I honestly don't think anyone is upset. I just don't think - as an example - that my grade seven kid needed to be woken at midnight for this type of problem. I also don't subscribe to the idea it's all the people in Alberta get called or none of the people in Alberta get called - I think technology has advanced enough that we can target text messages to individual demographics.
How about people 16-67 get the message to be on the lookout. I believe we are getting pretty young below that threshold and old above it. Let's let those people sleep based on a predetermined threshold like after 9pm old and young don't need to be alerted. Boom, 489,689 people were just spared a disturbed sleep by just slightly narrowing the focus. Isn't that an example of a slight improvement you could see them working on? Why are you so closed to - and angry about - the mere suggestion that there is room for improvement with our new system?
I also wonder if this type of system has been used elsewhere and what kind of data is available on its efficacy after repeated alarms. Do people care less about the alerts the more they hear them? I would guess yes, which would be another good reason to narrow the focus of the alerts.
|