SurveyUSA has some interesting numbers out on swine flu. According to a poll of 1,200 American adults that they conducted yesterday, 3.2 percent -- 38 of 1,200 -- know someone who has gotten sick with the swine flu.
Three percent does not sound like a whole lot -- but when you back the numbers out, it's really quite something. The U.S. population, at the time I began writing this article, was 306,318,220 people. If we extrapolate out the SurveyUSA data, this implies that 9,700,077 Americans know somebody who has swine flu.
So if 9,700,077 Americans know someone who has swine flu, how many people actually have the swine flu? This is actually not all that straightforward to calculate. But if we assume that: (a) the average person knows about 290 others, as academic studies have found, and that (b) nobody knows more than one person with swine flu (unlikely in practice, since disease outbreaks are localized phenomena), this would imply that 33,449 people in fact have the swine flu! This would come as a surprise to the CDC, which currently knows or suspects between 400-500 cases of swine flu in the United States.
Except that -- this result is almost certainly illusory (or at least I hope that it is). But it's interesting to contemplate why it's illusory. I see at least six probabilities, which are arranged here from least interesting to most interesting:
1. Some people were lying on the survey;
2. Some people pressed the wrong button when completing the survey (SurveyUSA's polls are conducted via an automated script);
3. People are mistaking all sorts of things which aren't swine flu -- fevers, food poisoning, hangovers, etc. -- for swine flu, and reporting results accordingly.
4. Some people interpret the definition of "know" very liberally, such as someone they've heard about on the news. Do I know Barack Obama? Do I know Susan Boyle? As far as I'm concerned, I don't know them -- I merely know of them. But some people might answer this question differently.
5. The average person, in the Internet era, has ways to remain in contact with a lot more than 290 other people.
6. When something truly extraordinary happens, second and perhaps even third-order social networks come into play. If someone in your network of 290 people won the lottery, you would probably hear about it almost immediately. But not only that -- if anyone in your network of 290 people knew someone who won the lottery, it would be an interesting enough topic of conversation that you would probably hear about this too (and you might still tell a pollster that you "knew" someone who had won the lottery). This might even hold if any of your 290 contacts knew someone who knew someone who had won the lottery.
This same principle would probably hold for the swine flu. If you work in a large company, and the brother of someone in another division in the company (whom you'd never met personally) has come down with swine flu, there's a pretty good chance that you'd hear about it. Would you then tell a pollster that you knew someone who had swine flu? Quite possibly you would, even though under ordinary circumstances you'd have never known anything about this person. If this person got engaged, or got into a bad car wreck, or enlisted in the Armed Forces, you'd probably never hear about it. But if they got the swine flu, you very well might. It's not so much who you know, in other words, but what you know about them, that makes this sort of result plausible.
4.29.2009
Six Degrees of Swine Flu
by Nate Silver @ 7:30 PM...see also swine flu
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

46 comments
It's likely that tens of thousands of people in Mexico have had swine flu. I personally know someone whose doctor recently treated her for flu and believes that she had it. She isn't counted in any official statistics, but I would've answered "yes" to that question.
This is a pretty ragged survey, relying on "someone who knows someone". As such the numbers are meaningless.
fun with numbers...
I do a lot of market survey based research. The "erratic response" rate for most questions runs close to 5% in my experience. As a researcher, I generally dismiss any response less than 5% as indistinguishable from zero with a survey methodology. The tool simply isn't fine enough.
You know it strikes me that this flu would burn itself out if everybody stopped moving around for a few days. Not likely to happen.
I think we'd get more accurate results more easily if we asked those 400-500 confirmed folks how many people they know. Even doctors don't know what strain of the flu a patient has without clinical testing, and the seasonal flu is still out and about, so I'm willing to chalk this one up to the public being allowed to display their ignorance.
But never mind that. 57% of people think that all flights between the U.S. and Mexico should be canceled? Sheesh, jumping the gun much? Madagascar hasn't even closed their ports yet!
Well, they'll have a vaccine ready in about 5 or 6 months. This thing isn't likely to take off roaring until the regular flu cycle starts in the fall-that's when it gets colder so everyone's indoors all crowded next to each other coughing in each other's faces instead of outside with a lot of space between them and everyone else.
Provided you haven't already caught it by the time the vaccine is ready, get the shot. If enough people do, we can build up herd immunity.
The real danger of course is that this strain (H1N1), while not especially fatal, has managed to achieve a high degree of tansmissibility. Should it combine with the more lethal form of the flu (H5N1) and swap some genes to produce a highly transmissible and lethal virus, won't you be glad you got that shot in time?
After all, you don't have to know somebody to breathe in the shit they,re breathing out. I have no idea who the people in the elevator next to me are half the time I'm in that very small confined space with poor air circulation. But I don't have to.
All I have to do is breathe.
Any chance that you will be doing an analysis of the people contracting the disease, it's spread, and how fast it will destroy all of mankind?
Thanks.
-Jeff
Take a look finance quant Paul Wilmott's blog post.
http://www.wilmott.com/blogs/paul/index.cfm/2009/4/26/Celebrity-Death-Test
Basically says that a threat such as swine flu does not need to be taken seriously until contracted by a "Celebrity". If the small percent of population affected by the threat intersects with the small percentage of celebrities, then the threat has become large enough to become an issue.
It may be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but there is some logic behind it.
-Jerry
Why don't we ask the Swine Flu if it is a Democrat or a Republican?
We should conduct a survey of all viruses to determine their party affiliation. Did the flu support McCain or Obama? Did it vote third party? Did it vote absentee? Was its ballot properly filled out?
We can ask the people who are falling sick, "what is your view of the swine flu situation?" As they lay dying, we can inquire as to how many people they knew.
Really this is quite stupid. The flu is a force of nature, not a politician. Who cares whether people think they know someone with the flu or not? The important thing is that we stop the epidemic, not that it be used as an excuse to seal the border or bash Rick Parry (as I am guilty of having used it to do).
Lets cut the bullshit and stop worrying over how the Swine Flu is doing in the polls. I realize that its still more popular than the Republican Party,a nd if the Swine Flu were in a head-to-head matchup against David Vitter, it might win, but I think this is one contest where we're all on the same side.
Wash your hands, cover your mouth, avoid crowds until the vaccine is ready, if you're sick stay home, go see a doctor if you think you have it. Wash your hands ALOT, and be mindful about touching your mucous membranes.
Yes, we can beat the Swine Flu.
Enough of this swine flu crap already. The phrase is unwieldy to say. Any action or thought that is not for prevention or restraint of a negative situation just magnifies its impact.
And these people in the survey can distinguish swine flu from the more widespread common flu... how, exactly?
Dontcha know? The victims start oinking uncontrollably.
But nate, this 290 number is a gross over statement of how many people I would hear about if they became ill. Maybe in a year, but not in a week. Even if the the swine flu has greater reach than average, unfortunately this number doesn't tell us anything useful for this case.
Where I work, if there were a swine flu case, some 40,000 people would know about it within a day; there would be alerts and advisories on the internet. Would I claim that I 'knew' somebody if I received such an alert? Yes I probably would.
"(b) nobody knows more than one person with swine flu (unlikely in practice, since disease outbreaks are localized phenomena),"
Come on - now you're just being lazy. You can come up with an estimate pdf for P(Joe knows exactly n people with pig flu).
Interesting - while I don't "know" someone who has the swine flu in the most immediate sense (i.e. someone I would ordinarily list as a friend or acquaintance) I have heard a story from a student about an Aunt in their family (in Mexico) who died of 'swine flu'. As the story goes, the Aunt was told to go home, as she only had the flu - untreated, her situation worsened and she died.
First and foremost, Did the survey ask if the respondent knows someone *from the United States* who has swine flu? (I just checked - the answer is: no!) Because another possibility is:
7. That among the people that we "know," some may be living in other countries, like Mexico, that have higher rates of infection. This seems very reasonable, and if we expand our pool of people we know to Mexico, that can mean an addition of several thousand cases to consider when verifying the truthfulness of this survey.
Now consider this case, and consider that some number of the possibilities raised above can be grouped together to have a combined effect.
While I might not put that I know someone with swine flu, I would feel compelled to think about that story, and another person might understandably say, "Yes I know someone."
If we agree then that people are likely (in times of dramatic events) to expand the list of people they "know," who have been affected (#6) and maybe they know a bit more people than researchers realize (#5), we can consider the following case:
Imagine people "know" more people due to social networking technology. And the number 290 increases to something like 400 (I could easily make a list of 'friends' and colleagues and family that large).
Now imagine that people will consider one extra degree of relation when excited. That is, they will say they "know" someone, if one of the people they actually know, "knows" someone who is affected.
This means now that the number of people you might consider "knowing" is 400 x 400 (assuming each person you might know, knows the same number of people).
So 400^2 gives us 160,000 people, who if affected, you might consider saying, "I know that person."
In the SurveyUSA poll, 3% of people surveyed means a prediction of about 9 million people in the U.S. know someone who is infected.
Dividing this number by 160,000 gives us only 56 actual cases - significantly lower than the predicted amount of infections (400-500).
In fact, if we use the original number of 290, but add a second degree of relations, we will arrive at only 107 actual cases, still far fewer than predicted.
A more reasonable approach might be to say that we won't know if all 290 of our "knowable" population knows someone who is sick, so we can say the 100 people we will have reason to interact with.
(In my case that number is more than reasonable, as I have 120 students I see five days a week!)
Now we can multiply 290*100, and divide the 9 million from the survey by that amount. This gives us 310 real cases, closer to the actual, but very reasonable by survey standards!
Statler
You make a good point about transmissibility. I believe that a sizable fraction of the public, while unwilling to dispute the germ theory, act as though they don't believe it at all. They either see disease fatalistically and have no confidence that anything they do can make them less likely to get sick, or they think they're too healthy to get sick, or that all the preventive measures that are recommended are just too tedious.
Many feel they're just too busy to stay home if they're sick, or that they have no child care options that would allow them to keep their sick kids at home.
Of course, all these factors are BS when compared to the level of misery that proper precautions could prevent, but as former chimps we're not too good at using our forebrains yet.
I'd like to emphasize your comment about mucous membranes. IMHO, eye-rubbing and nose-picking are the causes of some of the most severe cases of communicable diseases, since those practices place far larger numbers of pathogens in places where they can multiply quickly.
You can breathe in a relatively low number of viruses or bacteria and get sick, but the sheer number of those agents that you can have on your fingers after opening doors, turning faucets, flushing toilets, etc. is far greater than the number you're likely to breathe in.
So, if the population of a virus or bacteria doubles every two hours, say, then breathing in 50 copies gives your immune system significantly more time to catch up with the disease than rubbing thousands of copies into your eyes or nose does.
In the case of a virus that kills by hyperactivation of the immune system, a lower initial load may serve to trigger a less aggressive immune response, but I'm speculating about that.
Anyway, not rubbing eyes or noses (and maybe not using cloth handkerchiefs that hold live germs and viruses for long periods) may be as important as hand washing.
Yes we can.
And of course, we all know now it started on the Bush ranch!
http://www.idlewordship.com/2009/04/obama-blames-swine-flu-on-george-bush.html
Or there could be a lot more people sick who haven't been officially counted. Or maybe it counts people who are friends in twitter.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/swine_flu.png
Or, people are counting those they know who had the regular flu 2 months ago.
I suspect thousands in the USA have the swine flu already. And for most, it is not a big deal.
I am increasingly impressed by your statistical analysis . Even your postulations come backed with the full force of thoughtful statistics. Anchors and pundits incorrectly analyze statistics all the time, construing them in ways completely off the wall and it enrages me. It reminds me of Homer Simpsons' quote, "Anybody can make up statistics. 16% of all people know that." Intelligence and judicious analysis is a hard thing to find in news and especially in politics, keep up the good work.
Michele Bachmann says Democrats cause flu epidemics. Maybe the poll respondents were saying that they knew Democrats. I personally know a slew of Democrats. Q.E.D.
http://www.minnpost.com/minnclips/2009/04/28/8422/michele_bachmann_might_know_the_cause_of_the_swine_flu_outbreak
I'll let you all know when I get it, OK? Then you must tell your friends and neighbours.
Doesn't this presume that the distribution of swine flu is even throughout the country, whereas, since it's contagious, it should be clustered? That is, if I know 1 person with swine flu, I'm lots more likely to know 2.
Hu Chi,
Which is all the more reason for everyone to make an effort to take this shit seriously, since when the people around them don't, that's all the more people who will expose them to the virus once they wind up sharing mutual airspace.
This same strain has caused major pandemics worldwide twice before, including the one with the most fatalities attributed to an influenza pandemic in the history of modern disease (the 1918 outbreak). Since this disease is spread through aerosol transmission (when someone sneezes), covering your mouth and nose will spare your loved ones the danger, and you can spare yourself much of the risk by washing your hands. Alot. A whole fuck of a lot.
Why? because when someone sneezes, a cloud of aerosolized particles is expelled with considerable force and speed=these projectiles land all over the place, and you can't see them. If some land on your hands and you then touch your mucous membranes without washing first, you may introduce the virus into tissues that are very close to your bloodstream. It's not like you're injecting it or anything, but it's a pretty efficient way to get it.
Above all, wash your hands before eating. You have no idea how many disease can be prevented just by washing your hands. Remember to use soap-just wetting your hands with water doesn't do any good. Also, remember to wipe your hand thoroughly on a paper towel-while soap acts like a detergent and knocks everything on your hands loose, you still have to scrape it off of you with that paper towel, so wipe your hands. Those little hairdryer like things in public restrooms don't cut it. You,re not wiping just to dry your hands off-you,re trying to physically remove the virus particles from your body.
Also, use the paper towel to open the restroom door on your way out. That way you don't egt whatever the guy before you left on the doorhandle on your newly cleaned hands.
Get yourself a little bottle of alcohol-based sanitizer. They're cheap, and in case the restroom at work doesn't have paper towels, the alcohol will deactivate the virus. If you're worried about dry hands, they make kinds that won't dry your hands out nowadays.
Kids are going to present a special problem. They have underdeveloped immune systems and therefore a considerable amount of virus can grow in their bodies-more than will grow in ours, because our immune system will fight off the virus particles int he bloodstream. Children also tend to put everything in their mouths and rub their mucous membranes alot. They also tend to do things in very large groups, especially teenagers, and they share food and drink from the same containers, which enhances the spread. So make sure your children wash their hands very often, discourage them from eating or drinking after other people, even when offered to them. In this case, you want to teach them NOT to share. You may also wish to discourage large group activities for the kids-not saying they can't go out and play, but 20 playmates is a little much.
Remember, this shit is spread by aerosol spray from the mouth and nose-and there are hundreds of places in our daily lives where we share confined airspace with large numbers of people, like the subway, elevators, concerts, the movie theatre, shopping malls, etc etc etc. Some have decent ventilation, many don't. So you don't have to know someone to catch this thing from them-if you're in the same elevator and are total strangers, you can still get it from them.
Sydow, did you get that? That,s why it spreads quickly all over the place. Person 1 has no connection to person 2, except they were on an airplane together or they were in the same elevator. Then, person two catches a connecting flight to Phoenix while person 1 goes to New York. You get outbreaks in Phoenix and New York, and everyone's wondering how that can happen even though nobody in Phoenix knows anyone in New York.
It does not matter if you know the person or not. That,s why this thread is a bunch of bullshit-it gives people the false impression that this is an STD or something, and the spread is much easier than that.
So cover your mouth, don't touch your eyes, and WAS YOUR HANDS!
YES, WE CAN WASH OUR HANDS!
You're leaving off a possibility, Nate.
Would you be surprised at a survey that said 3.2% of Americans knew someone who lives in Mexico City? Depending on who get to be in the sample of "Americans," that seems low. Now, not everyone who lives in Mexico City is infected, but it seems certain that it's at least in the thousands.
It's a mistake to think that people who answered "yes" to the question are talking about one of the US cases.
The first reason you gave is enough. People are liars.
For me the surprising thing is actually that the number is so LOW. I remember from method class in university that given ANY two options you'll always have at least 4-6% in the least popular category.
I bet if you asked people if they had been abducted by aliens or visited another planet more than 3.2% would say "yes". So why do so few choose the at least plausible swine flu?
Do this little experiment at home, you don't want to do it to often, it really annoys people.
Listen very closely to the people you are around when they are describing gossip, rumor or personal speculation.
When you hear phrases like "Someone told me" or "my friend said" or "they say" stop them and ask who the someone actually is, or what their friend's name is , or who are "they" exactly. You'll find that these are phrases almost everyone uses (present company not excluded) but almost no thought goes into the factual accuracy of the phaseology. Usually "no one" said it, their "friend" was made up and "they say" is used as just a seemingly more credible version of "I think."
Do I know anyone who has swine flu? It would be cool and unboring if I did, I'm anonymous and there's no penalty for claiming it so ..... no. But you know at least 3% say yes anyway.
Nate, here is a statistical question which deserves your attention. The NRA has a boilerplate statistic that each year 2.5 million people use a firearm to protect themselves against a criminal act. http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/indefnra.html
If that statistic were true, a gathering of say 100 people should have a probability of x% that someone in the group either is or personally knows someone who has used a firearm in self defense. I'm not sure how large the x in my sentence is but I suspect that it is very high. I'm certain that you are familiar with that standard party gimmick of asking each attendee what his or her birthday is. Once the number of people polled exceeds 57 the probability of duplicate birthdays is 99%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_paradox
Perhaps the same 2.5 million people use a firearm each year in self defense but if each year's crop of successful self defenders is unique, in 20 years the cumulative total would be 50 million and in 40 years, 100 million, namely 1 in 3 of every American. In that case, even a group of say 10 people would likely have a probability of 99.9% that someone personally is or knows a successful self defender.
Obviously the point that I am getting at is that I suspect that the NRA figure of 2.5 million cases per annum is bogus and I would love to see a statistical analysis which effectively proves this assertion to be impossible.
this is really an informative article, this dreaded disease is causing a panic in US....Swine Flu FAQ
Tracking news of the deadly disease is very important before it spreads even more. I found a cool way to track Swine Flu cases in all neighborhoods. Just add the Swine Flu tracklet at http://www.trackle.com to get updates.
Obama: Flu outbreak 'a very serious situation' (CNN) http://tinyurl.com/cfph8q - News alert (http://www.trackle.com) Check it out.
How the hell do people know 290 other people? I can count relatives of friends I haven't seen in 5 years and not go over 100.
A lot depends on how you count "knowing" people. Do I know the people whose names I don't know, but see on the way in and out of my building several times a month? (And that's a much higher number for me, in Manhattan, than it would be for many people who live in single-family homes in the suburbs, and don't have children. Conversely, when my nephew was younger, his parents picked him up at school every day: do you count all his classmates, and their parents, as people they know? Then, maybe. A decade later?
How about all my imaginary friends, who I talk to online but have never seen in the flesh (and who could, in theory, all be the same person, or space aliens, rather than the mix of humans I think them to be)? Do I know my co-worker's son, who has stopped by the office twice in the two years I've worked here? My high school classmates who I mostly haven't seen since graduation, but some of whom I now talk to on Facebook?
If you say yes to all of those, the numbers are higher than if you eliminate the online-only contacts, or count them but not anyone I haven't talked to since the 20th century, or rule out anyone whose name I couldn't give you.
You used the Pop Clock to extrapolate from a survey of American adults? Come on, dude, at least exclude infants or something - their circle of acquaintances isn't exactly wide.
Your last explanation is probably the correct one. For instance, I know someone who is currently quarantined on suspicion of having swine flu. He is a roommate of one of my husband's co-workers, and while I know the co-worker personally, I don't know the roommate personally. But if his case is confirmed, I'd feel justified in saying that I do in fact know someone who has swine flu.
JF Isher, I had the exact opposite response: how can people know so few people?
I have 390 Facebook friends, and I know all of them. (There are about ten who I haven't met in person but who I have corresponded significantly with, e.g. writing a paper together.) Meanwhile, there are a huge number of people not in my FB friends list who I know.
I know at least 500 people from high school, and remember them. I have at least 50 relatives and in-laws. I remember at least 100 people from my BS (including teachers, dormmates, fellow students). I remember at least 50 from my first MS and at least 200 from my second MS. I remember at least 130 from the 11 places I've worked (and probably more like 300). I know around 50 former neighbours, roommates, and landlords. I conservatively remember about 10 people from a fan club, 100 people from some political action, 30 people from three different community access TV shows, 40 people from two different opera productions, 30 friends of my husband's, and 100 people from hubby/mother's church.
This doesn't even count people I've met at seminars, short courses, and parties. It doesn't service workers with whom I was friendly -- the stock clerk at my grocery store, the checkout clerk at the bookstore, the teller at my bank. I didn't count friends of my parents, nor did I count friends of my ex-boyfriends. I didn't count people with whom I have only exchanged a few email messages.
Do I know where all of these people are? No. Do I remember all of their names? At least 90% (if I knew their name) given a few days to think about it.
If someone told me, "Oh, Anders Nilssen got swine flu, do you know him?" I would say yes -- even though I haven't seen him since 1985. I still know him. If he showed up on my doorstep, I'd take him to dinner and ask him how he was. He's still in my tribe.
I think that I know somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 people. I'm willing to believe I am a bit of an outlier because I have a particularly good memory, but I don't think I'm THAT far out.
Interesting article. Where I'm from people are freaking out about it too, so I created an ebook to help people out. You can download it a www.jamesryanhamilton.com/swineflu
there is more to this crap than you think, click my name for info
http://offers4u.info/
One of my students told me that her doctor said she had the swine flu. She also said that he said it was Influenza B, which is not the swine flu and is not even transmissible to pigs. She further said that the doctor said what she had could cross over to the swine flu, which is certainly not true. I don't think she was lying, but she certainly wasn't paying attention closely to what her doctor was saying. Either that or the doctor is an idiot.
Do we have any reason to believe that the people polled know *unique* infected individuals? Otherwise, the conclusion drawn about total infected populace is fallacious. If everyone knows 290 people, those 290 people know another 290, and so on and so forth, and so it is not beyond reason to assume that some infected individuals overlap.
Of course, this is all silly, because the results of the poll, as noted in the article are probably nonsense.
Wow. Do any of your readers actually read?
Your first paragraph cites that 3.2% of 1200 ADULTS know someone previously sicked by the swine flu.
So you "extrapolated" by taking 3.2% of the ENTIRE U.S. population?
It's only related to ADULTS, not the general population!
My lord, what an incompetent anaylsis.
There are two other assumptions (unstated) in your analysis:
1) No two individuals in the US know the SAME person infected with the swine flu.
2) All infections known to residents of the US are of people living in the US. So Grandma living back home in the old country doesn't count.
Both assumptions are likely to inflate your estimate of the number of cases that exist in the US.
Dr. Toketee: see my comment above.
Tis scary i must admit but we have to wait it out i guess.
get a load of this scary Report.
http://forecastfortomorrow.com/Files/swineflu.pdf
This is like the 50,000 people who claim to have been at the game where Wilt Chamberlain scored 100 points...
This whole Hamthrax scare is ALL about the sordid decisions that are made ALL THE TIME to feed the 24/7 newswhores.
Thanks for continuing the stand up for rationality & analysis.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment