Analyzing online searches and social media activity has often been suggested as a way to track and maybe even predict the spread of diseases. And it’s a great idea — if it’s done right, it could offer public health workers real-time surveillance and a jumpstart at containing dangerous outbreaks. But there’s a hitch. How can we attempt to decipher between online activity triggered by the possibility of actual disease symptoms and online activity triggered by simple curiosity?
Sequestration claims another public health program: The Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance program
When I asked Teresa Schnorr why we should be worried about the loss of a little-known occupational health data gathering program, she quoted a popular saying in the field of surveillance: "What gets counted, gets done."
An expert panel convened by the WHO's Int'l Agency for Research on Cancer is evaluating the scientific evidence on the carcinogenicity of diesel exhaust. In preparation for the meeting, diesel engine manufacturers, oil companies and mining firms hired consultants to re-analyze and critique the epidemiological studies conducted by others to manufacturer doubt about
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is running a fascinating [...]
It’s Zombie Day on ScienceBlogs! Scicurious at [...]
The ScienceBlogs Book Club has come back to life, and [...]
In 1999, two machinists who worked next [...]