4 ms·
This article is from several years ago. When I read it then the thing that stood out to me is that the graph doesn't display the timing of the sexual relationsh
by gcanyon 16y ago
This article is from several years ago. When I read it then the thing that stood out to me is that the graph doesn't display the timing of the sexual relationships. So to say that someone who had sex with just one person is exposed to everyone in the graph is silly, because that relationship might have happened when both were virgins, and hence no such exposure happened.
I sent an email to James Moody pointing out this obvious flaw in the conclusions, and he responded saying that he agreed. His original work was not intended to show the chronology, and the article draws conclusions that he didn't claim.
- mattmaroon 16y agoDoes it matter? Wherever there is a link, (IE persons A and B both slept with person C) there was an exposure. Unless they were simultaneous, in which case I went to the wrong high school.
- ryanpetrich 16y agoIn your example: if person A slept with person C before B did then B has an exposure to A, but A has no exposure to B.
- mattmaroon 16y agoRight, so there's one exposure regardless. You don't know who it is I suppose, but you know it's there.
- gjm11 16y agoAB then CD then BC: the graph looks like A-B-C-D but there's no chain A->D or D->A that actually permits infection.
- StavrosK 16y agoAre you saying you can get infected retroactively, when one of your past lovers gets infected? That's harsh.
- pbiggar 16y agoI think the problem is that he is describing the graph as if it is undirected, when for the purposed of STDs, it should be directed.
- dasil003 16y agoI don't see how direction solves the problem. Wouldn't you need a weighted graph to encode the timeline?