Check out Google's FluTrends: google.org/flutrends
This contrasts with the Intermountain Healthcare version, which relies on hard data from clinical laboratory tests (like the ones I perform) on real patient samples to determine which viruses are present. While it is incredibly accurate, it does take more than a single day to get the data online. It also is limited to the areas served by Intermountain Healthcare. Unlike Google Inc., however, This site shows the spread of individual respiratory viruses, pertussis, enteric parasites like giardia and cryptosporidium, enteric viruses, and other gastrointestinal pathogens.Check out IHC's GermWatch: intermountain.net/portal/site/mdvsi/
I guess I just think it is cool because I've always had a secret fascination with infectious disease. Maybe it will be as interesting for you as it is for me.
Perhaps it is odd to ask, but does anyone have any thoughts on what makes one better than the other?
3 Comments:
Unfortunately, they're both interesting, but useless.
It's kind of like asking whether I'd rather get a subscription to the Salt Lake Tribune or USA Today. One is not relevant to me because of geography, and the other because of superficiality.
This might have the potential to be cool.
darn.
I pretty much agree with you. All three are interesting, but what good do they actually serve? Who are their target audiences? And why are these audiences so interested?
Post a Comment