Podcast appearances and mentions of adam kucharski

“To navigate proof, we must reach into a thicket of errors and biases. We must confront monsters and embrace uncertainty, balancing — and rebalancing —our beliefs. We must seek out every useful fragment of data, gather every relevant tool, searching wider and climbing further. Finding the good foundations among the bad. Dodging dogma and falsehoods. Questioning. Measuring. Triangulating. Convincing. Then perhaps, just perhaps, we'll reach the truth in time.”—Adam KucharskiMy conversation with Professor Kucharski on what constitutes certainty and proof in science (and other domains), with emphasis on many of the learnings from Covid. Given the politicization of science and A.I.'s deepfakes and power for blurring of truth, it's hard to think of a topic more important right now.Audio file (Ground Truths can also be downloaded on Apple Podcasts and Spotify)Eric Topol (00:06):Hello, it's Eric Topol from Ground Truths and I am really delighted to welcome Adam Kucharski, who is the author of a new book, Proof: The Art and Science of Certainty. He's a distinguished mathematician, by the way, the first mathematician we've had on Ground Truths and a person who I had the real privilege of getting to know a bit through the Covid pandemic. So welcome, Adam.Adam Kucharski (00:28):Thanks for having me.Eric Topol (00:30):Yeah, I mean, I think just to let everybody know, you're a Professor at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and also noteworthy you won the Adams Prize, which is one of the most impressive recognitions in the field of mathematics. This is the book, it's a winner, Proof and there's so much to talk about. So Adam, maybe what I'd start off is the quote in the book that captivates in the beginning, “life is full of situations that can reveal remarkably large gaps in our understanding of what is true and why it's true. This is a book about those gaps.” So what was the motivation when you undertook this very big endeavor?Adam Kucharski (01:17):I think a lot of it comes to the work I do at my day job where we have to deal with a lot of evidence under pressure, particularly if you work in outbreaks or emerging health concerns. And often it really pushes the limits, our methodology and how we converge on what's true subject to potential revision in the future. I think particularly having a background in math's, I think you kind of grow up with this idea that you can get to these concrete, almost immovable truths and then even just looking through the history, realizing that often isn't the case, that there's these kind of very human dynamics that play out around them. And it's something I think that everyone in science can reflect on that sometimes what convinces us doesn't convince other people, and particularly when you have that kind of urgency of time pressure, working out how to navigate that.Eric Topol (02:05):Yeah. Well, I mean I think these times of course have really gotten us to appreciate, particularly during Covid, the importance of understanding uncertainty. And I think one of the ways that we can dispel what people assume they know is the famous Monty Hall, which you get into a bit in the book. So I think everybody here is familiar with that show, Let's Make a Deal and maybe you can just take us through what happens with one of the doors are unveiled and how that changes the mathematics.Adam Kucharski (02:50):Yeah, sure. So I think it is a problem that's been around for a while and it's based on this game show. So you've got three doors that are closed. Behind two of the doors there is a goat and behind one of the doors is a luxury car. So obviously, you want to win the car. The host asks you to pick a door, so you point to one, maybe door number two, then the host who knows what's behind the doors opens another door to reveal a goat and then ask you, do you want to change your mind? Do you want to switch doors? And a lot of the, I think intuition people have, and certainly when I first came across this problem many years ago is well, you've got two doors left, right? You've picked one, there's another one, it's 50-50. And even some quite well-respected mathematicians.Adam Kucharski (03:27):People like Paul Erdős who was really published more papers than almost anyone else, that was their initial gut reaction. But if you work through all of the combinations, if you pick this door and then the host does this, and you switch or not switch and work through all of those options. You actually double your chances if you switch versus sticking with the door. So something that's counterintuitive, but I think one of the things that really struck me and even over the years trying to explain it is convincing myself of the answer, which was when I first came across it as a teenager, I did quite quickly is very different to convincing someone else. And even actually Paul Erdős, one of his colleagues showed him what I call proof by exhaustion. So go through every combination and that didn't really convince him. So then he started to simulate and said, well, let's do a computer simulation of the game a hundred thousand times. And again, switching was this optimal strategy, but Erdős wasn't really convinced because I accept that this is the case, but I'm not really satisfied with it. And I think that encapsulates for a lot of people, their experience of proof and evidence. It's a fact and you have to take it as given, but there's actually quite a big bridge often to really understanding why it's true and feeling convinced by it.Eric Topol (04:41):Yeah, I think it's a fabulous example because I think everyone would naturally assume it's 50-50 and it isn't. And I think that gets us to the topic at hand. What I love, there's many things I love about this book. One is that you don't just get into science and medicine, but you cut across all the domains, law, mathematics, AI. So it's a very comprehensive sweep of everything about proof and truth, and it couldn't come at a better time as we'll get into. Maybe just starting off with math, the term I love mathematical monsters. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?Adam Kucharski (05:25):Yeah, this was a fascinating situation that emerged in the late 19th century where a lot of math's, certainly in Europe had been derived from geometry because a lot of the ancient Greek influence on how we shaped things and then Newton and his work on rates of change and calculus, it was really the natural world that provided a lot of inspiration, these kind of tangible objects, tangible movements. And as mathematicians started to build out the theory around rates of change and how we tackle these kinds of situations, they sometimes took that intuition a bit too seriously. And there was some theorems that they said were intuitively obvious, some of these French mathematicians. And so, one for example is this idea of you how things change smoothly over time and how you do those calculations. But what happened was some mathematicians came along and showed that when you have things that can be infinitely small, that intuition didn't necessarily hold in the same way.Adam Kucharski (06:26):And they came up with these examples that broke a lot of these theorems and a lot of the establishments at the time called these things monsters. They called them these aberrations against common sense and this idea that if Newton had known about them, he never would've done all of his discovery because they're just nuisances and we just need to get rid of them. And there's this real tension at the core of mathematics in the late 1800s where some people just wanted to disregard this and say, look, it works for most of the time, that's good enough. And then others really weren't happy with this quite vague logic. They wanted to put it on much sturdier ground. And what was remarkable actually is if you trace this then into the 20th century, a lot of these monsters and these particularly in some cases functions which could almost move constantly, this constant motion rather than our intuitive concept of movement as something that's smooth, if you drop an apple, it accelerates at a very smooth rate, would become foundational in our understanding of things like probability, Einstein's work on atomic theory. A lot of these concepts where geometry breaks down would be really important in relativity. So actually, these things that we thought were monsters actually were all around us all the time, and science couldn't advance without them. So I think it's just this remarkable example of this tension within a field that supposedly concrete and the things that were going to be shunned actually turn out to be quite important.Eric Topol (07:53):It's great how you convey how nature isn't so neat and tidy and things like Brownian motion, understanding that, I mean, just so many things that I think fit into that general category. In the legal, we won't get into too much because that's not so much the audience of Ground Truths, but the classic things about innocent and until proven guilty and proof beyond reasonable doubt, I mean these are obviously really important parts of that overall sense of proof and truth. We're going to get into one thing I'm fascinated about related to that subsequently and then in science. So before we get into the different types of proof, obviously the pandemic is still fresh in our minds and we're an endemic with Covid now, and there are so many things we got wrong along the way of uncertainty and didn't convey that science isn't always evolving search for what is the truth. There's plenty no shortage of uncertainty at any moment. So can you recap some of the, you did so much work during the pandemic and obviously some of it's in the book. What were some of the major things that you took out of proof and truth from the pandemic?Adam Kucharski (09:14):I think it was almost this story of two hearts because on the one hand, science was the thing that got us where we are today. The reason that so much normality could resume and so much risk was reduced was development of vaccines and the understanding of treatments and the understanding of variants as they came to their characteristics. So it was kind of this amazing opportunity to see this happen faster than it ever happened in history. And I think ever in science, it certainly shifted a lot of my thinking about what's possible and even how we should think about these kinds of problems. But also on the other hand, I think where people might have been more familiar with seeing science progress a bit more slowly and reach consensus around some of these health issues, having that emerge very rapidly can present challenges even we found with some of the work we did on Alpha and then the Delta variants, and it was the early quantification of these.Adam Kucharski (10:08):So really the big question is, is this thing more transmissible? Because at the time countries were thinking about control measures, thinking about relaxing things, and you've got this just enormous social economic health decision-making based around essentially is it a lot more spreadable or is it not? And you only had these fragments of evidence. So I think for me, that was really an illustration of the sharp end. And I think what we ended up doing with some of those was rather than arguing over a precise number, something like Delta, instead we kind of looked at, well, what's the range that matters? So in the sense of arguing over whether it's 40% or 50% or 30% more transmissible is perhaps less important than being, it's substantially more transmissible and it's going to start going up. Is it going to go up extremely fast or just very fast?Adam Kucharski (10:59):That's still a very useful conclusion. I think what often created some of the more challenges, I think the things that on reflection people looking back pick up on are where there was probably overstated certainty. We saw that around some of the airborne spread, for example, stated as a fact by in some cases some organizations, I think in some situations as well, governments had a constraint and presented it as scientific. So the UK, for example, would say testing isn't useful. And what was happening at the time was there wasn't enough tests. So it was more a case of they can't test at that volume. But I think blowing between what the science was saying and what the decision-making, and I think also one thing we found in the UK was we made a lot of the epidemiological evidence available. I think that was really, I think something that was important.Adam Kucharski (11:51):I found it a lot easier to communicate if talking to the media to be able to say, look, this is the paper that's out, this is what it means, this is the evidence. I always found it quite uncomfortable having to communicate things where you knew there were reports behind the scenes, but you couldn't actually articulate. But I think what that did is it created this impression that particularly epidemiology was driving the decision-making a lot more than it perhaps was in reality because so much of that was being made public and a lot more of the evidence around education or economics was being done behind the scenes. I think that created this kind of asymmetry in public perception about how that was feeding in. And so, I think there was always that, and it happens, it is really hard as well as a scientist when you've got journalists asking you how to run the country to work out those steps of am I describing the evidence behind what we're seeing? Am I describing the evidence about different interventions or am I proposing to some extent my value system on what we do? And I think all of that in very intense times can be very easy to get blurred together in public communication. I think we saw a few examples of that where things were being the follow the science on policy type angle where actually once you get into what you're prioritizing within a society, quite rightly, you've got other things beyond just the epidemiology driving that.Eric Topol (13:09):Yeah, I mean that term that you just use follow the science is such an important term because it tells us about the dynamic aspect. It isn't just a snapshot, it's constantly being revised. But during the pandemic we had things like the six-foot rule that was never supported by data, but yet still today, if I walk around my hospital and there's still the footprints of the six-foot rule and not paying attention to the fact that this was airborne and took years before some of these things were accepted. The flatten the curve stuff with lockdowns, which I never was supportive of that, but perhaps at the worst point, the idea that hospitals would get overrun was an issue, but it got carried away with school shutdowns for prolonged periods and in some parts of the world, especially very stringent lockdowns. But anyway, we learned a lot.Eric Topol (14:10):But perhaps one of the greatest lessons is that people's expectations about science is that it's absolute and somehow you have this truth that's not there. I mean, it's getting revised. It's kind of on the job training, it's on this case on the pandemic revision. But very interesting. And that gets us to, I think the next topic, which I think is a fundamental part of the book distributed throughout the book, which is the different types of proof in biomedicine and of course across all these domains. And so, you take us through things like randomized trials, p-values, 95 percent confidence intervals, counterfactuals, causation and correlation, peer review, the works, which is great because a lot of people have misconceptions of these things. So for example, randomized trials, which is the temple of the randomized trials, they're not as great as a lot of people think, yes, they can help us establish cause and effect, but they're skewed because of the people who come into the trial. So they may not at all be a representative sample. What are your thoughts about over deference to randomized trials?Adam Kucharski (15:31):Yeah, I think that the story of how we rank evidence in medicines a fascinating one. I mean even just how long it took for people to think about these elements of randomization. Fundamentally, what we're trying to do when we have evidence here in medicine or science is prevent ourselves from confusing randomness for a signal. I mean, that's fundamentally, we don't want to mistake something, we think it's going on and it's not. And the challenge, particularly with any intervention is you only get to see one version of reality. You can't give someone a drug, follow them, rewind history, not give them the drug and then follow them again. So one of the things that essentially randomization allows us to do is, if you have two groups, one that's been randomized, one that hasn't on average, the difference in outcomes between those groups is going to be down to the treatment effect.Adam Kucharski (16:20):So it doesn't necessarily mean in reality that'd be the case, but on average that's the expectation that you'd have. And it's kind of interesting actually that the first modern randomized control trial (RCT) in medicine in 1947, this is for TB and streptomycin. The randomization element actually, it wasn't so much statistical as behavioral, that if you have people coming to hospital, you could to some extent just say, we'll just alternate. We're not going to randomize. We're just going to first patient we'll say is a control, second patient a treatment. But what they found in a lot of previous studies was doctors have bias. Maybe that patient looks a little bit ill or that one maybe is on borderline for eligibility. And often you got these quite striking imbalances when you allowed it for human judgment. So it was really about shielding against those behavioral elements. But I think there's a few situations, it's a really powerful tool for a lot of these questions, but as you mentioned, one is this issue of you have the population you study on and then perhaps in reality how that translates elsewhere.Adam Kucharski (17:17):And we see, I mean things like flu vaccines are a good example, which are very dependent on immunity and evolution and what goes on in different populations. Sometimes you've had a result on a vaccine in one place and then the effectiveness doesn't translate in the same way to somewhere else. I think the other really important thing to bear in mind is, as I said, it's the averaging that you're getting an average effect between two different groups. And I think we see certainly a lot of development around things like personalized medicine where actually you're much more interested in the outcome for the individual. And so, what a trial can give you evidence is on average across a group, this is the effect that I can expect this intervention to have. But we've now seen more of the emergence things like N=1 studies where you can actually over the same individual, particularly for chronic conditions, look at those kind of interventions.Adam Kucharski (18:05):And also there's just these extreme examples where you're ethically not going to run a trial, there's never been a trial of whether it's a good idea to have intensive care units in hospitals or there's a lot of these kind of historical treatments which are just so overwhelmingly effective that we're not going to run trial. So almost this hierarchy over time, you can see it getting shifted because actually you do have these situations where other forms of evidence can get you either closer to what you need or just more feasibly an answer where it's just not ethical or practical to do an RCT.Eric Topol (18:37):And that brings us to the natural experiments I just wrote about recently, the one with shingles, which there's two big natural experiments to suggest that shingles vaccine might reduce the risk of Alzheimer's, an added benefit beyond the shingles that was not anticipated. Your thoughts about natural experiments, because here you're getting a much different type of population assessment, again, not at the individual level, but not necessarily restricted by some potentially skewed enrollment criteria.Adam Kucharski (19:14):I think this is as emerged as a really valuable tool. It's kind of interesting, in the book you're talking to economists like Josh Angrist, that a lot of these ideas emerge in epidemiology, but I think were really then taken up by economists, particularly as they wanted to add more credibility to a lot of these policy questions. And ultimately, it comes down to this issue that for a lot of problems, we can't necessarily intervene and randomize, but there might be a situation that's done it to some extent for us, so the classic example is the Vietnam draft where it was kind of random birthdays with drawn out of lottery. And so, there's been a lot of studies subsequently about the effect of serving in the military on different subsequent lifetime outcomes because broadly those people have been randomized. It was for a different reason. But you've got that element of randomization driving that.Adam Kucharski (20:02):And so again, with some of the recent shingles data and other studies, you might have a situation for example, where there's been an intervention that's somewhat arbitrary in terms of time. It's a cutoff on a birth date, for example. And under certain assumptions you could think, well, actually there's no real reason for the person on this day and this day to be fundamentally different. I mean, perhaps there might be effects of cohorts if it's school years or this sort of thing. But generally, this isn't the same as having people who are very, very different ages and very different characteristics. It's just nature, or in this case, just a policy intervention for a different reason has given you that randomization, which allows you or pseudo randomization, which allows you to then look at something about the effect of an intervention that you wouldn't as reliably if you were just digging into the data of yes, no who's received a vaccine.Eric Topol (20:52):Yeah, no, I think it's really valuable. And now I think increasingly given priority, if you can find these natural experiments and they're not always so abundant to use to extrapolate from, but when they are, they're phenomenal. The causation correlation is so big. The issue there, I mean Judea Pearl's, the Book of Why, and you give so many great examples throughout the book in Proof. I wonder if you could comment that on that a bit more because this is where associations are confused somehow or other with a direct effect. And we unfortunately make these jumps all too frequently. Perhaps it's the most common problem that's occurring in the way we interpret medical research data.Adam Kucharski (21:52):Yeah, I think it's an issue that I think a lot of people get drilled into in their training just because a correlation between things doesn't mean that that thing causes this thing. But it really struck me as I talked to people, researching the book, in practice in research, there's actually a bit more to it in how it's played out. So first of all, if there's a correlation between things, it doesn't tell you much generally that's useful for intervention. If two things are correlated, it doesn't mean that changing that thing's going to have an effect on that thing. There might be something that's influencing both of them. If you have more ice cream sales, it will lead to more heat stroke cases. It doesn't mean that changing ice cream sales is going to have that effect, but it does allow you to make predictions potentially because if you can identify consistent patterns, you can say, okay, if this thing going up, I'm going to make a prediction that this thing's going up.Adam Kucharski (22:37):So one thing I found quite striking, actually talking to research in different fields is how many fields choose to focus on prediction because it kind of avoids having to deal with this cause and effect problem. And even in fields like psychology, it was kind of interesting that there's a lot of focus on predicting things like relationship outcomes, but actually for people, you don't want a prediction about your relationship. You want to know, well, how can I do something about it? You don't just want someone to sell you your relationship's going to go downhill. So there's almost part of the challenge is people just got stuck on prediction because it's an easier field of work, whereas actually some of those problems will involve intervention. I think the other thing that really stood out for me is in epidemiology and a lot of other fields, rightly, people are very cautious to not get that mixed up.Adam Kucharski (23:24):They don't want to mix up correlations or associations with causation, but you've kind of got this weird situation where a lot of papers go out of their way to not use causal language and say it's an association, it's just an association. It's just an association. You can't say anything about causality. And then the end of the paper, they'll say, well, we should think about introducing more of this thing or restricting this thing. So really the whole paper and its purpose is framed around a causal intervention, but it's extremely careful throughout the paper to not frame it as a causal claim. So I think we almost by skirting that too much, we actually avoid the problems that people sometimes care about. And I think a lot of the nice work that's been going on in causal inference is trying to get people to confront this more head on rather than say, okay, you can just stay in this prediction world and that's fine. And then just later maybe make a policy suggestion off the back of it.Eric Topol (24:20):Yeah, I think this is cause and effect is a very alluring concept to support proof as you so nicely go through in the book. But of course, one of the things that we use to help us is the biological mechanism. So here you have, let's say for example, you're trying to get a new drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the request is, well, we want two trials, randomized trials, independent. We want to have p-values that are significant, and we want to know the biological mechanism ideally with the dose response of the drug. But there are many drugs as you review that have no biological mechanism established. And even when the tobacco problems were mounting, the actual mechanism of how tobacco use caused cancer wasn't known. So how important is the biological mechanism, especially now that we're well into the AI world where explainability is demanded. And so, we don't know the mechanism, but we also don't know the mechanism and lots of things in medicine too, like anesthetics and even things as simple as aspirin, how it works and many others. So how do we deal with this quest for the biological mechanism?Adam Kucharski (25:42):I think that's a really good point. It shows almost a lot of the transition I think we're going through currently. I think particularly for things like smoking cancer where it's very hard to run a trial. You can't make people randomly take up smoking. Having those additional pieces of evidence, whether it's an analogy with a similar carcinogen, whether it's a biological mechanism, can help almost give you more supports for that argument that there's a cause and effect going on. But I think what I found quite striking, and I realized actually that it's something that had kind of bothered me a bit and I'd be interested to hear whether it bothers you, but with the emergence of AI, it's almost a bit of the loss of scientific satisfaction. I think you grow up with learning about how the world works and why this is doing what it's doing.Adam Kucharski (26:26):And I talked for example of some of the people involved with AlphaFold and some of the subsequent work in installing those predictions about structures. And they'd almost made peace with it, which I found interesting because I think they started off being a bit uncomfortable with like, yeah, you've got these remarkable AI models making these predictions, but we don't understand still biologically what's happening here. But I think they're just settled in saying, well, biology is really complex on some of these problems, and if we can have a tool that can give us this extremely valuable information, maybe that's okay. And it was just interesting that they'd really kind of gone through that kind process, which I think a lot of people are still grappling with and that almost that discomfort of using AI and what's going to convince you that that's a useful reliable prediction whether it's something like predicting protein folding or getting in a self-driving car. What's the evidence you need to convince you that's reliable?Eric Topol (27:26):Yeah, no, I'm so glad you brought that up because when Demis Hassabis and John Jumper won the Nobel Prize, the point I made was maybe there should be an asterisk with AI because they don't know how it works. I mean, they had all the rich data from the protein data bank, and they got the transformer model to do it for 200 million protein structure prediction, but they still to this day don't fully understand how the model really was working. So it reinforces what you're just saying. And of course, it cuts across so many types of AI. It's just that we tend to hold different standards in medicine not realizing that there's lots of lack of explainability for routine medical treatments today. Now one of the things that I found fascinating in your book, because there's different levels of proof, different types of proof, but solid logical systems.Eric Topol (28:26):And on page 60 of the book, especially pertinent to the US right now, there is a bit about Kurt Gödel and what he did there was he basically, there was a question about dictatorship in the US could it ever occur? And Gödel says, “oh, yes, I can prove it.” And he's using the constitution itself to prove it, which I found fascinating because of course we're seeing that emerge right now. Can you give us a little bit more about this, because this is fascinating about the Fifth Amendment, and I mean I never thought that the Constitution would allow for a dictatorship to emerge.Adam Kucharski (29:23):And this was a fascinating story, Kurt Gödel who is one of the greatest logical minds of the 20th century and did a lot of work, particularly in the early 20th century around system of rules, particularly things like mathematics and whether they can ever be really fully satisfying. So particularly in mathematics, he showed that there were this problem that is very hard to have a set of rules for something like arithmetic that was both complete and covered every situation, but also had no contradictions. And I think a lot of countries, if you go back, things like Napoleonic code and these attempts to almost write down every possible legal situation that could be imaginable, always just ascended into either they needed amendments or they had contradictions. I think Gödel's work really summed it up, and there's a story, this is in the late forties when he had his citizenship interview and Einstein and Oskar Morgenstern went along as witnesses for him.Adam Kucharski (30:17):And it's always told as kind of a lighthearted story as this logical mind, this academic just saying something silly in front of the judge. And actually, to my own admission, I've in the past given talks and mentioned it in this slightly kind of lighthearted way, but for the book I got talking to a few people who'd taken it more seriously. I realized actually he's this extremely logically focused mind at the time, and maybe there should have been something more to it. And people who have kind of dug more into possibilities was saying, well, what could he have spotted that bothered him? And a lot of his work that he did about consistency in mass was around particularly self-referential statements. So if I say this sentence is false, it's self-referential and if it is false, then it's true, but if it's true, then it's false and you get this kind of weird self-referential contradictions.Adam Kucharski (31:13):And so, one of the theories about Gödel was that in the Constitution, it wasn't that there was a kind of rule for someone can become a dictator, but rather people can use the mechanisms within the Constitution to make it easier to make further amendments. And he kind of downward cycle of amendment that he had seen happening in Europe and the run up to the war, and again, because this is never fully documented exactly what he thought, but it's one of the theories that it wouldn't just be outright that it would just be this cycle process of weakening and weakening and weakening and making it easier to add. And actually, when I wrote that, it was all the earlier bits of the book that I drafted, I did sort of debate whether including it I thought, is this actually just a bit in the weeds of American history? And here we are. Yeah, it's remarkable.Eric Topol (32:00):Yeah, yeah. No, I mean I found, it struck me when I was reading this because here back in 1947, there was somebody predicting that this could happen based on some, if you want to call it loopholes if you will, or the ability to change things, even though you would've thought otherwise that there wasn't any possible capability for that to happen. Now, one of the things I thought was a bit contradictory is two parts here. One is from Angus Deaton, he wrote, “Gold standard thinking is magical thinking.” And then the other is what you basically are concluding in many respects. “To navigate proof, we must reach into a thicket of errors and biases. We must confront monsters and embrace uncertainty, balancing — and rebalancing —our beliefs. We must seek out every useful fragment of data, gather every relevant tool, searching wider and climbing further. Finding the good foundations among the bad. Dodging dogma and falsehoods. Questioning. Measuring. Triangulating. Convincing. Then perhaps, just perhaps, we'll reach the truth in time.” So here you have on the one hand your search for the truth, proof, which I think that little paragraph says it all. In many respects, it sums up somewhat to the work that you review here and on the other you have this Nobel laureate saying, you don't have to go to extremes here. The enemy of good is perfect, perhaps. I mean, how do you reconcile this sense that you shouldn't go so far? Don't search for absolute perfection of proof.Adam Kucharski (33:58):Yeah, I think that encapsulates a lot of what the book is about, is that search for certainty and how far do you have to go. I think one of the things, there's a lot of interesting discussion, some fascinating papers around at what point do you use these studies? What are their flaws? But I think one of the things that does stand out is across fields, across science, medicine, even if you going to cover law, AI, having these kind of cookie cutter, this is the definitive way of doing it. And if you just follow this simple rule, if you do your p-value, you'll get there and you'll be fine. And I think that's where a lot of the danger is. And I think that's what we've seen over time. Certain science people chasing certain targets and all the behaviors that come around that or in certain situations disregarding valuable evidence because you've got this kind of gold standard and nothing else will do.Adam Kucharski (34:56):And I think particularly in a crisis, it's very dangerous to have that because you might have a low level of evidence that demands a certain action and you almost bias yourself towards inaction if you have these kind of very simple thresholds. So I think for me, across all of these stories and across the whole book, I mean William Gosset who did a lot of pioneering work on statistical experiments at Guinness in the early 20th century, he had this nice question he sort of framed is, how much do we lose? And if we're thinking about the problems, there's always more studies we can do, there's always more confidence we can have, but whether it's a patient we want to treat or crisis we need to deal with, we need to work out actually getting that level of proof that's really appropriate for where we are currently.Eric Topol (35:49):I think exceptionally important that there's this kind of spectrum or continuum in following science and search for truth and that distinction, I think really nails it. Now, one of the things that's unique in the book is you don't just go through all the different types of how you would get to proof, but you also talk about how the evidence is acted on. And for example, you quote, “they spent a lot of time misinforming themselves.” This is the whole idea of taking data and torturing it or using it, dredging it however way you want to support either conspiracy theories or alternative facts. Basically, manipulating sometimes even emasculating what evidence and data we have. And one of the sentences, or I guess this is from Sir Francis Bacon, “truth is a daughter of time”, but the added part is not authority. So here we have our president here that repeats things that are wrong, fabricated or wrong, and he keeps repeating to the point that people believe it's true. But on the other hand, you could say truth is a daughter of time because you like to not accept any truth immediately. You like to see it get replicated and further supported, backed up. So in that one sentence, truth is a daughter of time not authority, there's the whole ball of wax here. Can you take us through that? Because I just think that people don't understand that truth being tested over time, but also manipulated by its repetition. This is a part of the big problem that we live in right now.Adam Kucharski (37:51):And I think it's something that writing the book and actually just reflecting on it subsequently has made me think about a lot in just how people approach these kinds of problems. I think that there's an idea that conspiracy theorists are just lazy and have maybe just fallen for a random thing, but talking to people, you really think about these things a lot more in the field. And actually, the more I've ended up engaging with people who believe things that are just outright unevidenced around vaccines, around health issues, they often have this mountain of papers and data to hand and a lot of it, often they will be peer reviewed papers. It won't necessarily be supporting the point that they think it's supports.Adam Kucharski (38:35):But it's not something that you can just say everything you're saying is false, that there's actually often a lot of things that have been put together and it's just that leap to that conclusion. I think you also see a lot of scientific language borrowed. So I gave a talker early this year and it got posted on YouTube. It had conspiracy theories it, and there was a lot of conspiracy theory supporters who piled in the comments and one of the points they made is skepticism is good. It's the kind of law society, take no one's word for it, you need this. We are the ones that are kind of doing science and people who just assume that science is settled are in the wrong. And again, you also mentioned that repetition. There's this phenomenon, it's the illusory truth problem that if you repeatedly tell someone someone's something's false, it'll increase their belief in it even if it's something quite outrageous.Adam Kucharski (39:27):And that mimics that scientific repetition because people kind of say, okay, well if I've heard it again and again, it's almost like if you tweak these as mini experiments, I'm just accumulating evidence that this thing is true. So it made me think a lot about how you've got essentially a lot of mimicry of the scientific method, amount of data and how you present it and this kind of skepticism being good, but I think a lot of it comes down to as well as just looking at theological flaws, but also ability to be wrong in not actually seeking out things that confirm. I think all of us, it's something that I've certainly tried to do a lot working on emergencies, and one of the scientific advisory groups that I worked on almost it became a catchphrase whenever someone presented something, they finished by saying, tell me why I'm wrong.Adam Kucharski (40:14):And if you've got a variant that's more transmissible, I don't want to be right about that really. And it is something that is quite hard to do and I found it is particularly for something that's quite high pressure, trying to get a policymaker or someone to write even just non-publicly by themselves, write down what you think's going to happen or write down what would convince you that you are wrong about something. I think particularly on contentious issues where someone's got perhaps a lot of public persona wrapped up in something that's really hard to do, but I think it's those kind of elements that distinguish between getting sucked into a conspiracy theory and really seeking out evidence that supports it and trying to just get your theory stronger and stronger and actually seeking out things that might overturn your belief about the world. And it's often those things that we don't want overturned. I think those are the views that we all have politically or in other ways, and that's often where the problems lie.Eric Topol (41:11):Yeah, I think this is perhaps one of, if not the most essential part here is that to try to deal with the different views. We have biases as you emphasized throughout, but if you can use these different types of proof to have a sound discussion, conversation, refutation whereby you don't summarily dismiss another view which may be skewed and maybe spurious or just absolutely wrong, maybe fabricated whatever, but did you can engage and say, here's why these are my proof points, or this is why there's some extent of certainty you can have regarding this view of the data. I think this is so fundamental because unfortunately as we saw during the pandemic, the strident minority, which were the anti-science, anti-vaxxers, they were summarily dismissed as being kooks and adopting conspiracy theories without the right engagement and the right debates. And I think this might've helped along the way, no less the fact that a lot of scientists didn't really want to engage in the first place and adopt this methodical proof that you've advocated in the book so many different ways to support a hypothesis or an assertion. Now, we've covered a lot here, Adam. Have I missed some central parts of the book and the effort because it's really quite extraordinary. I know it's your third book, but it's certainly a standout and it certainly it's a standout not just for your books, but books on this topic.Adam Kucharski (43:13):Thanks. And it's much appreciated. It was not an easy book to write. I think at times, I kind of wondered if I should have taken on the topic and I think a core thing, your last point speaks to that. I think a core thing is that gap often between what convinces us and what convinces someone else. I think it's often very tempting as a scientist to say the evidence is clear or the science has proved this. But even on something like the vaccines, you do get the loud minority who perhaps think they're putting microchips in people and outlandish views, but you actually get a lot more people who might just have some skepticism of pharmaceutical companies or they might have, my wife was pregnant actually at the time during Covid and we waited up because there wasn't much data on pregnancy and the vaccine. And I think it's just finding what is convincing. Is it having more studies from other countries? Is it understanding more about the biology? Is it understanding how you evaluate some of those safety signals? And I think that's just really important to not just think what convinces us and it's going to be obvious to other people, but actually think where are they coming from? Because ultimately having proof isn't that good unless it leads to the action that can make lives better.Eric Topol (44:24):Yeah. Well, look, you've inculcated my mind with this book, Adam, called Proof. Anytime I think of the word proof, I'm going to be thinking about you. So thank you. Thanks for taking the time to have a conversation about your book, your work, and I know we're going to count on you for the astute mathematics and analysis of outbreaks in the future, which we will see unfortunately. We are seeing now, in fact already in this country with measles and whatnot. So thank you and we'll continue to follow your great work.**************************************Thanks for listening, watching or reading this Ground Truths podcast/post.If you found this interesting please share it!That makes the work involved in putting these together especially worthwhile.I'm also appreciative for your subscribing to Ground Truths. All content —its newsletters, analyses, and podcasts—is free, open-access. I'm fortunate to get help from my producer Jessica Nguyen and Sinjun Balabanoff for audio/video tech support to pull these podcasts together for Scripps Research.Paid subscriptions are voluntary and all proceeds from them go to support Scripps Research. They do allow for posting comments and questions, which I do my best to respond to. Please don't hesitate to post comments and give me feedback. Many thanks to those who have contributed—they have greatly helped fund our summer internship programs for the past two years.A bit of an update on SUPER AGERSMy book has been selected as a Next Big Idea Club winner for Season 26 by Adam Grant, Malcolm Gladwell, Susan Cain, and Daniel Pink. This club has spotlighted the most groundbreaking nonfiction books for over a decade. As a winning title, my book will be shipped to thousands of thoughtful readers like you, featured alongside a reading guide, a "Book Bite," Next Big Idea Podcast episode as well as a live virtual Q&A with me in the club's vibrant online community. If you're interested in joining the club, here's a promo code SEASON26 for 20% off at the website. SUPER AGERS reached #3 for all books on Amazon this week. This was in part related to the segment on the book on the TODAY SHOW which you can see here. Also at Amazon there is a remarkable sale on the hardcover book for $10.l0 at the moment for up to 4 copies. Not sure how long it will last or what prompted it.The journalist Paul von Zielbauer has a Substack “Aging With Strength” and did an extensive interview with me on the biology of aging and how we can prevent the major age-related diseases. Here's the link. Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

There is a shift happening in the complex world of proof. Simulation and probabilistic approaches are increasingly accepted as ‘good enough' in areas traditionally dominated by exact proofs. Persuasion depends on the degree of certainty needed.Adam Kucharski is a professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and also the author of three books, Proof: The Art and Science of Certainty, The Rules of Contagion: Why Things Spread--And Why They Stop, and The Perfect Bet: How Science and Math Are Taking the Luck Out of Gambling.Greg and Adam discuss the versatile concept of 'proof', examining how it applies differently across mathematics, law, medicine, and practical decision-making. Adam discusses the challenges of proving concepts under uncertainty, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the role of intuition versus formal modeling in various fields. They also explore the crossover of epidemiological principles into finance, marketing, cybersecurity, and online content dynamics, illustrating the universal relevance of contagion theories. The episode highlights how simulation and probabilistic approaches are increasingly accepted in areas traditionally dominated by exact proofs.*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Episode Quotes:The gap between science and policy09:25: One of the challenges we had in COVID is this dimension of a problem where all directions had a lot of enormous downsides, and countries were having to make that under pressure. And even one of the things that I think I did not really appreciate at the time was, even later in the year, when a lot of these questions about the severity, a lot of these questions about transmission, had really been resolved because we had much better data. We still had a lot of this tension demanding, "Oh, we cannot be sure about something," or "You know, we need much, much higher evidence." And I think that is the gap between where kind of science lies and where policy lies.It's not the content, it's the contagion37:59: I think a lot of people think about the content, but obviously it is not just, "It is something goes viral." It is not just about the content. It is not about what you have written; it is about the network through which it is spreading. It is about the susceptibility of that network. It is about the medium you use. Do you have it that lingers somewhere? Is it just something you stick on the feed and it kind of vanishes? So, there is a direct analogy there with the different elements and how they trade off in ultimately what you see in terms of spread.What human networks can't teach us about machines46:35: One thing that is really interesting about computer systems is the variation in contacts you see in the network is enormous. You basically get some hubs that are just connected to a huge number of computers, and some are connected to very few at all. So that makes the transmission much burster.It is not like—so humans have some variation in their contacts—but most people have about 10 contacts a day, in terms of conversations or people they exchange words with. Some more, some less, but you do not have people generally have like 10,000 contacts in a day, whereas in computers you can have that. So it makes the potential for some things to actually persist at quite low levels for quite a long time because it will kind of hit this application and then simmer along, and then hit another one and simmer along.Show Links:Recommended Resources:EuclidGeorge E. P. BoxWilliam Sealy GossetP-valueRonald RossJonah PerettiDuncan J. WattsAmazon Web ServicesMonty HallGuest Profile:AdamKucharski.ioFaculty Profile at London School of Hygiene & Tropical MedicineSocial Profile on BlueSkyGuest Work:Amazon Author PageProof: The Art and Science of CertaintyThe Rules of Contagion: Why Things Spread--And Why They StopThe Perfect Bet: How Science and Math Are Taking the Luck Out of GamblingSubstack NewsletterGoogle Scholar PageTED Talks

A mathematician and epidemiologist, his research helped save lives during the Covid pandemic in the UK by predicting the effectiveness of interventions like social distancing and masks. In his new book, he tackles the thorny problem of how you find truth in a world awash with falsehoods.

Why do we find it easier to trust some concepts and ideas over others? Mathematician Adam Kucharski explores the science of uncertainty, revealing how the very human need for explanation shapes trust in science, fear of technology and belief in conspiracy theories.Want to help shape TED's shows going forward? Fill out our survey! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today's clip is from episode 130 of the podcast, with epidemiological modeler Adam Kucharski.This conversation explores the critical role of patient modeling during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting how these models informed public health decisions and the relationship between modeling and policy. The discussion emphasizes the need for improved communication and understanding of data among the public and policymakers.Get the full discussion at https://learnbayesstats.com/episode/129-bayesian-deep-learning-ai-for-science-vincent-fortuinIntro to Bayes Course (first 2 lessons free)Advanced Regression Course (first 2 lessons free)Our theme music is « Good Bayesian », by Baba Brinkman (feat MC Lars and Mega Ran). Check out his awesome work!Visit our Patreon page to unlock exclusive Bayesian swag ;)TranscriptThis is an automatic transcript and may therefore contain errors. Please get in touch if you're willing to correct them.

Here are More or Less we'll all about the facts. Every day we use a toolkit of known proofs to try and answer our listeners' questions. But who do we have to thank for this toolkit and how did they set about proving the unknown? Luckily for us mathematician Adam Kucharski has just written a book about this very topic called ‘Proof: The Uncertain Science of Certainty'. Join us to hear more about some of the proof pioneers included in his book, from estimating the number of German tanks during WW2 to an unsung heroine of statistics. Presenter: Tim Harford Producer: Lizzy McNeill Series Producer: Tom Colls Editor: Richard Vadon Production Co-ordinator: Brenda Brown Sound Mix: Annie Gardiner

Proudly sponsored by PyMC Labs, the Bayesian Consultancy. Book a call, or get in touch!Intro to Bayes Course (first 2 lessons free)Advanced Regression Course (first 2 lessons free)Our theme music is « Good Bayesian », by Baba Brinkman (feat MC Lars and Mega Ran). Check out his awesome work!Visit our Patreon page to unlock exclusive Bayesian swag ;)Thank you to my Patrons for making this episode possible!Yusuke Saito, Avi Bryant, Ero Carrera, Giuliano Cruz, Tim Gasser, James Wade, Tradd Salvo, William Benton, James Ahloy, Robin Taylor,, Chad Scherrer, Zwelithini Tunyiswa, Bertrand Wilden, James Thompson, Stephen Oates, Gian Luca Di Tanna, Jack Wells, Matthew Maldonado, Ian Costley, Ally Salim, Larry Gill, Ian Moran, Paul Oreto, Colin Caprani, Colin Carroll, Nathaniel Burbank, Michael Osthege, Rémi Louf, Clive Edelsten, Henri Wallen, Hugo Botha, Vinh Nguyen, Marcin Elantkowski, Adam C. Smith, Will Kurt, Andrew Moskowitz, Hector Munoz, Marco Gorelli, Simon Kessell, Bradley Rode, Patrick Kelley, Rick Anderson, Casper de Bruin, Philippe Labonde, Michael Hankin, Cameron Smith, Tomáš Frýda, Ryan Wesslen, Andreas Netti, Riley King, Yoshiyuki Hamajima, Sven De Maeyer, Michael DeCrescenzo, Fergal M, Mason Yahr, Naoya Kanai, Steven Rowland, Aubrey Clayton, Jeannine Sue, Omri Har Shemesh, Scott Anthony Robson, Robert Yolken, Or Duek, Pavel Dusek, Paul Cox, Andreas Kröpelin, Raphaël R, Nicolas Rode, Gabriel Stechschulte, Arkady, Kurt TeKolste, Gergely Juhasz, Marcus Nölke, Maggi Mackintosh, Grant Pezzolesi, Avram Aelony, Joshua Meehl, Javier Sabio, Kristian Higgins, Alex Jones, Gregorio Aguilar, Matt Rosinski, Bart Trudeau, Luis Fonseca, Dante Gates, Matt Niccolls, Maksim Kuznecov, Michael Thomas, Luke Gorrie, Cory Kiser, Julio, Edvin Saveljev, Frederick Ayala, Jeffrey Powell, Gal Kampel, Adan Romero, Will Geary, Blake Walters, Jonathan Morgan, Francesco Madrisotti, Ivy Huang, Gary Clarke, Robert Flannery, Rasmus Hindström, Stefan, Corey Abshire, Mike Loncaric, David McCormick, Ronald Legere, Sergio Dolia, Michael Cao, Yiğit Aşık and Suyog Chandramouli.Takeaways:Epidemiology requires a blend of mathematical and statistical understanding.Models are essential for informing public health decisions during epidemics.The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of rapid modeling.Misconceptions about data can lead to misunderstandings in public health.Effective communication is crucial for conveying complex epidemiological concepts.Epidemic thinking can be applied to various fields, including marketing and finance.Public health policies should be informed by robust modeling and data analysis.Automation can help streamline data analysis in epidemic response.Understanding the limitations of models...

These days we're bombarded with information and claims that purport to explain almost every conceivable aspect of our lives, be it down to the bold assertions made by policymakers, the confidence of anonymity afforded by social media or just our natural human inclination to be fooled by a well-spoken know-it-all. But exactly who are the people making these claims, how do they reach their conclusions, and really, can anyone ever actually be certain about anything? In this episode, we catch up with the statistician, epidemiologist and author Adam Kucharski to take about his latest book Proof, The Uncertain Science of Uncertainty. He tells us how Abraham Lincoln's background as lawyer led him to study the nature of proof beyond reasonable doubt and how it helped him to win his presidency, how picking holes in previous logical thinking enabled Albert Einstein to discover some of his greatest theories, and what the COVID pandemic taught us all about the value of scientific rigour and evidence-based conclusions. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This podcast is a commentary and does not contain any copyrighted material of the reference source. We strongly recommend accessing/buying the reference source at the same time. ■Reference Source https://www.ted.com/talks/adam_kucharski_how_can_we_control_the_coronavirus_pandemic ■Post on this topic (You can get FREE learning materials!) https://englist.me/38-academic-words-reference-from-adam-kucharski-how-can-we-control-the-coronavirus-pandemic--ted-talk/ ■Youtube Video https://youtu.be/j-xN4EEKiQo (All Words) https://youtu.be/r-3z0eNdraw (Advanced Words) https://youtu.be/80PaAmsY2ys (Quick Look) ■Top Page for Further Materials https://englist.me/ ■SNS (Please follow!)

In these difficult times, no one's had a harder time than our medical professionals. They see death every day, and they fight it. What is it like to be a doctor in India? Lancelot Pinto joins Amit Varma in episode 229 of The Seen and the Unseen to talk about the practice of medicine in general, and the battle against Covid-19 in particular. Also discussed: the incentives of doctors, the importance of sleep, how to quit smoking, and the Epidemic of Sighing. Also check out: 1. Past episodes of The Seen and the Unseen on Covid-19, featuring (in reverse chronological order) Ashwin Mahesh, Gautam Menon, Ajay Shah, Anirban Mahapatra, Ruben Mascarenhas, Chinmay Tumbe, Rukmini S, Vaidehi Tandel, Vivek Kaul, Anup Malani and Shruti Rajagopalan.  2. Robin Cook on Amazon. 3. The Case Against Sugar — Gary Taubes. 4. The Big Fat Surprise: why butter, meat, and cheese belong in a healthy diet — Nina Teicholz. 5. UpToDate. 6. Understanding Indian Healthcare -- Episode 225 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Karthik Muralidharan). 7. Money for nothing: The dire straits of medical practice in Delhi, India (2007) — Jishnu Das and Jeffrey Hammer.  8. Dunning-Kruger Effect (Wikipedia). 9. Poker at Lake Wobegon -- Amit Varma. 10. Bad Science -- Ben Goldacre. 11. Homeopathic Faith (2010) -- Amit Varma. 12. Beware of Quacks. Alternative Medicine is Injurious to Health -- Amit Varma. 13. Is it risky to push alternative medicine in Covid pandemic? -- Lancelot Pinto. 14. The Kavita Krishnan Files -- Episode 228 of The Seen and the Unseen. 15. Amit Varma's episode of The Book Club on Mary Wollstonecraft. 16. Being Mortal -- Atul Gawande. 17. How Doctors Die -- Ken Murray. 18. Do not go gentle into that good night -- Dylan Thomas. 19. 24 & Ready to Die -- Economist documentary on euthanasia. 20. Complications -- Atul Gawande. 21. My Own Country -- Abraham Verghese. 22. Deep Medicine -- Eric Topol. 23. Other books by Gawande and Verghese.   24. The Looming Tower -- Lawrence Wright. 25. Do No Harm -- Henry Marsh. 26. The Rules of Contagion -- Adam Kucharski. 27. What Cricket Can Learn From Poker -- Amit Varma's essay on probabilistic thinking. 28. The Cochrane Collaboration. Links on Sleep 29. Lancelot Pinto's talk on sleep. 30. Lancelot Pinto on Sleep Apnea 31. What's keeping you up at night? -- Lancelot Pinto. 32. Are you terrified of falling asleep? -- Lancelot Pinto. 33. Why We Sleep: The New Science of Sleep and Dreams -- Matthew Walker. 34. Tetris Dreams. Links on Tobacco Cessation 35. Lancelot Pinto's Twitter thread on stopping smoking. 36. Global Adult Tobacco Survey. 37. The Odds of Ceasing to Smoke Tobacco -- A visual aid  Links on Tuberculosis 38. Tuberculosis Management by Private Practitioners in Mumbai, India: Has Anything Changed in Two Decades? -- Zarir Udwadia, Lancelot Pinto & Mukund Uplekar. 39. Private patient perceptions about a public programme -- Lancelot Pinto & Zareer Udwadia. 40. Mismanagement of tuberculosis in India: Causes, consequences, and the way forward -- Anurag Bhargava, Lancelot Pinto & Madhukar Pai. 41. A study on telemedicine during Covid-19 co-written by Lancelot Pinto. Links on Covid-19 42. An interview of Lancelot Pinto & Rajani Bhat by Govindraj Ethiraj. 43. India Covid SOS 44. Lancelot Pinto and others interviewed by Barkha Dutt on changed Covid protocols.. 45. Lancelot Pinto and others interviewed by Barkha Dutt on the use of steroids for Covid treatment. 46. Lancelot Pinto & Sumit Ray interviewed by Govindraj Ethirah on the need to update guidelines. 47. A CT scan for COVID merits a word of caution -- Lancelot Pinto. 48. Lancelot Pinto interviewed by Smitha Nair. 49. Comprehensive Guidelines for Management of COVID-19 patients. This episode is sponsored by CTQ Compounds. Check out The Daily Reader, FutureStack and The Social Capital Compound. Use the code UNSEEN for Rs 2500 off. Please subscribe to The India Uncut Newsletter. It's free! And check out Amit's online course, The Art of Clear Writing.

It’s half term. It’s nearly the summer. We all need a holiday. But should we go abroad? Travel bubbles, pre-flight testing, post-flight testing: they’ve all been buzz words for more than a year, and yet we seem none the wiser. Why didn’t we close our borders? Why did we allow holidays last summer without any Covid testing before flying and after? And is this all just hindsight or did we not follow the evidence? Today, we talk to Dr Adam Kucharski from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the WHO’s Dr Margaret Harris on the risks of flying abroad this summer.

How do we make sense of the madness around us? Well, there's the rational, scientific approach: gather data, build models, keep refining and iterating, get closer and closer to the truth. Gautam Menon joins Amit Varma in episode 224 of The Seen and the Unseen to describe the exciting field of biophysics and his work in building mathematical models of infectious diseases -- especially Covid-19. Also discussed: the joys of science, and how Indian music is the best embodiment of the idea of India. Kumar Gandharva FTW! Also check out: 1. Gautam Menon on Twitter, Ashoka, IMSc and Google Scholar. 2. The Novel Coronavirus Variants and India’s Uncertain Future -- Gautam Menon. 3. How Do Scientists Model the Spread of an Infectious Disease? -- Gautam Menon. 4. Control, Consensus, Chaos: The Global Response to the Pandemic -- A talk on YouTube by Sheila Jasanoff. 5. The Big Question: Can India Find a Way Out of Its Covid Nightmare? -- Shahid Jameel interviewed by Bobby Ghosh. 6. Past episodes of The Seen and the Unseen on Covid-19, featuring (in reverse chronological order) Ajay Shah, Anirban Mahapatra, Ruben Mascarenhas, Chinmay Tumbe, Rukmini S, Vaidehi Tandel, Vivek Kaul, Anup Malani and Shruti Rajagopalan. 7. My Family and Other Animals -- Gerald Durrell. 8. A Cricket Tragic Celebrates the Game -- Episode 201 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Ramachandra Guha). 9. Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction -- Philip Tetlock and Dan Gardner. 10. We Are All Gamblers -- Amit Varma. 11. Range Rover -- Amit Varma's column on poker for the Economic Times. 12. Demystifying GDP -- Episode 130 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Rajeswari Sengupta). 13. The New World Upon Us -- Amit Varma (on Alpha Zero). 14. Why Does the Pandemic Seem to Be Hitting Some Countries Harder Than Others? -- Siddhartha Mukherjee. 15. Episode Zero: The preview episode of The Seen and the Unseen. 16. Indian Scientists’ Response to CoViD-19. 17. A state-level epidemiological model for India: INDSCI-SIM. 18. Anup Malani on India’s COVID Second Wave -- Episode 13 of Season 5 of Grand Tamasha, hosted by Milan Vaishnav. Books recommended by Gautam Menon 1. Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic -- David Quammen. 2. The Rules of Contagion: Why Things Spread - and Why They Stop -- Adam Kucharski. 3, Early Indians: The Story of Our Ancestors and Where We Came From -- Tony Joseph, who also appeared on Seen/Unseen. 4. Lilavati's Daughters -- Edited by Rohini Godbole and Ram Ramaswamy, 5. The Man Who Knew Infinity -- Robert Kanigel. 6. Never Let Me Go -- Kazuo Ishiguro. 7. Half of a Yellow Sun -- Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. This episode is sponsored by The Great Courses Plus. Check out their course, Mysteries of the Microscopic World, taught by Bruce E Fleury. For free unlimited access for a month, click here. Please subscribe to The India Uncut Newsletter. It’s free! And check out Amit’s online course, The Art of Clear Writing.

These are difficult times. How do we make sense of what is happening around us? Well, there is science. Anirban Mahapatra joins Amit Varma in episode 221 of The Seen and the Unseen to share his insights on the science of Covid-19 -- and on the state of science and scientific writing in general. Also check out: 1. Covid-19: Separating Fact from Fiction -- Anirban Mahapatra. 2. Anirban Mahapatra on Twitter and Google Scholar. 3. The Age of Pandemics -- Chinmay Tumbe. 4. India's Tryst With Pandemics -- Episode 205 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Chinmay Tumbe). 5. Other episodes of The Seen and the Unseen on the pandemic: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 6. Publish and Perish -- Agnes Callard. 7. The Tragedy of Our Farm Bills -- Episode 211 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Ajay Shah). 8. A Scientist in the Kitchen -- Episode 204 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Krish Ashok). 9. Gell-Mann Amnesia. 10. The Prem Panicker Files -- Episode 217 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Prem Panicker). 11. How Zeynep Tufekci Keeps Getting the Big Things Right -- Ben Smith. 12. Zeynep Tufekci's newsletter, Twitter and column archive. 13. Mendelay. 14. Marginal Revolution. 15. Human and Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare -- Episode 4 of Brave New World (Vasant Dhar in conversation with Eric Topol.) 16. Deep Medicine: How Artificial Intelligence Can Make Healthcare Human Again -- Eric Topol. 17. Calling Bullshit: The Art of Scepticism in a Data-Driven World -- Jevin West and Carl Bergstrom. 18. The Rules of Contagion: Why Things Spread - and Why They Stop -- Adam Kucharski. 19. Eric Topol, Dr Angela Rasmussen, Natalie Dean, Carl Bergstrom, Adam Kucharski, Ed Yong, Carl Zimmer, Helen Branswell, News From Science and Nature News & Comment on Twitter. 20. The Nature Newsletter. 21. The Scientist. 22. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark -- Carl Sagan. 23. The World According to Physics -- Jim Al-Khalili. 24. Brian Greene, Michio Kaku and Michael Benton on Amazon. 25. Feeding the Hungry in the Pandemic -- Episode 210 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Ruben Mascarenhas). 26. We Are Fighting Two Disasters: Covid-19 and the Indian State -- Amit Varma. 27. A Meditation on Form -- Amit Varma. 28. The Selfish Gene -- Richard Dawkins. 29. Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett on Amazon. 30. Early Indians -- Episode 112 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Tony Joseph).  31 Early Indians: The Story of Our Ancestors and Where We Came From -- Tony Joseph. 32. Beware of Quacks. Alternative Medicine is Injurious to Health -- Amit Varma. 33. Self-Esteem (and a Puddle) -- Amit Varma. 34. Unlikely is Inevitable -- Amit Varma.  Please subscribe to The India Uncut Newsletter. It’s free! And check out Amit’s online course, The Art of Clear Writing.

durée : 02:00:08 - Les Matins - par : Guillaume Erner - . - réalisation : Vivien Demeyère

Vaccines and Variants is a great title for a fun new geeky game but a very bad combination for public health. New variants of the virus which causes Covid 19 are turning up in countries all over the world. Can the vaccines we have keep up with them, or do years of booster jabs await us? Tim Harford answers these questions with this week's panel of guests: Professor Peter Hotez of the Baylor College of Medicine, Professor Emma Thomson of the University of Glasgow and Dr Adam Kucharski of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Producer: Sandra Kanthal Listener questions can be sent to: vaccine@bbc.co.uk

Adam Kucharski is among a number of epidemiologists who has suddenly been thrust into the limelight. We discuss his career and the current state of the coronavirus pandemic. This episode was supported by G-Research, a world-leading quantitative finance research firm, hiring the brightest minds to tackle the biggest questions in finance - learn more at gresearch.co.uk/numberphile/ Adam Kucharski's website Adam's books on Amazon, including The Rules of Contagion Some of our previous podcasts that touch on epidemiology include these ones with Kit Yates, Hannah Fry and Jennifer Rogers You can support Numberphile on Patreon like these people With thanks to MSRI

Smittsamma utbrott kan anta många former; från innovationer till gängkriminalitet. Ibland vill vi att saker ska ta fart, ibland är det livsavgörande att de stannar upp. För varje virus som hoppar från djur till människa och blir en pandemi är det miljoner som inte infekterar någon alls. Under det senaste året har vi blivit bekanta med begrepp som de flesta av oss inte tänkt särskilt mycket på förut: reproduktionstal, superspridare och flockimmunitet är några av dem. De matematiska modeller som beskriver virusets spridning påverkar myndigheternas åtgärder och har stor effekt på våra liv. Matematikern och epidemiologen Adam Kucharski har lyckats med konststycket att skriva en bladvändare utifrån dessa modeller. Forskning kring sjukdomsutbrott löper som en röd tråd i boken, men idag används samma modeller också för att förstå och förutspå smittsamma fenomen inom helt andra fält. Författaren beskriver dessa dolda lagar, han kopplar samman saker som ter sig vitt skilda och förklarar dem på nya sätt: hur finanskriser beter sig som sexuellt överförbara sjukdomar och hur metoder som användes för att utrota smittkoppor nu tas i bruk för att minska våld med skjutvapen. Han visar på mönster och logik i det som ter sig nyckfullt, enormt och ogreppbart. Smitta berättar mycket om mänskligt beteende, den moderna världen och hur vi försöker förutspå framtiden.

Die Finanzkrise 2008, die Verbreitung von Fake News und Gewaltausbrüche haben Ähnlichkeit mit der aktuellen Pandemie, schreibt der Mathematiker und Epidemiologe Adam Kucharski in „Das Gesetz der Ansteckung“. Er sagt auch, was wir daraus lernen können. Von Vera Linß www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Lesart Hören bis: 19.01.2038 04:14 Direkter Link zur Audiodatei

Die Finanzkrise 2008, die Verbreitung von Fake News und Gewaltausbrüche haben Ähnlichkeit mit der aktuellen Pandemie, schreibt der Mathematiker und Epidemiologe Adam Kucharski in „Das Gesetz der Ansteckung“. Er sagt auch, was wir daraus lernen können. Von Vera Linß www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Lesart Hören bis: 19.01.2038 04:14 Direkter Link zur Audiodatei

Une étude d'un épidémiologiste anglais, membre du London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, démontre que le variant britannique, plus contagieux, est plus dangereux qu'un virus très létal. Pour arriver à cette conclusion, Adam Kucharski a réalisé trois projections sur trente jours chacune à chaque fois. Pendant ce laps de temps, le virus peut se transmettre cinq fois à partir d'un seul cas d'une personne contaminée. Quels sont les trois scénarios ? Ce mardi 12 janvier 2021, Baptiste Morin, dans sa chronique "Les indispensables", nous parle de cette nouvelle étude sur le variant britannique. Cette chronique a été diffusée dans 24h Pujadas du 12/01/2021 présentée par David Pujadas sur LCI. Du lundi au vendredi, à partir de 18h, David Pujadas apporte toute son expertise pour analyser l'actualité du jour avec pédagogie.

Autor: Hubert, Martin Sendung: Forschung aktuell Hören bis: 19.01.2038 04:14

Autor: Hubert, Martin Sendung: Forschung aktuell Hören bis: 19.01.2038 04:14

Autor: Hubert, Martin Sendung: Forschung aktuell Hören bis: 19.01.2038 04:14

Unpack the science behind the spread of disease. During the time of a global pandemic, contagious diseases are more alarming than ever. Everyone wants to know how a virus spreads and why. Most importantly, we want to know how we can protect ourselves. Understanding the scientific principles behind contagious disease is the first step to unlocking these medical mysteries and accessing the knowledge we crave. The Rules of Contagion (2020) unpacks the science of all things viral and illustrates the similarities between a disease like COVID-19 and a viral video. *** Do you want more free audiobook summaries like this? Download our app for free at QuickRead.com/App and get access to hundreds of free book and audiobook summaries.

Adam Kucharski points to the development of bots for poker as a way to understand human behaviors. This talk was filmed at TEDxLiverpool. All TEDx events are organized independently by volunteers in the spirit of TED's mission of ideas worth spreading. To learn more about TEDxSHORTS, the TEDx program, or give feedback on this episode, please visit http://go.ted.com/tedxshorts. Follow TEDx on Twitter: https://twitter.com/TEDx Follow TEDx on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tedx_official Like TEDx on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TEDxEvents

What does science have to do with gambling? Apparently, the two are intertwined. Enter the mathematician, who says if you want to win, you can, by using secret scientific measures to outwit your opponent. So whether you want to beat a casino, win a round of paper-scissors-rock, or just not lose your life savings, science could be the key to your success.

What does science have to do with gambling? Apparently, the two are intertwined. Enter the mathematician, who says if you want to win, you can, by using secret scientific measures to outwit your opponent. So whether you want to beat a casino, win a round of paper-scissors-rock, or just not lose your life savings, science could be the key to your success.

What does science have to do with gambling? Apparently, the two are intertwined. Enter the mathematician, who says if you want to win, you can, by using secret scientific measures to outwit your opponent. So whether you want to beat a casino, win a round of paper-scissors-rock, or just not lose your life savings, science could be the key to your success.

Epidemiologist Adam Kucharski joins TWiV to discuss SARS-CoV-2, including R0, incubation period, herd immunity, asymptomatic infection, superspreaders, children as drivers of pandemics, and how this one will end. Hosts: Vincent Racaniello, Rich Condit, Kathy Spindler, and Brianne Barker Guest: Adam Kucharski Subscribe (free): iTunes, Google Podcasts, RSS, email Become a patron of TWiV! Links for this episode The Rules of Contagion (Amazon affiliate link) Overdispersion in SARS-CoV-2 transmission (Wellcome Open Res) Sorrento Therapeutics test In vitro diagnostics EUAs (FDA) Letters read on TWiV 652 Timestamps by Jolene. Thanks! Intro music is by Ronald Jenkees Send your virology questions and comments to twiv@microbe.tv

Epidemiologist Adam Kucharski joins TWiV to discuss SARS-CoV-2, including R0, incubation period, herd immunity, asymptomatic infection, superspreaders, children as drivers of pandemics, and how this one will end. Hosts: Vincent Racaniello, Rich Condit, Kathy Spindler, and Brianne Barker Guest: Adam Kucharski Subscribe (free): iTunes, Google Podcasts, RSS, email Become a patron of TWiV! Links for this episode The Rules of Contagion (Amazon affiliate link) Overdispersion in SARS-CoV-2 transmission (Wellcome Open Res) Sorrento Therapeutics test In vitro diagnostics EUAs (FDA) Letters read on TWiV 652 Timestamps by Jolene. Thanks! Intro music is by Ronald Jenkees Send your virology questions and comments to twiv@microbe.tv

We talk to mathematician and epidemiologist Adam Kucharski about his recent book The Rules of Contagion: Why Things Spread—And Why They Stop. Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/inquiringminds See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A book steeped in math and epidemiology that addresses the basis for how a variety of contagion models — memes, malaria, financial crises — can document why things spread, and one day stop. While this isn’t a book addressing our current COVID-19 crisis, it does provide background information on concepts that will give you a stronger background in understanding what it means for something to go viral. British Narrator Joe Jameson delivers a narration that is immensely appealing to the ear and blends well with the author’s gift for narrative writing. It is a highly textured audiobook full of details, yet digestible. Published by Hachette Audio. Find more audiobook recommendations at audiofilemagazine.com Support for AudioFile's Behind the Mic comes from PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE AUDIO, dedicated to producing top-quality fiction and nonfiction audiobooks written and read by the best in the business. Visit penguinrandomhouseaudio.com/audiofile now to start listening. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Have you ever wanted to get someone to disclose more about themselves? This episode begins with a very simple strategy that will loosen someone up and get them to tell you a lot more about the details of their life. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12110-015-9225-8#page-1 How do things spread? By that I mean not just viruses like the flu or corona virus but also rumors and viral videos or fake news stories – why do some of these things gather steam and spread like wildfire? And then, why do they stop? Every year people catch the flu and then in the summer, it just stops. What stops it? Listen to my guest Adam Kucharski, he is an epidemiologist and author of the book The Rules of Contagion: Why Things Spread and Why They Stop (https://amzn.to/3f7oJh5).  What’s the connection between arguments and hunger? Well if you want to get along better with the people or person you live with – you need to hear me explain this interesting science. http://www.independent.ie/style/sex-relationships/are-you-rowing-with-your-partner-you-might-just-behangry-30191887.html You know that feeling of being a slave to your phone or to email? That feeling of always being available is taking a toll on you whether you know it or not. Journalist Ian Douglas has studied this extensively and has written a book called Is Technology Making Us Sick? (https://amzn.to/3f65wfX)  Ian joins me to explain how you are being manipulated into always staying available and what it is doing to your health. He also has some excellent strategies to deal with the problem without having to turn all your electronics off.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode we’re tackling the coronavirus information overload by comparing three books on pandemics past and present: Outbreaks and Epidemics by Meera Senthilingam, Adam Kucharski’s The Rules of Contagion, and The Pandemic Century by Mark Honigsbaum (the only one written well before the current pandemic hit). Find out what we thought about each of these titles, what readers might get out of them, and hear from Outbreaks and Epidemics author Meera Senthilingham about what it was like to write about pandemics while being in the middle of one.

Why do some diseases spread while others fail to take hold? Adam Kucharski studies the mathematics of contagion: predicting patterns of transmission for outbreaks including Ebola, Zika and now Covid-19. By understanding how human behaviour can shape a disease's spread he wants to make our efforts to combat them more effective. In his new book The Rules of Contagion he also considers parallels between the science of contagion and the virality of trends and ideas in modern culture. Understand these principles, he argues, and you can use them for good: to tackle gun violence, or to fight the spread of fake news.

Over the last few months, we’ve all had to come to terms with R, the ‘effective reproduction number’, as a measure of how well we are dealing with the coronavirus outbreak. But, as Nicola Davis finds out from Dr Adam Kucharski, R is a complicated statistical concept that relies on many factors and, under some conditions, can be misleading. Help support our independent journalism at theguardian.com/sciencepod

Claudia Hammond and a panel of international experts look at the latest research into Covid-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus which is sweeping through the world. As the disease spreads how is South America handling the pandemic? How are the indigenous people of the Amazon protecting themselves? We also look at the aerodynamics of infection - if the air in an ITU room is changed 12 times and the virus still lingers what hope do offices have? On the panel are Professor Lydia Bourouiba, Associate Professor at the Fluid Dynamics of Disease Transmission Laboratory at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr Adam Kucharski from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Professor Holgar Schunemann, co-director of the World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre for Infectious Diseases, Dr David Collier, Clinical Director at Queen Mary University London and Barbara Fraser, health journalist in the Peruvian capital Lima. The Evidence is produced in association with Wellcome Collection. Producers: Geraldine Fitzgerald and Caroline Steel Editor: Deborah Cohen

In this Fiduciary Investors series podcast Amanda White talks to Princeton University's Professor Stephen Kotkin about the fragility of the global political economy and the potential end of globalisation. The podcast discusses the limitations of risk management systems used by many investors and the need for a new risk framework that looks beyond a linear construct to enable investors to better grasp the complexity of investing. It discusses the fragility of the environment and the economy due to: The underlying paradox of globalisation The lack of recognition of adaptive complex systems And a stagnant political organising framework.   About Stephen KotkinStephen Kotkin is the John P Birkelund Professor in History and International Affairs at Princeton University.He is the co-director of the program in history and the practice of diplomacy and the director of the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies. He established the Princeton department's Global History initiative and workshop, and teaches the graduate seminar on global history since the 1950s.He also holds a joint appointment in the Woodrow Wilson School for Public and International Affairs at Princeton and is a research scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.He has authored many books including his latest Stalin: Waiting for Hitler. About Amanda WhiteAmanda White is responsible for the content across all Conexus Financial's institutional media and events. In addition to being the editor of Top1000funds.com, she is responsible for directing the global bi-annual Fiduciary Investors Symposium which challenges global investors on investment best practice and aims to place the responsibilities of investors in wider societal, and political contexts.  She holds a Bachelor of Economics and a Masters of Art in Journalism and has been an investment journalist for more than 25 years. She is currently a fellow in the Finance Leaders Fellowship at the Aspen Institute. The two-year program seeks to develop the next generation of responsible, community-spirited leaders in the global finance industry. Suggested reading: Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic (2012). David Quammen The Butterfly Defect: How Globalization Creates Systemic Risks, and What to Do About It (2014). Ian Goldin and Mike Mariathasan, The Rules of Contagion (2020): a mix of biology, mathematics, history, behavioural science, and anecdote, exploring how disease, ideas and behaviours move about and then cascade. Adam Kucharski. What is the Fiduciary Investors series?The COVID-19 global health and economic crisis has highlighted the need for leadership and capital to be urgently targeted towards the vulnerabilities in the global economy.Through conversations with academics and asset owners, the Fiduciary Investors Podcast Series is a forward looking examination of the changing dynamics in the global economy, what a sustainable recovery looks like and how investors are positioning their portfolios.The much-loved events, the Fiduciary Investors Symposiums, act as an advocate for fiduciary capitalism and the power of asset owners to change the nature of the investment industry, including addressing principal/agent and fee problems, stabilising financial markets, and directing capital for the betterment of society and the environment. Like the event series, the podcast series, tackles the challenges long-term investors face in an environment of disruption,  and asks investors to think differently about how they make decisions and allocate capital. 

How can we build a vision for the future in a time of such uncertainty? Join us for a discussion on what we can learn from different disciplines seeking to model a "New Normal" for society post COVID-19. As part of this conversation, we will learn about theories of contagion and how they apply not just to modelling diseases, but also to viral online information, financial systems, human behaviour and social change.We will hear from:Epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and author of The Rules of Contagion: Why Things Spread and Why They Stop, Dr Adam Kucharski. The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine is a world-leading centre for research and postgraduate education in public and global health.Founder and Managing Partner of Merian Ventures, Alexsis de Raadt St. James. Merian Ventures funds female founders and co-founders in cyber, AI, ML and consumer-facing technologies.Director of the Oxford Internet Institute and author of Pax Technica: How the Internet of Things May Set Us Free or Lock Us Up, Professor Philip Howard. The Oxford Internet Institute is a multidisciplinary research and teaching department of the University of Oxford, dedicated to the social science of the Internet.

- Flaute bei Challenger-Banken https://sifted.eu/articles/digital-banks-growth-corona/ - Big-Tech noch stärker durch Krise: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/05/02/big-tech-is-thriving-in-the-midst-of-the-recession https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/01/opinion/tech-companies-coronavirus.html Amazon: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/amazons-ceo-tells-investors-if-youre-shareowner-you-may-want-to-take-a-seat-as-he-explains-why-the-company-will-spend-entirety-of-4-billion-profit-2020-04-30 Google: https://www.businessinsider.com/alphabet-google-q1-earnings-revenue-profit-2020-4 Facebook: https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/29/the-quarantine-is-driving-record-usage-growth-at-facebook/ Mark Zuckerberg: Krise wird länger dauern, als viele das heute annehmen: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/01/technology/coronavirus-big-tech-earnings.html Microsoft: https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-reports-q3-fy20-earnings-2020-4 Apple: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/30/apple-aapl-earnings-q2-2020.html Netflix: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/21/netflix-nflx-earnings-q1-2020.html - Jeff Bezos verstärkt im Management aktiv https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/technology/bezos-amazon-coronavirus.html - Börse US: S&P 500 + 13% in April - stärkster Anstieg seit 1987 https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/01/investing/stock-market-recession-coronavirus/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/opinion/economy-stock-market-coronavirus.html - US: wieder fast 4 Mio. Arbeitslose mehr - nun 30 Mio (fast 20%) https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/30/economy/unemployment-benefits-coronavirus/index.html https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-30/u-s-personal-spending-plummeted-by-a-record-7-5-in-march - EZB-Chef: Wirtschaftsabschwung schwerster seit 2. Weltkrieg https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/business/europe-economy-coronavirus-recession.html - Microsoft Teams am boomen https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/29/21241972/microsoft-teams-75-million-daily-active-users-stats - Reisestartups Deutschland: GetYourGuide, Flixbus, Omio, Tourlane, Trivago schreiben offenen Brief an Google https://www.gruenderszene.de/allgemein/reise-startups-offener-brief-google?interstitial - Konsequenzen von Öffnung ohne Vertrauen https://www.bisnow.com/atlanta/news/retail/for-georgia-restaurants-and-retailers-its-not-landlords-that-cause-the-pressure-104166 https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-only-9-of-britons-want-life-to-return-to-normal-once-lockdown-is-over-11974459 - Corona-Krise auf 2 Jahre prognostiziert https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-01/covid-19-pandemic-likely-to-last-two-years-report-says - Tracking-Apps als Ausweg? https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/g5xz37/united-nations-coronavirus-app-1point5-doesnt-work https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/29/most-americans-are-not-willing-or-able-use-an-app-tracking-coronavirus-infections-thats-problem-big-techs-plan-slow-pandemic/ https://t3n.de/news/corona-app-magenta-telekom-sap-1274327/ - Augmented Reality am Beispiel Magic Leap https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/magic-leap-is-said-to-cut-half-of-jobs-in-major-restructuring - Duolingo: Unicorn mit $10 Millionen Finanzierung https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/27/understanding-duolingos-quiet-10m-raise/ - Universal verzeichnet Rekordumsätze mit Film-Streaming https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/amc-theatres-refuses-play-universal-films-wake-trolls-world-tour-1292327 - Tesla: mit Gewinn und Neid von VW https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-results-idUSKBN22B35G https://electrek.co/2020/04/27/vw-admits-tesla-lead-software-leak-internal/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-01/suvs-get-parked-in-the-ocean-and-reveal-scope-of-u-s-car-glut - Buchempfehlung: Adam Kucharski “The rules of contagion” https://www.amazon.de/Adam-Kucharski/dp/1788164725/ Many thanks for the music by Lee Rosevere https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Lee_Rosevere/Music_For_Podcasts_5/Lee_Rosevere_-_Music_For_Podcasts_5_-_05_Start_the_Day

The world is currently facing a global pandemic, unlike any seen in our lifetime. Yet organisations the world over have encountered something similar for many years. Almost irrespective of market, our largest publicly listed companies have a mortality rate on a 10-year horizon around 75%, meaning that by 2026, their average life expectancy will be just 12 years.   Sam Sterling, AKQA Managing Director Greater China & Japan, spoke to mathematician Dr Adam Kucharski, Associate Professor at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, where he works on outbreak analysis. Kucharski is a TED Senior Fellow and author of the book The Rules of Contagion: Why Things Spread and Why They Stop (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rules-Contagion-Outbreaks-Infectious-Diseases-ebook/dp/B07JLSHT7M/ref=sr_1_1?crid=232EDDZ3HDDX5&dchild=1&keywords=the+rules+of+contagion+adam+kucharski&qid=1586882199&s=books&sprefix=the+rules+of%2Cstripbooks%2C134&sr=1-1) . He's also a doctor but not the medical kind, which makes him ideally placed to discuss the characteristics of a virus in structural rather than biological terms. From this AKQA Insight, we learn that the underlying principles of virality can be of benefit to businesses and that breaking into new markets and adapting to the environment maximises impact in the long term.

Infectious disease expert Adam Kucharski didn't know that the world was going to be overtaken by a virus when he wrote his new book, The Rules of Contagion: Why Things Spread – and Why They Stop. But today, the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine professor has a schedule filled with meetings about the progression of Covid-19—and how best to curb it. Arts and books editor Sameer Rahim talks to Adam about what it's been like researching the disease, which countries have handled the outbreak best, and what to expect next. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Dr Hannah Fry made a film two years ago which predicted the coronavirus pandemic with chilling accuracy. Dr Hannah Fry's website - links to all her stuff The BBC Contagion special on iPlayer If it doesn't work on iPlayer, this is a version I found on YouTube!? Numberphile video about the SIR curve with Ben Sparks Numberphile discusses coronavirus mathematics with Kit Yates False Positives on Numberphile with Lisa Goldberg PAPER: Contacts in context: large-scale setting-specific social mixing matrices from the BBC Pandemic project PAPER: Contagion! The BBC Four Pandemic – The model behind the documentary BBC Horizon Coronavirus Special - the more recent film Hannah made with the Beeb RI Christmas Lectures 2019: Secrets and lies Mathematician/epidemiologist Adam Kucharski on Twitter With thanks to MSRI Support us on Patreon

The Homeland and Peaky Blinders stars tell us how they’re helping supply meals to NHS staff. And we're joined by epidemiologist and author of 'The Rules of Contagion', Adam Kucharski. Producers: Frankie Tobi, Natalie Ktena and Ione Wells Editor: Dino Sofos

Top epidemiologist Adam Kucharski talks to Richard Kilgarriff in this special Big Thinking episode; How contagion and ideas spread (and stop) and how numbers, timescale and social factors influence outbreaks across the world. Get a copy of Adam's book, The Rules of Contagion HERE.

This week we have a doubleheader. First, we speak to Emily! One of the very first Nova Scotians who was diagnosed with and has now recovered from COVID-19. Spoiler alert, it is no walk in the gosh darn park. Which is exactly why y'all need to #StayTheBlazesHome. Then we chat with Adam Kucharski - an epidemiologist, mathematician, and associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, where he works on analysis of infectious disease outbreaks. Spoiler alert, he's smart. We talk about the sobering data that is coming out surrounding the virus and what that data tells us about our future. Support the podcast on Patreon - www.patreon.com/sickboy  Thanks to Thisten for transcribing this episode - https://thisten.co/event/cbe4d Follow us on Instagram & Twitter - @sickboypodcast

"This week we have a doubleheader. First, we speak to Emily! One of the very first Nova Scotians who was diagnosed with and has now recovered from COVID-19. Spoiler alert, it is no walk in the gosh darn park. Which is exactly why y'all need to #StayTheBlazesHome. Then we chat with Adam Kucharski - an epidemiologist, mathematician, and associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, where he works on analysis of infectious disease outbreaks. Spoiler alert, he's smart. We talk about the sobering data that is coming out surrounding the virus and what that data tells us about our future. "

"This week we have a doubleheader. First, we speak to Emily! One of the very first Nova Scotians who was diagnosed with and has now recovered from COVID-19. Spoiler alert, it is no walk in the gosh darn park. Which is exactly why y'all need to #StayTheBlazesHome. Then we chat with Adam Kucharski - an epidemiologist, mathematician, and associate professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, where he works on analysis of infectious disease outbreaks. Spoiler alert, he's smart. We talk about the sobering data that is coming out surrounding the virus and what that data tells us about our future. "

This week, we examine criticisms of Imperial College’s epidemiologists. We ask how A-Level and GCSE grades will be allocated, given that the exams have vanished in a puff of social distancing. Adam Kucharski, author of The Rules of Contagion, tells us about the history of epidemiology. We look at the supermarkets: how are their supply chains holding up and how much stockpiling is really going on. And is coronavirus having a different impact on men than on women?

At the frontline of the COVID-19 fight right now, Adam Kucharski is author of The Rules of Contagion: Why Things Spread - and Why They Stop. He sees patterns of contagion everywhere – in viruses, memes, markets.

At the frontline of the COVID-19 fight right now, Adam Kucharski is author of The Rules of Contagion: Why Things Spread - and Why They Stop. He sees patterns of contagion everywhere – in viruses, memes, markets.

Hospitalization rates, exponential growth and flattening the curve – all these concepts are now part of our daily vocabulary. But understanding them properly takes some expertise. Bio-statistician Adam Kucharski joins Bill Nye to make sense of the data on COVID-19, and what to watch out for.

The UK's response to COVID-19 has dramatically changed in recent days. Dr. Adam Kucharski, outbreak modeller from LSHTM is working to provide robust scientific evidence for the government and other decision-makers. Adam talks us through the evidence behind the government's response at this time, and shares his thoughts about the outbreak and it's social impacts long-term.

Im Zuge der Bedrohung durch COVID 19 beantwortet der Experte für Infektionskrankheiten Adam Kucharski fünf grundlegende Fragen zum neuen Coronavirus. Er gibt notwendige Informationen über seine Übertragung, wie Staaten regiert haben und wie wir unser soziales Verhalten ändern müssen, um der Pandemie ein Ende zu bereiten. (Dieses Video ist ein Auszug aus einem 70-minütigen Interview zwischen Kucharski und dem Leiter von TED, Chris Anderson. Hören Sie sich das gesamte Interview unter go.ted.com/adamkucharski an).

Mientras continúa la amenaza del COVID-19, el experto en enfermedades infecciosas Adam Kucharski responde a cinco preguntas claves sobre el novedoso coronavirus, proporcionando una perspectiva necesaria con respecto a su transmisión, cómo han respondido los países y qué deberíamos cambiar de nuestro comportamiento social para terminar con la pandemia. (Este video es un extracto de la entrevista de 70 minutos entre Kucharski y el director de TED Chris Anderson. Escucha la entrevista completa en go.ted.com/adamkucharski.)

Alors que la menace de COVID-19 se poursuit, l'expert en maladies infectieuses Adam Kucharski répond à cinq questions clés sur le nouveau coronavirus, en apportant le point de vue nécessaire sur sa transmission, sur la manière dont les gouvernements ont réagi et sur ce qui pourrait devoir changer dans notre comportement social pour mettre fin à la pandémie. (Cette vidéo est extraite d'une interview de 70 minutes entre Kucharski et le directeur de TED Chris Anderson. Écoutez l'intégralité de l'interview sur go.ted.com/adamkucharski).

As the threat of COVID-19 continues, infectious disease expert and TED Fellow Adam Kucharski answers five key questions about the novel coronavirus, providing necessary perspective on its transmission, how governments have responded and what might need to change about our social behavior to end the pandemic. (This video is excerpted from a 70-minute interview between Kucharski and head of TED Chris Anderson. Listen to the full interview at http://go.ted.com/adamkucharski. Recorded March 11, 2020)

As the threat of COVID-19 continues, infectious disease expert and TED Fellow Adam Kucharski answers five key questions about the novel coronavirus, providing necessary perspective on its transmission, how governments have responded and what might need to change about our social behavior to end the pandemic. (This video is excerpted from a 70-minute interview between Kucharski and head of TED Chris Anderson. Listen to the full interview at http://go.ted.com/adamkucharski. Recorded March 11, 2020)

Enquanto a ameaça da COVID-19 continua, Adam Kucharski, especialista em doenças infecciosas, responde a cinco perguntas-chave sobre o novo coronavírus, dando a perspectiva necessária sobre sua transmissão, a resposta dos governos e o que pode ser necessário mudar em nosso comportamento social para acabar com essa pandemia. (Este vídeo foi extraído de uma entrevista de 70 minutos entre Kucharski e Chris Anderson, presidente do TED. Ouça a entrevista completa em: go.ted.com/adamkucharski)

코로나 19의 위협이 계속됨에 따라 전염병 전문가 아담 쿠차르스키는 코로나바이러스에 대한 다섯 가지 질문에 답하고, 확산 방법과 정부의 대응 방식, 그리고 유행병을 종식시키기 위한 행동 양식을 알려줍니다. (이 영상은 쿠차르스키와 TED 대표 크리스 안더슨 사이의 70분 가량의 인터뷰에서 발췌한 것입니다. go.ted.com/adamkucharski 에서 전체 인터뷰를 들으실 수 있습니다.)

Infectious disease expert Adam Kucharski uses mathematical models to help the world understand how diseases like Ebola and Zika spread, and how they can be controlled. Now, as the threat of COVID-19 continues to rise, he gives us a necessary perspective on its transmission, how governments have responded and what needs to change in order to end the pandemic.

Governments globally are taking serious measures to halt the spread of the covid-19 coronavirus, from shutting schools to cancelling major events. On the panel for this special episode dedicated to the disease are New Scientist journalists Rowan Hooper, Penny Sarchet and Donna Lu. The team is joined by Adam Kucharski, associate professor in epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Adam answers questions on the biology of the disease, what the true fatality rates are, and when the outbreak might finally fizzle out. Also on the agenda is the impact the outbreak is having on the economy, and the importance of washing your hands. To find out more about the stories mentioned in this episode, subscribe at newscientist.com/podcasts.

In his new book The Rules of Contagion: Why Things Spread - And Why They Stop, epidemiologist Adam Kucharski reveals how mathematical approaches transform what we know about contagion. Adam Kucharski is an associate professor at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. A mathematician by training, his work on global outbreaks such as the Ebola epidemic and the Zika virus has taken him from villages in the Pacific Islands to hospitals in Latin America. He is a TED fellow and winner of the 2016 Rosalind Franklin Award Lecture and the 2012 Wellcome Trust Science Writing Prize, and also the author of The Perfect Bet: How Science and Maths Are Taking the Luck Out of Gambling. His writing has appeared in the Observer, Financial Times, Scientific American, and New Statesman. 5x15 brings together five outstanding individuals to tell of their lives, passions and inspirations. There are only two rules - no scripts and only 15 minutes each. Learn more about 5x15 events: 5x15stories.com Twitter: www.twitter.com/5x15stories Facebook: www.facebook.com/5x15stories Instagram: www.instagram.com/5x15stories

Dr Adam Kucharski talks us through mathematical modelling – what it is and its crucial role during disease outbreaks like the novel coronavirus. He also explores the implications of using certain language during outbreaks, and answers a question from one of our listeners. To discover LSHTM's latest modelling work visit https://cmmid.github.io/ncov.

We want to hear from you! Please get in touch by emailing comms@lshtm.ac.uk and let us know what you would like to hear on the podcast. Stay tuned for upcoming episodes with top outbreak-modeller Adam Kucharski and Professor David Heymann who led the WHO's response to SARS in 2003.

Dịch virus corona mới (COVID-19) trở thành đại dịch đe dọa toàn cầu, chỉ ba tuần lễ sau khi Trung Quốc thông báo với WHO về sự xuất hiện virus gây viêm phổi cấp tính bí ẩn tại Vũ Hán. Vì sao virus corona mới thành đại dịch ? Phải chăng việc Bắc Kinh che giấu thông tin là nguyên nhân chính dẫn đến dịch bệnh bùng phát nhanh chóng vượt tầm kiểm soát ? Cuối tháng Giêng 2020, chỉ vài ngày sau khi Bắc Kinh thừa nhận dịch virus corona mới, tỉnh Hồ Bắc, với hơn 50 triệu dân, đột ngột bị phong tỏa. Vũ Hán, một đô thị sầm suất 10 triệu dân biến thành thành phố ''ma''. Hơn 1.000 người chết từ đó đến nay, hơn 40.000 người nhiễm virus, theo con số chính thức của chính quyền Trung Quốc. Theo một thông tin do ứng dụng của Tencent (một tập đoàn tin học Nhà nước Trung Quốc), công bố hai lần trên mạng, ngày 01/02/2020, (trước khi bị xóa bỏ) số lượng người nhiễm cao gấp 10 lần con số do chính quyền công bố, số người chết gấp 80 lần (Chloé Froissart, ''Le coronavirus révèle la matrice totalitaire du régime chinois'', Le Monde, ngày 11/02/2020). Nhà dịch tễ học Adam Kucharski, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, trong bài trả lời hãng tin Bloomberg, đăng tải 08/02/2020, ước tính riêng tại Vũ Hán có khoảng 500.000 người nhiễm bệnh. Tổng thư ký Tổ Chức Y Tế Thế Giới (WHO) cũng khẳng định số lượng người nhiễm virus chính thức công bố có thể chỉ là phần nổi của tảng băng chìm. Cho đến nay, chính quyền Trung Quốc khẳng định đã minh bạch thông tin, và mở cửa cho sự hợp tác quốc tế trong việc đối phó với dịch bệnh. Ngày 31/12/2019, chính quyền Trung Quốc đã thông báo với WHO về sự xuất hiện của một loại virus lạ gây viêm phổi cấp tại Vũ Hán, thủ phủ tỉnh Hồ Bắc, miền trung Trung Quốc. Ngay sau khi Bắc Kinh công bố dịch, phong tỏa Vũ Hán, tổng thống Mỹ Donald Trump đã nhiệt liệt ca ngợi ''sự minh bạch'' của chính quyền Trung Quốc, đã có các hành động hiệu quả nhằm ngăn chặn dịch bệnh. Trung Quốc cũng khẳng định đã cung cấp cho quốc tế nhiều thông tin về chuỗi gien của virus corona mới, giúp cho giới khoa học quốc tế hiểu rõ hơn về loài virus lạ. Nhiều nhà khoa học thừa nhận trong đợt dịch này, giới y học Trung Quốc đã phản ứng nhanh chóng hơn hẳn, minh bạch hơn hẳn so với đợt dịch SARS năm 2002 - 2003. Thời gian từ khi WHO được thông báo có virus gây viêm phổi cấp tính mới cho đến khi Trung Quốc chính thức công bố dịch là 3 tuần. Ba tuần lễ phải chăng là vừa đủ cho việc xem xét và công bố dịch bệnh thông thường, và nếu có sai lầm, phải chăng chính quyền Bắc Kinh chỉ phạm lỗi đã phản ứng chậm trễ, không hình dung hết tầm mức nguy hiểm của loài virus corona mới ? Đi ngược quy trình đối phó dịch tễ thông thường Để tìm lời giải cho băn khoăn này, RFI Tiếng Việt đặt câu hỏi trước hết với bác sĩ Trần Tuấn, Tiến sĩ y tế cộng đồng, người có nhiều năm nghiên cứu về hệ thống phòng chống dịch Việt Nam, một quốc gia có nhiều điểm tương đồng với Trung Quốc (theo ghi nhận của TS Trần Tuấn). Tiến sĩ Trần Tuấn nhận xét : ''Điểm thứ nhất chúng tôi nhận thấy là dường như hệ thống phòng chống dịch của Trung Quốc đã không được khởi động đúng của khoa học về dịch tễ học, điều tra về vụ dịch. Bằng chứng là sự can thiệp của cảnh sát đối với trường hợp bác sĩ Lý Văn Lượng. Khi các bác sĩ trao đổi chuyên môn về sự xuất hiện của một loại dịch bệnh, mang tính chất lây nhiễm tương tự như SARS, cần phải phòng chống, thì thay vì coi đấy là những đầu mối để khởi động một cuộc điều tra dịch tễ học, hình thành giả thuyết về khả năng xuất hiện của loại dịch bệnh mới hay không, để tiến hành điều tra theo các bước đã được nêu trong ngành dịch tễ học. Đọc thêm : Virus corona: Dân Trung Quốc phẫn nộ về cái chết của bác sĩ đã cảnh báo dịch bệnh Quan sát thứ hai của chúng tôi là cho đến nay thông tin toàn bộ về số mất, số chết, cũng như toàn bộ cụ thể nguồn lây, cũng như tiến trình thời gian xuất hiện hoàn toàn phụ thuộc vào báo cáo của Trung Quốc. Nhìn vào hệ thống này, chúng ta thấy là dường như các thông tin được giải phóng cho một mục tiêu làm giảm nhẹ mức độ thực tế của bệnh, hơn là đưa ra cho công luận biết mà ngăn ngừa. Bằng chứng là giải phóng thông tin ban đầu cho rằng dịch xuất phát từ một chợ hải sản, buôn bán động vật sống, rồi ngay cả khi khẳng định virus thuộc nhóm corona, thì họ cũng vẫn cho rằng đường lan truyền chỉ giới hạn từ động vật sang người, không có từ người sang người. Do đấy mức độ lây lan được coi là hạn chế rất nhiều. Điểm thứ ba là sự can thiệp của chính quyền không tuân thủ theo khoa học dịch tễ học. Bằng chứng là sau khi thực hiện việc đóng cửa chợ hải sản (ngày 01/01/2020), thì lý do của việc đóng cửa chợ cũng không nói với dân là do nghi ngờ là tâm điểm ổ dịch phát tán, mà do sửa chữa chợ. Như thế có thể nói là họ đã không khởi động hệ thống cảnh báo và xem xét vấn đề dịch bệnh. Từ đó, điều này sẽ giải thích việc khởi động bộ máy phòng chống dịch chậm, cùng với sự lúng túng của bệnh viện trong việc đáp ứng được các điều trị khi dịch nổ ra và bệnh nhân đổ dồn đến (cả trường hợp mắc bệnh và trường hợp nghi ngờ đến xét nghiệm). Và từ đó dẫn đến cái mà chúng tôi gọi là sự khủng hoảng nguồn lực y tế đáp ứng tình hình dịch''. Phương tiện hùng hậu, nhưng bộ máy xơ cứng Hiện tại chính quyền Trung Quốc tỏ ra minh bạch trong việc hàng ngày cung cấp số lượng người mới bị nhiễm và số người chết do virus COVID-19. Toàn bộ hệ thống chính quyền khẳng định dốc toàn lực vào cuộc chiến chống virus. Có một sự tương phản vô cùng lớn giữa cuộc chiến chống virus COVID-19, đầy quyết tâm, đầy khí thế của lãnh đạo Trung Quốc hiện nay, với tình trạng chậm trễ, bị động trong giai đoạn trước khi chính quyền thừa nhận dịch. Vì sao hệ thống y tế Trung Quốc đã phản ứng bị động như vậy ? Tiến sĩ Trần Tuấn giải thích: ''Hệ thống này, phòng dịch hay y tế nói chung, là thụ động, vận hành theo mục tiêu của chính quyền, vận hành theo cách mà chúng tôi gọi là vì mục tiêu ''ổn định chính trị'', hơn là mục tiêu phòng chống dịch bảo vệ sức khỏe cộng đồng. Vì thế toàn bộ tiến trình điều tra vụ dịch đã không đáp ứng được đúng theo yêu cầu thời gian, cũng như là cho kế hoạch chuẩn bị đối phó với dịch của ngành y tế Vũ Hán, bị động, bị chậm''. Trải nghiệm của bác sĩ Bành Chí Dũng (Peng Zhiyong), một bệnh viện ở Vũ Hán, về thái độ quan liêu của giới quan chức y tế trung ương, cho thấy việc thừa nhận dịch bệnh đã bị chậm đi một nhịp, vào một thời điểm bước ngoặt ngày 12/01, sau khi có trường hợp đầu tiên tử vong vì COVID-19. ''Vào ngày 12 tháng 1, cơ quan y tế trung ương đã cử một nhóm gồm ba chuyên gia đến bệnh viện Trung Nam để điều tra. Các chuyên gia nói rằng các triệu chứng lâm sàng thực sự giống với SARS, nhưng họ vẫn nói về các tiêu chuẩn chẩn đoán… Chúng tôi trả lời rằng những tiêu chuẩn đó nghiêm ngặt quá mức. Trên thực tế, theo tiêu chuẩn như vậy, rất ít người có thể được kiểm tra virus''. Cũng vào thời điểm này, một nghiên cứu dịch tễ học quốc tế đã chỉ ra mức độ lây nhiễm virus COVID-19 tại Vũ Hán có thể đã lên đến hơn 1.700 người (so với đánh giá của Trung Quốc chỉ có vài chục người). Đã phát hiện người nhiễm virus ngoài lãnh thổ Trung Quốc. Viện Pasteur Pháp, ngay từ ngày 10/01, đã chuẩn bị các bộ xét nghiệm nhanh, để chẩn đoán virus COVID-19, sẵn sàng đối phó với bệnh dịch dự đoán sẽ khó lường. Vẫn theo bác sĩ Bành Chí Dũng, chỉ cho đến ngày 18/01, các chuyên gia cấp cao của Ủy Ban Y Tế Quốc Gia khi đến Vũ Hán lần nữa mới chấp nhận sửa đổi các tiêu chí đánh giá bệnh. Số lượng bệnh nhân được chẩn đoán nhiễm virus COVID-19 tăng vọt. (''Reporter's Notebook: Life and death in a Wuhan coronavirus ICU'' / Sống chết tại khoa chăm sóc đặc biệt người nhiễm virus corona ở Vũ Hán, Straits Times, 06/02/2020). Trận dịch phơi trần ''bản chất'' chế độ Tiến sĩ Trần Tuấn nhấn mạnh đến tính chất hùng hậu về phương tiện của hệ thống y tế Trung Quốc hoàn toàn tương phản với phản ứng rất kém hiệu quả với dịch bệnh của chính hệ thống này: ''Có thể nhìn thấy các yếu tố mang tính hệ thống đặc trưng của Trung Quốc khiến cho dịch đã phát tán lan truyền, và khả năng kiểm soát dịch không được hiệu quả. Yếu tố đầu tiên chúng ta nhận thấy là Trung Quốc có một hệ thống bệnh viện trang thiết bị tốt, về tài chính hoàn toàn có khả năng kiểm soát một vụ dịch, nhưng mà hệ thống này là bị động trong việc điều tra, phòng chống. Sự bị động này là do hệ thống quản lý xã hội của Trung Quốc đã đặt mục tiêu an ninh lên trên mục tiêu sức khỏe cộng đồng. Chúng ta thấy là khi hệ thống đã vận hành mà không được ưu tiên dẫn đường bởi khoa học, mà là ưu tiên vì mục tiêu chính trị, thì phải nói rằng là tiến trình này đã xảy ra trong một thời gian dài, tạo thành một nếp làm việc quen trong hệ thống cán bộ, và như thế nó dẫn đến tình trạng mảng điều tra và khống chế dịch sẽ bị hạn chế, điều hành bởi phần chính trị nhiều hơn là các phần chuyên môn… Có thể thấy Trung Quốc thực sự có một mâu thuẫn là, hệ thống y tế, hệ thống xét nghiệm, hệ thống nghiên cứu y sinh học, phát hiện virus trong phòng thí nghiệm là mạnh. Bằng chứng là chỉ 10 ngày sau khi thông báo với WHO về virus mới, Trung Quốc đã phân lập được virus corona này. Trong phòng xét nghiệm, và về mặt khoa học cơ bản, Trung Quốc đáp ứng tốt, nhưng vận dụng cái đó cho mục tiêu sức khỏe cộng đồng thì lại yếu, vì có sự can thiệp của chính trị trong việc triển khai các hoạt động truyền thông cộng đồng, phòng chống dịch. Ở đây có thể thấy là từ đặc tính của Trung Quốc, khi luôn luôn đặt mục tiêu chính trị lên cao, chúng tôi nhận thấy báo cáo về sức khỏe cộng đồng thường rơi vào tình trạng tốt đẹp đưa ra, còn những gì là dịch bệnh, những gì có xu hướng xấu thì lại che đậy''. Về phần mình, nhà Trung Quốc học Chloé Froissart, giảng viên chính trị học (Đại học Rennes 2), nhấn mạnh đến sự tương phản cao độ giữa các thông tin về dịch bệnh lưu hành trong giới chuyên môn Trung Quốc, thông tin của chính quyền Trung Quốc với các đối tác bên ngoài và thông tin của chính quyền với người dân trong nước, người dân tại Vũ Hán. Trong lúc Bắc Kinh thông báo bệnh dịch với WHO ngay từ ngày 31/12/2019, thì tuyệt đại đa số dân chúng tại địa phương hoàn toàn không hay biết là có dịch, trước khi dịch được chính thức công bố ngày 20/01. Trong vòng nhiều ngày, chính quyền Trung Quốc đã hạn chế cung cấp thông tin về dịch bệnh virus mới, trong lúc một cuộc họp quan trọng của đảng Cộng Sản được tổ chức tại thành phố Vũ Hán. Ngày 18/01, đúng vào lúc dịch đang bùng phát, một đại tiệc mừng Tết nguyên đán đã được chính quyền tổ chức, với sự tham gia của 40.000 gia đình. Rất nhiều người đã bị nhiễm virus trong dịp này. Bộ mặt tươi đẹp của chế độ và hiểm họa virus Hệ thống y tế Trung Quốc hoàn toàn xơ cứng không đủ khả năng đối mặt với dịch bệnh mới. Thông tin cần thiết cho phát hiện dịch bị ngăn chặn từ mọi phía. Trong bối cảnh được đánh giá là hết sức nhạy cảm, với cuộc chiến thương mại với Hoa Kỳ, phong trào đòi dân chủ dâng cao tại Hồng Kông, thắng lợi vang dội của phe đòi độc lập với Trung Quốc tại Đài Loan trong bầu cử, đối với chính quyền Bắc Kinh cũng như với chính quyền địa phương các cấp, mục tiêu bảo vệ bộ mặt tươi đẹp của chế độ được đặt lên trước hết, hiểm họa virus kinh hoàng đã bị toàn bộ hệ thống chính trị Trung Quốc nhắm mắt làm ngơ, cho đến khi không còn đường lùi. Trả giá nặng nề nhất cho sự che giấu, chối bỏ, thờ ơ này trước hết là người dân Vũ Hán, người dân Hồ Bắc, mà tổn thất về nhân mạng chưa biết ra sao (việc Vũ Hán, và nhiều địa phương khác, bị cô lập đột ngột, trong tình trạng thiếu chuẩn bị, cũng bị nhiều người lên án, cho là nguyên nhân khiến tình hình dịch bệnh tại các khu vực này thêm tồi tệ hơn). Việc trở lại tìm hiểu những nguyên nhân chính nào đã dẫn đến việc Trung Quốc thất bại trong việc kiểm soát dịch ắt hẳn cũng có thể mang lại những bài học có ích cho việc nhận dạng dịch bệnh, kiềm chế dịch bệnh vốn đang diễn biến hết sức khó lường trong hiện tại. Những bài học rất có thể sẽ đặc biệt bổ ích cho các quốc gia có nhiều điểm tương đồng với chế độ Trung Quốc về hệ thống y tế, về quan hệ giữa chính quyền với y tế, như trường hợp Việt Nam.

Adam Kucharski is an assistant professor in the Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.  His research uses mathematical and statistical models to understand disease outbreaks.  In 2014, he was recruited to analyze the Ebola epidemic in West Africa.  Adam earned his PhD in applied maths at the University of Cambridge. 1.  What is it about gambling that seems to attract world-class mathematicians throughout history? 2.  What mathematical techniques have been best applied successfully to gambling? 3.  What was the genesis and evolution of Monte Carlo simulation?  What are its shortcoming? 4.  Why is poker such a good challenge for artificial intelligence? 5.  In free chess, computers-plus-human hybrids are still currently getting the best of computer-only opponents.  What are the implications for other domains like gambling and investing?

The house always wins. Or does it? Mathematician Adam Kucharski looks at the mathematics, economics and physics of gambling.

Over the last two months the Government in the Philippines has been encouraging the police to clampdown on the illegal drug trade. The new President, Rodrigo Duterte, went as far as saying that citizens could shoot and kill drug dealers who resisted arrest, and the killings of drug suspects were lawful if the police acted in self-defence. The press have been reporting numbers of how many people have been killed during the crackdown – but how much trust can we put in these figures? Lottery wins We interview Adam Kucharski, author of The Perfect Bet, to find out if maths can give you an edge to playing the lottery or gambling.

From maths hacks to poker playing bots, could there be a science to help you win big at the casino? Georgia Mills has been practising her poker face with help from Adam Kucharski... Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

From maths hacks to poker playing bots, could there be a science to help you win big at the casino? Georgia Mills has been practising her poker face with help from Adam Kucharski... Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

Mathematician and author Adam Kucharski talks about his new book The Perfect Bet: How Science and Math Are Taking the Luck Out of Gambling (Basic Books, 2016).  

Adam Kucharski, who won the 2012 Wellcome Trust Science Writing Prize, has delivered another winner in an area rife with both winners and losers. The Perfect Bet: How Science and Math Are Taking the Luck Out of Gambling (Basic Books, 2016) is a brilliant, fascinating, and sometimes slightly terrifying look at how math and science are not just conquering gambling, the algorithms that math has devised and the computerized means of implementing them are paradoxically simultaneously removing risk and creating a lot more of it. Jim Stein is an emeritus professor of mathematics at California State University, Long Beach. As has been noted, the word ’emeritus’ comes from the Latin ‘ex’ — meaning ‘out’ — and ‘meritus’ — meaning ‘ought to be’. Despite that, Jim still teaches a course a semester, either at CSULB or El Camino Community College. He is the author of L.A. Math: Romance, Crime and Mathematics in the City of Angels, Cosmic Numbers: The Numbers That Define the Universe, The Paranormal Equation, How Math Can Save Your Life, The Right Decision, and How Math Can Save the World. He responds to any and all emails addressed to jim.stein@csulb.edu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Adam Kucharski, who won the 2012 Wellcome Trust Science Writing Prize, has delivered another winner in an area rife with both winners and losers. The Perfect Bet: How Science and Math Are Taking the Luck Out of Gambling (Basic Books, 2016) is a brilliant, fascinating, and sometimes slightly terrifying look at how math and science are not just conquering gambling, the algorithms that math has devised and the computerized means of implementing them are paradoxically simultaneously removing risk and creating a lot more of it. Jim Stein is an emeritus professor of mathematics at California State University, Long Beach. As has been noted, the word ’emeritus’ comes from the Latin ‘ex’ — meaning ‘out’ — and ‘meritus’ — meaning ‘ought to be’. Despite that, Jim still teaches a course a semester, either at CSULB or El Camino Community College. He is the author of L.A. Math: Romance, Crime and Mathematics in the City of Angels, Cosmic Numbers: The Numbers That Define the Universe, The Paranormal Equation, How Math Can Save Your Life, The Right Decision, and How Math Can Save the World. He responds to any and all emails addressed to jim.stein@csulb.edu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Adam Kucharski, who won the 2012 Wellcome Trust Science Writing Prize, has delivered another winner in an area rife with both winners and losers. The Perfect Bet: How Science and Math Are Taking the Luck Out of Gambling (Basic Books, 2016) is a brilliant, fascinating, and sometimes slightly terrifying look... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Adam Kucharski, who won the 2012 Wellcome Trust Science Writing Prize, has delivered another winner in an area rife with both winners and losers. The Perfect Bet: How Science and Math Are Taking the Luck Out of Gambling (Basic Books, 2016) is a brilliant, fascinating, and sometimes slightly terrifying look at how math and science are not just conquering gambling, the algorithms that math has devised and the computerized means of implementing them are paradoxically simultaneously removing risk and creating a lot more of it. Jim Stein is an emeritus professor of mathematics at California State University, Long Beach. As has been noted, the word ’emeritus’ comes from the Latin ‘ex’ — meaning ‘out’ — and ‘meritus’ — meaning ‘ought to be’. Despite that, Jim still teaches a course a semester, either at CSULB or El Camino Community College. He is the author of L.A. Math: Romance, Crime and Mathematics in the City of Angels, Cosmic Numbers: The Numbers That Define the Universe, The Paranormal Equation, How Math Can Save Your Life, The Right Decision, and How Math Can Save the World. He responds to any and all emails addressed to jim.stein@csulb.edu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Adam Kucharski, who won the 2012 Wellcome Trust Science Writing Prize, has delivered another winner in an area rife with both winners and losers. The Perfect Bet: How Science and Math Are Taking the Luck Out of Gambling (Basic Books, 2016) is a brilliant, fascinating, and sometimes slightly terrifying look at how math and science are not just conquering gambling, the algorithms that math has devised and the computerized means of implementing them are paradoxically simultaneously removing risk and creating a lot more of it. Jim Stein is an emeritus professor of mathematics at California State University, Long Beach. As has been noted, the word ’emeritus’ comes from the Latin ‘ex’ — meaning ‘out’ — and ‘meritus’ — meaning ‘ought to be’. Despite that, Jim still teaches a course a semester, either at CSULB or El Camino Community College. He is the author of L.A. Math: Romance, Crime and Mathematics in the City of Angels, Cosmic Numbers: The Numbers That Define the Universe, The Paranormal Equation, How Math Can Save Your Life, The Right Decision, and How Math Can Save the World. He responds to any and all emails addressed to jim.stein@csulb.edu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Adam Kucharski, who won the 2012 Wellcome Trust Science Writing Prize, has delivered another winner in an area rife with both winners and losers. The Perfect Bet: How Science and Math Are Taking the Luck Out of Gambling (Basic Books, 2016) is a brilliant, fascinating, and sometimes slightly terrifying look at how math and science are not just conquering gambling, the algorithms that math has devised and the computerized means of implementing them are paradoxically simultaneously removing risk and creating a lot more of it. Jim Stein is an emeritus professor of mathematics at California State University, Long Beach. As has been noted, the word ’emeritus’ comes from the Latin ‘ex’ — meaning ‘out’ — and ‘meritus’ — meaning ‘ought to be’. Despite that, Jim still teaches a course a semester, either at CSULB or El Camino Community College. He is the author of L.A. Math: Romance, Crime and Mathematics in the City of Angels, Cosmic Numbers: The Numbers That Define the Universe, The Paranormal Equation, How Math Can Save Your Life, The Right Decision, and How Math Can Save the World. He responds to any and all emails addressed to jim.stein@csulb.edu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We’ve been out and about this month, interviewing researchers in Glasgow, Manchester and Galway for the podcast. Up first, Ben travelled to Scotland to chat with Dr Adam Kucharski from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Adam is an expert in disease modelling, and he told us how his work is helping in the fight against the ongoing Ebola outbreak. Books and films are full of end-of-the-world microbiological fiction, but can they be used to help engage the public with the fundamentals of disease research? Anand went to Manchester to speak with Professor Jo Verran, founder of the Bad Bugs Book Club. A few weeks ago, Ben attended the Society’s Irish Division Meeting in Galway. There were lots of great talks, and he got a chance to grab a few minutes with Professors Kim Lewis and Martin Cormican. Kim is Director of the Antimicrobial Discovery Center at Northeastern University, Boston, USA, while Martin is Professor of Bacteriology and a Consultant Microbiologist at NUI Galway. Both are interested in antibiotic resistance, but are coming at it from different angles… Image credit: Phalinn Ooi under CC BY 2.0

The rise and fall of an online epidemic: How studying the spread of infectious diseases suggests the global drinking craze Neknomination will fizzle out. Drinkers post videos of their exploits and nominate others to do the same – but eventually the fad will run out of steam says epidemiologist Adam Kucharski from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Plus, while politicians debate how much to tax the rich in France and the UK– we look at which countries levy the highest and the lowest rates of income tax for both the wealthy and average worker. This programme was first broadcast on the BBC World Service.