Seeking Out Good Ideas

One of the things that made Japan great was its intentional effort in the late Meiji era to scour the world for good ideas and to bring them back and incorporate those ideas in a culturally appropriate way into their own society. 

This is something that the U.S. should do as well if it really wants to be great. Some minor gadgets and ideas are no big deal, but countless little ideas add up to big quality of life improvements. And, while private enterprises can do some of that, some ideas are specific to governments and government policies.

For example, Japan has stickers for the vehicles of older drivers, and labels for some kinds of food that change color when the contents are spoiled. New Zealand has "no fault" insurance for all accidents, not just car accidents or work related accidents. Finland sends newborns home from the hospital with a package of useful items for the baby and has regular home nurse visits when the baby is an infant.

Abuse In Orphanages

New Zealand's government is hardly the most corrupt or ill-intentioned in the nation. But there, as is the case almost everywhere, going back to at least as far as the Old Testament, orphans get a raw deal and are frequently abused. 

More than 30% of people in care in New Zealand from 1950 through 2019 were abused and many more were neglected. I suspect that as horrible as this is, that it is worse in many other countries (probably including the U.S.).

The mix of problems in New Zealand is multi-faceted. 

Most children in care were Maori (i.e. indigenous Polynesian), even though New Zealand is currently only about 18% Maori, usually in cases where they were removed from their families, putatively, for abuse or neglect. It is a fair guess that Maori children were also on the receiving end of a disproportionately share of the abuse suffered by children within the system. This has echoes of the notorious residential schools in Canada and the U.S., long ago, in addition to the other issues with abuse in orphanages without ethnic bias and issues of the treatment of indigenous people thrown in.

The culpability of New Zealand’s Catholic, Methodist and Anglican churches is also predictable and has been mirrored in Canada, the U.S., and the U.K., as well as many other places. Partially related is the religious affiliation of Maori people, of whom there are about 1,075,000 in the world (mostly in New Zealand, but with about 1/6th in Australia and about 21,000 elsewhere):

Given the total population, 0.1% corresponds to about 500 to 1500 people, and 0.2% corresponds to about 1500 to 2500 people.

Of course, while this is dismal, surely a large share of children in care in New Zealand genuinely were victims of abuse and neglect before the government stepped in and removed them from their families.

New Zealand deserves credit, at least, for a thorough investigation, for apologizing, and for resolving to take action. It is also worth noting that New Zealand apparently has a "no-fault accident compensation system" that makes sense as basically a more seamless version of a system where everyone has casualty insurance (it is discussed at the end of this post).

More than 200,000 people are estimated to have been abused by state and religious organizations in New Zealand that had been entrusted with their care, according to the final report from a landmark independent inquiry released on Wednesday.

The abuse included sexual assault, electric shocks, chemical restraints, medical experimentation, sterilization, starvation and beatings, said the report from the Royal Commission of Inquiry Into Abuse in Care. Many of the victims were children who had been removed from their families and placed in state, religious or foster care.

“For some people this meant years or even decades of frequent abuse and neglect,” the report said. “For some it was a lifetime; for others it led to an unmarked grave.” . . .

The inquiry, established in 2018 by the New Zealand government, involved interviewing nearly 2,500 survivors as it examined orphanages, foster care systems, mental health facilities and other forms of care that were charged with supporting 655,000 people from 1950 through 2019. The inquiry’s leaders described it as the widest-ranging examination of its kind in the world.

The report noted that most children in care were Indigenous Maori, even though the group makes up a minority of the country’s overall population of five million people, and said that “Maori were often targeted because of their ethnicity.”

Beyond the 200,000 people estimated to have been abused, the report said countless others had suffered neglect. . . .

The inquiry found that even when abuses by government and religious leaders were discovered, the leaders “were rarely held to account for their actions or inactions, which emboldened them to perpetrate further abuse.”

Among the inquiry’s 138 recommendations were calls for public apologies from the pope, the archbishop of Canterbury, and New Zealand’s police commissioner and its top civil servant. It also urged the government to overhaul the country’s no-fault accident compensation program to provide tailored support for survivors of abuse.

The report prompted New Zealand’s Catholic, Methodist and Anglican churches to promise change. “We will ensure that action follows our review of the inquiry’s findings,” Steve Lowe, president of the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference, said in a statement. “We owe it to survivors,” the Anglican Church said in another statement.

The report follows decades of complaints from survivors. “Survivors repeatedly called for justice but were unheard, disbelieved, and ignored,” according to the report. “Significant resources have been used to deny survivors their voice and to defend the indefensible. This must stop.”

From the New York Times (July 24, 2024).

The core forward looking recommendations of the report are here and focus on creation of a single national regulatory system for both secular and religious care systems.

National No Fault Accident Compensation

According to an article in a medical journal that is very opposed to the tort system of medical malpractice:

In 1974 New Zealand introduced a publicly-funded accident compensation scheme with the goals of minimising the incidence and impact of injury. 

The scheme provides assistance with the cost of treatment and rehabilitation for all personal injuries, regardless of fault, and in exchange bans suing for compensatory damages. Medical injury has always been covered under the scheme. Consequently, in New Zealand there is no culture of suing doctors for damages and doctors pay comparatively low medical indemnity fees of around £790 per annum. Doctors are held to account under separate processes including the Medical Council of New Zealand’s competence and fitness to practise processes, an independent patient complaints system, and a separate disciplinary process. 

The patient complaints system was introduced in 1994 on recommendation of a 1988 government report that found wanting the prior accountability processes in an environment where patients were unable to sue. In New Zealand, patient complaints are not a demand for financial recompense but a demand that an individual be held to account for perceived wrongdoing. A patient may lodge both a claim for treatment injury compensation and, regardless of injury, a complaint against a practitioner.

Although medical injury has always been covered under the scheme, the compensation of medical injury has not always been without fault for doctors. Prior to 2005, patients could obtain compensation by proving medical error. Because all findings of error were reported to the Medical Council, compensation could bring disciplinary repercussions for doctors. Fear of punishment and/or reputational damage discouraged some doctors (and some patients) from participating in the compensation claims process, unfairly restricting access to compensation for injured patients. This situation was rectified in 2005 under the ‘no-fault’ legislative reforms. The reforms extended eligibility to all injuries caused by treatment and replaced the prior reporting duties with a new duty to report ‘risk of harm to the public’ to the ‘authorities responsible for patient safety’. These changes freed doctors to participate in the compensation claims process with little fear, and improved information flows within the system.

The program explains itself here:

Our no-fault scheme covers everyone, including visitors, who are injured in an accident in Aotearoa New Zealand. It can include events that result in mass casualties, and covers children, beneficiaries, and students. You’re covered if you’re working, unemployed, or retired.

There are some limits to the support we can provide. These limits are set by Parliament, which makes laws about what we can and can’t support.

If you're injured in an accident, make sure you go and see your doctor or health provider first. They can make a claim for you. Claims can be made up to 12 months after your injury. We may still consider claims made after this time if there’s a good reason for the claim not being made sooner. 

What is no-fault cover?

No-fault cover means it doesn't matter what you were doing when you were injured or who was at fault. We'll cover you, as long as the injury falls within our legislation.

The cover we provide helps pay for costs to support your recovery and get you back on your feet. It includes payment towards medical bills, treatment, help at home and work and help with your income. 

Physical injuries we cover

A physical injury is when there is actual damage to your body. This includes: 

• sprains or strains - such as the ankle, back, knee or shoulder sprains
• wounds - cut, broken or bruised skin
• burns
• fractures
• dislocations
• dental injuries
• hearing loss
• concussion and loss of consciousness
• maternal birth injuries which occurred on or after 12:00am on 1 October 2022.

We cover most physical injuries if they're caused by: 

• an accident
• sexual violence

We can cover injuries or conditions that happen over time and are caused by the type of work you do. This is known as gradual process conditions. We have to establish if your work tasks or workplace environment are causing your condition.

We can also cover injuries that are long-term, permanent or that happened at birth. 

Injuries caused by treatment

Sometimes getting treatment can cause an injury. We can cover a treatment injury if: 

• the treatment directly caused your injury
• a registered health professional was treating you
• it's not a normal side-effect of your treatment.

We can also cover injuries caused by treatment for an injury we've already covered. 

Conditions that come on gradually from work

We can cover injuries or conditions that happen over time and are caused by the type of work you do. This could be things like: 

• tendonitis from overusing muscles or heavy lifting
• deafness caused by noise at work
• infections or diseases from exposure to certain environments. 

Serious injuries and disabilities

We can cover injuries that cause long-term effects and disabilities including spinal and traumatic brain injuries (TBI), such as concussion.

Find out how we're working to reduce the number, severity, and impact of TBIs:

Reducing traumatic brain injuries 

Mental injuries we cover

If we accept your claim for a physical injury, we can also cover mental injuries resulting from that injury. For example, post-traumatic stress disorder after a physical assault.

If your physical injury is caused by medical treatment we may also be able to cover a resulting mental injury, even if the physical injury isn’t covered.

We also cover mental injuries if you've experienced, seen or heard a traumatic event at work such as working in a retail shop when a robbery takes place. This is even if you haven't been physically injured. 

Sexual abuse

We provide support for anyone in Aotearoa New Zealand, including visitors to the country, who has experienced sexual abuse and assault. We may also be able to help if you're an Aotearoa New Zealand resident and have experienced sexual abuse while travelling overseas. It doesn't matter if the event happened recently or a long time ago.

If you've experienced sexual abuse, use the Find Support website to see the organisations that have therapists who can support you. This support is fully funded and you can start whenever you're ready. There are also services available for your family.

If you're having trouble getting in touch with the right therapist, contact us. We'll help you to make an appointment. 

Dental injury

We can pay for dental injuries caused by: 

• an accident
• sporting injury
• as a result of medical or dental treatment.

We don’t pay for: 

• damage to your teeth or dentures due to normal wear and tear, eg chewing or biting
• damage to your teeth due to decay or gum disease
• damage to your dentures while you were not wearing them
• treatment that was done by someone that’s not a registered dentist, eg a dental technician.

Your dentist will help you to make a claim if you have an injury we cover.

Injuries causing death

We give financial help if someone dies as a result of: 

• an accident
• a work-related disease or infection
• a treatment injury we're covering
• a self-inflicted injury (in some circumstances). 

Maternal birth injuries

If you have experienced an injury while giving birth on or after 1 October 2022, we may be able to help with your recovery. We have guidance on what's normal and what's not.

This is essentially "no-fault" automobile insurance and worker's compensation on steroids and has a lot to be said for it in some form. The tort system does a poor job of compensating people with smaller injuries, and people who have suffered from bad outcomes and accidents when fault is less clear cut. The tort system is also slow, uncertain, and involved immense transaction costs.

Where Do People Use Top Sheets and Why?

Where do people use top sheets?

In the British Isles (i.e. Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England, plus some small islands in the vicinity) people don't use top sheets. They put a fitted sheet on a bed and a duvet with a duvet cover which is washed from time to time. This practice is pretty much universal in the British Isles from the cheapest hostel or AirBnB, to the most deluxe four star hotel, and pretty much everything in between.

This is also the predominant practice in some of Northern Europe (including all or most of Scandinavia) although I don't have detailed geographic boundaries for this practice worldwide.

In the U.S. and Australia, in contrast, people put a fitted sheet on a bed, then a matching top sheet, and then on top of the top sheet, a bedcover, a quilt, or a comforters (a.k.a. duvet) usually without a duvet cover.

If I recall correctly, they also use top sheets in New Zealand, even though parts of its are cooler than the U.S. and Australia in the summer, probably mostly out of cultural influences from the U.S. and Australia.

Why does this happen?

The key point is that summers in the British Isles and much of Northern Europe aren't very hot. The average high in July in London, near the southern end of the geographic range of this practice, is 72º F.

There is no place in Australia that is that cool in the summer (a season it experiences when it is winter in the Northern hemisphere).

There is only one major American city that is that cool in July: Anchorage, Alaska, where the average high in July is 65º F (although San Francisco has the same average high temperature in July at London, as does Vancouver, British Columbia in Canada).

Basically every major city in the continental U.S. (even in Maine and Washington State) and Hawaii and in other U.S. territories is warmer than London in July, although a few high elevation mountain towns are an exception.

In places that are warmer than London in the summer, it is frequently too hot at night for a duvet or comforter to make sense, especially if one is trying to be thrifting by not using excessive air conditioning only to warm yourself against the air conditioning with insulation at night. 

In middle latitudes of the U.S. interior in places like Denver and Cincinnati, it is frequently too hot for a comforter from sometime in May until sometime in September. Further south, the comforter season is even shorter. Further north, it is a little longer.

On the the other hand, even if it is too warm for a comforter, people in the U.S. and Australia often still like to have something over them while they sleep, both for modesty and to keep out the occasional flies, gnats and mosquitos that manages to make it into the house. Some people find that having something on top of them while they are in bed also helps them to sleep.

Often, to keep the bed pretty when it is made and not being used, people in the U.S. or Australia will also add a pretty bed cover such as quilt or thin, not very warm blanket. But, the top sheet is necessary to avoid having to clean the quilt or blanket (or in colder months the uncovered comforter or duvet) in the laundry on a regular basis because it prevents the harder to clean fabric from being exposed to sweat and smells. 

The duvet cover fills that role in cooler climates, and since it is very rarely too warm to use a duvet at night in the places where this is the common practice, they is no need to have top sheets as a substitute for duvet covers when it is warmer.

It Is Bad For Local Residents To Have A Volcano Erupts In The Middle Of A City

Who knew that a volcano erupting in the middle of a major city "can adversely impact human populations"?

Of course, your risk is greatly elevated if your city, such as Auckland, New Zealand (where I used to live) is "built on top of a volcano field."

Volcanic eruptions are a complex natural hazard, more appropriately described as a suite of natural perils occurring in parallel, in sequence, and/or multiple times in various combinations. The non-discrete nature of volcanic eruptions presents notable challenges in terms of eruption forecasting, response, and long-term management. Volcanic eruptions can adversely impact human populations in a number of ways, beyond killing or injuring individuals (e.g., Auker et al., 2013). Eruptions can prompt evacuations in an effort to minimise the number of fatalities (e.g., Tobin and Whiteford, 2002, Wilson et al., 2012a, Mei et al., 2013). Eruptions can also damage, destroy, or otherwise compromise infrastructure and services relied upon by modern societies, hindering response processes and daily life. Agriculture, horticulture, and forestry can also be impacted, affecting livelihoods and societal food sources. Finally, eruptions can directly and indirectly impact tourism and economic activity due to real or perceived danger and business disruption. 

Given the potential for eruptions to cause devastating and catastrophic impacts, it is fortunate few urban centres are built directly on top of a volcano or volcanic centre. According to the Global Volcanism Program, only 6% of confirmed or presumed Holocene volcanoes have over 100,000 people living within 5 km of the volcano, and < 1% (12 out of 1532) have over a million people living within 5 km of the volcano. Most commonly, if an urban centre is exposed to volcanic hazards, it is exposed to volcanic ash or gas as these can reach areas at considerable distances from the source volcano. Volcanic ash is generally disruptive rather than destructive, and while often considered more of a nuisance, volcanic gas can cause health and agricultural impacts in situations where there are sufficient concentrations. Both volcanic ash and gas can present considerable challenges, but there are rarely major, long term or permanent changes to cities as a result; this is in contrast to the consequences of proximal hazards, which have historically caused considerable changes to or abandonment of inhabited areas. 

What happens when an urban centre is co-located with a volcano or volcanic centre, and is thus exposed to proximal hazards in addition to volcanic ash and/or gas? 

In this paper, we use a scenario approach to explore the potential consequences of volcanism within an urban centre. Specifically, we examine the implications of a monogenetic eruption for the city of Auckland, New Zealand, which is built on top of a volcanic field. Developing such information on future disaster risk is essential to underpin disaster risk management decisions to improve resilience.

From the introduction to: 

Natalia I. Delinge, et al., "Investigating the consequences of urban volcanism using a scenario approach I: Development and application of a hypothetical eruption in the Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand" 336 Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 192-208 (April 15, 2017).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2017.02.023

There are at least two well known examples of this happening catastrophically in the past, one in historic times, in the city of Pompeii in what is now Italy but was then part of the Roman Empire, and one at the boundary between historic and prehistoric times, in Santorini, Greece.