Slashdot Mirror
Fitbit Wants To Help Corporations Track Employee Health
jfruh writes: Fitbit is pitching its iconic fitness trackers to businesses as a tool to save money on health care costs. Many companies have wellness programs to encourage workers to exercise more, and Fitbit will help employers quantify (and monitor) employee progress. “We think virtually every company will incorporate fitness trackers into their corporate wellness programs,” Fitbit CFO Bill Zerella said
Lord help us all!
Maybe they can come monitor my food when I'm at home or out about town, too?
And maybe they can monitor when I wake and sleep.
And maybe monitor what kind of air I breath in my part of town.
And maybe they can just get a direct pipe into all my medical records? I mean, since apparently we give no fucks anymore, right?
I have a better idea: You hire me to do a fucking job and I'll do the fucking job and we'll leave our involvement with each other right fucking there.
I've already worked at companies where people were sacked because they were a drain on the corporate insurance and I'm already penalized by my current company (with higher insurance rates) because I refuse to submit my vitals and blood work every year for a "health insurance discount". My personal, private health information is just that.
Old news, my company started it last year. It is an optional program, but you are necouraged as you get a free fitbit, and money if you hit certain goals.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
While not quite a sales pitch, it sure kinda feels that way...
That's what always creeps me out about any sort of "employee wellness" programs in the workplace. There is an all-too-fine line between an optional program with fun rewards and a de facto mandatory program with harsh punishments.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
It is not fat shaming to want to help your employees get/stay in shape. As a fatty trying to lose weight to get healthy I love this idea. But who said it was be enfoced? I have not seen one of these programs that is not optional.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Can you say why it is aweful?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
but where is the diet and eating habits programs?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
It's not remotely "fat shaming". Healthy people have lower health care costs on average. Everyday people like me and presumably you want to spend less on insurance, which means we need to actually cost less. Programs like this (my employer does it, and I participate) don't stigmatize you in any way if you don't participate. I didn't for the first few years it was in place. No one said a word about it. I finally did because I felt like I was leaving free money on the table.
There's zero stress. You carry a tiny device around, sync it now and again, lose it from time to time, find it again, and there's more money in your paycheck.
I work for the University of Washington (so I'm a state employee), and starting with 2015 our health plan has included a "wellness incentive" which, if met, drops $125 off an employee's annual deductible. For this current year, it was a simple matter of making a couple attestations ("I don't smoke", "I exercise at least 3 days a week"). For 2016, though, it's gotten a bit more intrusive - one of the ways you can earn points towards the incentive is to record daily step counts and exceed 35000 steps per week, which you could either do manually or by giving the website access to your FitBit data (it also supported several other trackers). Other ways to earn points included "Try Tai Chi", "Fill out an Advance Directive", "See a Mentor", "No Stress Mondays", and so on.
Given the move Washington State has made towards both intrusiveness and nanny-state-dom, and given that by state law pretty much all our job-related data is public record, I would not be surprised if at some point people who gave permission to access their fitness trackers to find that someone in the monitoring chain started checking when activity is occurring. This could be a problem for someone if, like me, they often don't get a conventional lunch hour due to job duties. I'm often eating after 1pm (or even after 2pm) simply because it works better with tasks I'm doing - so when I go for my lunchtime walk, it's not usually between 12 and 1. Fortunately I'm not naive enough to give them access to my Garmin Viviosmart data, but a less paranoid person could end up with a nasty surprise come annual evaluation time.
#DeleteChrome
That's the concern. Optional benefits (on campus gym, free/reduced cost gym membership, paid personal trainers, reimbursement for exercise classes, paying for home equipment) are cool. Forcing people is not. And if an employer is tracking my health, that falls into category 2 not category 1.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
And if you get sick, there's less money when their lawyers show all the data that you volunteered to give them.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
I have a Fitbit (got it for free, I wouldn't actually pay for a high-tech step counter).
I also work out on a treadmill every morning before work. It counts my steps very accurately (it can even tell if I "cheat", and stop counting).
The Fitbit gives completely fictional numbers vs the treadmill. I mean, on most days, it would come to within 75% correct, but on one particular day, the Fitbit literally said I did 3x as many steps as I really did. I stopped even bothering to wear it after that.
Privacy rights aside (I vehemently oppose giving our corporate masters access to anything even vaguely resembling medical data), where do we stand when I may literally pay more for my insurance than the guy at the next desk for no other reason than Fitbit's crappy quality control?
/ Side note - The sleep tracking sucks even harder than the step counting. I took it off one night after activating sleep mode. It said I had something like 17 interruptions to my sleep. Uh-huh.
That's the concern. Optional benefits (on campus gym, free/reduced cost gym membership, paid personal trainers, reimbursement for exercise classes, paying for home equipment) are cool. Forcing people is not. And if an employer is tracking my health, that falls into category 2 not category 1.
I have not yet heard of an employer actually forcing people (and I would hear of things being in the benefits administration field). But, I have seen employers raise the price of health insurance, and then offer a "discount" for participation in healthy incentives.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
The day this happens is the day I pay my coworker to wear my bracelet. or give it to my seven year old. or leave it on the dryer during spin cycle.
...and yet many companies use United Healthcare, which has this neat little program where nicotine users (cigs, dip, vape, whatever) get to pay an extra $70/mo. for their health insurance, and if your spouse smokes? That'll be $140/mo that you get pay, please.
Oh, you don't partake and claim yourself exempt? You get random annual bodily-fluid testing where you get to prove that you're nicotine-free.
Did I mention that if caught smoking when you said you didn't? You get fired for-cause.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Way to ignore the fact that I already addressed that. I played the paranoid for a few years and didn't participate. Nobody said a word. Not everything is a conspiracy.
Because HIPPA
My discount for typical disclosures knocked my premium down to 66% of my last 2 years premium.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
“We think virtually every company will incorporate fitness trackers into their corporate wellness programs,” Fitbit CFO Bill Zerella said
Yeah, well I think virtually everyone is going to buy my new, improved Pet Rock.
Seriously, I wouldn't work for a company that required or even suggested that I wear their FitBit Corporate Monitoring Device.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Oh, you don't partake and claim yourself exempt? You get random annual bodily-fluid testing where you get to prove that you're nicotine-free.
What if you just like chewing nicotine gum? I can't imagine anyone who would, since it tastes gross, but it's possible.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Actually, United Healthcare program you are referring to covers use of tobacco products. The FDA doesn't currently categorize e-cigarettes as a tobacco product so they don't count, for now. I know because we have United Healthcare and I filled out this form about a month ago and it specifically mentions that e-cigs are not currently recognized as tobacco products.
That's a fair point. I don't know how to deal with that aspect, honestly. As someone who has enjoyed an "extreme sport" (I hate that term...) or two, I definitely sympathize with the desire not to be penalized for actually living, not just riding a rocking chair into the sunset.
There's definitely a line I draw in what information I'm willing to share. How many steps I take when I'm actually carrying my device. Ok. GPS all day every day? No.
The part I don't like is the privacy aspect. If you have serious health issues you may be healthy enough to work but not healthy enough to hit the default fitness requirements of the wellness program. The programs do offer tailored goals for such people, but that requires a worker to "out" themselves which puts their employment in a precarious state. It also requires involvement from their primary care, who no doubt has too much work to do already, making it more of a burden for the not quite disabled.
I don't know. Active people get themselves into situations where they grind away their knees or other joints, break bones and what-not. I had some crazy healthcare costs after slamming into the pavement in a bicycling accident. 15+ years later and I'm still dealing with it. I wonder how those numbers would actually break out.
I played the paranoid for a few years and didn't participate. Nobody said a word.
...did you consider that you may not have been high enough on the corporate food chain for it to matter? Once you get up into middle management and beyond, little crap like this begins to matter a lot when it comes to promotions, layoff decisions, etc.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
My company distributed Fitbits to every employee. Was kind of worthless for me as my two main forms of exercise are cycling and weight lifting- neither were really tracked by the fitbit. I lost it after a few weeks. Fortunately, there was no actual monitoring of our use.
Garmin has already started down this path, although they have a lot of room for growth.
Currently my company uses the vivofits as wellness programs where participation is optional. But so much participation is expected out of the employee to minimize health care costs. An employee can fudge what they do, take a bunch of tests and save about $100 a month on their health insurance. Otherwise they don't have to do much at all and pay the extra. Now there are ways to get out of the extra work, such as if your blood work shows your numbers are good, then great. You pretty much don't have to do anything.
There are aspects that I don't like about this, but being in the Midwest and having to pay for Billy Bob and his second helping of gravy covered fries, three 20oz Mountain Dews, and three cheeseburgers during a 20 minute lunch break; I find taking care of myself and a little encouragement isn't a bad thing.
My company is self-insured, so any tubby decides to clog his arteries and require a septuple bypass, some how that seems to affect the profit sharing.
I guess that all depends on what you want to get out of life, but since I started this wellness kick this last year, I think I would rather spend the time and effort slimming down and improve my quality of life a bit rather than require my own personal morning noon and night pillbox for every day.
Place something witty here
That's the concern. Optional benefits (on campus gym, free/reduced cost gym membership, paid personal trainers, reimbursement for exercise classes, paying for home equipment) are cool. Forcing people is not. And if an employer is tracking my health, that falls into category 2 not category 1.
I have not yet heard of an employer actually forcing people (and I would hear of things being in the benefits administration field). But, I have seen employers raise the price of health insurance, and then offer a "discount" for participation in healthy incentives.
My boss talked about his former workplace. There was basically some mandatory BMI reading that had some impact on health benefits cost. He was pissed because he lifted weights, so his BMI said he was overweight, meanwhile he had a fairly low % bodyfat (he's not even a ridiculously jacked bodybuilder).
My current workplace has a a program where you can go to a voluntary screening (BMI, %BF, Glucose, and cholesterol), the results supposedly aren't sent to the employer, but for participating you get a couple hundred bucks to apply towards gym memberships, fitness equipment, etc.
Fit Bit fooling...
All you need is a device designed to mimic "steps" that you put your FitBit on. Have it emulate walking, jogging or even sprinting. Then the employee wares this FitBit most of the day, except for the 2 hours when the "exercise" session takes place. I don't imagine that this device will be too expensive either, making the whole "I'm healthy so give me the bonus money" fiction worth the investment.
Who's with me?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Exactly this. Overwork and stress from working conditions cause health problems. Employers should be barred from accessing employee health info because of conflict of interest (aka slave driver syndrome). Also, why the hell should employees tolerate this huge invasion of privacy? What happened to HIPAA and laws against violating the 4th amendment (privacy laws)?
I predict the guy at Home Depot working the paint mixer will be a top performer.
t
The part I don't like is the privacy aspect. If you have serious health issues you may be healthy enough to work but not healthy enough to hit the default fitness requirements of the wellness program. The programs do offer tailored goals for such people, but that requires a worker to "out" themselves which puts their employment in a precarious state. It also requires involvement from their primary care, who no doubt has too much work to do already, making it more of a burden for the not quite disabled.
Most incentive programs I have seen offer the discount for participation -- just trying. Even some of the tobacco cessation programs only require that one be enrolled, not actually quit. But how far are we from those programs becoming mandatory to qualify for certain [things -- other benefits; company bonuses; etc.]? That I do not know; however, I do know that even though I can easily pass all the biometric screenings I still do not participate because I'd rather fork over a few dollars a month than let my employer into my personal health.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Someone gave me a Jawbone (competitor to Fitbit) as a gift. I refuse to use it, because it an functionally opaque piece of garbage that requires that I sign up for an online service. This nearly always means that someone plans to sell my data.
These punk-ass little toys would not survive my principal physical activity, which requires seawater immersion tolerance to at least 3 meters, and occasional water impacts at upwards of 40km/hr. The other is yoga, and I am not wearing any encumbrances during that.
I also detest wearing anything on my wrists or arms. I wear a wristwatch only during travel, or if I have an appointment, or occasionally if I need to gauge time to renew sunblock. Two of my wristwatches, ripped away by impacts, are now somewhere on the bottom of San Francisco Bay or inside some bottom-feeder.
Speaking of bottom-feeders, I have something for you, Mr. Tech CEO. The only "tracking" that I support is the tying people who propose it, onto active railroad tracks.
My current workplace has a a program where you can go to a voluntary screening (BMI, %BF, Glucose, and cholesterol), the results supposedly aren't sent to the employer, but for participating you get a couple hundred bucks to apply towards gym memberships, fitness equipment, etc.
My workplace has that as well, but there privacy policy states they can share that medical data with anyone they like for marketing purposes. I passed on the $50 voucher.
Yes, I was wondering about this.
I am fit (El Capitan climbing kind of fit, even at my age). Now what if someone says I'm too slim? Or I am simply more than fit enough?
The company's idea of optimal may be that you are fit while working and die within five years of retirement (saving money on pensions,of course). Or someone decides rock climbing is too dangerous and says I have to quit to be covered?
We're headed that way. Commerce and government will become indistinguishable from each other.
We have a (laughably ineffective) separation of Church and State.
We desperately need to even more fiercely deploy and enforce a separation of Commerce and State. No more lobbying by religious groups. No more lobbying by commerce -- or proxies of, at least not on the positively obscene way it is being done today
And by State I also include the federales.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
I have not yet heard of an employer actually forcing people (and I would hear of things being in the benefits administration field). But, I have seen employers raise the price of health insurance, and then offer a "discount" for participation in healthy incentives.
So basically you are punishing an employee who chooses not to participate in healthy incentives or can't participate. I have scaring on my lungs due to multiple medical issues over the years so work outs are hard for me because I feel like I can't get enough air and so I tire out easy. So I guess someone like me is just screwed, sorry pay more employee because of your past health issues? That just seems so wrong to me.
The Man wants to track more than your health: Woman wears during sex
It is not fat shaming to want to help your employees get/stay in shape. As a fatty trying to lose weight to get healthy I love this idea. But who said it was be enfoced? I have not seen one of these programs that is not optional.
Here was a plan that was as planned to be enforced by what amounted to hefty fines.
At a well known University, they tried to mandate physical examinations for the entire university as part of their "wellness program" . http://lcbpsusenate.blogspot.c...
The short version is that they planned on mandating blood tests and physical examinations, and were planning on punitive surcharges if you didn't comply. The information gathered could also be shared or sold to third parties, and if you didn't comply, you could be charged an extra 1200 dollars a year.
After in huge amount of outrage over both the personal intrusion and invasion of privacy engendered in the "plan", it was dropped.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
That's the concern. Optional benefits (on campus gym, free/reduced cost gym membership, paid personal trainers, reimbursement for exercise classes, paying for home equipment) are cool. Forcing people is not. And if an employer is tracking my health, that falls into category 2 not category 1.
I have not yet heard of an employer actually forcing people (and I would hear of things being in the benefits administration field). But, I have seen employers raise the price of health insurance, and then offer a "discount" for participation in healthy incentives.
The Penn State Wellness fiasco? Unless you think that what amounts to a yearly fine is not forced,, I'm pretty surprised that a professional in benefits administration field would not have heard of that. It was dropped due ot employee outrage (some were even daring to breathe the dreaded "U" word, but it was going to be forced until cooler minds intervened. I posted a link above, but here it is again http://lcbpsusenate.blogspot.c...
Any thoughts?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Fitbit does *not* track employee health. It tracks employee behavior, specifically what it perceives to be employee physical exercise. It's quite a stretch to imply one equals the other.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Funny how Corporations have managed to do away with pensions, reduces pay amount, rarely pays for vacation days, sure as fuck doesn't want to pay for pregnancy leaves, and been raping it's employees to line it's shareholders & CEO's pockets and people just accept it. Now they want to keep track of your health, so they can pay less healthcare cost, which they hardly pay much of at all, unless you are of course a Congress critter.
Think how worse it will be when the TPP crap goes thru and instead of Corporations being considered Persons, they will be even above Governments? Soon we will have to pay Corporations to be allowed to work there, if they could figure a way to trick us into that.
Be seeing you...
I'll monitor my own fucking health, thankyouverymuch.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
No.
Doesn't matter what is the name of the company at the start, and what is the subject of the tracking (if it is not a DIRECT function of their job), this is a bad idea (or has the potential to be abused and become a bad idea).
I do exercise, a lot. I fitbit wants to *help* my employer monitor my fitness, then my employer can pay my gym fees and give me time off *every_fucking_day* to work out.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I am contractant in a society where many staff people are doing a lot of sport. I do not much exercise and I am almost never on leave because of sickness (2 days in 20 years). There are many accidents in sports. Many sportiv people have to go to the doctor or to the kine often during the work time. There are most probably health benefits of doing exercise, but it is far from obvious that this gives any financial return for the employer. And when employees leave on retirement, they will most probably cost longer.
I do not know why employers seeking sportiv employees is a so widely accepted mantra. I have never seen a serious study that proves there are any benefits.
Why does your employer need to track you? If it's really about your health, why wouldn't they just give you a fitbit account as part of your compensation?
For employers reducing health care costs isn't about making employees healthier. It's about getting rid of the employees who are going to cost money.
...and yet many companies use United Healthcare, which has this neat little program where nicotine users (cigs, dip, vape, whatever) get to pay an extra $70/mo. for their health insurance, and if your spouse smokes? That'll be $140/mo that you get pay, please.
Oh, you don't partake and claim yourself exempt? You get random annual bodily-fluid testing where you get to prove that you're nicotine-free.
Did I mention that if caught smoking when you said you didn't? You get fired for-cause.
You've got two people who want you to lend them $1000. One is an alcoholic gambling addict, the other is a responsible adult with a long stable work history and no debt. Which do you lend money to?
This isn't rocket science here. Insurance companies aren't non-profit charities. Their ability to stay afloat relies on their ability to accurately assess risk and charge accordingly. If you engage in high risk behaviors (smoking, excessive drinking, weighing 400 lbs and eating nothing but cheeseburgers and donuts while snorting lines of coke off a hooker's ass, etc.), then an insurance company is going to adjust your rates higher than someone who leads a healthy lifestyle.
And if you lie and say your the pinnacle of health when in fact your one deep fried cheese stick from a coronary, I'm not sure why you seem to think that's any different than lying in any other aspect of your job. Your dishonest and selfish behavior just cost the company $150,000 for your triple bypass, raising the rates the company has to pay and thus your co-workers have to pay.
~X~
WP's are largely a means by which 'health consultants' make money off corporations.
And now FitBit is simply trying to get in on that action.
Now there's a difference between actually caring about your employee's health, and just trying to save money.
But let's be realistic: most companies are trying to save money by doing this.
Multiple independent research studies (have shown that Wellness Programs don't work, and don't save companies any money, nor make them any additional revenue, and actually harm health instead of improving it. Which rather contradicts the (rather self-serving) studies coming out of the wellness industry itself. (And some companies are simply using them to penalize their poorer and/or unhealthier (two conditions that tend to go hand in hand in a vicious cycle) workers.)
Overall what their finding is that there is very little return on investment, basically about breaking even.
The broader wellness programs, with the most preventive measures/incentives (ie the most overbearing) do the least, and actually decrease worker health.
At the same time more narrow, targeted programs, such as specific disease treatment programs (such as asthma, diabetes, etc) do the most, mostly likely because these are conditions people already have, and having a program at work that supports them and helps them manage their conditions does alleviate some burden, compared to the more traditional approach where the company doesn't care and leaves you to worry about it on your own, and/or raises your insurance costs or even dismisses you over it.
http://theincidentaleconomist....
http://www.nationaljournal.com...
https://hbr.org/2010/12/whats-...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Problem is, as soon as you quantify workplace wellness programs, they are exposed as shams. I can't imagine any of the vendors being particularly happy about this prospect. Oh sure, publicly they will praise it, but in private...
This is one of those cases where the logical conclusion could possibly actually be way off base. The obese and chainsmokers may end up with lower medical costs over their lifetime. Why? They die earlier. I was all in with you until I learned this unusual bit of information. Now, this article doesn't delve into average age of death, so it could be that they're dieing way earlier on average and the lower costs aren't offset because of shorter insurance premium pay-in duration at lower life expectancy, but it does debunk charging employees in some cases double for insurance if they are smokers.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti...
Disclaimer: I don't smoke and find it absolutely disgusting. Still doesn't mean I have to like the insurance 'smoker fee'
Mine does something a little different, probably a better implementation in my opinion. They don't do the screenings anymore (they did a long time ago) but now they offer to pay your last 4 yearly insurance premiums if you get a physical before August. The physical is with your normal doctor, and this is information your insurer would have ended up seeing anyway.
But then if you point to environmental pollution companies are like, "What's an externality?"
The incentive programs I've been in are not run by the employer, but by a health-care organization. I used to be in a discounted rate if I hit the gym often enough program, now I'm in a program that has me fill out a survey, tells me to eat less and exercise more, and has me track something for eight weeks.
When you're in such a program, check to see who runs it, and if it's a health care provider whether they ask you if they can tell your employer about your health. It is highly illegal for a health care worker to release personally identifiable health information of any sort to anybody else you didn't authorize, and last I talked to some they took HIPAA very, very seriously.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It's a fair point and probably true for a lot of people. It's getting murky though. Some employers are doing self-funded plans, where the insurance company really only deals with billing and claims. Then they may involve an intermediary such as WebMD to centralize the health information. Somewhere in the half dozen web sites you get bounced around in, you've no doubt clicked to agree that your data can be posted on Twitter for all the world to see. And even if you didn't, your data is one security breach away from being data mined. I wouldn't be surprised if we already have a "health score" that's similar to our credit scores. It wouldn't have to reveal specifics.
The Penn State Wellness fiasco? Unless you think that what amounts to a yearly fine is not forced,, I'm pretty surprised that a professional in benefits administration field would not have heard of that. It was dropped due ot employee outrage (some were even daring to breathe the dreaded "U" word, but it was going to be forced until cooler minds intervened. I posted a link above, but here it is again http://lcbpsusenate.blogspot.c...
Any thoughts?
Strictly speaking the employees would not have been forced had they been willing to part with $100 per pay check. Actually, it sounds like what I was describing, but in a different order. But to be fair, I see your point that it basically amounts to forcing people because lower paid employees may not have been able to afford the dock in pay.
Please note, I am a software developer for a consultancy, not a plan administrator, so I don't read up on the latest news in industry publications. My concern is optimized queries, efficient code, semantic HTML, cocktails, beer, and good food. Not necessarily in that order.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
You had me at beer!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I work for a major defense contractor. They have a similar "wellness" program in place. It has been that way several years. Get health screenings (blood work), physical, etc or you pay a penalty in premiums. Your spouse, too.
I work for a major defense contractor. They have a similar "wellness" program in place. It has been that way several years. Get health screenings (blood work), physical, etc or you pay a penalty in premiums. Your spouse, too.
One of the oddest things, given that today's medical world is hell bent on getting us on lifetime maintenance drugs, it seems a little odd that they wouldn't want you to die as soon as possible.
As we are told, if you are obese, or smoke, you will suffer and die young. And quickly.
Mine and my parent's generation family was a big one, and with one exception, those who lived longest were the most expensive, healthcare wise.
The one exception ws ironic, however. Non-Smoker, Non-Drinker. exercised regularly, and took all her meds. Caught dementia, and spent the last ten years of her life in a nursing home.
That money exception for the one who did it right? the last two years of her life, she ran up over 600 thousand dollars of medical expenses.
Most of our lifespan is determined by our genetics. It's a pity we're going all kookoo for coco puffs over something that probably won't keep people living much longer, but might cost more than we expect.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.