Slashdot Mirror
Mathematical Model of Zombie Epidemics Reveals Two Types of Living-Dead Strains
KentuckyFC writes "Epidemiologists have long known how to model the way disease spreads through a population using a computer simulation. This generally involves three populations of individuals: those who are susceptible to disease, those who are infected and those who recover, return to the population and are no longer susceptible. Researchers then feed data about the number of infections and so on into the model which can then work out the disease characteristics such as infection rates. And with this information, they can predict the future evolution of the disease. Now researchers have used a similar model to simulate the spread of infection during a zombie epidemic. They've gathered infection data from real zombie movies, put this into the model and used it to predict the disease characteristics. The results show two clear types of zombie infection which differ in what happens to people after they die. In the first, epitomized by Night of the Living Dead, everybody who dies becomes a zombie. In the second, as in Shaun of the Dead, not everyone who dies becomes a zombie--contact with a zombie beforehand is required. This allows the interesting dynamic of escaping zombification by committing suicide. It also shows how close these zombies have come to winning. The research isn't entirely frivolous. The researchers say exactly the same process of model-building, data gathering and simulation works equally well on real diseases such as influenza. So their approach is a useful teaching tool for budding epidemiologists of the future."
"They've gathered infection data from real zombie movies"
Good! I was afraid they would just make things up.
so if i kill myself, i'll avoid influenza! ...wait
US$0.02++
>They then plug these figures into the model and iterate to find the set of parameters that best fit the data, a process known as Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation. In total they run the simulations over up to 500,000 iterations.
The author makes Monte Carlo seem like a solver. It's not. You don't use Markov Chain Monte Carlo to model data. You use it to optimize finding solutions by reducing the number of samples required, which allows more complex models with less expensive hardware. You still need the rest of the picture to solve for the data.
That's like saying catalysts cause chemical reactions. No, they don't cause them, they help them go faster.
Will you give me a break from this pathetic zombie crap. It is so boring and unimaginative and useless.
The researchers say exactly the same process of model-building, data gathering and simulation works equally well on real diseases such as influenza.
So do it on something useful instead?!
My very close sources say that Suicide has a very common side-effect of sudden death in large amounts of the population.
Sounds a bit risky doc, can't you just prescribe some pain killers so I can get shitfaced and dream about going on a date with Jupiter again?
But this kind of pop media exposure is manna from heaven for researchers. The research itself is fatuous and risible, but the simple fact that a lot of eyes are now focused on these people means that the exposure of their "serious" work has been increased by several orders of magnitude. And often that's what really matters - not the underlying scientific value of your work - but that that work is attuned to tackle problems deemed more fashionable and relevant to society as a whole. Lacking a direct profit motive, fellowship committees have other priorities which are nevertheless rather worldly when determining the allocation of grant money.
...the six year old girl who manages to bash the main zombie's head in with a brick after battalions of highly trained marines with guns and rockets were unable to kill it?
Article says nothing about the Cranberries.
Modelling epidemics is important. Mass transit and all that just means that the next major flu bug could well screw a hefty percentage of the population.
Zombies were once a semi-real concept, because defining death has been refined only recently. The French word for undertaker is "croque mort", literally the "dead biter" who would bit corpses to make sure they were really dead.
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
If you assume an overnight conversion of 5% of America's population to Zombies (and not a gradual spread of infection) then you have 15.6 million survivors of 320 million people.
If only 1/3 of those people actively went hunting zombies, and managed to kill just one a day, All the zombies are dead in 2 months.
This is why I can't watch shows like The Walking Dead, where zombies are really easy to kill. The level of infection would never reach 95% in a real world scenario where you are required to be infected (by bite or scratch) and killed for it to spread.
According to Wikipedia, the US has an active manpower of almost 1.5 million people. When mobilised, It is safe to assume they with training and equipment they can kill at least 5 a day, meaning the epidemic is over in less than a fortnight.
The current zombie obsession is loathsome and tiresome.
Gives a new meaning to "get a life".
"This allows the interesting dynamic of escaping zombification by committing suicide [...] The researchers say exactly the same process of model-building, data gathering and simulation works equally well on real diseases such as influenza"
Y'know, We all know that sometimes the flu makes you feel like you'd rather die then spend five more minutes sick, but did TFA actually suggest (accidentally or not) suicide as a means of avoiding the flu?
"Stop-n'-Drop brand suicide booths: Better selling than Nyquil since 2017!"
what about the type that engulfs into the supermarkets on black friday ?
One thing I never see is that Zombies would eventually have to run out of energy if they don't get any food. The rate of zombie demise from starvation would need to figure into it. Eventually they will die from lack of food, water and electrolytes, the latter would immobilize their muscles. Zombies aren't known for having a balanced diet. Eating just meat wouldn't provide them the energy needed to keep going. Lying inert still uses energy.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
April 1st was 8 months ago.
In all seriouisness, I don't see how this relates to real-world data-gathering. Plugging data into an algorithim that you gathered on movie night while beer-drinking and smoking crack with your fraternity brothers is very different than gathering real data in real labs. It sounds like some students were just trying to justify a school project that let them have a zombie-movie marathon. I mean, if, as they say, the same model can be used to chart flu outbreaks, then why didn't they chart a flu outbreak? There is no rhyme or reason to Zombie movies, and most do not follow some established storyline or mythology. Trying to establish a pattern based on a bunch of disjointed movies may actually prove more difficult than using data for a real disease.
Sadly the main link is blocked for me, so I cannot see if there is any more information there. There may be more information there that clarifies what they are doing, but it all sounds rather pointless to me.
...can someone explain to me this (american) obsession with zombies?
those who are susceptible to disease
those who are infected
those who recover, return to the population and are no longer susceptible.
What about the ones who die?
To clarify:
1. Individuals not yet infected with the disease, or those susceptible to the disease
2. Individuals who have been infected with the disease and are capable of spreading the disease to those in the susceptible category
3. Those individuals who have been infected and then removed from the disease, due to either immunization or death
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I think I've said it before, but it only keeps getting truer.
The whole "let's pretend that zombies are real" lark got old very quickly. It was hardly hilarious at first and now it's just very unoriginal.
Maybe we leave it where it belongs in the realms of fiction now, and get back to researching/discussing actual diseases that affect real people?
Sounds like someone is trying really really hard for an Ig Nobel.
The "zombie" research is from 2009. The 2013 paper is about applying that methodology (including estimating the parameters from vague and inconsistent sources) to influenza. Of course TFS misses this.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The "everyone who dies becomes a zombie" type is what's more commonly referred to as supernatural zombies...when they die they become zombies because magic. A highly contagious disease that lies dormant and only causes the rabies-like symptoms to appear when the host is near death could provide a hard sci-fi explanation for it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I know the marketers of the world would disagree, but I think the zombie world is tapped out. Let's try something else for awhile and come back in about 10 years, shall we?
... Duh... fast walkers and slow walkers. Geesh we've known this for ages!
yoda, one too many uh?
The whole thing is based on complete fiction. It cannot be extrapolated to real life infections and epidemics.
This is no different than me saying that my analysis of Unicorn population expansion and distribution due to flying Narwhal cross-breeding with mules(!) is an effective methodology for studying influenza, or ANYTHING. It is an absurd and completely fictitious fantasy. Nothing more!
TFA researchers definitely misused the Markov Chain Monte Carlo model, and I'm happy someone pointed it out.
They "reverse engineered" a statistically significant result. It's not science, no hypothesis was tested but that is exactly how many of these research studies get published.
Thank you Dave Raggett
What is a "real zombie movie?" Do we compare this to fake zombie movies?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
aw horseshit...you're aware of a problem, but your solution is to **shed all of your values** and **submit to an incorrect system**
you're selling us all out when you try to make this a guiding principle for your decisions:
it's people like you that make it difficult to do real science w/o the pop culture bullshit...
the way **we respond** tells society as a whole how to respond...when we play the bullshit game we are teaching society to do the same!!!
you encounter a problem and **roll over** and **sell out** your principles then devote your intellectual energy to justifying your decision and enforcing your perception of events that led to it on others
Thank you Dave Raggett
Walking Dead is horrible in every way save for some of the cinemetography and special f/x...and most other zombie films aren't much better.
Only 28 Days Later actually depicts the *end* of such an epidemic accurately.
Zombies can't prepare a meal, they can't grow food, their bodies don't function...
The fact that there could theoretically have been a discussion like this by actual funded PhD scientists is ludicrous to me, BTW...
Thank you Dave Raggett
For goodness' sake, learn to comma!
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Zombie movies are written by screenwriters that hate writing dialog or developing characters. Kinda hard to have zombie dialog.
"Hey, how's it going?" / "Brains"
"Oh, I see, and your familiy?" / "Brains!" (more emphasis)
"Been a pretty tough year huh?" / "Brains!!! (scream)
"Yeah, I am right there with ya pal"
They list only two method of virus spread, but seem to leave out a third; zombification/infection by both blood AND by latent, airborne contact.
**This will be kinda spoilery, but mostly open knowledge.**
In this model, "zombies" are created not just by blood contact, but by an airborne pathogen. So the initial wave of zombies were created due to a spore/fungus. One that was based on a real fungus so I would think that would rank even higher than say, "Shuan of the Dead".
So the ways to contract this "disease" are many:
1) The typical bite, scratch, splatter, etc due to blood contact
2) The fungus/spore that started the whole thing existing in the wild
3) Those infected, once they reach a specific point, either by the host being used up by the fungus, or by some external death, create a landmine for an airborne version
That third point is very important. Generally, once you "kill" a zombie, the threat is neutralized. Just kick 'em to the curb and burn when you get a chance. However in this model the corpse is still a carrier and must be handled and disposed of carefully to prevent new contamination. Once the fungus reaches a point where the host body no longer sustains it, it starts releasing spores which can infect any passer-by. So even though you stopped the horde today, tomorrow the battlefield can become one giant infectious cloud.
Which means that while the population takes up arms to stop the physically attacking bodies, you need to dedicate a large percentage of the population for waste disposal. You're not going to be an effective fighter wearing a hazmat suit so the two groups should not mix. This depletes the number of people "fighting the disease" which may allow for greater rates of infection.
This is exactly the kind of bullshit that people cover up when they talk about how important research is. They are wasting millions of dollars to model several forms of a fictional "disease" (in older movies, it's not even a disease, it just magically happens) for...the purpose...of trying to make research not look boring to children? I mean, there is literally no benefit from doing this. Especially when the data is based on zombie movies with conflicting premises.
Want to know the truth of a zombie apocalypse? There are only two possible outcomes:
1) It never happens because it's physically impossible.
2) It turns out to be possible and everyone dies and/or becomes a zombie because if it is physically possible there is literally no way to stop it.
With earlier zombie movies (say before the 70's) the explanation for most zombie outbreaks was due to hell being full of the dead.
you simply have to accept that a zombie movie by definition isn't going to exhibit high levels of logic and reality
You might think that, but in all honesty it seems a fairly substantial amount of people don't exhibit a high level or logic in crisis or high-stress situations. Hell, it's winter - hardly a crisis - here and based on the way some people drive you'd think it was summer on the Autobann: speeding, passing across solid yellow, passing at high-speed in the slow lane, passing at high speed off the curb, etc. It's nuts.
Have a look at how people act on Black Friday in order to score $25 off a POS television. Look at the people buying food with stamps and chatting on the newest iPhone.
Assuming logical and rational thinking from a large portion of the human populace is going to be a losing proposal. In fact, the best way to survive may be to assume that the majority of people are going to descend into a dumb panic and make terrible decisions that could get you - or them - killed.
Sci-Fi Fanwank? Zombies. Check.
IT Fanwank? Monte Carlo Simulation. Check.
Medical Fankwank? Epidemiology. Check.
Splooge article which makes a headline and publicity but is forgotten tomorrow? Check.
Now can we get back to "news" and "stuff that matters"?
Where/When during Shaun of the Dead did they establish that one had to be in close contact with a zombie in order to become one?
This was explicitly established in Zack Snyder's Dawn remake and in 28 Days Later, one could only become infected by exposure to bodily fluids from infected but there's nothing that establishes this rule in Shaun.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
In the second, as in Shaun of the Dead, not everyone who dies becomes a zombie--contact with a zombie beforehand is required. This allows the interesting dynamic of escaping zombification by committing suicide.
Let's just go ahead and say it -- it is unlikely there would be enough people willing to commit suicide to form a fire-break against a zombie disease spread. The "interesting dynamic" of escape for this type of zombification is mass-murder.
The kind of Muslims you're describing are only marginally more likely to be encountered in real life than zombies.
No.
The kind of Muslims you're describing are only marginally more likely to be encountered in real life than zombies.
really?
Yes, really.
Yes, really.
This excludes the hundreds of thousands killed in Pakistan, Syria, etc. In Syria there were 15,000 Jews in 1948. Now there are 50. Muslim population has decreased from 20-15% to 1.5% in the last 60 years in Pakistan whereas it increased from 8% to 15% during the same period in India. The so called "terrorist attacks" are just the tip of the iceberg
Oh and by the way to prove your point you need to show that there were nearly as many Zombie attacks!
They are not Zombies, they are Gouls. Get your terms right !
(Look it up...) 8-)
WWZ (the book) is a great piece of story telling, but it is tragically stupid and requires one hell of a suspension of disbelief. A group of AC-130s ends Yonkers. I would also imagine 5 fully armed rednecks in an F-150 can kill an amazing number of zombies. I get that these things are fascinating models for disease, but a plague would be a whole lot worse.