E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Getty Images stock
Flu Near You, a new tracking system, uses individual reports of symptoms to monitor the spread of influenza.
Getting the flu may be miserable, but if there’s any comfort, it’s in the perverse pleasure of cataloging symptoms. The sneezing, the coughing, the aches and the chills. The sudden high fever. The terrible sore throat.
Usually, finding anyone to listen -- except for spouses bound by duty and a shared mortgage -- is a tough task.
But not this year.
Thanks to a just-launched effort that aims to track the spread of influenza in real time, flu sufferers now have a place where they can whine to their hearts’ content, all the while contributing to the public good.
It’s called Flu Near You, a human sentinel system that uses first-person reports to monitor the illness nationwide. Unlike other reporting systems, it relies on tallies of specific symptoms in specific places to gauge spread and severity of infection.
“We’re actually getting people to tell us that they’re sick,” said John Brownstein, an epidemiologist and assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, with joint appointments at Children’s Hospital Boston.
The project, a joint effort of Children's Hospital Boston, the Skoll Global Threats Fund and the American Public Health Association, already has attracted more than 2,000 people willing to report weekly how terrible they feel.
The point, said Brownstein is to speed up monitoring to better be able to predict when, where -- and, possibly, whom -- the flu will strike next.
“Automatically, you’ll see yourself where you are on the map compared to other people reporting,” he said. “You’ll be able to see other people who are sick around you.”
flunearyou.org
Participants register, and then agree to fill out weekly surveys that ask whether they’ve suffered flu symptoms such as aches, chills, fever and coughing in the past week, or whether they’ve had no symptoms at all. They’re also asked to report whether they’ve received flu shots.
Researchers already know that monitoring behavior can offer a heads-up for impending illness. Google Flu Trends, an analysis based on users’ search terms related to flu symptoms, lets experts detect flu at least two weeks faster than the laboratory-confirmed surveillance system used by public health officials, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
But Flu Near You could be even quicker, Brownstein said.
Early evidence suggests that a self-reporting system works. In Australia, the FluTracking project started in 2004 and now boasts 10,000 people online every week. Researchers there have used the tool to demonstrate the efficacy of seasonal vaccines and to respond quickly to small communities with high rates of self-reported illness. Ten countries in Europe participate in InfluenzaNet, which tracks illness there.
Organizers eventually would like to see tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of United States users enrolled in Flu Near You, populating the national map with little green, yellow or red pins depending on whether they’re well, showing a few symptoms or coming down with a full-blown case of the flu.
It’s taking a while to catch on, but there are some strong incentives, Brownstein noted. Members of the APHA, for instance, are now competing for $150,000 in prizes for individuals and groups who recruit thousands of flu reporters. The top prize, $25,000 will go to the member who amasses the most users above the minimum of 10,000 surveys. That’s equal to recruiting at least 200 people who complete the survey once a week for 50 weeks in the competition that started in October and runs for a year.
“Actually the nursing association is banding together and they’re way out in front,” Brownstein said.
Ordinary people however, will have to settle for the comfort of complaining to a willing audience -- and knowing their flu symptoms may benefit society as a whole.
“We hope the people recruited into the system are doing it for their civic duty,” Brownstein said.
When were you the sickest? Tell us on Facebook.
Related story:
New flu virus in 3 Iowa kids raises worries about wider spread
Leave a Comment:
How about a well-designed PC/mobile app that listens, accurately detects sneezes, and auto-reports them with location, helping build a real-time alert system. Manual reporting is boring.
Anyhow, there was a time when I used to get flu symptoms. It was a long time ago.
Let's get this party started...
Another unscientific "tool" to convince and/or scare people into getting the virtually useless flu vaccine.
What are you talking about? It's only since I started taking the flu vaccine that I stopped having flu symptoms. Are you one of those anti-vaccine folks?
Have you seen any of the recent studies regarding how ineffective the flu vaccine is?
I've never had the flu shot and have never had the flu. Does that prove something too?
show me these mythical studies...there are some that do not show a benefit in the very elderly.
That is NOT the same as "ineffective"
Anyone who knows a lick about statistics understands that
They're not mythical. They're right under your nose if you care to look for them. Anyone who knows a lick about statistics and how they can be manipulated would understand how ineffective the flu vaccine is.
so post them then!!!!
Anyone who knows a lick about statistics ...how they can be manipulated
I see...so theyre accurate when they support your viewpoint, but manipulated when the data is against you. Makes so much sense now
And again, you fail to acknowledge your basic misconception about statistics and clinical trials. A study that does not show a benefit to the flu vaccine does not automatically mean that the vaccine is "ineffective"
It may be that the population was not high risk and thus there was not enough events in the control group to power a statistically significant result. It also may be due to confounders, ie, unaccounted for/unknown factors
Vaccine ineffictiveness is also a possibility, but not the automatic conclusion
Come on now eric, who's kidding who. It's clear by your history on the newsvine that you haven't met a drug, vaccine, procedure, or doctor that you don't like. You're the one making excuses for flaws in studies that weaken your position. It also appears that your presence on the newsvine is a full-time job. Face it, there are many questions about safety and efficacy in medicine in general and flu vaccine in particular that haven't been answered. No amount of studies are going to prove that to you because you've worked in the industry and you feel it can do no wrong.
hey dic,
its clear by your views you are a paranoid individual who does not let facts stand in his/her way
You also resort to ad-hominem attacks when you are outclassed with facts. The points I stated above are in every intelligent person's mind when reading studies. They are not in yours. Questions?
It also appears that your presence on the newsvine is a full time job
Can you count??? You have more posts on this thread than me!!
You are a hypocrit!!!
No amount of studies will prove that to you...
Really? why don't you start with one. Thats higher than zero, the amount you have posted up to this point, right??
Nice try eric. Nothing new here.
in fact, my try was so nice now you have no response
There is nothing new because you have failed to provide a study that supports your viewpoints, or address my points despite repeated attempts to get you to do so
There will be something new if you bother to address even a single point I brought up
Until then, why should I bother to bring up something new when you can't handle the old??
You're a doctor. You've seen the studies but apparently only choose to believe in the ones that support your opinion.
How about the point I brought up about this being your full-time job? Your comparison was for this thread only. Compare the body of work and yours borders on obsessive. That's how guys like you operate. When the data doesn't fit, go elsewhere to try and distract from the facts and then make personal attacks.
you started with the personal attacks, yet are very quick to cry foul when they're returned
If you can't take it, don't dish it out
As far as this being "my full time job" I already pointed out you have posted on this thread more than me
As for looking at my previous posts (who is the obsessive one by the way???) did you even bother to check over what time period that was? You seem to skip over important details so I have no doubt you didn't even bother to check that. I have no idea how many posts I have but I have been posting here for about a year....so even if I have a couple hundred, thats what, 1 a day?
Hardly obsessive. Nice try
And stay off my previous posts. Youre beginning to get creepy
Whatever dude. Every time you type, you prove my points. Obsessive...
And if you don't want people to see you for what you are, stay off the Internet. They aren't your posts once posted. They're someone elses property. They show your obsession with "proving" everything medical is good.
Whatever dude. Every time you type, you prove my points. Obsessive...
Whatever. I guess I never looked at it like that. What a well thought out, articulate response. I'll have to use that...whatever...it just sounds so intelligent.
Anyway, you responded to my post about 10 minutes after I wrote it. Again, I think youre obsessive
Not to mention that you took it upon yourself to look me up??? I realize posts are public property, but looking up all my posts, and then over what period I posted them to determine how much time I spend on here is a bit weird. If you can't see that, I can't make it any simpler for you
Anyway, enough ad hominem attacks. You think im obsessive, Ive proven you are worse.
How about some facts...this is the best study I could find
Lancet Infect Dis. 2011 Oct 25. [Epub ahead of print]
Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Osterholm MT, Kelley NS, Sommer A, Belongia EA.
INTERPRETATION:
Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking. LAIVs consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years). New vaccines with improved clinical efficacy and effectiveness are needed to further reduce influenza-related morbidity and mortality.
Exactly what I have been saying. No one says the vaccine is perfect, and indeed, it seems scientists guessed wrong 25%-33% of the time. However, a majority of the time IT WAS EFFICACIOUS
'nough said
Thanks. "can provide moderate protection" and "such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons" is all I need. I'm rolling up my sleeve now. And you say "...this is the best study I could find".
so moderate>none
and most seasons> no seasons
Or do you disagree with that? You can't point to the problems with the vaccines and blind yourself to the benefits.
let me quote you:
You've seen the studies but apparently only choose to believe in the ones that support your opinion
NOW whos guilty of that!
I'm sure that gives comfort to the person with a compromised immune system or the person over 65. What should one say? "I can't tell until the end of the flu season or after you die if the vaccine's effectiveness was absent or not. But the benefits outweigh the risks."
By the way, the study that you mention above was misinterpreted (intentionally?) in the mainstream press to indicate an effectiveness of 60% or so but that was not accurate.
the risks are outweighed by the benefits
True or false?
When the protection is "greatly reduced or absent" absolutely false. If you're over 70 - false. If you're injured by the vaccine - false.
None of those examples you listed do the RISKS outweigh the BENEFITS.
IF you take the vaccine in a year where the efficacy is reduced...YOU DID NOT LOSE A THING!! Therefore the RISK STILL DID NOT EXCEED THE BENEFIT!!! How can you not understand that???
How is the risk of a side effect greater than the risk of reduced efficacy? Can you do math?
The only time that may be true is with side effects, which are MUCH, MUCH, rarer than the non-efficacous scenarioy
Listen, the bottom line is if you want guarantees, don't look to medicine. There is no guarantee that the antibiotic prescribed for your life threatening illness will be 100% effective, or there won't be side effects
But not to take it would be stupid, right?
Come on, even you have to agree with that
Risk is a personal choice. You can't make the decision for me or anybody else.
This isn't a math question - but I like the passive aggressive insult. Unless you can tell me with absolute certainty that I will die from the flu without a shot and there is no chance that I'll be vaccine injured, my choice is to skip the shot and leave fighting the flu to my natural immune system.
When there is even a slight chance of injury, it outweighs the benefit for me and many others. The lobbying, conflict of interest, huge advertising influence, statistical tricks, and other factors that impact the CDC, FDA, and many of the studies, cause many people to be wary of the "science" surrounding the subject. It's virtually identical to the support for and science behind tobacco for almost 50 years. The tobacco industry had doctors and scientists denying the dangers of smoking for decades before they finally gave in. The same thing is happening in a lot of areas of medicine still.
If the flu shot is so good and has such low risk, why do only about 40% of health care workers get it? That's health care workers that have direct contact with patients. Doctors, nurses, patient transport, etc.
you still dont get it
Risk IS NOT a personal choice. It is a calculated mathmatical figure.
The risk of major side effect from the flu vaccine is <0.5%. The chance of benefit exceeds 50%. Therefore, the potential benefit outweighs the potential risk, no matter WHAT YOU THINK
whether you choose to accept these odds or not is your choice
Unless you can tell me with absolute certainty that I will die from the flu without a shot and there is no chance that I'll be vaccine injured, my choice is to skip the shot and leave fighting the flu to my natural immune system
Again, that is your choice. It does not make sense mathmatically, but it is your choice. It also means you must deny ANY and ALL medical therapies as none fit your stringent criteria. Not surgery if your appendix burst, not chemo if you got cancer, not antibiotics if you got sick
Good luck with that plan
If the flu shot is so good and has such low risk, why do only about 40% of health care workers get it?
1. Post your source
2. I have no idea, but im sure its NOT because 60% don't believe in it
Sooooo, out of curiousity, how does ddic know how many comments eric has made? I clicked on both of their usernames and saw nothing that would contain that information.
Similarly CDC surveillance systems report weekly in FluView
FluView
I submitted a flu report and I don't see myself on the map compared to where other people have reported. FAIL! If I want to view the latest flu trends in my area I can visit Google Flu Trends. It's more reliable.