Researchers Use Wireless To Study How Flu Spreads

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."

Comments

Is it just distance?

[DoofusOfDeath]

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:Is it just distance?

[Yvanhoe]

As someone who works with epidemiologists, I can assure you that if you have a social network and represent individuals as actors that interact with each other, you are better than most of the models, which see cities as "pools" with simple rules to change the number of infectious, susceptible, recovered, at each iteration.
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:Wireless != noun

[camperdave]

Hey, if you can verb a noun, then you can noun an adjective.

Bad researchers. Bad!

[girlintraining]

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.

Re:Some people have strong systems

[countSudoku()]

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:Wireless != noun

[melchoir55]

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 letter ("W"). In other words, we can do whatever we want so long as our speaking partner understands what we are doing.
As a brilliant man said a very long time ago "The meaning of a word is its use in the language".

If you have noticed people annoyed by you in person when you say stuff like what you have posted here, it is because *you* are the one violating a norm by suggesting we cannot use language however we please. This norm is implicit in humans interaction and people are right to roll their eyes when you're around.

Yes, IAAL. (I am a linguist)

Re:Wireless != noun

[mcsqueak]

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:Wireless != noun

[cheekyjohnson]

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.