Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Researchers Use Wireless To Study How Flu Spreads

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the patient-802.15 dept.

Medicine 64

MojoKid writes "With the help of wireless sensors, Stanford researchers confirmed what most of us suspected. When it comes to infectious viruses, human beings are toast. The researchers outfitted an entire high school population with IEEE 802.15.4 sensors for one day to model what they call a 'human contact network.' The devices tracked how often people came within the infection-spreading range of other individuals during a typical height-of-flu-season January day. The devices logged more than 760,000 incidents when two people were within 10 feet of each other, roughly the maximum distance that a disease can be transmitted through a cough or sneeze, according to a Stanford report on the project. The researchers ran thousands of simulations of a flu outbreak trying to determine infection rates under various circumstances."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Is it just distance? (3, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34568758)

I was under the impression that flu was also spread by a carrier touching a surface, then someone else touching it, then touching his eyes or mouth. And if people aren't sneezing/coughing like crazy, I would expect this shared-surfaces issue to be the dominant way the flu is spread.

If I'm right, wouldn't their approach have a serious problem getting data on these shared-surface transmissions?

Re:Is it just distance? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34568826)

Correct, however ins heavily traveled areas, the surface it likely to be touched again by someone near by, like coming in behind you through a door.

But the test wasn't there to track all vectors, just close contact ones. There isn't anything new here, but it's a good bit of data that correlate with other models.

Re:Is it just distance? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34568844)

This is Stanford. You can't expect them to be held up by trivial things like FACTS. The methodology sounds cool, so it passes peer review.

Re:Is it just distance? (4, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34569456)

As someone who works with epidemiologists, I can assure you that if you have a social network and represent individuals as actors that interact with each other, you are better than most of the models, which see cities as "pools" with simple rules to change the number of infectious, susceptible, recovered, at each iteration.
And if your individuals' behavior incorporate a real model of movement with a sense of distance to other people, you have indeed a very interesting model. (Yes, it is that bad. If you are a developer and want to help save the world, adopt a biologist and do their developments). Right now, various techniques are used to try and build a social network that can help understand how a disease spreads in various age group. "How many people come at less than 3 meters of a given person in a normal schools day ? in an airport ? in a regular office ? in a retirement house ? in subways ?" having an indication even with a 1 to 10 estimation, it would bring interesting results. So if we know you are in range to infect 50 to 500 people in a normal day, we know that the models that say it is 10 and the models that say it is 1000 are useless.

Re:Is it just distance? (1)

raddan (519638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573640)

Don't know if you've read this paper [mit.edu] , but that's exactly what these researchers are doing. The researchers outfitted an entire dorm with cellphones (which they tracked through various methods). They borrow the information-theoretic concept of "entropy" to measure a person's activity level. The most interesting (and counter-intuitive) thing from the study is that, when you live in a dorm, "staying home" when you're sick appears to put you in contact with more people than if you just carried on as usual!

Re:Is it just distance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34571872)

If we cook every human being at a temperature higher than 140 degrees Celsius, we eliminate the problem.

Wireless != noun (0)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34568792)

As above.

The only time I've heard it used as one is to refer to an AM radio, by old people.

I'll get off your lawn now.

Re:Wireless != noun (4, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#34568954)

Hey, if you can verb a noun, then you can noun an adjective.

Re:Wireless != noun (1)

spartacus_prime (861925) | more than 3 years ago | (#34569490)

Verbing weirds language.

Re:Wireless != noun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34573002)

"Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding." Calvin and Hobbes FTW! ANON to preserve mods.

Re:Wireless != noun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34570104)

Sounds hot.

Re:Wireless != noun (3, Insightful)

melchoir55 (218842) | more than 3 years ago | (#34569566)

As above.

The only time I've heard it used as one is to refer to an AM radio, by old people.

I'll get off your lawn now.

In the sentence "I like wireless.", "wireless" is a noun. Therefore, "wireless" is a noun.

Words don't have divine and immutable parts of speech or any other linguistic feature somehow ingrained in the fabric of the universe. "Wireless" can plop down in any open class position (noun, verb, adjective, adverb). It is even welcome to be a closed class word (determiner, pronoun, conjunction, etc) if we decide to start using it as such. "Wireless" can also be spoken with a "Z" at the end, or by dropping the first letter ("W"). In other words, we can do whatever we want so long as our speaking partner understands what we are doing.
As a brilliant man said a very long time ago "The meaning of a word is its use in the language".

If you have noticed people annoyed by you in person when you say stuff like what you have posted here, it is because *you* are the one violating a norm by suggesting we cannot use language however we please. This norm is implicit in humans interaction and people are right to roll their eyes when you're around.

Yes, IAAL. (I am a linguist)

Re:Wireless != noun (3, Interesting)

mcsqueak (1043736) | more than 3 years ago | (#34569658)

As a brilliant man said a very long time ago "The meaning of a word is its use in the language".

OK, my reply is going to be off topic, but your comment quoted above reminded me of an argument I had with some friends.

I had one friend who had started dating a mildly religious women who didn't like cussing, so he was working to cut cuss words out of his speech. He would sometimes use silly or weird words in their replacement, such as "ferk" in lieu of "fuck" if he accidentally hurt himself, for example.

My argument was that he was *still* cussing, despite the change in word. The new stand-in word retained the original meaning, use, and inflection and was understood by all as a replacement for the original word. Therefore, it was still cussing.

Many of my friends did not agree with my assertion.

As a linguist, I would be interested in your take.

Re:Wireless != noun (1)

mcsqueak (1043736) | more than 3 years ago | (#34569680)

Oh, and sorry to reply to myself, I forgot to add the obvious joke in my previous post:

Are you a cunning linguist? Or just a master debater?

Thanks folks, I'm here all night!

Re:Wireless != noun (2)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34569820)

I always thought much the same for the people who throw in an asterisk rather than typing the word verbatim. Either say it or don't (and for those sites with profanity filters, either allow it or don't), don't say 'f*ck' and pretend it's any different to saying 'fuck'.

Re:Wireless != noun (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#34571292)

It is different because it contains an extra message: "I know I'm not supposed to say that, but you won't stop me from saying it anyway."

Re:Wireless != noun (4, Informative)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34569878)

I always found that to be completely pointless, as well. Its meaning is still the same, and it's used in the exact same circumstances as the swear word they're replacing. That said, getting offended by mere words is just idiotic, I think. People use the argument that swear words were intended to be offensive, but not only are they mere words, but you have no obligation to be offended by them. It's ultimately your own fault if you get offended. People need to get out of their little bubbles and toughen up.

Re:Wireless != noun (1)

teachknowlegy (1003477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34576046)

Getting out of your bubble inherently causes you to get the flu. I'm staying put!

Re:Wireless != noun (2)

melchoir55 (218842) | more than 3 years ago | (#34570240)

This is an interesting question which I myself have puzzled over more than once. The explanation I am going to give you is one that is not based on any clear vein of research, so take it for what it is worth.

"Cussing" is making use of linguistic forms which have been deemed taboo. Whether or not you are cussing, in my opinion, depends upon whether or not you are violating a taboo from the perspective of yourself or your speaking partner. I could see the argument of justification for your friend going either way (he is mapping to the same concept which is itself taboo) or (the concept is not taboo only the word). If your friend honestly doesn't feel as if he is cussing then, to him, he is not cussing. He might be to you, or to others, depending upon what exactly each person has decided is the thing which is taboo.

In my opinion he is still "cussing" by doing this replacement but the fact that uptight sensors on stations like FOX let this stuff through is evidence that not everyone agrees.

Basically, I suppose it depends on what you think cussing *is*. There is quite a large body of work on it but I regret that I have no experience with it. Sorry about that.

Re:Wireless != noun (1)

mcsqueak (1043736) | more than 3 years ago | (#34574904)

Interesting. Well, thanks for your take on it. It's always fun to ponder these sorts of questions.

And you're very right, it does depend on who you are talking to, like most anything.

Re:Wireless != noun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34570694)

The Bible would say it is. Example: Oh my gosh = oh my god. Geez = Jesus.

The word itself might not be as forceful, but still you know what he's communicating and his state of mind. -> the point of language

The Bible addresses the issue of why cussing is a sin. Google 'cursing sin.' The 2nd link seems to give a good answer. Note- I don't endorse the site.

Re:Wireless != noun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34574048)

Not to start a religious debate, and I think we ultimately would agree, but...

The problem is that the passages in the Bible that are relevant to cursing really talk about deceitful, hurtful, damaging, offensive, or "evil" speech. They're subjective and dependent upon the situation. Nowhere does it indicate that specific words should not be used. Someone at some point decided what those words should be. Because of that, certain words are considered offensive, and should obviously not be used in normal conversation around the types of people that would find them offensive. But to imply that simply uttering a certain word is sinful is ludicrous. The sin is in using those words or phrases to intentionally be hurtful or offensive.

As a side note that is somewhat relevant... At one point, my high school decided that they were going to crack down on cursing, but refused to explicitly define what words were banned. It was up to the faculty's "better judgment" as to what words were punishable, and as a result, students were getting detentions, etc. for use of rather innocuous words like "sucks" or "crap" simply because some member of faculty decided it was offensive to them. Because of this, many students started developing replacement words for anything they thought might be deemed punishable. For instance, one student started using "hoovers" in place of "sucks." And when he got in trouble for that, he started using "vacuums." The whole debacle lasted about a month before the decision was overturned by the school board on the grounds that the rule was generic enough that any word could be deemed a curse word, and unless they were willing to determine the exact words that were punishable, the rule couldn't stand. Granted, for the obvious ones, students would still get in trouble, but nobody was getting sent to detention for saying, "This sucks."

Re:Wireless != noun (1)

raddan (519638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573710)

Skip forward to 2:04:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuLrBLxbLxw [youtube.com]

Apologies in advance if this offends you. My parents were horrified that I thought this was funny.

Re:Wireless != noun (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#34648880)

I had one friend who had started dating a mildly religious women

Are we talking about Siamese twins? Or did she, umm, they have some sort of multiple personality disorder?

Re:Wireless != noun (2)

suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) | more than 3 years ago | (#34569954)

In the sentence "I like wireless.", "wireless" is a noun.

Pardon, but I'm pretty sure that that sentence is implying an unstated noun that is obvious given the context, much like the sentence "I will." which has no predicate at all. Wireless is still an adjective, but it is standing in for a complete phrase. If you were talking about car paint jobs and said, "I like red", red would be an adjective ("I like red paint jobs") not a noun ("I like the color red (in general)."). Or in this case specifically, "I like wireless (communications)" does not necessarily imply that wireless is itself a noun, it's just standing in for the understood phrase.

I am, however, NOT a linguist.

Re:Wireless != noun (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34570708)

Wireless! I wirelessly wirelessed her wireless wireless, wireless thats how I got herpes.(Ok I couldn't figure out how to make wireless a preposition :P)

Re:Wireless != noun (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#34648948)

Words don't have divine and immutable parts of speech or any other linguistic feature somehow ingrained in the fabric of the universe.

Nonetheless, there are meanings and usages accepted by the majority of educated users at a certain point in time.

"Wireless" can plop down in any open class position (noun, verb, adjective, adverb). Yes, IAAL. (I am a linguist)

Adverb? Well obviously you didn't study very diligent.

But anyway, wireless is a noun but not for any woo-woo "languages evolve" kind of bullshit reason; it's an old word for a radio.

Re:Wireless != noun (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#34569568)

If you're hanging around with people who call AM radios "wireless", we should probably get off *your* lawn. (Well, the retirement home's lawn that you enjoy.)

Study Results: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34568798)

Flu spreads wirelessly.

Re:Study Results: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34568834)

It's a Virus! A Computer Virus!

Re:Study Results: (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34569932)

Young people can be conditioned to be tracked 24/7 if they think its helping with science. More study is needed to see if the "science" aspect is needed or will they just accept tracking ...

Wild (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34568846)

And if they did this same RF tagging experiment on a global scale and included animals that can be infected by variations of the same types of flu viruses, you would see that human animal proximity is also a factor in mutation, and that viruses that mutate as a result this trans species infection originate in regions where Humans live closest to Animals. You can read this same information at WHO.

Some people have strong systems (1)

nido (102070) | more than 3 years ago | (#34569028)

Some people aren't vulnerable to catching the flu. Sure, they get exposed just like anyone else, but for some reason their body doesn't become a virus factory.

I think it'd be nice to do some research into what it takes to make a body more resistant, but that's probably not very profitable for the vaccine industry...

Re:Some people have strong systems (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34569074)

the 'vaccine industry' barely breaks even.

Re:Some people have strong systems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34569086)

Ugh, nothing like paranoia with 0 basis in reality. You REALLY don't think that anyone has ever done any research into how immune systems work and how certain people are immune? And it's so they can sell extra vaccines that they can never make enough of as it is? You REALLY don't think that if someone COULD come up with a permanent flu vaccine they wouldn't be able to make massive amounts of money on it? But yeah, don't let reality get in the way of your paranoia. Thats the thing about reality, it is just so antagonistic towards our irrational beliefs.

Re:Some people have strong systems (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34569936)

i dont get the flu as bad as other people my age, probably since im less stressed, but some people just dont get sick as they are more healthy(im not)

its not paranoia thinking its NOT all luck on who gets it

Re:Some people have strong systems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34570016)

One of those people here. A couple things. Even though I never get the flu if I get the opportunity to get the flu vaccine I always take it even though I am effectively immune. I tend to be very stressed as well. Definitely genetic my daughter got it too we both caught a nasty virus that knocked her mother out for about a week lasted less than an hour on me a little longer on her. Typically I don't even get sick though, if it affects me you know it was bad.

Re:Some people have strong systems (3, Funny)

countSudoku() (1047544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34569210)

Speaking as someone who hasn't been sick since 2006 and I NEVER get a stupid flu shot, you may be on to something there. Part of it is to not bother with medications and having a superior immune system untouched by anti-bacterial products. That and a complete belief that I cannot get sick anymore. That's all it takes. A strong will and immune system that gets exposed to all sorts of real-world bacteria and flu bugs is all you need. Stop getting sick, you weak fucktards!

Re:Some people have strong systems (1)

LiENUS (207736) | more than 3 years ago | (#34570024)

Speaking as someone who hasn't been sick since 2006 and I NEVER get a stupid flu shot, you may be on to something there. Part of it is to not bother with medications and having a superior immune system untouched by anti-bacterial products. That and a complete belief that I cannot get sick anymore. That's all it takes. A strong will and immune system that gets exposed to all sorts of real-world bacteria and flu bugs is all you need. Stop getting sick, you weak fucktards!

Methinks someone doesn't understand vaccines. I got sick for the first time in years this year but I always get the flu shot if the opportunity presents itself. I don't go out of the way to get it but if I happen to be in my doctors office and he offers it I take it. It's part of exposing your immune system, ever notice how some people actually get sick when they get vaccinated? It's because their immune system is working hard fighting the vaccine.

Re:Some people have strong systems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34572892)

My coworker gave me grief for not getting a shot. Then he gets violently sick with the flu and I had to ask him, how did that shot work out for ya?

Label me a conspiracy nut, but I think it's not just a vaccine. It doesn't even do what it's advertised to do. Everyone who got one ended up more sick than those without one. Myself included....

Re:Some people have strong systems (2)

Jaktar (975138) | more than 3 years ago | (#34570118)

Not sure why this was modded funny. I also opt to skip the flu shot. My wife and kids still get them. She insisted on getting the H1N1 shot when it became available. She then contracted H1N1 despite the vaccination and I remained healthy and unaffected. It's not a difficult concept: feed your body what you need to stay healthy and it will (usually) take care of itself.

Re:Some people have strong systems (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#34571338)

She then contracted H1N1 despite the vaccination and I remained healthy and unaffected.

Well, maybe part of her contract with H1N1 was that it wouldn't attack you if she let it attack her. :-)

Re:Some people have strong systems (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#34572566)

I'm not sure I see the causal relationship between your special immunity, skipping the jab, and what you're feeding your body.

Re:Some people have strong systems (1)

daisybelle (1077153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34572984)

Bad researchers. Bad! (3, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34569030)

High school students are generally a lot more sociable than the general population. Outfit a large office building with these same sensors, and I bet you get different results.

Also discovered: A crowd has a lot of people (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34569058)

"The researchers outfitted an entire high school population.... The devices logged more than 760,000 incidents when two people were within 10 feet of each other...."

So we have successfully determined that a place has a lot of people within 10 feet of each other when:

1) It's designed specifically so 20-40 people sit in small rooms where their "personal space" is made up entirely of a chair and a 2 foot by 3 foot desk.

2) This time is broken up by people, all at the same time, getting up and moving around the halls to other similarly small rooms or to unrelated small social groups.

Wow. I never realized that. I didn't know the kid behind me who used to pull on my hair was less than 10 feet from me, it all makes sense now!

If you're in a school and no one ever gets within 10 feet of you, you're the smelly kid. I'm sorry.

Re:Also discovered: A crowd has a lot of people (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34569096)

no, they determined how many times the come in contact with each other.

You people that are so busy trying to show way something is wrong or 'useless' might want to take a moment to think. DO you know you look like a dick?

Re:Also discovered: A crowd has a lot of people (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34569122)

no, they determined how many times the come in contact with each other.

Yeah, and it's a big number. What does having the precise number for one school on one day benefit us?

Re:Also discovered: A crowd has a lot of people (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34569216)

Not much. Did you think the entire result of the study was just that number, and not simply one simple value to throw into the summary?

Re:Also discovered: A crowd has a lot of people (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34569482)

Not much. Did you think the entire result of the study was just that number, and not simply one simple value to throw into the summary?

The summary told me nothing.

The article told me that if you vaccinate a small number it doesn't matter who you vaccinate, popular or unpopular. More informative I'll admit but not really surprising since everyone is forced to walk past everyone else several times a day. Oh, and that they assume sick people remove themselves from the population, an assumption I'd like explained to me since there's a lot of things that can keep sick kids at school.

The actual Stanford article also told me that tracking everyone's movements is kind of scary when you think about it.

I'm three links deep and I've yet to find anything really notable. But fine, I'm an idiot in need of explanation. Tell me what I missed.

Re:Also discovered: A crowd has a lot of people (2)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578290)

I'm three links deep and I've yet to find anything really notable. But fine, I'm an idiot in need of explanation. Tell me what I missed.

Yes, these days it's tons of bullshit until you get to the real thing. Everything above the actual study is going to be full of infantile jokes and idiotic observations, as you've noted (personally it makes me sick to read any modern news articles, or much of anything, due to this). Here's the path I followed to get to the actual study:

Slashdot summary [slashdot.org] -> Hot Hardware version [hothardware.com] -> Stanford's news release about study [stanford.edu] -> Abstract of study [pnas.org] -> Study itself (PDF) [pnas.org] .

In the study, they use the detailed interaction data to try various infection parameters, to see how it spreads. There are many interesting graphs, showing how it spreads in the various scenarios, and where there are sudden changes in how it spreads. They look at different vaccination strategies to see which are most effective.

Re:Also discovered: A crowd has a lot of people (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34583114)

In the study, they use the detailed interaction data to try various infection parameters, to see how it spreads. There are many interesting graphs, showing how it spreads in the various scenarios, and where there are sudden changes in how it spreads. They look at different vaccination strategies to see which are most effective.

Well, thank you. FINALLY something worth reading!

Human beings are Toast? What? (1)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 3 years ago | (#34569068)

Cylons are Toasters. Human beings are meatspace. The viruses between the two... well, Dr. Baltar?

Link to Paper Published in PNAS: Open Access (2, Informative)

Entrpy (987700) | more than 3 years ago | (#34569246)

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/12/08/1009094108.abstract?sid=8b3f6e2c-94b3-4175-903a-5d75382af4fd [pnas.org]

Abstract:

The most frequent infectious diseases in humans—and those with the highest potential for rapid pandemic spread—are usually transmitted via droplets during close proximity interactions (CPIs). Despite the importance of this transmission route, very little is known about the dynamic patterns of CPIs. Using wireless sensor network technology, we obtained high-resolution data of CPIs during a typical day at an American high school, permitting the reconstruction of the social network relevant for infectious disease transmission. At 94% coverage, we collected 762,868 CPIs at a maximal distance of 3 m among 788 individuals. The data revealed a high-density network with typical small-world properties and a relatively homogeneous distribution of both interaction time and interaction partners among subjects. Computer simulations of the spread of an influenza-like disease on the weighted contact graph are in good agreement with absentee data during the most recent influenza season. Analysis of targeted immunization strategies suggested that contact network data are required to design strategies that are significantly more effective than random immunization. Immunization strategies based on contact network data were most effective at high vaccination coverage. /p?

Re:Link to Paper Published in PNAS: Open Access (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34570690)

I am glad to have seen your article ,it's good ,i am very like
top handbags [citytopbags.com]

Re:Link to Paper Published in PNAS: Open Access (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34571380)

Actually, if you follow [hothardware.com] links [stanford.edu] from TFA, you'll get to that same [pnas.org] article [pnas.org] . Kind of a waste to mod this up as informative.

Slashdotius 14:19 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34569724)

And The Lord asked Tech Support Angel, "Why doth mine creations catcheth the cold so?" Upon hearing which, Tech Support Angel replied, "My Lord, it is user error."

In other words... (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 3 years ago | (#34570970)

When a student says "School makes me sick!", apparently that is an observant student, and should be allowed to study at home.

Unless they told people there was an "outbreak" (1)

VShael (62735) | more than 3 years ago | (#34571958)

then why would anyone take extra precautions?

This only models a viral outbreak which is both unannounced, and virtually symptomless.

Re:Unless they told people there was an "outbreak" (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34573164)

As far as the flu is concerned, it's possible to infect others before you display symptoms yourself so the "virtually symptomless" requirement can be satisfied.

Confounded results (1)

codeDr (620213) | more than 3 years ago | (#34574362)

Doesn't getting all the students together to distribute the monitors confound the results as the students are
within 10 feet of each other ?

Re:Confounded results (1)

gknoy (899301) | more than 3 years ago | (#34575280)

They could simply start the window of monitoring at a different time. Such as, give the tokens out on Tuesday, and do the test on Wednesday. At 3pm, stop testing, and let everyone dump them back in a bag for recovery.

Interesting study, bad interpretation (1)

DKush (1958974) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579032)

Methinks this study protests too much. In schools, most classrooms are arranged in such a way that desks face one direction, forward. These sensors are logging data that is not truly in the range of spreading the virus. Last time I checked a kid never sneezed out of his ear to infect the kid sitting 5 feet to the left of him or out of the back of his skull to get the people behind him. The numbers presented are blown way out of proportion. The study does however pose a good question. Should the students or the teachers get the vaccine? My vote is for the teachers since they look in the face of 25-30 loaded barrels every class, while students might get their neck coughed on by the kid sitting behind them.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?