3 ms·

This seems like equivocation on the meaning of "catching it." Isolating yourself so that you either have no close relationships or somehow never hear about any

by baddox 7y ago

This seems like equivocation on the meaning of "catching it." Isolating yourself so that you either have no close relationships or somehow never hear about any suicides among your close relationships is a fairly nonsensical proposal, and probably wouldn't in fact decrease your chances of committing suicide.

catalogia 7y ago
The realization that suicide has contagious properties does have practical ethical ramifications for journalism. It's not some impractical theoretical matter that can't be acted on.
- totalZero 7y ago
  I went to a talk on this very matter. Kurt Cobain's suicide is an interesting case study on how journalism affects the development (or attenuation) of suicide clusters. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8897665 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8897665
CydeWeys 7y ago
You're attacking a strawman here. I never proposed any of that and of course no one is suggesting that you use the exact same airborne infectious disease quarantine procedures for suicide too.
dredmorbius 7y ago
The notion of communicability is a broad one, and there are numerous concepts of "epidemic" which extend beyond the notion of purely biologically infectious (bacterial, viral, parasitic) diseases, including "epidemic of obesity", "epidemic of violence", etc. It was an article regarding the latter which made the general case (and I'll see if I can't turn it up). Effectively: if you have a phenomenon which includes transmission from carrier to susceptible populations, then you're dealing with a case of epidemic. This generalises in some interesting (and quite probably controversial) ways. Richard Dawkins's notion of the meme -- a unit of transmissible cultural information -- falls squarely within the model, and suggests a further generalisation: Epidemics exist where there is an infectious agent (biological, material, energetic, informational) originating from some source or reservoir which causes a negative functional or behavioural change in a susceptible population spreading along vectors of transmission. They further have characteristics of exposure-response, latency, transmissivity (e.g., source => individual, sometimes individual => individual), susceptibility or resistance, symptomatic / asymptomatic periods, morbidity and mortality rates, etc. This means we can look at agents including the familiar bacteria, aemoebae, parasites, and viruses, but also more exotic notions: prions, chemical, physical, and radiological triggers (say, heavy metals, asbestos / PM2.5 matter, radon or plutonium), and cultural or informational ones: cults, religions, mythologies, ideologies, psychological disorders, stress, and the like. What the model offers are notions of potential containment. I've done some research to see if there's an underlying theory or model of public health or epidemiology (and would expect it to closely correspond to the above). What I've found looking through introductory texts is that there largely is not, but instead the focus is on teaching statistical monitoring methods used within the field. I'm not sure if I'm looking in the wrong places, or if there simply is no such generalised model. But again: if you can identify specific agents (biological, material, informational, energetic), sources, vectors, susceptibility factors, and the like, then it's possible to apply fairly standard epidemiological notions to prevention. Note that the direct medical intervention of cure is not on that list -- it's an expensive and uncertain intervention, and one that comes with very high costs. Far better to practice avoidance, increase resistance, and reduce transmission, as well as monitor aggressively for outbreaks. All of which are what we're seeing in the case of 2019-nCoV. In the case of mental health, the study of suicide itself is foundational to sociology (Emil Durkheim's book of the same title, Suicide: https://archive.org/details/DurkheimEmileSuicideAStudyInSociology2005/page/n3/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/DurkheimEmileSuicideAStudyInSoci...), for numerous reasons. It turns out that rates are very consistent across time, with a few notable exceptions. There's considerable variance across place, whether triggered by culture or natural environment isn't clear. As David Simon, author of The Wire notes, dead bodies are hard to hide (see his excellent "The Audacity of Despair", ignore the recording and speaking quality issues: https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=nRt46W3k-qw https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=nRt46W3k-qw). And suicide itself is an extreme act. So by looking at trends with time, you're finding a exceptionally strong signal of underlying social dysfunctions. Looking at the epidemiological model, isolating yourself might reduce some dynamics of infection (vectors of transmission), but would quite likely increase others (susceptibility through social isolation). The model's underlying premise is that you simply cannot assess these factors in isolation, which would point out the flaw in your reasoning.
DanBC 7y ago
You may be interested in this discussion about a paper about suicide clusters in young people. https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/suicide/suicide-clusters-in-young-people/ https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/suicide/sui...

by baddox 7y ago

catalogia 7y ago

The realization that suicide has contagious properties does have practical ethical ramifications for journalism. It's not some impractical theoretical matter that can't be acted on.

totalZero 7y ago
I went to a talk on this very matter. Kurt Cobain's suicide is an interesting case study on how journalism affects the development (or attenuation) of suicide clusters. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8897665 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8897665

CydeWeys 7y ago

You're attacking a strawman here. I never proposed any of that and of course no one is suggesting that you use the exact same airborne infectious disease quarantine procedures for suicide too.

dredmorbius 7y ago

The notion of communicability is a broad one, and there are numerous concepts of "epidemic" which extend beyond the notion of purely biologically infectious (bacterial, viral, parasitic) diseases, including "epidemic of obesity", "epidemic of violence", etc. It was an article regarding the latter which made the general case (and I'll see if I can't turn it up). Effectively: if you have a phenomenon which includes transmission from carrier to susceptible populations, then you're dealing with a case of epidemic. This generalises in some interesting (and quite probably controversial) ways. Richard Dawkins's notion of the meme -- a unit of transmissible cultural information -- falls squarely within the model, and suggests a further generalisation: Epidemics exist where there is an infectious agent (biological, material, energetic, informational) originating from some source or reservoir which causes a negative functional or behavioural change in a susceptible population spreading along vectors of transmission. They further have characteristics of exposure-response, latency, transmissivity (e.g., source => individual, sometimes individual => individual), susceptibility or resistance, symptomatic / asymptomatic periods, morbidity and mortality rates, etc. This means we can look at agents including the familiar bacteria, aemoebae, parasites, and viruses, but also more exotic notions: prions, chemical, physical, and radiological triggers (say, heavy metals, asbestos / PM2.5 matter, radon or plutonium), and cultural or informational ones: cults, religions, mythologies, ideologies, psychological disorders, stress, and the like. What the model offers are notions of potential containment. I've done some research to see if there's an underlying theory or model of public health or epidemiology (and would expect it to closely correspond to the above). What I've found looking through introductory texts is that there largely is not, but instead the focus is on teaching statistical monitoring methods used within the field. I'm not sure if I'm looking in the wrong places, or if there simply is no such generalised model. But again: if you can identify specific agents (biological, material, informational, energetic), sources, vectors, susceptibility factors, and the like, then it's possible to apply fairly standard epidemiological notions to prevention. Note that the direct medical intervention of cure is not on that list -- it's an expensive and uncertain intervention, and one that comes with very high costs. Far better to practice avoidance, increase resistance, and reduce transmission, as well as monitor aggressively for outbreaks. All of which are what we're seeing in the case of 2019-nCoV. In the case of mental health, the study of suicide itself is foundational to sociology (Emil Durkheim's book of the same title, Suicide: https://archive.org/details/DurkheimEmileSuicideAStudyInSociology2005/page/n3/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/DurkheimEmileSuicideAStudyInSoci...), for numerous reasons. It turns out that rates are very consistent across time, with a few notable exceptions. There's considerable variance across place, whether triggered by culture or natural environment isn't clear. As David Simon, author of The Wire notes, dead bodies are hard to hide (see his excellent "The Audacity of Despair", ignore the recording and speaking quality issues: https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=nRt46W3k-qw https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=nRt46W3k-qw). And suicide itself is an extreme act. So by looking at trends with time, you're finding a exceptionally strong signal of underlying social dysfunctions. Looking at the epidemiological model, isolating yourself might reduce some dynamics of infection (vectors of transmission), but would quite likely increase others (susceptibility through social isolation). The model's underlying premise is that you simply cannot assess these factors in isolation, which would point out the flaw in your reasoning.

DanBC 7y ago

You may be interested in this discussion about a paper about suicide clusters in young people. https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/suicide/suicide-clusters-in-young-people/ https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/suicide/sui...