How Come this does Not Give Rise to an Epidemic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WWGD
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rise
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the question of why the behavior of individuals rummaging through trash does not lead to an epidemic, despite the apparent risks associated with such activities. Participants explore various biological and epidemiological factors that could influence the spread of disease in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the conditions observed among dumpster divers could suggest a "perfect storm" for an epidemic, questioning why this has not occurred.
  • Another participant argues that while disease rates may be higher among those who forage through dumpsters, these communities are relatively isolated, reducing the likelihood of widespread transmission.
  • Some participants suggest that the most common infections from dumpster diving would be bacterial or fungal, which are typically treatable and not likely to cause an epidemic.
  • Concerns are raised about the transmission of more serious diseases, such as HIV or hepatitis C, which are blood-borne and not easily spread through casual contact.
  • One participant emphasizes that epidemics require highly infectious agents, suggesting that most trash does not contain such pathogens, or else epidemics would be more common globally.
  • There is a reiteration that the area around dumpsters is not designated as hazardous, implying that airborne transmission or direct contact does not pose a significant risk to the general population.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the potential for epidemics arising from dumpster diving. While some agree on the low likelihood of such occurrences due to the nature of the pathogens involved, others raise concerns about the health risks associated with these activities. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the overall risk of epidemics in this context.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference definitions and modes of transmission from epidemiological literature, indicating that their arguments depend on specific assumptions about disease characteristics and transmission dynamics. There is an acknowledgment of the complexity surrounding the health implications of dumpster diving.

WWGD
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
7,806
Reaction score
13,126
And of course, I am glad it doesn't (hasn't yet?) .

Hi All,
I see daily people going through trash cans looking for recyclables. These people do not wear gloves, and their hands go through all sorts of trash, including food leftovers. I imagine at some point they may rub their faces with their hands, and they may come into physical contact with many others in many different ways. In my very rudimentary knowledge of Biology and Epidemiology , this seems to provide " perfect storm " conditions for an epidemic. Now, I have seen this going on for years. Why isn't this creating an epidemic?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
I'm sure the disease rates of people that forage through dumpsters frequently, and homeless people living in the street and makeshift shantytowns is significantly higher than other human communities.

But there's a couple things. First, these communities in the large scale picture are relatively rare, and most importantly, isolated, meaning that it is relatively rare that a homeless person goes up and gives a man in a suit a big bearhug or even shakes his hand (without first washing up at least.)

Even if this did happen, the most common infections from ravishing through dumpsters I would guess would be bacteriological or fungal, and these are easily treated with mainstream medications, they are not going to cause an epidemic.

More serious diseases such as HIV or hepatitus C are blood borne diseases and are typically not going to be transmitted through even heavy casual contact.

Finally, any other more highly communicable disease outbreak in a homeless population would likely be immediately identified (in the US/developed countries at least) and quarantined until the outbreak was under control.

The real danger of an epidemic comes not from an indigenous homeless population, but rather the introduction of a pathogen from some foreign source where the indigenous population has no natural immunity.

Case in point, Ebola, which has been all over the news lately. We definitely don't want that coming into the USA. Another dangerous one is bird flu, we don't want that one either.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Epidemic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemic

Endemic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemic_(epidemiology )

Reading those, especially the modes of transmission of disease, and the endemic steady state equation, dumpster diving would probably not result in a disease of epidemic proportions. Granted, someone may have a "better" chance of becoming ill if in close direct contact with a disease causing biological agent from a dumpster. But then again, the area around dumpsters is not designated as being hazardous to the general population health, otherwise airborne transmission, for one method, would be a cause of concern for passersby, or direct contact, as another method, for regular users of the dumpster.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WWGD said:
And of course, I am glad it doesn't (hasn't yet?) .

Hi All,
I see daily people going through trash cans looking for recyclables. These people do not wear gloves, and their hands go through all sorts of trash, including food leftovers. I imagine at some point they may rub their faces with their hands, and they may come into physical contact with many others in many different ways. In my very rudimentary knowledge of Biology and Epidemiology , this seems to provide " perfect storm " conditions for an epidemic. Now, I have seen this going on for years. Why isn't this creating an epidemic?

Epidemics usually require one thing above all else: a highly infectious, disease-causing agent. If the people in the town were dumping trash teeming with cholera into the dumpsters, I would say you would soon get an epidemic of cholera. Although it is dirty and smelly, most trash does not harbor deadly communicable disease, otherwise the entire planet would be facing epidemics constantly.

After all, do you handle the trash in your home with gloves and exposure suits? Are your trash cans hermetically sealed to prevent infectious agents from being released in your home?
 
SteamKing said:
Epidemics usually require one thing above all else: a highly infectious, disease-causing agent. If the people in the town were dumping trash teeming with cholera into the dumpsters, I would say you would soon get an epidemic of cholera. Although it is dirty and smelly, most trash does not harbor deadly communicable disease, otherwise the entire planet would be facing epidemics constantly.

After all, do you handle the trash in your home with gloves and exposure suits? Are your trash cans hermetically sealed to prevent infectious agents from being released in your home?


Well, no, I don't use gloves, but I don't put my hands through the trash, neither with, nor without gloves, unlike many homeless people, who do so daily. And I don't have rats roaming through my trash, unlike it often happens with city trash cans. Still, I get your points; thanks all for your answers.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
81
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 161 ·
6
Replies
161
Views
15K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K