I posted a plea for the application of network science to the distribution of flu vaccine, last week. Various Corante contributors pointed out some fallacies in my arguments, or at least the fact that my arguments are not well supported by network research to date.
both danah boyd and Clay Shirky pointed out via email that the studies I cited re: AIDS dispersal were much simpler to model because of the relative difficulty involved in spreading AIDS. The flu, on the other hand, is spread by very casual interaction -- breathing other person's exhalations, or using a cup touched by a flu sufferer -- so that the dispersal is much more general and open.
I concur, as far as the analysis goes. But I maintain that there is still a network gradient involved, and that people should be sorted out to those least likely to spread the disease -- older shut-ins, for example -- and those who are more likely to spread the bug.
Renee Hopkins Callahan came across an interesting support for this position:
Turns out that kids get the flu at over 7 times the rate of adults, and then infect at risk adults. As Renee notes, "This test is based on a case in Japan where flu in older people almost disappeared after a period of years of vaccinating all school-age children, then returned after the vaccination program was discontinued."
So the emperical results suggest that vaccinating school age children may break the epidemic explosion, because schools turn out to be a hot zone for the disease, even though the children themselves are not at risk. So, when we are short of vaccine, we should target the kids to quell the epidemic. Of course, as is noted in the report, if you really are confronted with a pandemic, you should innoculate nearly everyone, but if you innoculate even 25% of the kids, you will see a drastic downturn in the overall infection in the population as a whole.
