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.
"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.
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 ]
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.