potentially reversing years of progress and exposing society to increased health risks.

As Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) pushes for sweeping reforms and cost-cutting across federal agencies, concerns are mounting over the impact on critical public safety roles. Among the most alarming areas affected is the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), where staff reductions may threaten the lives of millions of air travelers. The DGE, established with a mandate to streamline government operations and reduce bureaucratic waste, has come under fire for its aggressive downsizing tactics. Critics warn that essential safety personnel, including air traffic controllers, are being cut under the guise of efficiency, leaving the nation's airspace dangerously understaffed.

Biden Administration former Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, on his way out of office, issued a Surgeon General's Advisory calling for new warnings on alcoholic beverages related to the cancer risk from consuming alcoholic beverages. Given that most individuals are unaware of the connection that consumption of alcoholic beverages can increase the risk for at least seven types of cancer, Murthy said in his advisory: "Given the conclusive evidence on the cancer risk from alcohol consumption and the Office of the Surgeon General's responsibility to inform the American public of the best available scientific evidence, the Surgeon General recommends an update to the Surgeon General's warning label for alcohol-containing beverages to include a cancer risk warning."

In my best-selling book, Murder, Inc.: How Unregulated Industry Kills or Injures Thousands of Americans Every Year...And What You Can Do About It , I propose a safety triad consisting of three components: manufacturers, regulators and consumers. All three must function properly in order to keep us safe. Manufacturers must produce and market safe (or safe as possible) products and warn us about any potential hazards so that we can make informed choices about whether or not to purchase their product and/or how to use it safely. Regulators , by imposing and implementing necessary rules and regulations, should hold manufacturers accountable for the above stated actions and to endure that they engage in "principled disclosure" by warning us about any potential hazards and dangers associated with their products. And, finally, Consumers , especially in the absence of well-meaning manufacturers or competent, well-intentioned regulators, must be highly diligent by researching products and learning about potential hazards prior to buying and/or using them. All three, manufacturers, regulators and consumers, must perform their jobs or the safety triad may fail to protect us and our loved ones. Think of a three-legged stool that distributes the weight of a person sitting on the stool, equally among the three legs. But what would happen if we leaned heavily to one side of the stool, essentially spreading the weight that was once borne by three legs to the two legs remaining braced to the floor. Unfortunately the third leg is no longer contributing to the stability of the stool, which may actually collapse because the two remaining legs may not be able to handle the amount of weight that was intended to be equally distributed among all three legs.

If you are one of the millions of Americans who recently purchased one of several Boar's Head Deli Products, you may have bought a product containing deadly listeria bacteria. At least nine people have died and 57 have been hospitalized from a listeria outbreak linked to deli meat, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In late July, Boar’s Head, a deli meat and cheese company, expanded a previously announced recall to include at least 7 million pounds of deli products the company says may have been contaminated by listeria amid a nationwide outbreak. The recall spans 71 products and includes meat meant to be sliced at retail delis along with prepackaged meat and poultry products sold at retail locations, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

In my best-selling book, Murder, Inc.: How Unregulated Industry Kills or Injures Thousands of Americans Every Year...And What You Can Do About It (Hartford, Ct.:PYP Press, 2020), I discuss the need for "principled disclosure" from corporations about potential hazards that could hurt or kill us. I also discuss the role we as consumers play by seeking information about those hazards and finally, the role various regulatory agencies must play to initiate and enforce meaningful regulations on industry so that they do, indeed, engage in "principled disclosure" (i.e., tell the truth). In order to carry out its mandate, any regulatory agency or department charged with the responsibility of protecting the general public or consumers or workers and so on, must be empowered to both set the safety and hazard warnings rules and take aggressive, impactful action when they are not followed. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark 6-3 vote last month, overturned a 60-year old decision, colloquially known as "Chevron", which has the potential to undermine our government's regulatory agencies' ability to hold corporations accountable. What is the Chevron Decision and how could it impact your safety and well-being? In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court ruled against energy giant, Chevron, who challenged the Clean-Air Act, and instructed lower courts to defer to federal agencies when laws passed by Congress are not crystal clear. The 40-year-old decision has been the basis for upholding thousands of regulations by dozens of federal agencies, but has long been a target of conservatives and business groups who argue that it grants too much power to the executive branch, or what some critics call the administrative state. In the decades following the ruling, Chevron has been a bedrock of modern administrative law, requiring judges to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of congressional statutes. But the current high court, with a 6-3 conservative majority has been increasingly skeptical of the powers of federal agencies. With a closely divided Congress, presidential administrations have increasingly turned to federal regulation to implement policy changes. Federal rules impact virtually every aspect of everyday life, from the food we eat and the cars we drive to the air we breathe and homes we live in. For example, the Biden administration has issued a whole host of new regulations on the environment, including restrictions from emissions at power plants and from vehicle tailpipes. Those actions and others could be opened up to legal challenges if judges are allowed to discount or disregard the expertise of the executive-branch agencies that put them into place. When you consider who was advocating for the overturn of Chevron, it does not bode well for consumers and their safety: groups representing the gun industry and other businesses such as tobacco, agriculture, timber and homebuilding, were among those pressing the justices to overturn the Chevron doctrine and weaken government regulation. Can you imagine the FDA being defanged by Chevron-influenced lawsuits to the point where tobacco could sell their products to teens or resume advertising on television, a practice banned by Congress since 1970. Or imagine OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) regulations being stripped away that protect worker safety? Or a CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) challenged on its stringent toy regulations that are aimed at infant choking hazards? Or a Department of Agriculture no longer able to inspect meat with the rigor that industry now faces? Or a NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) no longer able to regulate the safety of our automobiles, especially now as we address the feasibility and safety of self-driving vehicles?

CNN recently featured its medical expert, neurologist Sanjay Gupta, narrating a very thorough documentary entitled "The Last Alzheimer's Patient" which, over a 5 year period, collected data on the latest research related to dementia, highlighting advances in new medications as well as in lifestyle changes, both of which offer promising developments that may, in some cases, reverse or, at least stop the advance of Alzheimer's, the most common form of dementia. What is Alzheimer's Disease (AD)? According to the Yale School of Medicine, AD "is a progressive disorder that damages and destroys nerve cells in the brain. Over time, the disease leads to a gradual loss of cognitive functions, including the ability to remember, reason, use language, and recognize familiar places. It can also cause a range of behavioral changes."