It's extremely rare, just barely at the level where epidemiology can inform decisions, which is the point of the linked article. Reporting is spotty and they're trying to get doctors educated.
It's extremely rare, just barely at the level where epidemiology can inform decisions, which is the point of the linked article. Reporting is spotty and they're trying to get doctors educated.
Including several degrees of separation allows one to find matches much more readily.
Perhaps you've played six degrees of Kevin Bacon?
So you've got less than 30 people in this thread accounting for let's call it 60,000 second degree connections in a world with 7,700,000,000 people and less than 300 people world-wide with the illness.
I don't know, even with birthday paradox stuff it still seems pretty unlikely to me. Even if we say half the population are losers with no friends and should be excluded from the calculation and therefore bump that 45 figure to 90, 90^2*30 is still a mere 243,000. If you knock it up to three degrees of separation with 90 first degree connections per person, then for 30 people you're passed 21 million which is getting somewhere I guess.
The numbers in the Kevin Bacon game grow very fast, but they still start out relatively small. And two degrees is relatively small.
45 is probably much too low.
Your model there doesn't take into account any clustering which is really important.
You want to think of a higher number of first degree connections (higher average node degree), but where there's a large overlap in the second degree connections each first degree connection provides (so you can't just do N^6).