It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The price of anarchy: How contagion spreads

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 06:57 PM

During infectious disease outbreaks, personal freedom comes at a price: the welfare of the public as a whole, a new study finds.

Very interesting find on the MSM... well, FOXnews anyway. In an actual outbreak, quarantine measures would have to be enforced... but, what if the "outbreak" is just a way to effectively impose martial law? Just a thought... with this rogue government, one never really knows what they are really up to...

In the research, scientists investigated whether, in the event of an outbreak, people should be allowed to move about freely or if authorities should enforce travel restrictions to halt the disease's spread. "What we were trying to understand better is how actions, in terms of routing humans, could affect the spread of disease," said study researcher Ruben Juanes, a geoscientist at MIT in Cambridge, Mass. [The 5 Most Likely Real-Life Contagions] The findings suggest that highly connected regions of dense commuter traffic carry the gravest consequences of allowing free movement.

The researchers borrowed a concept from game theory known as the "price of anarchy," which they defined as "the loss of welfare due to selfish rerouting compared with the policy-driven coordination."

Not all areas would benefit equally from such restrictions, the findings showed. Places that had high traffic both within and among counties saw the most benefit from restricting travel. For example, counties near a major interstate highway, such as I-80 from New York to San Francisco or I-95 from the Canadian border to Miami, had a higher cost of anarchy — meaning travel restrictions would be helpful. By contrast, low traffic areas did not benefit much from travel restrictions, so their cost of anarchy was lower, the model showed.

So, basically if you live in an area with high population density, you can expect to be stuck there for awhile... those of us in more rural areas could generally expect to see less stringent enforcement...

I know a lot of us have "bug out" plans... if you live in an area with high population density, shelter in place may be the only option...


posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 07:01 PM
Firepower keeps people honest in ANY environment.But just remember shots are precious a thirty round magazine goes away fast and unless you have a trunk of ammo with you at the time blasting away is always a stupid idea.
Learn to aim under pressure,don't be an ass and we will be fine what ever happens.

posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 10:38 PM
that's why preppers like to stay in rural areas

posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 10:44 PM
Well, if there was a pandemic than all places of business in the area would be forced to close, including grocery stores. People have to understand this and stock up on at least a months worth of food for the family. The side effects of a pandemic can be five times worse than the pandemic itself.

posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 11:00 PM
Maybe I'm just not getting something here, but isn't this pretty much already known as well as being just common sense too???

I mean if you have a contagious disease transmitted person to person, then it would seem like common sense that the more people traveled around the more it would spread. While at the same time, restricting their travel would keep the spread of disease to a slower pace. Or did I miss something??? I'm not seeing the big discovery here...

Actually, if you want to see this theory put into action, check out the game Pandemic 2 where your goal is to infect and kill off the entire population of the world.

new topics

top topics

log in