All posts by medical

The Weird and Wild Anatomy of the Netflix Original Sitcom – Paste Magazine

For the most part, the original sitcoms Netflix has been churning out in the years since Fuller House made its splashy streaming debut will feel familiar to anyone whos turned on a television even once since I Love Lucy took its final bow.

Half-hour multicam format? Check. Bright, flat lighting? Check. Live studio audience (and/or laugh track)? Check (and/or check). Throw in some nostalgic stunt-casting here (hello, TV teens of the 90s!), a genuine Sitcom Hall of Famer there (thats Mr. Norman Lear to you), and enough corny jokes to give Mitchells famous cereal grain palace a run for its money, and youve got all the ingredients necessary for traditional sitcom greatness.

And yet, while its absolutely true that many Netflix sitcoms are greata few, even, rising to the level of excellentwhat almost none of them are, as a rule, is traditional. And how could they be? Just as the streamers rules-be-damned, flood-the-market production model has disrupted well-worn trends across the board (fully upending, in the process, how people even talk about TV), so too has it redefined not just what a modern multicam sitcom can do, but how it can go about doing it.

In the earliest days of the Netflix sitcom (e.g., like, 2016), this rule-breaking wasnt always easy to parse. On the one hand, you had things like Fuller House and One Day at a Time, whose comedic premises (intergenerational hijinks, with heart) were straightforward, and whose sitcom pedigrees (95% of the original Full House cast; Norman Lear) were pure gold. So their episodes ran a little long, and their character arcs pushed a few boundariesno problem, the classic sitcom vibe was still there. On the other hand, though, you had things like Disjointed (the Kathy Bates cannabis comedy) and The Ranch (depressed conservative cowboys who say fuck like its a punchline). Sure, thanks to the likes of Chuck Lorre and Ashton Kutcher, both came backed by similarly legit sitcom pedigrees, but as early reviews (and the quick cancellation of Disjointed) bore out, youd have to have been high to think either one vibed as anything close to a classic sitcom.

At the time, these four titles (plus a charmless Richie Rich) sitting side-by-side in the Goofy TV Comedies queue made it seem like Netflix didnt quite know what it wanted its chapter in the history of the sitcom to cover. Was it hoping to elevate a genre that time (and modern television-watching sensibilities) had burnished to dullif efficientperfection? Or was it trying to turn the traditional multicam into something altogether weirder, forging paths through comedic and narrative territory way beyond the well-lit paths network television has long been bound to?

The answer, it seems, is yes. Yes, with things like Fuller House and One Day at a Timeand, more recently, Mr. Iglesias, Family Reunion, and The Expanding Universe of Ashley GarciaNetflix absolutely aims to take a formula generations of sitcom watchers know and love, and kick it up to 11. But also yes, with things like The Ranch, Alexa & Katie, and (to Pastes eternally shocked delight) No Good Nick, the streamer just as absolutely aims to turn that formula way weird. Because heres the thing: Freed from the limitations imposed on the traditional multicam by generations of both FCC regulation and audience expectation, the Netflix sitcomno matter where on the spectrum of classic to WTF it starts outhas proven itself to have the gift of almost endless flexibility.

Clockwise from top left: Fuller House (2016-2020), Family Reunion (2019-), No Good Nick (2019), Alexa & Katie (2017-2020), The Ranch (2016-2020), One Day at a Time (2017-2019*), Mr. Iglesias (2019-), The Expanding Universe of Ashley Garcia (2020-)

What does all that flexibility look like in practice? Well, after many long hours of very corny research, weve crunched the data, and have come up with the following list of things that make up the weird and ever-wilder anatomy of the Netflix original sitcom. Whether youre a sitcom agnostic whos never given Netflixs stabs at the genre a single thought, or a sitcom fan whos been put off by the way they seem to reflect the traditional sitcom model through a funhouse mirror, may this guide give you reason to give at least one of these cornball series a real shot.

While its true that a nostalgia-driven reboot trend has also hit the linear sitcom landscape hard in the half-decade since Girl Meets World premieredand its just as true that multicams across broadcast and cable television had been littered with sitcom pros long before thatthe Netflix sitcom, as a rule, goes all in on nostalgia. Fuller House and One Day at a Time are the most obvious examples of this, but theres been at least one Big Nostalgia play in every sitcom Netflix has released since.

Usually, this play is aimed squarely at older Millennials, various stars of the 80s and 90s showing up both as parents of various teen characterssee: Sean Astin and Melissa Joan Hart on No Good Nick, Allison Munn and The Big Show on The Big Show Show, Tiffany Amber Thiessen on Alexa & Katie, Rev Run on All About the Washingtons, and Tia Mowry-Hardrict on Family Reunionas well as other (less parental) adultsGabriel Iglesias, Sherri Shepherd and Oscar Nuez as public school employees on Mr. Iglesias, Ashley Tisdale and Bridgit Mendler as Dennis Quaids unhappy daughters on Merry Happy Whatever, Ashton Kutcher and Danny Masterson as downer brothers on The Ranch, Jaleel White everywhere, and Mario Lopez and Chelsea Kane as family friends on The Expanding Universe of Ashley Garcia. As often as it angles for Millennial attention, though, the Netflix sitcom also uses nostalgia to take aim at the Gen Z crowd, pulling in teen actors from fan-favorite Nickelodeon and Disney sitcoms to play the kids of all those 80s/90s stars abovehere, think Theodore Barnes on Prince of Peoria, Landry Bender and Isaak Presley on Fuller House, Cree Cicchino, Tucker Albrizzi and Coy Stewart on Mr. Iglesias, Paris Berelc, Emery Kelly, Nathaniel Potvin and Jack Griffo on Alexa & Katie, and Siena Agudong, Lauren Lindsey Donzis, Kalama Epstein and Kyla-Drew on No Good Nick.

On the one hand, while casting all those heavy-hitter adults makes cynically good sense, drawing so many names from the Nickelodeon/Disney pool feels a bit like cheating, Netflix cashing in on the casting talent both Disney and Nickelodeon have worked for decades to hone, rather than taking the opportunity to find all new funny, charming teens to call their own. On the other hand, making a cynical grab for known factors across the generations is just good business, because the next thing that defines the Netflix sitcom is

Back in the land of linear programming, every network that traffics in multicam sitcoms has a clearly defined lane: On the broadcast end of things, NBC specializes in the workplace comedy, CBS goes for put-upon parents/maladjusted singles, ABC does families, and FOX does animation. Cable, meanwhile, has Freeform in the messy twentysomethings lane, TBS (and, lately, Pop TV) in the weirdo adult one, and Nickelodeon and Disney cover all things aimed at precocious kids and/or goofy teens.

Netflix sitcoms have no lanes. Yes, The Ranch (f-bombs) and Disjointed (pot jokes) mostly skew adult, while Prince of Peoria (outdated boy humor) and Team Kaylie (the less funny cousin to Bunkd) mostly skew pre-teen. From Alexa & Katie to Mr. Iglesias, though, just about every other title in Netflixs small-but-growing sitcom arsenal is set-up to appeal to adult and kid/teen audiences in more or less equal measure. On something like No Good Nick, this means the audience is invited to emotionally invest both in Disney-esque high school melodramas, and in Liz (Hart) and Eds (Astin) broadcast-level marital/professional problems. (And, to a slightly lesser extent, Nicks dads more darkly-shaded criminal ones.) Family Reunion, meanwhile, gives as much time to the four McKellan kidswho themselves span at least three different Disney demographic groupsas it does to their parents (Mowry-Hardrict and Anthony Alabi) and grandparents (Loretta Devine and Richard Roundtree), while One Day at a Time not only covers the network-spanning sprawl of the Alvarez familys narrative needs, but also brings in Schneider (Todd Grinnell), whose solo arc occasionally gets so prickly even TBS might hesitate to embrace it. (In that respect, especially, the fact that ODAAT ended up on Pop TV after being prematurely canceled by Netflix makes perfect sense.)

For audiences used to being able to turn on a network sitcom and know, based on context, more or less what to expect, this kind of demographic mash-up can feel disorientingnot for nothing did we deem No Good Nick the most confounding sitcom wed ever seen! But taken in the everything, for everyone, all the time context Netflix has spent the last few years building, these sitcoms crafting stories that cater to such a broad, ambiguous audience isnt confounding; its completely natural.

In that same spirit, while many broadcast sitcoms have become notably more diverse in recent yearsin terms of race, at least, if not always in other waysthe Netflix sitcom got to start with diversity as a guiding light. True, the streamers first three traditional sitcoms (Richie Rich in 2015, followed by Fuller House and The Ranch in 2016) were extremely (if not entirely) white. The majority of the series that followed, howeverstarting with One Day at a Time in 2017, then continuing with Alexa & Katie, Prince of Peoria and All About the Washingtons in 2018, No Good Nick, Mr. Iglesias, Family Reunion, and Team Kaylie in 2019, and now The Expanding Life of Ashley Garcia in 2020have either featured, or have entirely centered, non-white characters and experiences, whose stories were created, written, or directed by similarly diverse teams.

Corny as the broadcast-based multicam sitcom can be, this kind of representation is still important, and always worth fighting to improve. On Netflix, howeverwhere neither the FCC nor politically squeamish commercial interests hold sway, and where all the ambiguous storytelling outlined above has rendered any expectations the audience might have mootit has moved from important to productive. With something like Mr. Iglesias, this has meant getting to show the ways in which the American public education system treats black, brown and poor white students like theyre wholly expendable, without layering it in so many corny jokes the point gets lost. On One Day at a Time, meanwhile, it means Elenas (Isabella Gomez) coming out arc not just being about her sexuality, but about her identity as a Puerto Rican woman, while on Family Reunion, it means getting to show Jade (Talia Jackson) confronting colorism and anti-interracial dating in her own community, and Cocoa and Moz (Mowry-Hardrict and Alabi) sitting Shaka (Isaiah Russell-Bailey) and Mazzi (Cameron J. Wright) down for The Talk, after two smugly racist white officers pull guns on the boys in front of their own home. Shows like The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and Living Single got to be frank about similar issues in their own time, but thats been more the exception than the rule. On Netflix, it is starting out as the rule.

The freedom Netflix sitcoms have to take on diverse stories extends beyond race. Most gratingly, of course, theres Kutchers deeply unpleasant conservative comedy, The Ranch, which uses its Netflix bonafides to layer stories about domestic abuse, substance abuse, abortion, miscarriage and suicide on top of the jokes about bull castration and economic depression it promises from the start. Ill own the fact that Ive got a chip on my shoulder when it comes to The Ranch (look, as a High Plains native, I resent the disdain they show for the kinds of folks I grew up with, who might be conservative but arent universally mean boors, while as a fan of comedic fluency, I resent that so many sitcom pros seem to have forgotten how to land a joke), but the fact that those topics are made the meat of a multicam sitcom at all is notable. Similarly notable, Alexa & Katie centering a teen (Paris Berelc) with cancer who starts the series actively undergoing chemo, and not shying away from the possibly mortal consequences of her diagnosis. See also: Jeremy (Kalama Epstein) having his first kiss with another boy and later coming out to his family on No Good Nick, Gabe (Iglesias) struggling with sobriety on Mr. Iglesias, and both Penny wrestling with her anxiety and Elena first coming out to her family, then starting a relationship with her non-binary partner Syd (Sheridan Pierce), on One Day at a Time.

Its all so much! Which is why its so luck that the last thing that defines a Netflix sitcom is

In not being weighed down by multiple long ad breaks, the Netflix sitcom enjoys meaningfully longer episodes than its commercial-laden cousins on broadcast and cable TVthe pilot of Family Reunion, for example, runs a full 34 minutes long, while the pilot of Marlon Wayans Marlon, which streams alongside Family Reunion but originates from NBC, tops out at a tight 20:04. The pilot of Fuller House, if you want an even sharper comparison, runs all the way to 36 minutes. The pilot of Full House, the Netflix reboots beloved predecessor? A trim 25.

For a genre as long-lived (read: finely tuned) as the multicam sitcom, these extra minutes can occasionally result in a shagginess youd be hard pressed to find in shows developed for the traditional broadcast setting. For the most part, though, they work in the Netflix sitcoms favor, making room for the kinds of big, ambitious stories described in more detail above. (Plus, obviously, more jokes.)

Similarly, the full-season drop signature to the Netflix model incentivizes serialized storytelling, even in something as inherently episodic as the multicam sitcom. No Good Nick, which uses its single season to follow a con artist foster kid through her entire scheme embedding with the family who ruined her dads life, is perhaps the best example of this trend towards serialization, but from Mr. Iglesiass academic decathlon to Fuller Houses surrogacy arc to Merry Happy Whatevers excruciatingly long family Christmas visit, serialization of at least some sort is present throughout, giving the wild and weird beast that is the Netflix original sitcom room to grow into whatever it might want to beaudience expectations be damned.

With so much production shut down for the pandemic, its a given that Netflixs sitcom legacy will slow down for a time, too. But with Kevin James NASCAR sitcom and Jane Lynch and Cyndi Laupers mystery Golden Girls-esque project already greenlit, were just as certain that whenever it comes back, it will be as big and bold as ever.

Original multicam sitcoms (so many of them!) are available streaming now on Netflix. Presuming youve already loved One Day at a Time and binged Fuller House (whether you loved it or not), we suggest giving Family Reunion a shot next. But you do you!

Alexis Gunderson is a TV critic and audiobibliophile. She can be found @AlexisKG.

See the rest here:
The Weird and Wild Anatomy of the Netflix Original Sitcom - Paste Magazine

Sandra Oh Revealed She Used to Fight With "Greys Anatomy" Writers and Shonda Rhimes – Yahoo Lifestyle

From Prevention

Sandra Oh detailed why she used to get into arguments with Greys Anatomy writers and Shonda Rhimes.

She said going toe to toe with them was challenging but worth it because she cared about her character, Dr. Cristina Yang.

She also opened up about how the show didnt want to address race, which she occasionally disagreed with.

Sandra Oh played Dr. Cristina Yang on Greys Anatomy for 10 years, so she definitely knows everything there is about her character and what Dr. Yang would realistically do in any situation. But during Varietys Actors on Actors series, Sandra revealed that she actually had to fight for her character and go toe to toe with the writers and even Shonda Rhimes herself.

Talking to Scandal actor Kerry Washington, Sandra said, What I was able to get from Greys is to have the responsibility and the relationship with the writer to be able to direct where shes going. If something kind of came up which was like, That is completely wrong, I would go toe to toe with Shonda and a lot of the writers, which has been challenging.

This approach to her character pushed her to bother Shonda, which would often lead to them digging in our heels hugely. She went on to say, But just the friction itself, a lot of times a third thing would come out, and it would not be in my sight of consciousness at all; it would take that pushing against someone equally as strong. I started to learn how to trust that.

One instance that really stood out in Sandras mind was when her character married Preston Burke (Isaiah Washington). Explaining the ethos of the show, Sandra said, When we did Greys, for at least the first 10 seasons, we would not talk about race. We would not go into race, and that was purposeful. And whatever, it was the right thing to do when it was. When it came to the marriage, though, Sandra wanted to focus on the mothers-in-law, who were Asian and Black. She recalled saying, Come on, there is a lot of story that we can do here! Unfortunately, the writers wouldnt budge.

Story continues

Even though filming 10 seasons with 22 to 24 episodes each was a major challenge, Sandra is incredibly proud of herself (as she should be!) for standing up for her character. She finished, I feel like, when I look back, because its been six years now since I left Greys, I feel like one of my biggest successes, for me, was I dont feel I gave up.

You Might Also Like

Read more:
Sandra Oh Revealed She Used to Fight With "Greys Anatomy" Writers and Shonda Rhimes - Yahoo Lifestyle

Thor concept art shows Grey’s Anatomy star as the God of Thunder – Digital Spy

The Thor movies are what they are because of Chris Hemsworth's performance, especially in Ragnarok where he got to align his comedic talents with Taika Waititi's 'out-there' sensibilities.

But while it's really hard to imagine anyone else as the God of Thunder now, before Hemsworth was cast, multiple actors were linked to the role to the point where concept art was created using other stars.

One such piece has now been shared by Marvel Studios' Visual Development veteran Charlie Wen, and features Kevin McKidd from Grey's Anatomy and Trainspotting.

Related: Grey's Anatomy stars pay tribute to "THAT scene" 15 years later

"Thought you might enjoy another very early Thor concept done even before preproduction started," he wrote on Twitter. "I was trying out different actors to base #Thor on since @chrishemsworth didn't have the role yet at the time. This was based on @therealkmckidd."

Apart from the different face, the design is pretty standard MCU Thor, which is just how we like it. Big red cape, not too armoured and with the big circles on his chest. Excellent.

Related: 11 things you didn't know about Thor

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

Hemsworth will return as Thor in his fourth solo outing, Thor: Love and Thunder, which will see Natalie Portman return as Jane Foster and take on the mantle of the God of Thunder. Waititi is back directing as well.

McKidd is still a part of the Grey's Anatomy family, with his character Owen Hunt also popping up in a recent episode of spin-off series Station 19.

Thor: Love and Thunder has a release date of February 28, 2022.

Sign up for Disney+

Disney+Disney+

Marvel Studios: The Infinity Saga - Collector's Edition [Blu-ray, region-free]

Thor

Marvel StudiosAmazon

Thor: The Dark World

3.49

Marvel Avengers Infinity War Thor Pop! Vinyl Figure

9.99

Fear Itself by Matt Fraction and Stuart Immonen

24.99

Thor Ragnarok Loki Sakaarian Pop! Vinyl Figure

9.99

Thor: Ragnarok (Theatrical Version)

13.99

Thor 1-3 Box Set DVD [2017]

15.99

The Mighty Thor by Walter Simonson Vol. 1

14.44

Marvel Avengers: Endgame Thor Pop! Vinyl Figure (Wave 2)

9.99

Mighty Thor Vol. 1: Thunder in Her Veins by Jason Aaron and Russell Dauterman

12.30

Avengers: Endgame (with bonus content)

9.99

Marvel Thor: Ragnarok Korg & Miek EXC Pop! Vinyl Figure

14.99

Thor: Ragnarok (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack)

8.99

Marvel Avengers: Endgame Thor Pop! Vinyl Figure

9.99

Marvel Thor vs Thanos Pop! Movie Moment

29.99

Digital Spy now has a newsletter sign up to get it sent straight to your inbox.

Looking for more TV recommendations and discussion? Head over to our Facebook Group to see new picks every day, and chat with other readers about what they're watching right now.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io

This commenting section is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page. You may be able to find more information on their web site.

Read more:
Thor concept art shows Grey's Anatomy star as the God of Thunder - Digital Spy

Sandra Oh Wanted To Leave ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ To Play Olivia Pope On ‘Scandal’ – iHeartRadio

Shonda Rhimes created two of the most iconic shows of all time for ABCGrey's Anatomy and Scandal. Those shows are packed with strong female leads that any actress would have loved to play. It turns out one of Grey's Anatomy's biggest stars almost considered jumping ship to play the lead role on Scandal because the role of Washington D.C. 'fixer' Olivia Pope was just that intriguing.

While chatting for Variety's virtual actors on actors series, Sandra Ohwho starred as Cristina Yang on Grey's Anatomy for 10 seasonstold Scandal star Kerry Washington about the time she tried to convince Rhimes to let her play Olivia Pope. I remember exactly where I was when I read that damn pilot. I was on Greys. We were on stage five. Someone snuck [the script] to me, Oh told Washington. I dont know who it was, but I got my hands on that pilot and I read it, and I was just like, How could I play Olivia Pope?

I remember going to Shonda, and its like, How could I do this? What is this script? Could I do this too?" Oh recalled. As the Killing Eve star recalls, though, Rhimes quickly shot down Oh's idea. She goes, No, youve got to play Cristina Yang! Though Oh was disappointed she couldn't go from one iconic Rhimes character to another, she told Washington she was "so glad it was you who ended up bringing Olivia Pope to life.

Oh also recounted what it felt like to read the Scandal pilot. "Its so wonderful and rare when you get in your hands something that you know is electric," Oh said. Washington agreed with Oh, saying she became protective of her character over the source of Scandal's run. I was so devoted to her," she said.

Photo: Getty

Read this article:
Sandra Oh Wanted To Leave 'Grey's Anatomy' To Play Olivia Pope On 'Scandal' - iHeartRadio

Stanford professor says rise in COVID-19 cases is proof that virus is tracking human behavior – YourCentralValley.com

STANFORD, Calif. (KRON) There are several factors behind the rise in COVID-19 cases, including testing, contact tracing, and people interacting more as shelter-in-place orders get relaxed.

But as we continue to track the virus a Stanford University professor says the new numbers are proof that the coronavirus is also tracking us.

I think the virus is tracking peoples behavior, Dr. Robert Siegel said.

Stanford University professor of microbiology and immunology Dr. Robert Siegel

says wear your mask, accounting for the recent rise in COVID-19 case numbers like this.

The virus would be very happy if we all went back and started socializing, Dr. Siegel said.

In other words, says Dr. Siegel, the virus doesnt care about what matters to people and that is the key to reopening.

The reopening is not working perfectly because as things open people are being more lax in their behavior like fewer people wearing masks, Dr. Siegel said.

Its called mask fatigue or quarantine fatigue.

Dr. Siegel points out that new cases are not spiking among one high risk group in particular, health care workers.

People are very carefully watching health care providers and their rate of infection is really, really low so they have a high exposure but they are being very careful and they are not getting infected, Dr. Siegel said.

If anything, Dr. Siegel says more testing is showing the recent uptick in cases is real.

He says there is scant evidence warmer weather has made much of a difference.

The key is, we have to continue to do the public health measures of wearing masks, social distancing and washing hands, using hand sanitizers and basically being smart, Dr. Siegel said.

Dr. Siegel says outsmarting the coronavirus starts with admitting that its still here and what you can do could save your life or someone elses life.

The virus is still very much present and you just have to look at the numbers, we are breaking records every day so in terms of risky behavior, you are more at risk for being in social settings without a mask than you ever were, Dr. Siegel said.

For local, national, and breaking news, and to get weather alerts, download our FREE mobile app from theApple App Storeor the Google Play Store.

Go here to read the rest:
Stanford professor says rise in COVID-19 cases is proof that virus is tracking human behavior - YourCentralValley.com

New normal: Why people act as if the pandemic is over – The Jakarta Post – Jakarta Post

With the highest number of infections and largest death toll in Southeast Asia,the Indonesian government should be careful in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the "new normal" began several weeks ago, people have otherwise eased restrictions and neglected the health protocols.

Recently, when I went out for the first time after three months of self-seclusion, I wondered how people could behave like this amid a pandemic.

I saw people in Jakarta eating out without even practicing social distancing, a lot of people roaming without face masks in public spaces, children playing on streets even in red zones, and my social media account was overwhelmed by other peoples updates on gatherings and social events.

Even many promiment Indonesian figures ignored the health protocols in the wake of the new normal. For example, the media reported that Corruption Eradication Commission chief Firli Bahuri did not wear a mask in public, and Jakarta Governor Anies Baswedan shook hands with people during Jakartas anniversary celebration on June 22. Although such acts look "simple" or "less important" they show that the much-needed behavioral changes to slow the spread of the virus remain challenging.

After about four months since Indonesia announced the first COVID-19 infection, the severity of the pandemic has worsened, with around 1,000 people infected on a daily basis. Despite the fact that Indonesia tops the number of infections and death rates in Southeast Asia, the government and the people seems to choose a relatively "soft" approach in the fight against the pandemic.

This pandemic shows how predictably irrational we are as humans. Despite the upward infection curve, we have already eased restrictions required to contain the virus transmission to allow the economy and social life to resume.

Lockdown, social and physical distancing have been hard to bear for most of us. The more restrictive the government measures, the more people want to break the rules. The high compliance needed to beat the pandemic is difficult to achieve.

Several behavioral science insights might explain the phenomena, which may not be characteristically Indonesia.

* Mass hyperbolic discounting

Hyperbolic discounting refers to the tendency for people to value a smaller-sooner reward over a larger-later reward as the delay occurs sooner rather than later. In this case, they value small freedoms rather than long-term community health later. Many behavioral scientists suggest that if we start to adopt stricter rules to change peoples behavior amid the pandemic and incrementally ease restrictions, it will have a more significant impact on peoples overall happiness, rather than starting with light restrictions and gradually intensify them.

In Indonesias case, the government has taken a relatively soft and ambiguous approach since the outbreak began. In early January and February 2020, when neighboring countries declared the first case of infection and started to impose behavioral engineering to halt the virus spread. Indonesia was still busy confirming whether there was an outbreak, although several foreigners had reportedly been infected in Bali.

When the ASEAN neighbors implemented national lockdowns, the Indonesian government opted to leave the policy to local authorities. Even President Joko Widodo called on the nation to not panic and coexist with the virus. Hence, from the behavioral perspective insight, the softer the approach, the more difficult it is for people to comply with the new normal protocols.

*The overoptimism bias

The very basic stimuli of human behavior are often generated by the reward and reinforcement principle. We change our behavior following reward or something that reinforced us, getting praise, money and credit, and not getting sick could make us stick to the rules. If we did not fall ill in the very first place, we would lack reinforcement to maintain our health and the health of our community in the long run.

This is supported by our overoptimism bias, like the "Oh, those horrible things won't happen to me and my family" mindset may develop as time passes and our perception of threat significantly declines.

*The bandwagon effect

Besides individual psychology, our behavior is really affected by cultural and social factors. In a time of radical uncertainty like this, we take the behavioral guidelines from others, like friends, peers, neighbors, influencers and leaders as they set the social norms on what is right to do or not. This behavioral example creates a bandwagon effect.

With so much confusion about what is right to do and "what is not", we follow other peoples examples. Seeing our friends and influencers on social media hold birthday parties, religious gatherings, and visiting shopping mall with their small kids, we may be tempted to follow suit.

The governments new normal campaign is easier said than done. Many have realized there is nothing new about the new normal as they have been social distancing, wearing masks and washing hands frequently since the beginning of the pandemic.

As we may notice, the new normal is a difficult trade-off between health and economy. We need to get back to work, spur the economy while maintaining our own health. Hence do not let the "new normal" framework turn into normalization. We need to change our habits and the way we coexist.

The question is how to make people comply with a set of new rules.

Research conducted by Bott et al (2019) on taxpayers shows that making the normatively appropriate behavior known could make a significant impact on increasing the number of taxpayers that comply with the government advice.

Oftentimes, there is still confusion over whether we should go outside for exercise. While economic and cultural have started to reopen, we do not know whether it is actually safe to go out and or how to behave in public spaces. Hence, making sure that appropriate behavior is known by the public could be an alternative to increase peoples compliance with the protocols.

Second, ensuring the rules are clearly defined. The research by Shcweitzer and Hsee (20002) shows that individuals are more willing to exhibit dishonest behavior if there is ambiguous "room" to do that. Hence, setting clear rules on what is right and what is not is effective to change peoples behavior in public spaces.

Third, urging leaders and influencers to demonstrate compliant behavior. This has been a challenge for most of us. We have seen those role models not wearing masks or wearing them improperly, and standing close to others during a photo session.

Finally,we must assess our own behavior to determine whether it is rationally justified or just emotionally-driven. How far, how long, and how fast the spread of COVID-19 is crucially depends on our own behavior, hence the responsibility is ours to ensure this will pass.

***

The writer is a former journalist, with a masters in economic psychology from University Paris 1 Panthon-Sorbonne & University Paris 5 Paris Descartes

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official stance of The Jakarta Post.

View original post here:
New normal: Why people act as if the pandemic is over - The Jakarta Post - Jakarta Post

It’s kind of terrifying how little has changed – North Carolina Health News

This June marks the 50th anniversary of the first Pride parade, which arose in protest against police brutality and for the rights of LGBTQ people. Health equity has always been an indispensable part of that struggle.

Brad Batch was at a party in Garner when he first heard about the virus.

The 30-year-old had recently moved back home after a few years in New Orleans.

A friend approached him and asked a strange question about his old college boyfriend, who was now living in New York.

Did you hear Richard has the gay flu?

This June marks the 50th anniversary of the first Pride parade, which arose in protest against police brutality and for the rights of LGBTQ people. Health equity has always been an indispensable part of that struggle.

Richard would be one of many million people to die in the global epidemic caused by human immunodeficiency virus, also known as HIV/AIDS. Batch, who is now 68, would eventually test positive for the virus himself.

But Pride looks different in 2020. Its a year where yet another pandemic has ravaged the LGBTQ community and a year where many of the people disproportionately impacted by it have already taken to the streets to protest for their lives.

Many experts say things are not that different from the last time they faced a pandemic.

Its kind of terrifying how little has changed actually, said Derrick Matthews, who researches health inequities experienced by LGBTQ people, particularly around HIV prevention and treatment for Black men, at the Gillings School of Global Public Health at UNC Chapel Hill.

Several comparisons have been made between the rise of the HIV pandemic in the United States in the 1980s and 90s and the current COVID-19 pandemic. Both diseases have ravaged vulnerable communities, particularly people of color. Both have been exacerbated by public health responses from government leaders and civilians, and both are still ongoing.

NC Health News spoke to a survivor of the HIV pandemic, a former CDC staffer who worked at the agency when the outbreak first hit, a public health researcher, and a local LGBTQ advocate. They reflected on how their understanding of the United States public health response to the HIV pandemic shapes their perspective of this present moment for members of the Black and LGBTQ community.

Gene Matthews was in the room when a director at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention first reported the strange incidence of the then-rare pneumocystis pneumonia in five gay men in Los Angeles in 1981.

I remember it like yesterday, said Matthews. It was right around this time of year.

Matthews, now a senior investigator at the North Carolina Institute for Public Health, was the chief legal officer at the organization at the time. He said hed grown up in the age of the antibiotic bubble in the United States, following the invention of the polio vaccine.

There wasnt anything that science, and hence in the private sector of pharmaceuticals, couldnt cure or protect us from, recalled Matthews. And all of a sudden, Mother Nature robbed us of that illusion, rather dramatically.

Matthews would continue with the agency throughout much of what would become known as the HIV pandemic.

Heres a disease thats spreading, were not quite sure how its spreading, you die a horrible death, there is no treatment, there is no cure. There is no vaccine. Does that sound familiar?

From his experience, Matthews said pandemics are always political.

Public health messages become weaponized in a highly polarized political environment, said Matthews. HIV was like catnip to politicians. It was called a gay disease there was pressure by Republicans to try to spin AIDS in a way that helped the 1984 re-election.

The administration of Ronald Reagan has been widely criticized for its response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Reagan himself did not publicly acknowledge HIV until 1985, when over 12,000 citizens had already died of the virus. The federal government ignored, and sometimes laughed at, the HIV pandemic, said Matthews, largely because of who was first experiencing it. The presidents base had little interest in fighting the virus they believed they could not contract and were suspicious of government spending that interfered with the free market economy.

Sound familiar? Matthews again added. COVID doesnt have the same stigma, but it is at least as politicized now.

All of the people NCHN spoke to talked about seeing the same collective willful ignorance, as Matthews described it, to the novel coronavirus pandemic.

The comparisons Ive noticed are less the disease itself and more about our kind of social-cultural response to it, said Derrick Matthews of UNC, who shares no relation to Gene Matthews. I think that we see a lot of parallels with the kind of very poorly coordinated response.

Though the countrys initial response to COVID-19 was much faster than it was to HIV/AIDS, eventually leading to a nationwide shutdown, the United States remains disproportionately represented in the global pandemic death count accounting for 5 percent of the worlds population but 25 percent of total COVID-19 deaths due, in part, to the delayed response of the federal government to early warnings about the threat of the viruss spread.

Even today, as COVID-19 cases spike in 22 states, the pushes to reopen continues. President Donald Trump is considering ending the national coronavirus emergency and depending on political affiliation, citizens may disagree about the severity or in some cases, existence of the disease at all.

I think people have a tendency to go into denial mode. You can see it right now in Raleigh, said Batch, who continues to live in the area. Theres crowds of 20-and-30-somethings where a lot of the restaurants and bars are, and theyre not wearing masks and theyre not doing social distancing.

Theyre not worried about it, because theyre young they think it cant happen to them. A similar thing happened with HIV, where people said, Well, Im not gay, so Im not going to get it, he said. Of course, there were some unpleasant surprises about that.

Public health emergencies always ask us to confront our nations ongoing relationship with racism and bigotry, experts said.

The kind of hatred and bigotry thats surrounded a lot of conversations about the virus is just pure racism, said Derrick Matthews. You know, it seems like forever ago, but at the beginning of 2020 this was the Chinese virus, or the Wuhan virus.

That naming of it really made me think of HIV because you know the early name for HIV even the CDC had called it the 4H Disease.

Before the agency had an official name for HIV/AIDS syndrome, the public often referred to the virus as the 4H Disease the primary risk groups were Haitians, hemophiliacs, heroin users, and homosexuals.

It was very pejorative, said Gene Matthews. I dont like to repeat it. Because there was a certain racial undertone, particularly when talking about homosexuals and heroin users, of Theyre getting what they deserve.

But just like now, the virus attacks those with less health care resources.

The novel coronavirus has disproportionately impacted people of color in the United States. Black people account for over 30 percent of all hospitalizations from the virus nationally, despite making up just 18 percent of the population. In North Carolina, with currently available racial data, 34 percent of COVID-19 deaths are Black people, who make up just 22 percent of the state population.

Theres very much a segregation of whos becoming sick and dying, said Derrick Matthews.

And though many of the historical narratives around HIV have predominately featured white gay men, Derrick Matthews said HIV was no different.

The severity of that inequity was so intense, that I think part of the reason the faces of Black gay man and Black trans folks are so erased from that retelling is because, well, theyre gone, he said. As devastating as it was to gay men and queer men broadly, my friends and colleagues and I talk about this: We didnt have an entire generation of people who could mentor us on what it would mean to walk through the world in this country as a gay Black man.

The first known person to die of HIV may have actually been Robert Rayford, a 16-year-old Black boy from St. Louis, in 1969. (His strain of the virus slightly differed from the one that led to the HIV pandemic in the 80s and continues to infect people today.)

HIV definitely affected the African American community, and still affects African Americans, much more than the non-Hispanic white community, recalled Batch, who himself is white. Gay Black men and women had a double whammy, but they were not only oppressed by society for being gay.

Evolving ideas around intersectionality have paved the way for broader understanding of how different identities interact a person can be both gay and a person of color, for example.

In the 80s and early 90s, there were kind of the gay concerns around HIV and there were kind of Black concerns around HIV, said Derrick Matthews. When in fact, people who had identities rooted in both their Black race and their gay sexual orientation were the ones who were doing the work. Yet they were the very ones who were being ignored.

The HIV crisis, and the federal governments response to it, spurred LGBTQ people to protest for better health conditions. The pandemic politicized many members of the LGBTQ community, and the work the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) and other queer organizers led to changes in health policy such as faster and more widespread availability of experimental treatment drugs.

J. Clapp, executive director of the LGBTQ Center of Durham, points out that Black LGBTQ people have continued that work. Two of the three founders of the Black Lives Matter movement, Alicia Garza and Patrisse Cullors, identify as queer. From the beginning, organizers have stated defending LGBTQ life was a key part of the movement.

He believes that the current COVID-19 pandemic may have further politicized members of the Black LGBTQ community contributing to more widespread participation in the recent spate of protests following the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tony McDade and other people of color killed at the hands of law enforcement.

Black people are just tired, said Clapp. They were at Stonewall, they were there to fight Reagan during the HIV epidemic in the 80s and 90s. And here we are again, fighting for Black Lives Matter, in the middle of COVID.

The pandemic has put on display how intimately racism is tied to health. Its also given some LGBTQ people unprecedented space to engage in activism.

I dont know that this protest would be so large and prolonged without COVID, said Clapp, noting that many LGBTQ people, particularly those of color, were disproportionately impacted by gig economy and restaurant closures, creating opportunity and added incentive for them to participate in protests. Because racism is the actual public health crisis.

Derrick Matthews echoed these sentiments.

COVID-19 and police violence are essentially two sides of the same epidemic of racism, he said. The criminally negligent response to COVID is certainly a kind of more covert form of racism, but I think this is the critical piece people are not getting: These protesters recognize fully the threat of COVID, because its affecting their communities more. And theyre outside, marching, anyway.

Its a completely logical, and I think on-point assessment that racism and all of its poison fruit are the real threat to peoples health and safety, he added. COVID is just another manifestation of it.

Both pandemics are still ongoing.

A lot of people think that because PrEP is a reality, the HIV pandemic is over, said Clapp, referring to the treatment-as-prevention drug regimen that can arrest the spread of HIV. But there are still new transmissions. There are still people who are living with untreated HIV. Were on a good path, but we still continue to struggle to get PrEP and other resources into the hands of our most marginalized, which typically include people of color and trans people of color.

COVID-19 may even worsen the ongoing HIV crisis.

Im worried were going to see a lot of people fall out of HIV care and really start to undo the progress that weve made, said Derrick Matthews. So much of health insurance is tied to employment, and we know that people of color were among the ones to lose their jobs the most.

Many queer and trans people were in the service and gig economies. It puts these groups in even more jeopardy.

As scientists race for a vaccine for COVID-19, some members of the LGBTQ community remain similarly concerned about who will have access to it.

I cant help but wonder if, just like HIV, well come up with this really great solution thats really effective, but its going to get into the hands of people that need it the most, less, said Derrick Matthews. If it ever gets there at all.

I hope this really does get people thinking more broadly about what it means to live in a country that does not prioritize the health of its citizens? And I think were finding out.

If a vaccine occurs, its going to be difficult getting it out. And theres gonna have to be a bit of sorting about who gets it first, said Batch. I hope its done on a vulnerability basis, and not some dog whistle criteria where you dont come out and say, Well, were not gonna vaccinate you because youre Black or brown or Spanish or undocumented, but were gonna do some other criteria that basically means theres only like 2 percent of you that can get it.

Changing human behavior in the face of a pandemic is difficult.

It is not that easy to inspire or require the harm reduction behaviors that are appropriate to the new normal, said Dr. Myron Cohen, director of the Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases at UNC, at a June 24 health briefing on COVID-19. Were being asked to do a thing inconsistent with the general behavior of our species.

We have had the same problems with HIV in inspiring risk reduction behavior. We know how the virus is transmitted, and as weve known how its transmitted weve had to inspire lots of behavior changes, which when used, are very effective. But theyre hard to sustain.

And with COVID-19, prevention behaviors depend on everyone, not just those at high risk for suffering the worst outcomes of the virus.

Gene Matthews, the former CDC official, said the HIV pandemic had to move out of marginalized communities for the majority of the public to take notice.

We got to a point where the majority of people in the country knew somebody with AIDS, said Matthews. Of course, AIDS was a death sentence.

Im not quite sure were there yet, where everybody in this country knows somebody personally that died of COVID. But believe me, we surely will be, unless some miracle [behavior change] occurs.

Derrick Matthews, of UNC, said hes often wondered if the public would be more concerned if the face of COVID-19 looked different. Yet at the same time, he, like the other Matthews, is worried there may be a bigger cultural problem.

There are literally people who think its made up, said Matthews. Literally. I hope we dont have to have to get to the point where basically everyone needs to know someone who died of COVID. But it feels like thats where were heading. And thats strange.

But Brad Batch said hes hopeful about individuals who are changing their behavior.

Im 68 years old. Ive looked back, and Ive seen this kind of stuff before, said Batch, who said he lost count of the number of people he knew who died of HIV. The thing is, you need to have hope. How do you respond to pandemics? You roll up your sleeves and get down to work.

With HIV, we marched, we did ACT UP, we handed out condoms on the street corners. They say you need to wear a mask, and you have a mask shortage? Well, you make some damn masks. And thats how you get through this. Im confident well get through this.

Read the original here:
It's kind of terrifying how little has changed - North Carolina Health News

Misplaced Analogies: COVID-19 Is More like a Wildfire Than a Wave – Scientific American

New coronavirus infections have soared to their highest levels in five states, as some leaders pause plans to reopen businesses further. The record highsin Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, and South Carolinamark a concerning rise in cases that is now stretching into its third consecutive week. More than 2.5 million people in the United States have been infected with coronavirus and at least 125,000 have died, greater than any other country.

Early in the pandemic, Sarah Cobey, an epidemiologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, pivoted her own research on influenza to model the dynamics of COVID-19. Here she answers some questions from Scientific American contributor Marla Broadfoot about why we are seeing an uptick in casesand whether they herald a dreaded second wave of the disease.

[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]

This month more than 20 states have reported a rise in daily coronavirus cases. Is this uptick part of a first or second wave? Or are those categories even a useful way of looking at this pandemic?I think this is a hard question, because I am not sure that it is that useful to think about the dynamics that we are seeing as waves. We know that influenza and many other respiratory pathogens cause these wavelike epidemics, where the crests and troughs of the waves are set by the fraction of the population that is susceptible. Epidemics start declining when the susceptible population falls below the threshold for herd immunity. And they can take off again once the susceptible fraction rises above it. But what we are looking at here is a virus that obviously has not been circulating in a population for a long timeand to which most of us are still susceptible. There is no reason that we should be seeing the kind of wavelike epidemic dynamics that we have seen for other respiratory pathogens. Instead what we are seeing is a massive epidemic that could burn through the population rapidly unless we do something to slow transmission, which is what we are currently doing with interventions such as social distancing and masks. It is possible that, over time, COVID-19 could start developing cyclical, flulike waves. But that is years away.

If we were to use the wave terminology that is in common parlance, what sorts of dynamics with the disease should we expect to see next?We could see all different kinds of resurgences or waves. And it really depends on what we do. We could have just one big wave like Japan, which seems to be managing the virus extremely well, if we adhered to similar interventions until a vaccine is developed. We could see something like a second wave if people just gave up entirely, for instance, on social distancing or wearing masks. But I do not think that is consistent with our behavior.

Some experts and politicians have suggested the new coronavirus might die down in the summer. Yet new cases are still on the rise. Do these recent trends tell us anything about the seasonal nature of the pathogen?Most respiratory viruses that have been studied seem to have higher rates of transmission in the winter and lower rates in the summer. And we know that this seasonality is not completely driven by human behavior. It looks like there are these other forces that are influencing this seasonal timing, such as temperature, humidity and sunlight. I think it would be strange if the new coronavirus were not similarly sensitive to the seasons. If you just looked at the basic math here, however, changes in human behavior are going to have a far greater impact on transmission. As you pointed out, we are seeing transmission picking up in many states. But I suspect things would be even worse if it were not for summer.

What lessons could be gleaned from past flu epidemics to understand what we are seeing right now with the COVID-19 pandemic?One thing we have already talked about is seasonal effects. For instance, the H1N1 flu pandemic of 2009 had a spring wave that died out over the summer and then came back rather early in the fall. The summer weather could similarly affect the transmission of COVID-19. But what we have here is a virus that is extremely transmissible. That makes it hard to draw a direct comparison to any other epidemic we have had before. All previous flu pandemics have been in populations with preexisting immunity, so even though it was a new virus, people already had a lot of immunity built up from exposure to previous flu viruses.

Another thing we are seeing is variation in the size and timing of COVID-19 epidemicsamong not just states but countriesthat can be traced to different interventions that had been in place in those regions. That is something that we also saw with the 1918 flu pandemic. We are seeing again that the timing of these waves is probably under our control. It will depend on how much we are going to pull back on our own interventions.

Read more about the coronavirus outbreakfromScientific Americanhere. And read coverage from ourinternational network of magazines here.

Read the original:
Misplaced Analogies: COVID-19 Is More like a Wildfire Than a Wave - Scientific American

Accenture CEO Julie Sweet – remote working is here to stay, but don’t sell off the office space just yet… – Diginomica

(via Accenture )

We're in the big shock, right?

That comment from Julie Sweet, CEO of Accenture, might apply to so many of us right now, including herself. As she noted last month, shed only just got her feet under the top table at the services giant when COVID-19 kicked in and everything changed. As organizations now look to re-open workplaces and strive for some form of new normal, the Accenture leaders assessment of the situation has evolved:

This crisis is unique in two ways. First, it has created the largest ever change in human behavior, at scale and almost instantaneously, requiring companies to fill new demand trends, change how they engage with customers and adapt quickly to volatile market conditions, all of which require a strong digital foundation just as they also face massive cost pressures.

Second, the pandemic is happening during a period of exponential technology change, which was already driving entirely new ways of doing business. In our Future Systems research last year, we identified the top 10% of companies in terms of tech adoption, depth and culture where the leaders are performing twice as well, and the bottom 25%. We believeCOVIDimmediately widened that gap. We see the leaders doubling down on their investments, while the laggards recognize the need to accelerate the pace of their transformation.

One transformative impact of the virus has, of course, been the widely-seen shift to remote working, a prime example of what Sweet refers to when she talks about a change of human behavior. The question for business leaders now is what happens as workplaces are refitted to be COVID-safe? Will employees want to return to the office? Are the trust levels there to make that happen? Or do CEOs have some strategic re-thinking to do around HCM?

In her view, Sweet reckons that remote working is here to stay at what she calls a pretty high level for some time to come. This means, she suggests, there is a task ahead in working with Accenture clients to help them to understand and adjust to this changed reality. Its a step-by-step learning experience, but not rushing into selling off office space is good starting point, she cautions:

I give a lot of advice to CEOs about this because there are some who've got really excited about, Let's get rid of all our real estate!. Back in the '90s, we [at Accenture] pioneered remote working and we called it hoteling, and, particularly in the US, we took out a lot of real estate because we said, Our people are at our client sites and/or they could be home. And what we found, in fact, over the last five years when I was running North America, we started gradually to expand the [real estate] footprint again because there is a benefit of bringing people together as well.

There are likely to be different attitudes to remote working in different parts of an organization as well, she adds:

I was just talking to a technology company yesterday where what they've said is, Look, everything is working pretty well, except R&D, not because R&D needs to be in the office, but they're just struggling to collaborate as wellWhat ithas helped CEOs really understand is some of the areas in some industries that have resisted - say, finance and accounting - and certain areas saying, No, no, no, we need to have the teams together!, is to recognize that they can really re-think what should they do in-house.

Of course, the shift to remote working has also been a business opportunity for Accenture:

We've enabled lots of companies to work remotely. Whether it was an aerospace and defense company on G-Suite, 100,000 people, or the NHS hospital system with Teams, over one million people, companies have really adapted. Where we have the advantage is because we've been remote and because we are a global company and have a strong tradition of working with our clients around the globe, we've just adapted very quickly.

Sweet also points to Accentures work on the People+Work Connect analytics platform, created in association with Chief Human Resources Officers (CHROs) from Lincoln Financial Group, ServiceNow and Verizon:

This platform is a global online employer-to-employer initiative to bring together, at no cost, companies that have laid off or furloughed people with organizations in urgent need of workers. Designed by CHROs, including our own extraordinary CHRO Ellyn Shook, Accenture built the platform in only 14 days. The response has been overwhelming - more than 1300 organizations across approximately 80 countries have engaged with the currently about 400,000 positions already on the platform, which are balanced between open needs and availability.

For its part, around 95% of Accentures workforce has operated remotely over the past few months as almost every geography in which the firm has a presence entered lockdown. That workforce has also seen some changes of its own in responding to the skills needs of servicing clients during the crisis. Sweet explains:

Since the beginning of March, when we hitCOVIDand we saw the shift in demand in technology, we have re-skilled 37,000 people in hot areas, like cloud. These are in sort of 15 to 20-hour modules of re-skilling to pivot. We've taken our Strategy and Consulting people and pivoted to some of the needs for operations in the public sector, because those require those insights.

The resiliency of a business like ours, because we're in multiple industries, multiple types of work, [means] were able to seamlessly move people who are used to working in these multi-dimensional teams anyway. And by the way, our people love it, because they get great new opportunitiesWe think we're going to come out much stronger because of how we're delivering for our people.

A lot of what we're doing now is taking all of our learning capabilities and building that in for our clients to help them rotate their talent, which they need to do as well.

The re-training of so many Accenture employees is an impressive talent management response to crisis conditions. That said, the firm is having to take tough new world of work decisions of its own. Start dates for some new hires have been pushed back, some promotions have been put on hold and hiring in general has slowed down, other than to meet the need to replace sub-contractors. Those are operational learnings in their own right that other organizations will have to take on board as they engage with their own return to work decisions.

Read more:
Accenture CEO Julie Sweet - remote working is here to stay, but don't sell off the office space just yet... - Diginomica

Experts say there’s an ideal income for happinesshere are three ways you can reach it – Financial Post

This article was created by StackCommerce in partnership with Content Works, Postmedias commercial content division. While Postmedia may collect a commission on sales through the links on this page, we are not being paid by the brands mentioned.

Whoever said money cant buy you happiness clearly hasnt found the perfect salary, but experts say theyve pinpointed the exact amount of money you actually need to be happy.

Its not just for the lifestyles of the rich and famous.

The earning and life satisfaction of 1.7 million people living in 164 countries was compiled into a bank of data by World Gallup Poll. The resulting data was analyzed by psychologists from Purdue University and the University of Virginia who came to the conclusion that the ideal income for individuals is $130,000 CAD ($95,000 USD) a year for life satisfaction, while $82,000 to $102,000 CAD ($60,000 to $75,000 USD) a year was determined as the ideal income for emotional well-being.

The study, published in Nature Human Behavior, found that once an individual hit the threshold for life satisfaction, any additional pay increases were associated with reduced happiness. So, theres yet another reason to go after that salary bump in your job this year. To help, weve gone ahead and identified three things you can do to give yourself an edge.

Not all certifications are created equally, but recruiters are more likely to be more impressed if you hold a certificate in something relevant to your field. Certificates for human resources, sales, or project management can go a long way to help you get hired for a position within those fields.

You can make big strides toward adding powerful certifications to your resume with The Premium 2020 Project & Quality Management Bundle. This 120-hour bundle dives into the world of project management with courses on methodologies like Agile Scrum and Six Sigma. Jump in, and youll explore what it takes to deliver projects on time, develop the leadership skills necessary to effectively manage a team, and more as you make your way through the 11 courses.

Whats more, the training also prepares you to ace a number of key project management certification exams, like Project Management Professional (PMP) and Risk Management Professional (RMP).

Having in-demand skills on your resume can also boost your value as an employee. You can supercharge your understanding of the ubiquitous Microsoft Excel program with The Professional Microsoft Excel Certification Training Bundle for $39 USD. This 45-hour bundle can turn you into an Excel-savvy, number-crunching machine with training on advanced formulas and functions, data visualization, and more.

The difference between busy work and actual productivity is important to remember when you are focused on getting to that magic salary number. Boost your productivity in a shorter amount time and take advantage of how much more you can get done as an employee.

Staying organized and prompt in your communications will stand out to employers and the DarwinMail Professional Plan: Lifetime Subscription for $39.99 USD can help. With this powerful tool, you can organize and sort your inbox by category, sender, or subject or use the reminders feature and make sure you never forget a conversation.

After your inbox is sorted, you can give your to-do list a massive overhaul with the Focuster Productivity App: Lifetime Subscription. The $59 USD app gives you the power to prioritize tasks, auto-schedule them in your calendar, utilize smart reminders, and more so you can give yourself a huge productivity boost.

Get started now on the resume that will land you your dream career with Rezi Resume Software: Pro Lifetime Subscription. The resume generator optimizes your resume and gives feedback to help your resume stand out from the rest. Lifetime subscriptions to the software are on sale now for $29 USD.

Of course, you shouldnt rely on your resume alone to land that dream job. Learn how you can set yourself up for success during job interviews with the Interview Better Than Anyone by an Award-Winning MBA Professor course. For $10.99 USD, you can learn how to stand out from the get-go with interview tips and insight delivered by award-winning MBA professor Chris Haroun.

Prices subject to change.

Link:
Experts say there's an ideal income for happinesshere are three ways you can reach it - Financial Post