Slashdot Mirror
Forecasting the Next Pandemic
sciencehabit writes: A new study led by Barbara A. Han, a disease ecologist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, suggests a computer model that incorporates machine learning can pinpoint, with 90% accuracy, rodent species that are known to harbor pathogens that can spread to humans. Sciencemag reports on the study: "Han and her team first used their program to identify lifestyle patterns common to rodents harboring diseases like black plague, rabies, and hanta virus and found that their model had an accuracy rate of 90%. After the machine had 'learned' the telltale signs, the researchers searched for new rodents that fit the profile but were not previously thought to be carriers. So far, the model has identified more than 150 new animal species that could harbor zoonotic diseases, the researchers report online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The computer program also predicted 58 new infections in rodents that were already known to carry one zoonotic disease."
that's what she said.
It's just an 'armless little bunny.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
We could predict which humans had undiagnosed diseases that are contagious and easily spread to other humans, and then use that knowledge to either cure them, or, in the event that they are incurable (like with HIV), keep them away from other people?
I know people with HIV can be kept alive for a long time, but they are obviously infecting other people, because the disease is not going away. And perhaps if people with deadly diseases can't reasonably be expected to do the right thing on their own, maybe the government should step in and force them to stop infecting healthy humans.
I think I'd rather be killed in a dark alley than find out some girl gave me AIDS. Both are death sentences, but the latter involves years and years of pain and suffering.
The next global pandemic is already here, and it's commonly called "social justice". The symptoms include a loss of the ability to think logically, chronic knee-jerk reactions, repeated false accusations of racism and sexism, hypersensitivity to anything that may be potentially considered offensive by somebody somewhere, and daily idiotic stories about some totally irrelevant social justice nonsense here at Slashdot.
Filthy.
It's all about supplementary file S4. How many of these species will harbor zoonoses? How many species not on the list will? That will be the test.
can we get all of those rodents rounded up and sent to Washington D.C.?
that these predictions are always SO WRONG ?
"the model has identified more than 150 new animal species that could harbor zoonotic diseases"
Using a very broad baseline helps - just like astrology and fortune telling.
They are right: the number of people that will use "big data" to forecast this and that is going to get out of hand!!!
people actually still visit /.?
I know I'm feeding a Troll, but...
I know people with HIV can be kept alive for a long time, but they are obviously infecting other people, because the disease is not going away.
Welcome to 2015.
- A period of time when HIV can be prevented from propagating during sex using an extremely sophisticated method called a "condom".
- A period of time when, at least for the developed world, drugs have advanced to the point where a sick person can be treated and kept alive more or less indefinitely. (although it costs money, and the treatement is a heavy one with some displeasing secondary effect. I would not recommend anyone glossing over "meh, not a problem if I catch HIV, I'll be treated". But I would certainly consider that in the developed world, HIV isn't a deadly disease, merly a chronic one) (that's for the developed world. Poorer region suffer from the fact that drugs cost prohibitively expensive for them and aren't widely available. And also pharma-companies aren't interested in developing cheaper alternatives because they're currently happy with their current earnings, whereas developing cheaper drung doesn't make sens economically to them because they won't recoup the necessary cost from the poorer region).
- A period of time when the drugs have so advanced and are so efficient that, undersome circumstances, it might be possible to reduce the viral load so low that it is almost irrelevant. (These people aren't curred per se. The viral count stay low because they are taking meds. If they stop the virus would rise again. But as long as they keep taking theire meds, virus levels are so low, that from the outside it looks more or less like any random person - including the risks) (again, that's not an excuse to completely forget condoms for ever. But that means, for example, that a man infected by HIV but with a virus level kept low enough, can father a child without risking infecting the mother. And given the preceeding paragraph, that also means that he'll get to see the child birth and see the child grow).
And perhaps if people with deadly diseases can't reasonably be expected to do the right thing on their own,
Right thing on *their* own? You know *YOU* can put a condoms on your dick/a femidom inside your pussy (depending on your sex) if you're so much afraid of catching HIV.
maybe the government should step in and force them to stop infecting healthy humans.
Or you know, maybe encourage *you* to but a condom.
I think I'd rather be killed in a dark alley than find out some girl gave me AIDS. Both are death sentences, but the latter involves years and years of pain and suffering.
Or you know, you could just put a condom on and forget about whole "dying" story.
(Also, you're not going to die of it as of 2015. You'll be on a lot of meds, costing substantial money. But still alive)
Don't engage irresponsible behaviour, use proper protection under all circumstance (except when all people involved have been tested and are known clean).
Depending on availability, either put a condom on (or in, depending on which sets of reproductive organs you happen to be equipped with)
or, when no protection is available, refrain from stick you dick into the pussy (or other similar combination of organs, depending on sex of the person involved) each human being has approximately 2m^2 of skin. Even with only 2 partners, that gives ton of possible combination. Using a bit of imagination, you're bound to find one which doesn't carry an infectious risk and still brings satisfaction to all parties involved.
Also remember: before HIV and AIDS were discovered, nobody knew about risks of AIDS (well, obviously).
But those who used protection (condoms, etc.) where already protected from it even if they didn't knew about it yet. (Maybe they though about avoiding syphilis or ghono. Still that *also* protected them from the yet-unnamed-AIDS).
Same sit
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
true, except the pandemic is 50 years in to fucking up the minds of the hosts
I mean, how many of the latest big epidemics has been transmitted by rodents? and even then how many of those depend on other factors not taken in account with this approach (arbovirus, change in ecology, etc.) Even if they really have a good model, putting as risky more than 150 species and a territory under heavy risk including half of the world would not be exactly useful to redirect resources.
I was told by a guy who build computer models of pandemics that when the media is blah blahing about ebola and whatnot that the key test is that if we first hear of a disease and 10,000 are dead then it is time to run for the hills but no sooner. Everything else is pure hype. But he also said that he didn't think that the governments of the world fully understood the math behind a truly nasty disease and that they wouldn't do the right thing when it came to quarantines especially with "favoured" countries. He said shutting down all transport to the Ivory Coast was enough of a political hand-grenade so what would be like to shut down all travellers to and from Japan, or England? The key being not most travellers but all including the VIPs who will potentially make calls to the whitehouse or whitehall as the case may be.
So while he thought that we could easily deal with any pandemic along the lines of the worst in history that the mamby-pamby governments of today wouldn't so he had a cabin way in the woods to sit it out until the various governments realized that PR was now out the window and that measures for survival now needed and could be brutally implemented. A great example would be the aggressive measures taken against malaria in the Southern US would be very difficult to implement in today's political climate.
But at the same time he was working on a model that showed that our ability to deal with diseases is soon approaching the point where pretty much no disease could really wipe out huge majorities of populations.
By the way the second test of a really dangerous disease was that another 10,000 were dead in western countries in that many diseases are local by their very nature such as Malaria; so a disease that spread in a modern non tropical country would be a dire problem. Ebola basically not spreading in the West is a perfect example.
Actually got to play the board game "Pandemic" recently. It's a great game, but one relevant learning from it was that we had to lose three times before we worked out how to actually contain diseases. I am hoping that our society has had enough experience with disease outbreak control that we actually handle such an event successfully. The recent Ebola situation seems to suggest that we're not bad (though could be better). But, if we had something start in a big city in a Western, developed country, and it was multiple-drug-resistant, we could be in for some serious trouble, and I don't think we as a populace are quite smart enough to do the right thing (report early, self-quarantine, shut down transport systems etc early enough, and so on). We could be, but the reality is the only way we are going to know is by seeing how we do when one actually happens - and unlike the board game, we only really get one attempt.
Oh ya, we're fucked.
So we have a computer model of a computer model that says the model is accurate? I've modeled the process of making models and can show with 81% accuracy that you can't make a model more than 80% accurate. This information is useful for ... stuff.
I am going to predict every earthquake that have were already known to have happen with a greater then 90% accuracy.
I think someone dose not understand what predict means. Was this article meant to be a joke?
It will come from Africa or Asia. See, I can do it too.
That's easy. Whenever the media need a new hype or pharma corporations need to get rid of stockpiled old antidote.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Pre-pwned by the Chinese authorities for your convenience!
I got the flu once, after using a co-workers mouse trying to install an update.
Ignoring numerous people like Arthur Ashe and Isaac Asimov who got AIDS via blood transfusion, right?
Read again my previous title: 2015
And you're citing people how died approximately ~25 years ago (and thus probably caught the virus at the end of the 80s).
I'm speaking about the current state of AIDS in HIV as of today. Not past history.
Do you really think that they still accept in the blood bank any blood of dubious source without running any test on it?
Quite the opposite: In fact they have extremely stringent criteria about accepting blood donors.
Donors are systematically checked against known infections, they are even checked for travel destination or activities that might carry a slightly increased risk of blood-borne disease. (e.g.: here, having a piercing more or less bans you from giving blood for quite a long time).
Blood stocks in the bank are also re-tested as testing method improve.
The risks of finding an infected blood batch in the bank are as near to zero as possible.
Arthur Ashe and Asimov could get it from a blood transfusion back in the late 80s. Nowaday in 2015, its almost impossible.
(earlier the logic used to be completely different regarding blood transfusion. It used to go along the lines of: "A patient needing blood would die otherwise. Transfuse whatever (compatible) you have, if you hurry enough, you might save the patient. You'll have plenty of time treat anything that was hidden in the blood once the patient is saved and stable." - probably using penicillin against syphilis was the main idea).
Also, to go back to my post: my whole discussion was about what a /. troll could to to avoid infection instead of completely isolating HIV-positive people.
The subject of blood-borne transmission is useless:
- the troll doesn't need to do anything, hospitals are already doing all the possible to avoid transfusion-caused infections. it's already being avoided without anyone needing to do anything. (you won't get HIV, you won't get mad cow, you won't get anything else known, and given the stringent criteria you are probably also protected against several potential blood borne diseases which aren't known yet)
- again, unless you're swapping used syringes - as I've mentionned - you can leave pretty close to a HIV-positive patient without risk. You could be roommates together, and you won't catch it by blood.
- in 2015, sex is the main risk of transmission for HIV. And the whole thing is easily controlled simply with a condom.
So, no. In 2015, there's absolutely no need to cast away HIV positive people on an isolated island.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Don't they lyophilize the blood these days?
Well, more or less. The blood isn't exactly "lyophilized" as you mean it: it's not reduced to a powder.
The blood is dried: meaning that the liquid part is separated from the cells. (and in fact the different types of cells are also separated: you save separately pool of blod, pools of platelets, etc.). You still need the cells intact for a transfusion to work.
(Otherwise you'd overload the patient's liver. The liver is in charge of processing the haemoglobin that remain after a red blood cell has died. If you don't inject fresh blood cells but just haemoglobin you wouldn't be helping. Instead you'd be dumping a big load of garbage that the liver needs to process. The liver gets overloaded and can't process everything. Your patient gets jaundice and turn yellow - i.e.: accumulates un processed by products of haemoglobin)
Also the sample are indeed treated some way or another to reduce the risks of infection. But that only *reduces* the risks of pathogen. It doesn't guarantee that they're eliminated, you're not completely sterilizing the bad of blood cells (you wouldn't want to destroy them. Unless you like you patients yellow).
The main reason that modern blood is clean is that:
- donors and batches are screen against all known blood borne diseases.
- donors are screened for any activity that could result in increased risk of transmission of blood borne diseases (so you can have even a chance to protect from new infections that are unknown and not tested for yet).
It should be hard for HIV to survive that given it degrades so quickly outside the body, is it still a problem?
First: HIV is quite resilient. For a virus at least. Of course, on a human scale it still degrades quickly outside of the body. But given proper conditions (protected from direct light, in a moist place that doesn't risk drying up, etc.) it quite survives for an impressive time when you compare to other viruses.
Now, the main problem is that you need to keep your red blood cells usable, thus you DO need to keep conditions (not drying them up, etc.) which will also benefit a potential virus. So even if a VIH virus should degrade relatively quickly outside the body, it can survive for some time in a pocket of blood.
Also there are other risk you need to protect from. Other blood borne disease like mad cow. And due to its nature (a Prion is only simply a protein with a weird shape) that shit is incredibly resilient. One need to cook^H^H^H^H burn it at high temperature. I say, we nuke it from orbit. Only way to be sure.
Given *that* kind of risks, screening / testing is the better option.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Also: condoms sometimes break, sometimes they slip off, and sometimes they are used incorrectly.
Well if you want to factor in risks:
- risks of condom failure are very low, specially when used properly (it possible to learn to use them properly).
- there is also a thing called an emergency treatment. If started soon enough (= in the few hours after an incident, the sooner, the better the results, useless after 36 hours) risks of HIV transmission are dramatically reduced.
Basically it's an intensive anti-retroviral therapy that one needs to take either for a certain time until safe, or until the results come back and the partner of the incident is proved safe.
So yes, a condom can break. But you can also react quickly and fix those situations too.
(Note: works also in case of blood contact, like a nurse working in a hospital pricking a finger on a contaminated needle. That's the situation these emergency therapies were developed for).
(Still it's an intensive treatment, with secondary effect. Instead of everyone counting on it and the whole sexually active population popping pills like candy - which would be both a big cost and a big risk that somebody got problems because of the meds - it's better that everyone wears proper protection and the few failure cases be handled on a case by case basis depending on specific risk).
It is much safer not to point that gun at a person, even if you're sure the safety is on and the gun unloaded
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Excluding signature and block quotes:
777 Words.
17 Parenthetical statements.
399 Words excluding those inside parentheses
Almost exactly half of what was written (49%) was inside parentheses (That may be a little excessive). :)
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
According tot he CDC at http://www.cdc.gov/reproductiv..., the unintended pregnancy rate male condoms is 18%.
Funny that here around I've regularly seen and read different numbers (random source in fr. key point < 10% for latex based condoms, < 5% for polyurethan. that's just a random example. I don't have enough time to kill to do a complete litterature mining and meta analysis)
Either North American are much dumber or worse at using condom than European, or your condoms tend to be made of a self-destructin material~
Xenophobic jokes aside, actual result vary *wildly* depending on the considered population, specially the level of sex-ed.
*when used properly* condoms can be very much safe. When used *haphazardly* not so.
See this table (again quick search). Pregnancy rates vary a lot. (See the specially low level among "motivated women" in israel. They probably had better knowledge on proper prevention than the (poor) women in the philiphine that still did get pregnant up to 60%).
The difference in number seem to be linked in the level of education and motivation of the people. A *properly* used condom is effective. That means that you need to educate better the people, to that they use the prevention better.
(instead of completely ignoring condoms, and opting to outcast HIV positive people, as suggested by top troll).
(I know it's only an anecdote, but that also match my personnal experience with <1% breakage among the hundreds of protected intercourses I've done. But both I and girl(s) knew how to use a condom properly and the necessary precautions to take).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]