It's good business, though. They want you to click on another link or ad on their site. If they even shared identifying information of the authors, you're more likely to go to google and search for it.
These associations showed a general pattern of higher hazard ratios with higher noise exposure, but with a levelling off or even small declines in risk at higher noise levels
I wouldn't be surprised further study will show the last bit is due to earplugs at higher noise levels, resulting in a relative reduction in sleep disruption. Unless they also took earplug use into account already, then I'm genuinely curious what could be the reason
Comments
This looks to be the study.
It's odd that the Guardian neither links to it, nor even names the researchers or their institution.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1954
I loathe this every time when I have to fish and dig for the actual study that is being reported on in any media. To me that is bad journalism.
It's good business, though. They want you to click on another link or ad on their site. If they even shared identifying information of the authors, you're more likely to go to google and search for it.
Worse, it can take several hours to thoroughly study a research paper. That's hundreds of cheap articles whose ads you didn't see.
Huh. Of course. Hoarding the attention budget. Great framing, thanks.
This is a misalignment of incentives. They want to click bait you to watching ads, you just want unbiased information.
I wouldn't be surprised further study will show the last bit is due to earplugs at higher noise levels, resulting in a relative reduction in sleep disruption. Unless they also took earplug use into account already, then I'm genuinely curious what could be the reason
Along the same lines, it could be due to people having windows open or closed at night.
as usual they either want to control the narrative or think their audience is too stupid to read