Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet Science

Google Algorithm to Search Out Hospital Superbugs 114

Googling Yourself writes "Researchers in the UK plan to use Google's PageRank algorithm to find how super-bugs like MRSA spread in a hospital setting. Previous studies have discovered how particular objects, like doctors' neckties, can harbor infection, but little is known about the network routes by which bugs spread. Mathematician Simon Shepherd plans to build a matrix describing all interactions between people and objects in a hospital ward, based on observing normal daily activity."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Algorithm to Search Out Hospital Superbugs

Comments Filter:
  • Inaccurate summary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by solafide ( 845228 ) on Friday January 04, 2008 @02:20PM (#21912768) Homepage
    They're not using the PageRank algorithm itself, but an algorithm similar to how they conjecture Google works. In actuality, they're building a graph of interactions and finding the most linked to nodes, which is a fairly easy graph problem and nothing too exciting. It's the novelity of using this in hospitals that makes it notable. The PageRank reference is just for media attention/allowing non-compsci people to understand it, though.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by tjstork ( 137384 )
      e PageRank reference is just for media attention/allowing non-compsci people to understand it, though.

      An inaccurate summary on slashdot? I'm shocked!
      • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Somebody tase you, bro?
      • The PageRank reference is just for media attention/allowing non-compsci people to understand it, though.

        An inaccurate summary on slashdot? I'm shocked!

        A post complaining about an inaccurate summary on Slashdot? I am astounded sir, astounded!

        • by pyrosim ( 856745 )
          A post complaining about slashdot cliche about complaining about the article that is an obvious lead in for somebody to post a complaint about the cliche about complaining about cliches causing a recursive thread that spirals into infinity or at least far enough that a lot of people have wasted a lot of time?

          I don't even think such a thing is possible on slashdot!
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by quick2think ( 833211 )

      they're building a graph of interactions and finding the most linked to nodes


      Sounds like you just described the PageRank TM algorithm in general. Remember, the "Page" in PageRank TM is for the founders name, not web pages. It is not the complexity of the math, but of the ability to solve equations on a large scale quickly over the distributed systems that makes the Google methods so powerful in solving these "simple" math problems.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Sounds like you just described the PageRank TM algorithm in general. Remember, the "Page" in PageRank TM is for the founders name, not web pages. It is not the complexity of the math, but of the ability to solve equations on a large scale quickly over the distributed systems that makes the Google methods so powerful in solving these "simple" math problems.

        He described a Markov model, of which PageRank is a variant.

    • by K-Man ( 4117 )
      What's weird is that they actually presented this at an internet conference. Is it calculated media whoring, or just mathematical illiteracy?
    • That's good. I was afraid Hospital Bombing might catch on.
  • backwards (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nguy ( 1207026 ) on Friday January 04, 2008 @02:20PM (#21912776)
    Markov chains are the original, mathematical theory. This is just an application of Markov chains to tracking disease transmission, a fairly common method that long pre-dates Google. Google's page rank algorithm is another application of Markov chains to citation ranking (and, as it turns out, it wasn't the first time that it was applied to that either).
    • Re:backwards (Score:5, Interesting)

      by davidsyes ( 765062 ) on Friday January 04, 2008 @03:14PM (#21913606) Homepage Journal
      Hell, part of this could be stemmed by:

      -- installing or increasing more air-locks/decontamination/containment/quarantine areas
      -- improving anti-bacterial ventilation and air cleaning/recirculation equipment
      -- setting up scanners points to look for flush/sickly people who emit fumes of certain bug signatures

      -- make the doctors and staff ALL wear anti-microbial/bacterial surgical masks EVEN FOR NON-SURGICAL visits (hey, they may be amped on anti-biotics, but aren't they still carriers?)

      -- emulate (if not doing so already) practices of the travel/cruise industry which separates various linens according to bacterial or viral risk (using color-coded collection bins) to keep certain bugs out of warm linens while keeping less contaminated items from contact. This reduces staff exposure time to numerous critters

      Most of all, given today's mass-travel economy/environment, hospitals and clinics should not be "walk-in-as-you-will" facilities. They should have screening or quarantine areas to separate and manage ENTRY of DETECTABLE vermin/air-borne agents. (Might even spark wild, new hospital designs, create jobs, and give politicians something new to do...)

      For any interest in medical and tourism practices in effect, see:

      http://www.riph.org.uk/pdf/healthAndHygieneOctober2003.pdf [riph.org.uk]

      http://www.bundesbank.de/download/meldewesen/bankenstatistik/kundensystematik/naics_2007_canada.pdf [bundesbank.de]

      http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/4614B679-B2EB-4DD8-A486-C4FFDA7A542D/0/CommunityContainmentSupplement1.doc [ky.gov]

      http://www.hhs.gov/pandemicflu/plan/sup8.html [hhs.gov]
      • Re:backwards (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Arthur B. ( 806360 ) on Friday January 04, 2008 @03:21PM (#21913734)
        These are very interesting thoughts, and I do share your belief that hospital should become more stringent in the future.

        I'd just like to point out that "it would create jobs" is no argument at all though. In fact if it didn't create any jobs, it would mean hospitals like these rained from heaven and we would all be better off. The least jobs it creates, the cheaper it is to have, the better it is.
      • Backwards indeed. The source of the problem is over-exposure to common antibiotics. Instead of looking at everyone who enters a hospital as a potential harbinger of antibiotic resistant bugs, its much much easier to simply reduce the number of people who are exposed to the antibiotics these bugs have become resistant to in the first place. Without selection pressure due to the presence of these antibiotics, the problem naturally goes away.
        Additionally, it is much cheaper to not prescribe antibiotics as
        • But, don't forget the black market. People WILL get hold of these. At some point, if antibiotics became illegal, then when does the kick-in/reporting to law enforcement start for the attending physician?

          Also, since we're on meds/drugs/pandemics, drug abuse should be managed in more creative ways. See:

          Drug debate in Spain (4:00)
          http://theworld.org/wma.php?id=01020812 [theworld.org]

          Overdose Rescue Kits Save Lives
          http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17578955 [npr.org]

          Global Obesity Series
          http://theworld.org/wma.php?id= [theworld.org]
        • by puck01 ( 207782 )
          Easier said than done. Hospitals are a special situation. By definition, most of the patients in a hospital are sick. You can categorize the types of antibiotic use - empiric, acute directed (known diagnsosis such as urinary track infection), chronic directed (ie. chronic bone infections), and just plain inappropriate. (I just made this up but I think most abx use easily falls into one of these catagories)

          When a person first presents ill, the diagnosis is not always obvious and some combination of his
      • This won't cost much! /sarcasm

        --
        Kevin
        http://velcroman98.googlepages.com/ [googlepages.com]

        Hell, part of this could be stemmed by:

        -- installing or increasing more air-locks/decontamination/containment/quarantine areas
        -- improving anti-bacterial ventilation and air cleaning/recirculation equipment
        -- setting up scanners points to look for flush/sickly people who emit fumes of certain bug signatures

        -- make the doctors and staff ALL wear anti-microbial/bacterial surgical masks EVEN FOR NON-SURGICAL visits (hey, they may be amped on anti-biotics, but aren't they still carriers?)

        -- emulate (if not doing so already) practices of the travel/cruise industry which separates various linens according to bacterial or viral risk (using color-coded collection bins) to keep certain bugs out of warm linens while keeping less contaminated items from contact. This reduces staff exposure time to numerous critters

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        -And we should not be putting antibiotics in feedstocks so that animals grow fatter quicker (and every bug becomes resistant in a hurry).

        -And people on antibiotics should finish their treatment even if they start feeling better early.

        -And antibiotics should not be presribed in situations that they don't help (that happens a lot to get rid of whiney 'customers' quickly).

        -And hospitals should spend more money on cleaning staff who know what they are doing.
      • I think before any high-tech solutions, a much simpler thing to do would be better training. Many doctors don't seem to be particularly careful about what they touch.

        I think doctors should be required to observe each other during training, spot potentially unsafe practices, and give each other feedback.

        Furthermore, there should be random checks for the sterility of gloves and instruments.
      • -- make the doctors and staff ALL wear anti-microbial/bacterial surgical masks EVEN FOR NON-SURGICAL visits (hey, they may be amped on anti-biotics, but aren't they still carriers?)

        They don't work. Even in surgery. All the masks are doing is preventing body fluids from reaching the skin of the surgeon, and giving the surgeon bad breath from rebreathing all his own bugs.

        Orthopaedic surgeons who really worry about infection wear the equivalent of a space suit.

        -- improving anti-bacterial ventilation and air cleaning/recirculation equipment

        We don't tend to get cross-contamination from room to room because of ventilation. There are no documented massive, instantaneous outbreaks of MRSA or VRE through a hospital vent system that I am aware of (except in bioweapon

      • by aswang ( 92825 ) <aswang@fa[ ]rofugus.net ['top' in gap]> on Friday January 04, 2008 @08:38PM (#21918030) Homepage

        If only it were as simple as you say!

        Staphylococcus aureus lives on normal skin. You're probably crawling with billions of these little buggers. Such is life. Most of the time, methicillin-sensitive Staph outgrows the methicillin-resistant Staph (in theory, there is a difference in rate of replication, since MRSA has that extra cassette that it needs to copy)

        But in certain places in the U.S., community-acquired MRSA infections make up as many as 35% of all infections (from simple skin infections to bacterial sepsis), at which point isolation practices are pretty pointless, particularly since they've never been proven to actually decrease rate of transmission. (Although granted, if you die from MRSA, it's going to be hospital-acquired MRSA that gets you.)

        Other multi-drug resistant bacteria are prevalent in the environment--in the soil, on flat surfaces, in computer keyboards--and don't cause illness in immunocompetent people. Examples are Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumanii, Enterobacter cloacae, Stenotrophomonas maltophila, and Alcaligenes xylosoxidans. But Gram-negative rods, more so than Gram-positive cocci, are likely to kill you in less than 24 hours. (Necrotizing fasciitis--caused by so-called "flesh-eating bacteria"--is more likely caused by Group A Streptococcus, which is very sensitive to straight-up penicillin, and MSSA)

        MRSA and other multi-drug resistant bacteria are simply not transmitted by air. Respiratory isolation rooms (negative pressure rooms with separate air filters) are good for preventing the spread of pulmonary tuberculosis, and various non-fatal viral illnesses, but that's about it. And when you've got 30-40 kids with RSV, there's no way you're going to isolate all of them.

        Most vectors of these bacteria are not sick from them, and they're so prevalent that it's not practical to exclude people who are colonized with this stuff. Most health-care workers are definitely colonized, for example, and it's no good preventing these people from working. Making people who have upper respiratory symptoms wear masks may be helpful, but making everyone do so? Studies don't show any difference in transmission.

        Any linens that might have been contaminated are destroyed anyway.

        The measures that have been proven to decrease transmission of bacteria and viruses are (1) thorough hand washing, meaning lathering up and running your hands under water for at least 15 seconds or (2) using the alcohol-based anti-bacterial gels (although this won't destroy Clostridium difficile spores) Everything else (masks, gowns, gloves), in terms of preventing transmission of these bacteria, is, according to the studies, infection control theater. (I'm not talking about universal precautions here, which definitely keep health care workers from getting HIV and hepatitis.)

        And when you come in on a backboard with C-collar because you were in a car-crash, infection control sort of takes a back seat until they take care of your airway, breathing, and circulation. There's no way you're going to keep someone dying from trauma in a quarantined area until you make sure they're not colonized with any of this stuff.

        Bottom line: wash you hands, and stop asking your physician for antibiotics whenever you or your kid have the sniffles. That'll cut the incidence of MRSA and other multi-drug resistant bacteria.

      • by jbengt ( 874751 )

        Hell, part of this could be stemmed by:

        -- installing or increasing more air-locks/decontamination/containment/quarantine areas

        Making an effective air lock is not a trivial matter (and ineffective one is easy), and not really necessary if you're in the hospital because of a non-infectious disease related matter. Already, patients that have easily communicable diseases such as tuberculosis are kept in negative pressure rooms with air locks and patients with depressed immune systems are kept in positive

      • by sakusha ( 441986 )
        You are absolutely correct. The IT staff is not responsible for eliminating infections in hospitals, that is the responsibility of the medical staff and the janitors.

        I'll give a good example. My local hospital had an outbreak of Legionnaire's Disease. They had a hell of a time tracking it down. The infection was transmitted by water, so all drinking fountains, faucets, and showers were shut down in the entire wing where the first patients had been infected. Patients were moved to other wings, those faciliti
        • Thanks all for responding to my ignorance and for informing me. But, probably it is good that I posed the statements I made because, afterall, we did get some VERY informative responses, and honestly, until I made my statement, I did not feel many here even GOT what was going on.

          Anyway, about clogged shower heads... when we see orange-ish goop on a showerhead (say we visit a friend and use the shower), should be be worried? If not *real* worried, then *how* much worry?
          • by sakusha ( 441986 )
            Huh? I'm not sure you understood that I was agreeing with you, and enhancing you argument. But nonetheless..

            I wouldn't worry about your friend's clogged shower head, unless he recently died of Legionnaire's Disease.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by u38cg ( 607297 )
        The simplest way of improving hospital hygiene is to wash things. In particular, hands. Every time you walk into a hospital you should wash your hands before you go up to reception. Was your hands after touching a door. Wash your hands before entering a ward. Wash your hands before interacting with a patient. Wash your hands after interacting with a patient. Enforce these rules for staff and visitors.

        This is really simple stuff, it would have a massive effect on infection rates, but nobody will do i

        • Even at WORK I use the drying paper towel to manipulate the door handle. Going in, I touch the handle with a pinkie (the door is not terribly hard to open), and I wash my hands before even touching my zipper. Why? Hell, I do NOT know if at work or anywhere elsse whether or not anyone has some STD they could pass to the door seconds before I arrive. I tend to flush the urinals BEFORE I use them because I do not want piss from someone ahead of me splattering out onto my pants (after all, I set magazines and s
          • by Urkki ( 668283 )

            Even at WORK I use the drying paper towel to manipulate the door handle.

            ...

            I realize that if we OVERinsulate ourselves, we will be more vulnerable due to less immunity,

            Sounds like you are OVERinsulating yourself... In a normal environment, where there aren't any unusual, contagious pathogens floating around, you don't need to and you should not go to extremes like that. You are putting yourself at risk by not giving your immune system normal level of "exercise", and also probably increase your a risk of getting allergies (if your immune system doesn't have real threats, it'll invent them...).

            Now if there is something like a flu epidemic, or if you're in hospital, t

    • Google's page rank [...] it wasn't the first time that it was applied to that either.

      Really? If so, the Pagerank patent [uspto.gov] would have been challenged. I think Pagerank is closer to calculating the steady state of energy flow through a circuit, than to Markov chains.

      But maybe you are right - cites or it didn't happen.

      • by nguy ( 1207026 )
        Really?

        Really.

        http://www.google.com/search?q=pagerank+markov-chain [google.com]

        If so, the Pagerank patent would have been challenged.

        Why would anybody bother? Google hasn't sued anybody, and pure page rank doesn't work all that well anyway.
        • The pagerank patent discusses the prior art, and this was a new idea. Citations had been used for ranking before, but not in this way.

          I think someone would have challenged the patent, at least academically or informally (eg in a magazine or even a blog), if it "wasn't the first time".

          BTW: I see what you mean: it's the random surfer that follows a markov process (pagerank calculates a probability distribution over it).
  • "Google's" "PageRank algorithm" is actually an implementation of a very powerful, general mathematical principle. Math applies to more than just the web.

  • no ties! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Davak ( 526912 ) * on Friday January 04, 2008 @02:24PM (#21912838) Homepage
    For purely selfish reasons I love that the superbugs invasion means I no longer have to wear ties when seeing my patients. Now if I could just figure out a way to get rid of my nasty pager. :)
    • Now if I could just figure out a way to get rid of my nasty pager
      Didn't the cardiologists beat ya to this doc? "Electrical devices interfere with the sensitive equipment..."
      • I believe that's why they have an old pager, which only receives, instead of a two-way SMS device. That, and signals at pager frequencies tend to punch through concrete and rebar better than cell frequencies.
    • Re:no ties! (Score:5, Funny)

      by haystor ( 102186 ) on Friday January 04, 2008 @02:35PM (#21913008)
      I'd start by demonstrating the strong correlation between the pager going off and someone being in need of a doctor. Clearly if you get rid of the pager, fewer people would be in distress.
    • by treeves ( 963993 )
      Do you wash your hands every time you use your pager? It's probably harboring pathogens as well.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by gstoddart ( 321705 )

      For purely selfish reasons I love that the superbugs invasion means I no longer have to wear ties when seeing my patients. Now if I could just figure out a way to get rid of my nasty pager. :)

      Sew it up in one of them? It'll take 'em months to find it unless you have it set to vibrate! ;-P

      Cheers
    • by hey ( 83763 )
      Perhaps it will also find that beards and sandals are safest. Proving that nerds were right all along.
  • Do I really need "anitbacterial" dishwashing liquid? The point about hospital superbugs is that the ones we don't kill become the ones we can't kill.
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "anitbacterial" dishwashing liquid, in this context, is marketing-speak for "soap".
      • WOOSH. How do you suppose things like penicillin-resistant bacteria come about?
      • "Antibacterial" household products contain something different than soap. What thing that is, varies.

        I'm not a chemist or a doctor. And I assume that if this is mistaken in any way, someone will correct me, since this is /. after all.

        For household use you don't need antibacterial agents to effectively wash your hands - because the act of actual abrasion with the surface-tension eliminating properties of soap removes most things from your skin. For the most part, your hands don't harbor a lot of problems IN the surface, because your body is busy killing that.

        In my opinion, there are also two major classes of these antibacterial agents - which I'll classify as "simple" and "complex" To my knowledge, it's extremely difficult and rare for bacteria to become resist to "simple" antibacterial agents.

        Simple antibacterial agents are things that kill everything. Like bleach (e.g. Chlorox), or high concentrations of alcohol (e.g. Glass Plus). To a lesser extent vinegar, ammonia, salt... These things are not necessarily good for people, but people are really big and can avoid drinking them in really high doses... but they're still really bad for bacteria etc to swim completely in and they get annihilated, because these things basically just melt cell walls.

        For the most part these are quite safe to clean with... they don't especially build up in your system, so as long as you never get a super high dose, usually by breathing or drinking it, you're safe. But I don't recommend you swim in bleach, get it in your eyes, and drink it either. Those example cleaners are relatively harmless in most controlled cleaning situations - but there are plenty of options in this category that aren't - like strong acids - we just don't usually put them in consumer cleaners in high doses.

        So I have no objection to, say, a little bleach being added to surface cleaners.

        The antibiotics you take orally are wildly different, and must be complex. They can't be TOO bad for you, or they'd be rat poison and not a drug. So they try to attack something bacteria-cell specific that human cells are immune to. But bacteria operate in a range of ways, so often this only works on some bacteria. And they mutate... so the more specific and narrow the antibiotic is, the easier it is for the bacteria to become immune. The broader it is, the more likely it hurts you.

        Some companies - because it's what the uneducated consuming public wants - are putting vaguely these kind of agents in household cleaning products. Not EXACTLY the same drugs we're taking orally. But chemicals that have narrow, complex effects on bacteria, which probably encourage mutation. Those mutations may or may not impact the effectiveness of current or future drugs.

        HOWEVER, as much as I think antibacterial hand soap is pretty high on the list of evils, it's not NEARLY as bad as the number of people who merely don't finish the antibiotics they were prescribed. Those people are ruining the world.

        • Triclosan (Score:4, Informative)

          by TheMeuge ( 645043 ) on Friday January 04, 2008 @04:12PM (#21914734)
          Triclosan is the substance that most "antibacterial" soaps contain. It has very little to do with the development of antibiotic resistance. However, several studies have shown that soap and water are about as effective with it, as without it, in terms of preventing infections.

          Development of antibiotic resistance has to do with 3 factors:

          1. Overprescription of antibiotics - i.e. giving Abx to someone who has a cold. Whether it's self-medication, or done by an MD is irrelevant in this case.
          2. Improper prescription of antibiotics - i.e. not everything in the world can be cured with a 5-day course of Azithromycin (Zithromax). Too many doctors just hand it out like candy. We should really rely on testing for bug susceptibility in many more cases than we do now.
          3. Improper use of antibiotics - i.e. not finishing the course. This is an old problem, that seems to have no solution, especially when it comes to the "internet-know-it-all" patients... who think that 5 minutes of googling qualifies them to self-medicate at will.
        • Would mod up if I could.

          If everyone only knew how much that last comment rings true...
        • by aswang ( 92825 )

          Yeah, who knows what havoc the cattle industry is causing by feeding their animals antibiotics.

          The active ingredient of antibacterial soap (as others have mentioned) is triclosan, and it works more like something "complex," as you put it, as it inhibits a particular enzymatic process necessary for bacterial replication. However, many common pathogens (E. coli, Staph aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa) can develop resistance to this.

          Luckily, there are no antibiotics that cross-react with triclosan, and it's

        • by martinX ( 672498 )
          Well done. Spot on.

          A few replies mention triclosan, but since it's not used orally in humans, or really used specifically at all, it's not really of any concern.

          One that is of concern is Canesten Hygiene Laundry Rinse (http://www.canesten.com/products_en/canesten_waeschespueler_en.html).

          Antifungal agents (topical and oral) are very important in treating specific human fungal diseases. Releasing this product on unsuspecting consumers is a very bad move. This product will easily select for resistant strains,
    • Pretty sure we can kill most any bacteria *outside* of the body using just simple rubbing alcohol. It's bacterial infections that are the problem. The over prescription of antibiotics to people who most likely have a virus (cold or flu) have caused the various superbugs floating around.
    • by sco08y ( 615665 )
      Do I really need "anitbacterial" dishwashing liquid?

      You don't but MY BABIES could get an INFECTION! /concerned-parent
  • Adwords (Score:4, Funny)

    by autophile ( 640621 ) on Friday January 04, 2008 @02:49PM (#21913198)
    Looking for tuberculosis? Buy tuberculosis now!
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by owlnation ( 858981 )
      If it's really like Google, then no doubt the Wikipedia page on Tuberculosis will also be gamed up higher in the rankings than any real scientific paper or expert description of the bacteria.

      The Wikipedia page will probably be no more than a few paragraphs. There will be at least 3 flagging boxes (declaring it to be a stub, not citing sources, containing trivia and that trivia is Verboten and punishable by death!) There will be at least one link to an article about a band you've never heard of who once
      • Ayn Rand (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Ayn Rand is endorsing Ron Paul. It's like how one infection points to another- just like Google!
      • not your useless hyperbole, the wikipedia article would still deserve to rank higher than your scientific paper or expert description of the bacteria, because it summarizes the issue in plain english, in a few paragraphs, which is all 99% of searchers are interested in
      • by Dirtside ( 91468 )
        Ha ha, except, the current Wikipedia page on tuberculosis has no flagging boxes, has no links to articles about musicians, the talk page is only about 23% longer (which is actually to be expected, since talk pages typically are accumulative for all the discussion about that page, whereas the page itself only contains the actual topic information), and the talk page doesn't once mention Ayn Rand. :)

        I realize you were joking, but it probably would have been funnier if the tuberculosis page didn't yet exist, o
  • ...in Carry on Films and they had Babera Windsor's tits in patients' faces. None of this hygiene nonsense. No wait, there was that time in Carry on Doctor when she was in the bath and Jim Dale crashed through the window.
  • by jackpot777 ( 1159971 ) on Friday January 04, 2008 @03:20PM (#21913702)
    Strange question, do they care yet, but worth asking. Here's why.

    In 2005, Britain's going nucking futs over MRSA. It was used as a reason to justify taking the NHS (National Health Service. Translation: universal healthcare) and molding it into whatever each Party wanted the world to be like. You couldn't pick up a newspaper without SuperBug this or SuperBug that on the front page.

    Meanwhile, in America, the sound of crickets gently chirp. Chreeeep, chreeeep, chreeeep. Nobody gave a tinker's cuss about MRSA. At all.

    OK. That's the scene. People in Britain thinking that MRSA is going to turn the country into 28 Days Later. America thinks MRSA is some rapper's name.

    And then the official numbers came out for MRSA deaths for that year.

    England/Wales, in 2005: 1629 deaths [statistics.gov.uk].

    United States, in 2005: 18,650 deaths [medicinenet.com].

    There are more people in the States than England and Wales. So I looked up the numbers for the land of the free and the home of the Whopper [census.gov] and Pommie/Limey/Rosbif-TaffyLandSheepCountry [statistics.gov.uk].

    US population at the time - 295 million.

    Eng-Cym population in the last census (and it won't have doubled from 2001-2005) - 52 million.

    So what were the chances this would have killed YOU? Well, remote (if you're reading this now), but what about back then? The equation is:

    [population of the country in 2005] / [deaths from MRSA there in 2005]
    = [chance of being killed by MRSA in 2005].

    The chances you had of MRSA killing you in England and Wales, with everyone going mental over it, in 2005 - 1 in 32,000.

    Chances of dying the same death in a country with market-driven health system, where people are NOT specifically looking for MRSA - 1 in 15,800.

    I'll let those numbers sink in. British readers might want to look at them again and make sure up is still up.

    And now I'm going to pretend to be really stupid here: I could be spectacularly wrong, but it LOOKS like the numbers prove a person was twice more likely to kick the bucket from MRSA in the States than in Blighty (OK, England and Wales. I'll let someone else add Scotland and Northern Ireland to the mix). America, with its pay-as-you-go health system making monster profits, not as good as a system some people would tell you is on its last legs.

    What was even funnier (maybe 'funnier' isn't quite the right word) was the excuse used in the UK National Statistics Office for why their number was so HIGH:

    Some of the recent increase in mentions of MRSA on death certificates may be due to improved levels of reporting, possibly brought about by the continued high public profile of the disease.


    This is either the longest and most researched Flaimbait ever to appear on SlashDot, or I just blew. Your. Freaking. Mind.

    Unless you're American: in which case, just think of this like the slang you don't understand in Doctor Who, words like 'chav' and 'ASBO'.
    • Unless you're American: in which case, just think of this like the slang you don't understand in Doctor Who, words like 'chav' and 'ASBO'.

      I watch a lot of Top Gear, and being American, I had no idea what a sleeping policeman was. Once I looked that up, I thought it was brilliant. I now respect your funny sounding words much more and am trying to adopt them into my everyday speech. I think coopay (coupe) is my favorite. Though I don't know what chav means and I think ASBO was that walking Japanese robot that fell over.

      Sleeping policeman == speed bump

      Oh yeah, very interesting rant and investigation there.

      • Top Gear, in America? Oh, top stuff!

        Just Google chav and ASBO. There's a counter-culture around the words ...maybe 'culture' isn't the right word either. It's all to do with white UK trash, my American cousin.

        And to offer the hand of solidarity, I'm a big fan of Scrubs myself.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by sco08y ( 615665 )
      The chances you had of MRSA killing you in England and Wales, with everyone going mental over it, in 2005 - 1 in 32,000.

      Chances of dying the same death in a country with market-driven health system, where people are NOT specifically looking for MRSA - 1 in 15,800.


      You know, every drug approved in the US is FDA regulated, every medical school is government certified, every person pays taxes into Medicare, and most people get health care through insurance, which is virtually government run... The only "market-
      • every person pays taxes into Medicare, and most people get health care through insurance, which is virtually government run

        I just googled it for an American source, because this isn't what left and right wing newspapers in Britain report. Only people with jobs pay into Medicare, and it's only used by the elderly and disabled (so get hit by a car, or wait a few decades). And according to this page [hiaa.org], two-thirds of the US (200 million) is covered by 1,300 private companies that "ensure Americans' financial secu

    • What was even funnier (maybe 'funnier' isn't quite the right word) was the excuse used in the UK National Statistics Office for why their number was so HIGH:

      Some of the recent increase in mentions of MRSA on death certificates may be due to improved levels of reporting, possibly brought about by the continued high public profile of the disease.

      The concept of 'diagnosis effect' (you report more of what is currently the 'hot disease') is actually well established, and can often be demonstrated in epidemiological contexts. Look at mentions of asbestosis on death certificats compared to the medical models' forecasts and compared to the progress of the surrounding litigation, if you would lik

    • take meth and post on slashdot

      yer a little high strung there kiddo
    • Geez. The least you could do is actually tell the uninformed masses what MRSA is:

      Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [wikipedia.org]
      (from the wash-your-damn-hands dept.)

      This is either the longest and most researched Flaimbait ever to appear on SlashDot, or I just blew. Your. Freaking. Mind.

      Not particularily mind blowing, but interesting nonetheless. For the record, this yank *does* care, but he knows that there's little he can do until he's diagnosed with it (if ever). It is alarming that there's not more awa
    • by Dirtside ( 91468 )
      Not that I think we have a good health care system here in the US, but you're a fool if you think that the relative death statistics for a single cause in any way prove that one system is better than another :)
    • by aswang ( 92825 )

      The U.S. has been dealing with MRSA since the 1970's (back when methicillin was actually in use.) Health care workers have been aware of it for quite some time now, although, truthfully, we are in an epidemic.

      I wonder if your numbers are illustrative of the difference between nationalized health care and the chaos that masquerades as a functional health care system here in the States.

      I also wonder if physicians who work in a nationalized health care system are more likely to abide by infectious disease

      • You might have hit something there. Here as a junior doctor in the NHS I can only prescribe antibiotics to an inpatient according to local guidelines as approved by our consultant microbiologists.

        Our full national formulary of antibiotics contains much of the same as the US national formulary, but each Healthcare Trust (PCT) limits its own formulary (available licensed drugs) to a small subset of the full national formulary. These decisions are again made by microbiologists and economists to regulate costs
    • by bitt3n ( 941736 )

      So your argument is that a health program under which less people die of MRSA is therefore de facto more effective? OK, under my new health initiative, we put a bullet through the head of everyone over 40. I've just cured Alzheimers, most cancers, and a host of other diseases, while your country is still plagued by them.

      Your argument is sloppy and does a disservice to anyone who actually wants to nationalize health care in the US.

    • by Gobiner ( 698872 )
      I don't know why there's such a fuss over MRSA. I've had a number of abscesses and some were MRSA. The antibiotics I was first prescribed, which weren't very effective against my MRSA worked just as quickly on the regular SA as the stuff they gave me for the MRSA. Anybody want to explain to me why this "superbug" didn't seem any more dangerous to me than the regular bug?
  • Although surfaces can harbor bacteria, studies of kitchen cutting boards find that not all surfaces behave the same. Paradoxically, wooden cutting boards (which seems like a perfect porous environment for retaining bacteria) actually do better than plastic cutting boards in terms of being bacteria free. Apparently the pore in the wood pull the bacteria fro the surface as the wood drives. The result is a bacteria-free surface. On plastic cutting boards, the bacteria remain on the surface adhered to micro
    • wooden cutting boards are awesome - but the explanation I always heard was the tannins etc in the wood being actively antibacterial.

      • That's what I heard too - an eloquant presentation by some Prof. knowledgeable in both chemistry & biology who explained that, since trees were both long-lived & static, they had had to evolve some really quite nasty chemical defenses against bacteria, viruses and even birds and mammals...
  • by EMeta ( 860558 )
    So the vector is Pigeons [google.com]?
  • We badly need some innovation. Attempting to sterilize an area is not always the solution. The current technique of sterilizing and tracking and destroying bugs has the unintended consequence of creating increasingly harmful bacteria.

    Instead, we should develop and breed innocuous (not harmful to humans) forms of bacteria that feed off the same food sources as does MRSA and inject these into the hospital environment . These innocuous bacteria would be designed to out-compete MRSA, reducing the risk of letha
  • Yes, it's highly infectious. Yes, it's resistant to methicillin, but I thought a superbug was one where you couldn't use any (known) antibiotic to treat it. You can still treat MRSA with vancomycin.

    VRSA, on the other hand, is pretty much a death sentence at this stage of the game... That's the one I always thought of as a superbug.

    (Information from new-employee training at Naples Community Hospital, Circa July 2003)
    • by aswang ( 92825 )

      Luckily, there have only been a couple of cases of VRSA, although we're seeing a lot more VISA (vancomycin intermediate Staph aureus) Unfortunately, we tend to use vancomycin like candy (hence the nickname, vitamin V, not to be confused with Valium or Viagra.) The standard broad-spectrum cocktail that we use at the hospitals I work at is nicknamed Vosyn, for vancomycin and Zosyn (piperacillin/tazobactam)

      We seem to be doing OK in terms of Gram positive cocci. MRSA is killable with vancomycin and VRE (vanco

  • There will be a Scrubs marathon on shortly; everything you need to know about the interactions in the day and life of a hospital can be aquired there no need for expensive time consuming matrix's to be built. Besides, it probably paints a picture prettier than what we might find out from real life. Side note: Who want's to be my "Brown Bear"; I desperately need a good buddy to set me up with hot chicks.
  • Brings a whole new meaning to "I'm feeling lucky".
  • Swapping and sharing of. Stop it.
    • I was following a doctor on rounds one day going from room to room. We got to one patient's room and he wanted to chart something. So he went to reach for his pen, but instead he pulled out a thermometer. "Damn" he said, "you know what this means? Some asshole has my pen!"
  • Based on the first data available, following graph edges back from known infection sites leads to... Kevin Bacon.
  • Neither troll not flamebait, but I call bullshit on this one.
    Talk to the people in the medical business - they all know what the causes are:

    1. Dirty people with dirty habits, leading to
    2. Contaminated interactions, leading to
    3. Dirty facilities, where you can catch almost anything.

    The only reason MRSA, (or other nasties like 'difficile') get the news is that the usual solution for sloppy practise - an assload of antibiotics - does not work. Mainly due - again - to sloppy practise (over-prescription).

    But ap
    • by aswang ( 92825 )

      Well, yes and no. Certainly bad hygiene will put you at a disadvantage, but you could shower three times a day and still be colonized with community-acquired MRSA.

      Antibiotic overuse also plays into this, but is it really overuse when the patient is septic and dying? What this is is an example of artificial selection. Antibiotics are a huge selective pressure, and the development of resistance is inevitable.

      Granted, universal precautions, sterile technique, and simple handwashing cut the risk of infectio

    • My sis is a nurse and her exact words on the topic were "You can't avoid it. It's everywhere." Cleanliness and discipline don't do all that well against the actual conditions in a hospital, which is full of *gasp* sick people.
  • But will it have a cool visual display that I can't stop staring at like the Zomie Infection Simulator [kevan.org]?

If you have to ask how much it is, you can't afford it.

Working...