Policy decisions based on dodgy, whataboutism-esque figures is, in my opinion, what undergirded the incredibly incompetent COVID response here in the US, and elsewhere.
It's a good thing everyone's actions take place in a bubble and have no effect on others.
The type of person who encounters the trolley problem and asks "can we just play a different game?"
You're arguing that people should increase their exposure to acute myocardial infarction (among other concerns) to account for dodgy whataboutism-esque energy consumption figures from the 1910s and 40s-50s that have been observed to actually increase energy consumption in modern times?
What are you blabbering on about?
Meanwhile, research has shown that the impact of losing an hour due to DST observation has an impact on the heart[2][3][4].
So this policy appears to be one that literally saves lives while at the same time having the additional benefit of potentially reducing energy consumption at a time when we're dealing with an energy crisis.
[1] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w14429/w144... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4189320/ [3] https://openheart.bmj.com/content/openhrt/1/1/e000019.full.p... [4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00029...