Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

QED: A disease by no name still spreads as fast
Electronic Telegraph ^ | 27/03/2003

Posted on 03/27/2003 7:09:34 PM PST by Lessismore

This time last month, no one had heard of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (Sars) - at least because the World Health Organisation had yet to give a name to this lethal new variant of pneumonia.

This time last week, Sars had acquired its name, but no one in Britain had contracted the disease, which was still confined to faraway countries. This time yesterday the first British case of Sars had been confirmed, and now we have all heard about it.

The rapid spread of Sars is an impressive, if disturbing, demonstration of one of the most powerful natural phenomena to be identified in the past 100 years: the Small World Effect, by which just a few random links between people can turn our sprawling planet into an all-too-small global village.

The existence of the Small World Effect was first highlighted in 1967 by Stanley Milgram, a young sociology professor at Harvard University. Milgram wanted to discover the typical size of social networks - that is, how many people we count as friends, friends of friends and so on.

To find out, he posted packages to 100 people in Nebraska and Kansas, asking them to post them on to a "target" person in Massachusetts. The twist was that there were no precise details: recipients were told only his name, occupation and a few other personal details - and were asked simply to post the packet to any friends they thought might know the recipient.

Amazingly, the packets typically reached the target after just five re-postings. On the face of it, this suggests that those taking part knew about 50 others well enough to post the letter on: the first posting covering 50 people, the next encompassing the 50 friends each of these 50 had, or 2,500 people and so on, until after five postings the whole population of the United States was covered.

The problem with this reasoning is that it assumes each person's social network consists of people spread randomly across America, a patently absurd notion. Yet how else can one explain the astonishingly low number of re-postings required?

The answer emerged in 1997, during computer experiments carried out by Duncan Watts and Steve Strogatz at Cornell University in New York.

They created giant "societies" of 1,000 artificial people whose links to one another could be varied at will. As expected, Watts and Strogatz found that if each person had links only with his nearest neighbours, it took many links to get from one person to any other, while societies consisting of people with entirely random links were connected up far more effectively.

The big surprise came when the researchers took a "society" comprised entirely of short nearest-neighbour links, and replaced just one per cent of them with a random link. The "short-circuiting" effect of such links was astonishing, reducing by a factor of 10 the number of links needed to connect any two people.

The implications for the spread of diseases such as Sars are only too obvious: we need only a few random links to faraway places to end up effectively living next door to them. This Small World Effect has been amply confirmed in the past few days.

Cases in Europe, including Britain, have emerged among airline passengers, who via essentially random routes have been exposed to the pathogen responsible for Sars and then brought it back home.

Small World Theory can do more than explain the astonishing speed with which diseases such as Sars spread, however. It also points to ways of stopping them turning into a full-blown epidemic.

The conventional method is to try to protect everyone, in the hope that the disease will never acquire the critical mass of patients needed to sustain an epidemic.

Small World Theory, in contrast, suggests that we should alter the "architecture" of the links between infected and healthy people. This involves focusing resources on the relatively small number of highly "connected" people who pose a threat to a relatively large numbers of people.

The importance of these people to the spread of disease was highlighted during the early days of the Aids epidemic when investigators found that at least 40 of the first 248 men diagnosed with the disease were linked via sexual activity with one Canadian male flight attendant, whose promiscuity and profession made him, according to Small World Theory, a particularly effective initiator of an epidemic.

The profile of the people most likely to do the same for Sars is as yet unclear. Even so, if on my next long-haul flight I find myself sitting next to a consultant in respiratory medicine with a nasty cough, I think I'll ask to be moved.


TOPICS: Front Page News
KEYWORDS: sars

1 posted on 03/27/2003 7:09:34 PM PST by Lessismore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lessismore
Excellent article. I believe that SARS constitutes a grave threat to the United States. Depending on the success of the WHO and CDC, this may be the big one. It has the potential to overwhelm the health care system in just a few weeks. Considering the fatality rate among hospitalized patients, this disease may bring all of us to our knees.
2 posted on 03/27/2003 8:38:27 PM PST by Bluewave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bluewave; bonesmccoy; LadyDoc
We're starting to be able to formulate drugs that will beat or retard specific viruses. I would hope the SARS virus is at the top of the priority list now. Bones? Lady?
3 posted on 03/27/2003 9:50:34 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lessismore
"...one of the most powerful natural phenomena to..."

This is the most outrageous statement. China has blundered and unintentionally released a "weaponized" little bug...
eventually, we will see it, as well as West Nile, as being such. They are both failures in that the kill ratio is the pitts. Stay well and God bless.
4 posted on 03/27/2003 10:30:42 PM PST by Terridan (God, help us deliver these Islamic savage animals BACK into hell where they belong...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
If this is Coronavirus, it would be interesting to see if Amantadine would be efficacious.
5 posted on 03/27/2003 11:05:38 PM PST by bonesmccoy (Defeat the terrorists... Vaccinate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy
Just thought I'd throw this link out there for general consumption (for anyone just like me reading this thread who had no idea what "coronavirus" is ;-):

Coronavirus

6 posted on 03/27/2003 11:22:51 PM PST by NotJustAnotherPrettyFace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lessismore
A close friend's ~40 year old healthy cousin out in Turlock Calif just died of an unknown mystery flue-like virus 2 weeks ago after spending some time in hospital visits with a sick elderly relative. Dr's have thus far been unable to determine the virus.

Any other reports from that area?
7 posted on 03/27/2003 11:38:41 PM PST by thunderdome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck; All
One, SARS is not a bio weapon. despite the hype, the mortality is low: probably lower than we think, since I suspect most cases are too mild to see a doctor and aren't counted. Now that we have a test to see who has it, they can start estimating the real mortality.

Second: The World Health Organization is very very mad at China for not notifying it of this new outbreak. Unusual diseases that pop up are usually reported to the CDC in the US and the WHO for overseas (sometimes both). It is not hard to do, nor does it require a public health official to do it.

Look at the Hanta Virus. Two young Navajos died and it was immediately reported.

First, you report, then you isolate, then you identify. This was NOT done, probably because the Chicoms were too proud to "ask for help". One doc treating it flew to Hong Kong, and voila an world wide epidemic.

Finally, they are using various anti viral medications to see if they will work. No good reports yet, maybe because the cases are too far along. Give it a week and they may find something.

In summary, this is probably a mild infection that has a low mortality, but will cause epidemics like ordinary influenza. Smallpox it is not. Nor is it like the 1917 influenza. Will kill tens of thousands of people. Not millions. We hear of quarantine and shutting down schools in Asia. But you know we do that every ten years or so when ordinary influenza strikes.

Me, I'm more worried about trying to distinguish West Nile virus from Rocky Mountain spotted fever...spring is now here and there is no good test to diagnose either of these early in the disease.
8 posted on 03/28/2003 2:31:24 AM PST by LadyDoc (liberals only love politically correct poor people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson