How Google Can Get the Flu Right

An anonymous reader writes Google Flu Trends was developed in 2009 to improve forecasts of flu levels in the U.S. by utilising Google search data. This early example showcased the potential which lies in the exploitation of human digital traces which all of us leave behind by using online services. The rise of Google Flu Trends was only stopped when the service dramatically overestimated the number of flu incidences recently. The fall raised questions about the value of online data for predictions in general. However, a study published yesterday demonstrates that it is not only about data but also about the adaptiveness of algorithms used for predictions. Scientists combined historic flu levels as reported by the CDC with Google Flu Trends data using an algorithmic framework which is able to adapt to changes in human search behaviour. Their results show that Google Flu Trends data sets significantly add information to the forecasts of current flu levels.

Comments

Indirect measurement

[Dan East]

This is a very indirect way to measure and thus predict flu outbreaks. There are many things that could prompt people to search for and otherwise discuss the flu, beyond a person or their family actually having the flu. All it would take is a few major news sources to make mention of the flu, and there's a good chance there would be a surge in people searching for terms related to the flu. Further, other illnesses could be going around that have some flu-like symptoms which would also increase search results for the flu. Can't we just get this information from healthcare providers or insurance companies directly? (although the latter is probably charging an arm and leg for that information)

Re:Indirect measurement

[Bite The Pillow]

We don't want hard data, we want predictive data that health care or insurance companies don't have yet. Or maybe charge too much for.

So scientists, linked in the article, are trying to add data points outside of searches and make better predictions.

In fact, they may have read your comment and gone back in time to address your concerns. Well done!

Re:Who cares?

[zippthorne]

Perhaps, but if you don't get the flu shot, you're not only a higher risk of catching the flu, you're at a higher risk of transmitting it (by virtue of being a higher risk of catching it). Especially if you're a hero-worker who heroically goes in spread your mucous around.

Most of the flu hysteria I've seen has been more anti-vaccine than anti-flu.

Re:Who cares?

[slimjim8094]

250,000-500,000 people a year die from the flu, more than 50,000 in the US (that's more than both traffic accidents and gun deaths combined). It's not something to fuck around with.

It's sweet that you think the people giving you a hard time about the flu shot care about you. Sorry to burst your bubble, but nobody cares about you. They care about your elderly neighbor or the kid a few seats away on the bus, or the coworker with the pregnant wife. And you can and will give it to them before you even know you have it, so it's not a question of "well *I'm* not the problem" - yes, everybody without a flu shot is potentially the problem, because they can get the flu and infect others before there's any hope of avoiding it. Before there was an effective vaccine that was cheap and easily available, the flu was just something that happened - but now that there's something to do about it, choosing not to do it is a pretty dickish move.

The flu is scary. Lots of people think Ebola is scary - sure, the flu has a lower case-mortality rate, but it's compensated for by how easy it is to spread, so overall even if we pretend this Ebola outbreak is typical, the flu is still like 100x more deadly worldwide, and something like 50,000x more deadly if we just look at the US. The 1918 flu killed 50-100 million people - that's 3-5% of humans who were alive at the time, disproportionately affecting healthy young and middle-aged adults. It killed 10x as many Americans as did World War 1. Sure, sanitation and treatment weren't what they are now, but if you get the flu, you can't do much more than supportive therapy. If that flu happened today, the death toll would undoubtedly be lower than it was, but most people would still know someone who'd been killed that year by the flu. That is, without a vaccine.