I’ve been meaning to blog this ever since I read about it a few days ago on Marginal Revolution; it’s one of the neatest ideas that I’ve seen in a while. Given endemic shortages in the availability of some vaccines (viz. flu shots this year), how should one allocate shots so as to prevent the spread of the disease in the general population? Tyler Cowen points to an article by Reuven Cohen, Shlomo Havlin, and Daniel ben-Avraham that suggests how best to do this. It’s fairly well established that some individuals are a lot more likely to spread viruses than others; these ‘super spreaders’ are exceptionally gregarious people, who have a wide and varied circle of friends with whom they share time, conversation, and unpleasant infections. This means that virus diffusion can be modelled nicely using scale free networks with power law distributions of linkages. Some individuals are much more ‘connected’ than others, and these highly connected individuals are much more likely to be the vectors of contagion. If you can vaccinate these individuals, who are the ‘hubs’ of the network, you can do an awful lot to limit the spread of the disease. The problem is that it’s often hard to figure out who the hubs are. Cohen, Havlin and ben-Avraham have figured out a very clever way of doing this. You randomly sample the population, and ask each person who you sample to nominate one of their acquaintances. You then vaccinate not the initial person who has been sampled, but instead their acquaintance. Because ‘super spreaders’ are likely to know far more people than the average member of the population, they will be heavily over-represented among the ‘acquaintances’ - and thus will be far more likely to be vaccinated. According to Cohen, Havlin and ben-Avraham’s model, you may be able completely to halt the spread of the disease by sampling some 20% of the population, and then vaccinating their acquaintances. This is very clever indeed - insights into the topology of social networks can be used to stop the spread of viruses. It goes to show that the study of power-law distributions may have more uses than securing your bragging rights in the blogosphere.
Assuming the “superspreaders” agree to be vaccinated, and that people are willing to respond to such surveys. At least the current model of vaccination effectively exploits perceived self interest.
This is a neat idea, but I’d like to know if the researchers have accounted for the possibility that social “hubs” may be less likely to be closely connected to any one person and therefore less likely to be named.
I have the strong impression (not terribly informed and definitely a layperson’s) that epidemiology is a moribund field in need of some shaking up.
First and foremost, I have been dismayed to read coverage of the flu epidemic that discusses past flu pandemics, particularly the 1918 pandemic, with no mention of Paul Ewald’s work. In spite of his work, the unquestioned assumption is still that all pathogens quickly evolve toward benignity and that, thus, virulent pathogens are always cross-species contagions.
Additionally, Ewald makes the case that some of the modern increase in virulency is the result of pallative medication that encourages people to be mobile contagion vectors while ill. The general public needs to understand that staying home when ill is essential both to limit the spread of contagion and to decrease virulency.
Health care workers are implicated in this, as well. They act as independent vectors that encourage increased virulency and it is absolutely crucial that they be innoculated and follow sanitary procedures. It’s my understanding that in the US, only about a third of the health care professionals are being vaccinated for the flu each year.
Keith, you might want to check out he epid literature, before you make judgements on the field. Judging it from newspaper reports is sort of like judging eonomics from usenet posters and bloggers.
There are some fairly significant human rights and legal issues underlying this approach (e.g., could you mandate vaccination of these acquaintences based on the report of another? what if the acquaintence has personal objections to vaccination?), and there are certainly significant cost concerns as well (I’d venture contact tracing + immunization is far more expensive than setting up a clinic), but it’s an interesting article worth strong consideration.
Barry, that’s why I carefully qualified my comment. :)
Awesome!
I can’t wait for the first sociologist/epidemiologist to call me up and ask which of my friends I would nominate to go to the doctor for some shots!
In fact, anything that is punitive towards gregarious people, I’m all for! (Note that this would also be especially punitive towards gregarious people (“gregarians”) who mix not just with other gregarians, but also with all those random losers lost out there amidst the general population) Maybe we could also wipe out AIDS through random chemical castrations performed on “your last sexual partner!”
Awesome!
I hardly think providing people (presumably for free) with a flu shot is ‘punitive’.
Disease control is really a very tricky area for balancing out important freedoms with social responsibilities. We don’t want to move to a situation of mandated immunisations for everything that comes up. But it is worth watching for whether we’ve crossed the point that walking around un-immunised poses an unacceptable risk to one’s neighbours. I don’t know where that point is, or whether we are anywhere near it, but some people seem to assume that it could never be crossed, and this just seems false.
“I don’t know where that point is, or whether we are anywhere near it, but some people seem to assume that it could never be crossed, and this just seems false.“—Brian Weatherson
I think it’s commonly crossed. It took me a little while to find this, but your comment reminded me of a New York Times article from last year that discussed a Washington (state) community that is suffering because of lessened “herd immunity” that results from a high percentage of parents opting their children out of vaccination.
(/me is pleased with my recall. Senility isn’t hitting me too badly now that I’m about to turn 40. :) )
If you’re asked to nominate an acquaintance to receive a flu shot, do you nominate:
1) Granny, sitting at home in her hourse, who doesn’t get out much
or
2) Jim Bob, the loudmouthed joker from down the pub who everybody knows?
I haven’t read the paper, but I’d bet quids that its engine is an assumption that people asked to name an acquaintance select one at random. This might be a dangerous assumption; plenty of buildings have burnt down because everyone assumed that someone else would “obviously” have called the fire brigade.
“I’d bet quids that its engine is an assumption that people asked to name an acquaintance select one at random.”—Daniel
Damn. I can’t get PRL online via the Austin Public Library. (They offer access for patrons to many databases of journals.)
Well, they could ask for, say, ten names and select one at random.
Collect 10 names from each interviewee, put them all in a database, and vaccinate the top ‘vote getters’.
Yeah, I was going to suggest that, too, or more: why not just determine the social network in more detail? But I suspect the authors were attempting to avoid anything that would unduly aggravate privacy fears, i.e., compiling such a database.
Keith: On your last point, I respectfully disagree. I think they were working purely in the mathmatical and statistical realms, and while willing to speculate on the potential uses for their formula, they weren’t trying to write the policy article on how to practically implement such a thing.
That’s my job. :)
P.S. The place in Washington they discussed in the NY Times article was Vashon Island. A similar phenomenon is occurring in the greater Boulder, CO area. In both cases, the scientist on the scene doing research on the statistical impact of philosophical exemptors is Daniel Salmon of Johns Hopkins University.
Ross: Ah. Not having access to the paper, I was speculating on why they didn’t just go whole hog. That seemed a reasonable possibility.
If one puts such considerations aside, I suppose the main practical problem with actually determining the social network would be that it would take time that one doesn’t have in an epidemic. I assume that the whole point of their paper is that a randomly selected aquaintence of each sampled individual will (with a large enough sample) cumulatively approach the same result, while the latency of actually applying the vaccines would be as short as possible.
Danial’s objection is a very good one, in any case. They simply must use some method that avoids the problem that Daniel describes. But wouldn’t my suggestion work? Ask each person for ten (or more) names of people they know. Then select one of those names at random, discarding the rest. The more names you ask for, the less the results will be skewed toward isolated old aunts.
Also, really unpopular people who are, nevertheless, very social will be selected against. That might be a good thing. :)
veering somewhat off topic - why is it that social mores, even behind the scenes at large employers, are such that sick people a) still show up for work; b) still use common facilities; c) still cough into their hands before shaking yours, touching doorknobs, etc; and d) don’t wear masks or use hand sanitizer gel? It would seem logical (i.e. cost-effective) for organizations (at least those that don’t need to put up a healthy-looking front for customers) to recognize that sick employees reduce productivity, and try to encourage behaviors that reduce transmission.
p.s., re the original topic - you could improve on the algorithm by asking people to name the [N] most sociable people they know, and give the top votegetters incentives to get shot up. And have a 2-tier(?) system - 1) the clinic for everybody (so you can lure people in for asking) and 2) outreach+incentives for the sociables.
Really, the difficult question is in obtaining compliance from the selected super-social. I suppose that offering people who fit the criteria free shots while charging others might help, but I don’t know what else is reasonable.
“I suppose that offering people who fit the criteria free shots while charging others might help…“—Anthony
That’s a very good idea, and almost certainly cost-effective, don’t you think?
“It would seem logical (i.e. cost-effective) for organizations (at least those that don’t need to put up a healthy-looking front for customers) to recognize that sick employees reduce productivity, and try to encourage behaviors that reduce transmission.”—Anna
This reminds me of when I worked at a catalog sales phone center almost twenty years ago for one of the big catalog retailers. Every year around Christmas time, they’d balloon the staffing up to nearly a thousand part-time people; but, also, every year about that time they’d have a flu/cold mini-epidemic that would affect at least a quarter of the workforce.
I had recently read the results of a study of how colds and flus are commonly transmitted—rarely is it airborne, the route is eye/mouth/nose —> hand —> object —> hand —> eye/mouth/nose. What was obviously happening at this call center was that all these temp workers, who were working perhaps four hour shifts, would share computer keyboards and transmit the pathogens that way. I suggested to the management that wiping down the keyboards between shifts with an antiseptic (either having each individual do it, or have someone wander around doing it) would dramatically decrease the spread of the cold/flu and reduce absenteeism.
They didn’t do it, of course.
..and there’s also the self-serving delusion that “once I actually have symptoms, I’m not contagious anymore” that lots of people seem to have. Would love to see research bearing on this one.
Question - before this one, the last “blindingly original intuitive simple method discovery” I remember was the “how to get good data on yes/no answers to embarrassing telephone survey questions” thing, where the respondent was to spin the arrow and if it landed on “Yes” answer yes, if on “No” answer no, if on “the truth” answer the truth.
Besides these 2 cases, are there others?
Anna: I hadn’t heard of that method, and it makes me very geekily happy to learn of it. Thanks.
the self-serving delusion that “once I actually have symptoms, I’m not contagious anymore”
It depends what you have. IIRC, rhinovirus infections are no longer contagious by the onset of symptoms, but influenza and parainfluenza viruses remain infectious right through the symptomatic period and even beyond. I dunno about coronaviruses (rhino-, corona- and parainfluenzavirus infections make up the majority of afflictions we call “colds”). A reasonable rule of thumb is that you are contagious for a weeks after your symptoms start, since that covers the most infectious period of all common viral illnesses.
[googling, googling…]
Here’s the Straight Dope on the question. I forgot adenoviruses, but was mostly about right.
“a weeks”, gah. Also, I meant “all common viral illnesses that fall under the general heading of ‘colds’”. Also also, I’m not a virologist but the Straight Dope info comes from the CDC, so it’s reliable.
of course the wimpy, stay-at-home losers who read this blog don’t think of shots as “punitive,” but as “social responsibility.” that’s why they are losers.
seriously, it is only punitive in the sense that this program would make it worse to be a gregarite than to be a non-gregarite (modification of original terminology). think about once this is actually made social policy and children grow up knowing that being talkative=you get the shots. what are the second-order effects of such knowledge, my technocrat friends? And what about my AIDS prevention idea: chemical castration of “your (second(?)) most recent sexual partner”?
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review