Researchers Use Wireless To Study How Flu Spreads 64
MojoKid writes "With the help of wireless sensors, Stanford researchers confirmed what most of us suspected. When it comes to infectious viruses, human beings are toast. The researchers outfitted an entire high school population with IEEE 802.15.4 sensors for one day to model what they call a 'human contact network.' The devices tracked how often people came within the infection-spreading range of other individuals during a typical height-of-flu-season January day. The devices logged more than 760,000 incidents when two people were within 10 feet of each other, roughly the maximum distance that a disease can be transmitted through a cough or sneeze, according to a Stanford report on the project. The researchers ran thousands of simulations of a flu outbreak trying to determine infection rates under various circumstances."
Is it just distance? (Score:4, Interesting)
I was under the impression that flu was also spread by a carrier touching a surface, then someone else touching it, then touching his eyes or mouth. And if people aren't sneezing/coughing like crazy, I would expect this shared-surfaces issue to be the dominant way the flu is spread.
If I'm right, wouldn't their approach have a serious problem getting data on these shared-surface transmissions?
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, however ins heavily traveled areas, the surface it likely to be touched again by someone near by, like coming in behind you through a door.
But the test wasn't there to track all vectors, just close contact ones. There isn't anything new here, but it's a good bit of data that correlate with other models.
Re: (Score:2)
This is Stanford. You can't expect them to be held up by trivial things like FACTS. The methodology sounds cool, so it passes peer review.
Re:Is it just distance? (Score:5, Insightful)
And if your individuals' behavior incorporate a real model of movement with a sense of distance to other people, you have indeed a very interesting model. (Yes, it is that bad. If you are a developer and want to help save the world, adopt a biologist and do their developments). Right now, various techniques are used to try and build a social network that can help understand how a disease spreads in various age group. "How many people come at less than 3 meters of a given person in a normal schools day ? in an airport ? in a regular office ? in a retirement house ? in subways ?" having an indication even with a 1 to 10 estimation, it would bring interesting results. So if we know you are in range to infect 50 to 500 people in a normal day, we know that the models that say it is 10 and the models that say it is 1000 are useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wireless != noun (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As above.
The only time I've heard it used as one is to refer to an AM radio, by old people.
I'll get off your lawn now.
In the sentence "I like wireless.", "wireless" is a noun. Therefore, "wireless" is a noun.
Words don't have divine and immutable parts of speech or any other linguistic feature somehow ingrained in the fabric of the universe. "Wireless" can plop down in any open class position (noun, verb, adjective, adverb). It is even welcome to be a closed class word (determiner, pronoun, conjunction, etc) if we decide to start using it as such. "Wireless" can also be spoken with a "Z" at the end, or by dropping the first
Re:Wireless != noun (Score:4, Interesting)
As a brilliant man said a very long time ago "The meaning of a word is its use in the language".
OK, my reply is going to be off topic, but your comment quoted above reminded me of an argument I had with some friends.
I had one friend who had started dating a mildly religious women who didn't like cussing, so he was working to cut cuss words out of his speech. He would sometimes use silly or weird words in their replacement, such as "ferk" in lieu of "fuck" if he accidentally hurt himself, for example.
My argument was that he was *still* cussing, despite the change in word. The new stand-in word retained the original meaning, use, and inflection and was understood by all as a replacement for the original word. Therefore, it was still cussing.
Many of my friends did not agree with my assertion.
As a linguist, I would be interested in your take.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and sorry to reply to myself, I forgot to add the obvious joke in my previous post:
Are you a cunning linguist? Or just a master debater?
Thanks folks, I'm here all night!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
It is different because it contains an extra message: "I know I'm not supposed to say that, but you won't stop me from saying it anyway."
Re:Wireless != noun (Score:5, Informative)
I always found that to be completely pointless, as well. Its meaning is still the same, and it's used in the exact same circumstances as the swear word they're replacing. That said, getting offended by mere words is just idiotic, I think. People use the argument that swear words were intended to be offensive, but not only are they mere words, but you have no obligation to be offended by them. It's ultimately your own fault if you get offended. People need to get out of their little bubbles and toughen up.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is an interesting question which I myself have puzzled over more than once. The explanation I am going to give you is one that is not based on any clear vein of research, so take it for what it is worth.
"Cussing" is making use of linguistic forms which have been deemed taboo. Whether or not you are cussing, in my opinion, depends upon whether or not you are violating a taboo from the perspective of yourself or your speaking partner. I could see the argument of justification for your friend going either
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. Well, thanks for your take on it. It's always fun to ponder these sorts of questions.
And you're very right, it does depend on who you are talking to, like most anything.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuLrBLxbLxw [youtube.com]
Apologies in advance if this offends you. My parents were horrified that I thought this was funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In the sentence "I like wireless.", "wireless" is a noun.
Pardon, but I'm pretty sure that that sentence is implying an unstated noun that is obvious given the context, much like the sentence "I will." which has no predicate at all. Wireless is still an adjective, but it is standing in for a complete phrase. If you were talking about car paint jobs and said, "I like red", red would be an adjective ("I like red paint jobs") not a noun ("I like the color red (in general)."). Or in this case specifically, "I like wireless (communications)" does not necessarily imp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonetheless, there are meanings and usages accepted by the majority of educated users at a certain point in time.
Adverb? Well obviously you didn't study very diligent.
But anyway, wireless is a noun but not for any woo-woo "languages evolve" kind of bullshit reaso
Re: (Score:2)
If you're hanging around with people who call AM radios "wireless", we should probably get off *your* lawn. (Well, the retirement home's lawn that you enjoy.)
Study Results: (Score:1)
Flu spreads wirelessly.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people have strong systems (Score:2)
Some people aren't vulnerable to catching the flu. Sure, they get exposed just like anyone else, but for some reason their body doesn't become a virus factory.
I think it'd be nice to do some research into what it takes to make a body more resistant, but that's probably not very profitable for the vaccine industry...
Re: (Score:2)
the 'vaccine industry' barely breaks even.
Re:Some people have strong systems (Score:4, Funny)
Speaking as someone who hasn't been sick since 2006 and I NEVER get a stupid flu shot, you may be on to something there. Part of it is to not bother with medications and having a superior immune system untouched by anti-bacterial products. That and a complete belief that I cannot get sick anymore. That's all it takes. A strong will and immune system that gets exposed to all sorts of real-world bacteria and flu bugs is all you need. Stop getting sick, you weak fucktards!
Re: (Score:1)
Speaking as someone who hasn't been sick since 2006 and I NEVER get a stupid flu shot, you may be on to something there. Part of it is to not bother with medications and having a superior immune system untouched by anti-bacterial products. That and a complete belief that I cannot get sick anymore. That's all it takes. A strong will and immune system that gets exposed to all sorts of real-world bacteria and flu bugs is all you need. Stop getting sick, you weak fucktards!
Methinks someone doesn't understand vaccines. I got sick for the first time in years this year but I always get the flu shot if the opportunity presents itself. I don't go out of the way to get it but if I happen to be in my doctors office and he offers it I take it. It's part of exposing your immune system, ever notice how some people actually get sick when they get vaccinated? It's because their immune system is working hard fighting the vaccine.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure why this was modded funny. I also opt to skip the flu shot. My wife and kids still get them. She insisted on getting the H1N1 shot when it became available. She then contracted H1N1 despite the vaccination and I remained healthy and unaffected. It's not a difficult concept: feed your body what you need to stay healthy and it will (usually) take care of itself.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, maybe part of her contract with H1N1 was that it wouldn't attack you if she let it attack her. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I see the causal relationship between your special immunity, skipping the jab, and what you're feeding your body.
Re: (Score:1)
http://xkcd.com/828/ [xkcd.com]
Bad researchers. Bad! (Score:4, Interesting)
High school students are generally a lot more sociable than the general population. Outfit a large office building with these same sensors, and I bet you get different results.
Also discovered: A crowd has a lot of people (Score:2)
So we have successfully determined that a place has a lot of people within 10 feet of each other when:
1) It's designed specifically so 20-40 people sit in small rooms where their "personal space" is made up entirely of a chair and a 2 foot by 3 foot desk.
2) This time is broken up by people, all at the same time, getting up and moving around
Re: (Score:2)
no, they determined how many times the come in contact with each other.
You people that are so busy trying to show way something is wrong or 'useless' might want to take a moment to think. DO you know you look like a dick?
Re: (Score:2)
no, they determined how many times the come in contact with each other.
Yeah, and it's a big number. What does having the precise number for one school on one day benefit us?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not much. Did you think the entire result of the study was just that number, and not simply one simple value to throw into the summary?
The summary told me nothing.
The article told me that if you vaccinate a small number it doesn't matter who you vaccinate, popular or unpopular. More informative I'll admit but not really surprising since everyone is forced to walk past everyone else several times a day. Oh, and that they assume sick people remove themselves from the population, an assumption I'd like explained to me since there's a lot of things that can keep sick kids at school.
The actual Stanford article also told me that tracking eve
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, these days it's tons of bullshit until you get to the real thing. Everything above the actual study is going to be full of infantile jokes and idiotic observations, as you've noted (personally it makes me sick to read any modern news articles, or much of anything, due to this). Here's the path I followed to get to the actual study:
Slashdot summary [slashdot.org] -> Hot Hardwar [hothardware.com]
Re: (Score:2)
In the study, they use the detailed interaction data to try various infection parameters, to see how it spreads. There are many interesting graphs, showing how it spreads in the various scenarios, and where there are sudden changes in how it spreads. They look at different vaccination strategies to see which are most effective.
Well, thank you. FINALLY something worth reading!
Human beings are Toast? What? (Score:2)
Cylons are Toasters. Human beings are meatspace. The viruses between the two... well, Dr. Baltar?
Link to Paper Published in PNAS: Open Access (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/12/08/1009094108.abstract?sid=8b3f6e2c-94b3-4175-903a-5d75382af4fd [pnas.org]
Abstract:
The most frequent infectious diseases in humans—and those with the highest potential for rapid pandemic spread—are usually transmitted via droplets during close proximity interactions (CPIs). Despite the importance of this transmission route, very little is known about the dynamic patterns of CPIs. Using wireless sensor network technology, we obtained high-resolution data of CP
In other words... (Score:2)
Unless they told people there was an "outbreak" (Score:2)
then why would anyone take extra precautions?
This only models a viral outbreak which is both unannounced, and virtually symptomless.
Re: (Score:2)
Confounded results (Score:1)
Doesn't getting all the students together to distribute the monitors confound the results as the students are
within 10 feet of each other ?
Re: (Score:2)
They could simply start the window of monitoring at a different time. Such as, give the tokens out on Tuesday, and do the test on Wednesday. At 3pm, stop testing, and let everyone dump them back in a bag for recovery.
Interesting study, bad interpretation (Score:1)