Gigi Chrappa
AP Biology C Odd
Current Events
30 October 2017
“Why Flu Vaccines Often Fail”
“Why Flu Vaccines so Often Fail.” Science Magazine, 21 Oct. 2017, www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-often-failhttp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-ohttp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-often-failften-fail.
The article I decided to read, “Why Flu Vaccines so Often Fail” was written by Jon Cohen and was recently published on Science Magazine. This article was extremely informative and explains the unreliability of flu vaccines. The article states, “The most commonly used flu shots protect no more than 60% of people who receive them; some years, effectiveness plunges to as low as 10%. Given that a bad flu season can kill 50,000 people in the United States alone, "10% to 60% protection is better than nothing,” (Cohen, 1). The article goes into depth, explaining that in a world filled with dangerous diseases and plagues, reliable cures and treatments are necessary to maintain homeostasis in our society. The article warns that much of the science behind the vaccine is actually more similar to ‘guessing’ and can be quite ineffective. It is extremely difficult for scientists to determine which stem of the virus will prevail throughout the upcoming flu season. So, when manufacturers are producing the treatment, they tend to guess which stem of the virus they must produce the most treatment for. If they guess wrong, many areas of the world will be receiving practically pointless vaccines for an illness they have little chance at catching. And in addition to this, even if the right strain is chosen, the vaccine still may be ineffectual because of potential flaws in production of the drug, and for a large number of people, the vaccine does not help to fight the flu anyways. The article states, “The influenza vaccine teaches the body to produce antibodies against the head of the virus's surface protein, hemagglutinin (HA). Those antibodies ideally prevent HA from attaching to cellular receptors, thwarting infection. But HA's head is highly mutable, which is why vaccinemakers must come up with a new formula every year.” The author even goes as far to make the claim, “It's much more complicated than we thought," Osterholm says. "I know less about influenza today than I did 10 years ago.” Obviously, having a vaccine that can prevent 60% of the population is better than not having a vaccine at all. However, in this day in age, I higher percent of accuracy would be desired. And, in addition to this, it is necessary that the drug becomes available to more people in the world. In underdeveloped countries, the risk for dying from the flu increases dramatically (due to unsterile conditions, lack of nutrients and clean water, and poor medical resources) so it is imperative that these countries receive reliable vaccines.
You might be asking, how is this relevant? Every year we prepare for flu season by getting our flu shots. And although we are lucky enough to have terrific resources (both medical and other), the odds are still quite high that we might come down with the virus anyways. But even if we do come down with the flu, the local drugstore has every kind of medication, treatment, and foods to help us recover quickly. And although I am very fortunate to have access to all of these resources, there are many areas in the world that do not have this kind of medical support and steady foundation. So, it is important that we help to promote proper health care and the distribution of vaccines for influenza (and other viruses) to less fortunate areas.
Regarding the author’s writing techniques, Cohen produced a well-developed article with a lavish amount of details. I enjoyed the layout of her writing; she began with a series of powerful statistics which demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the flu vaccine. I also enjoyed the several graphics she included in her article. She included several graphs and pie charts to demonstrate the effectivity of the flu virus. Interestingly enough, the flu virus effectivity was at an all time low in 2004 and 2014. On another note, while reading the article, I began to become confused with what the future holds for this vaccine. It was difficult to understand what his opinion was on the vaccine. Should another treatment be investigated? Should the vaccine be discontinued/reinvented if it is an economic blunder? In addition to this, it was difficult to understand what ‘call to action’ she had for the readers. To fix this, I would recommend that the author clearly states his opinion in a thesis (in an introductory paragraph or somewhere else in the essay) or, overall, provide more evidence supporting his opinion. Overall, the article was a great read and extremely informative. In addition to this, the author only briefly touched on why the virus actually does fail. The majority of the article focussed on the failure of the drug not why it actually fails. I found this to be slightly misleading as the title of the article is 'Why Flu Vaccines Often Fail". In the end, however, the provided me with knowledge about the flu virus and it explains how scientific factors play into the effectivity of the vaccine.
Peyton Kinon
ReplyDeleteAP Bio
Current Event Comment #5
10/29/17
Citation:
“Why Flu Vaccines so Often Fail.” Science Magazine, 21 Oct. 2017,
Hyperlink:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-often-fail
Gigi’s current event was very well written. She did a good job using statistics to make it easy to understand how unreliable the flu vaccine could be. I knew that they a few people could get sick even after they got the vaccine, but I never knew that anywhere from 40 to 90 percent of the people who got the vaccination could still get sick. She also does a good job with explaining why it can be so ineffective, saying that scientists have to guess what strain of the flu virus is going to affect most people, so they might not always get the vaccine right. Also, she does a good job explaining how flu vaccines work and using complicated language like hemagglutinin, mutated heads, and cellular receptors in a way which explains what they are and shows what they do.
There were very few things which she needed to improve on in her current event. Once, in her analysis paragraph, she includes two sentences about how she liked the authors use of graphics in his article. She only really needed one to describe this and it interrupted the flow of the paragraph and was a little redundant. A couple times at the end of her first paragraph, there are a couple of spelling mistakes. For example, she says “I” instead of “a” and she says “for” instead of “of”.
I learned how ineffective flu vaccines could be. I knew they could be a little ineffective but I never knew that they could help as few as 10% of people who get it. I chose this current event because it is flu season and my family and I are going to get flu shots soon. This article will change my perception by learning more about the flu and how dangerous it can be in impoverished countries where vaccines are less common and more people can die from the flu and how I could possibly try to help.
Amanda Shkreli
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Current Event Review #6
October 29, 2017
“Why Flu Vaccines Often Fail”
“Why Flu Vaccines so Often Fail.” Science Magazine, 21 Oct. 2017, www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-often-failhttp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-ohttp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-often-failften-fail.
Gigi Chrappa’s review of “Why Flu Vaccines Often Fail” summarizes the unreliability of flu vaccines. In this review, Chrappa includes three aspects that make her review well written. Firstly, Chrappa explains what the influenza vaccine does to protect you from the virus. Chrappa includes an excellent quote from the author that states, “The influenza vaccine teaches the body to produce antibodies against the head of the virus's surface protein, hemagglutinin (HA). Those antibodies ideally prevent HA from attaching to cellular receptors, thwarting infection. But HA's head is highly mutable, which is why vaccine makers must come up with a new formula every year.” By selecting this quote from the article, Chrappa helps the reader understand how the vaccine works, and how it prevents influenza from inhabiting inside someone. Secondly, Chrappa explains how the vaccine doesn’t work one hundred percent of the time. She explains that much of the science related to the vaccine is very similar to guessing, and can be ineffective. It is extremely difficult for scientists to predict which stem of the influenza virus will prevail throughout the flu season. Therefore, when manufacturers are producing the treatment, they often guess which stem of the virus they must produce the most treatment for. Chrappa stresses that if the manufactures guess incorrectly, places in the world will receive useless vaccinations. Even if the correct strain is chosen, it is also likely that the vaccine will be ineffective given potential flaws in production of the drug. By including this information about how manufacturers essentially guess which stem of the vaccine to use, Chrappa strengthens her argument regarding the effectiveness of a influenza vaccine. Lastly, Chrappa includes other ways humans are able to recover from influenza, as drugstores carry medicines and other treatments. However, she also acknowledges not all people have have access to these privileges. She explains that it is important for people in a society to help promote proper health care and the distribution of vaccines for influenza to less fortunate areas.
Though Chrappa’s review is well written, there are certain areas where there is room for improvement. For example, in order for the reader to have a better understanding of what the influenza virus is, I think that she should include more information about what the influenza virus is. One way to improve her explanation is by discussing the different types of stems, and how they attack the body differently. Another area where there is room for improvement is in the first paragraph. While explaining that the vaccine is only 60% effective, Chrappa includes a typo in one of her sentences. By including a typo, it can make a review appear to be less professional. Chrappa states, “However, in this day in age, I higher percent of accuracy would be desired” (Chrappa, 1). This typo could easily be fixed by replacing ‘I’ with ‘a,’ making the sentence say, “However, in this day in age, a higher percent of accuracy would be desired.”
As a result of reading this review, I now know the explanation for 40% of a time a vaccine for influenza is not effective. This information was very surprising to me because I have grown up thinking that vaccines work a hundred percent of the time. The reason why I chose this article is because as flu season is on its way, an article about why a vaccine for the virus is ineffective seemed very interesting to me. This article has changed my perception of vaccinations entirely, and has left me wondering about how many other viruses have partially ineffective vaccines.
Susie Goodell
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
11/7/17
“Why Flu Vaccines so Often Fail.” Science Magazine, 21 Oct. 2017, www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-often-failhttp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-ohttp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-often-failften-fail.
Current Event 7
For this current event, I decided to read my classmate Gigi’s review of the article “Why Flu Vaccines So Often Fail” by Jon Cohen of Science Magazine. This article discusses how flu shots sometimes fail to protect the person from the virus because there is guessing involved in the creation of the cure. Scientists do not know which stem of the virus will prevail each flu season, so they must guess when making the virus. Gigi used quotes in her summary, which helped strengthen her claims and provide readers with statistics to prove the deficiency of flu shots. She also did a great job analyzing the article and explaining what the author did well and how he could fix his piece. She spent time going over each part of the article and how she believes it could be improved. Gigi also had a wonderful summary of the article that was easy to understand and provided good information on the topic for the readers to help them grasp the concepts.
Despite the great aspects of this article, there are a few things that she could improve. First, she could add more to the paragraph in which she discusses the importance of the topic. She states that there are many areas of the world do not have access to good medical supplies, but she doesn’t really relate it to the efficiency of the drug and the improvements that need to occur. She also could have written more about how the shot fails and what scientists could do to raise the percent of efficiency. Readers understand that manufacturers have to guess which stem of the virus will be the most prominent, so it is understandable that there will be errors, but there is no explanation as to a solution or a way to make the percent of efficiency higher.
I chose to read this review because the topic is very interesting. It’s flu season now so everyone is getting their shots, but there is still a high chance that they will get the flu. This problem is so relatable because we all go through this process and if you talk about flu shots, there will definitely be someone who has gotten one, but still had the flu. This is a large problem for our world because, as Gigi states in her review, even if the correct strain is chosen, there could still be problems in the production so an even smaller percentage of the population will actually be protected from the virus.
Ava Austi
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Current Event #7
11/6/17
“Why Flu Vaccines so Often Fail.” Science Magazine, 21 Oct. 2017, www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-often-failhttp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-ohttp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-often-failften-fail.
Gigi wrote a great review based off the article “Why Flu Vaccines so Often Fail” by Jon Cohen from Science Magazine. This article discusses the unreliability of flu vaccines. Throughout the review of the article, there were many aspects that Gigi did well in order to write a great review. Firstly, Gigi did an excellent job of providing a detailed summary for the reader. She explains exactly what the influenza vaccine does to protect you from the virus, which helps the reader understand how the vaccine works, and how it prevents influenza from inhibiting inside someone. This allowed me as the audience to fully understand what Gigi’s article was about without any confusion. Also, Gigi did a great job of introducing and incorporating quotes from her article. For example, she includes a quote from the article that states, “The influenza vaccine teaches the body to produce antibodies against the head of the virus's surface protein, hemagglutinin (HA). Those antibodies ideally prevent HA from attaching to cellular receptors, thwarting infection. But HA's head is highly mutable, which is why vaccine makers must come up with a new formula every year.” Lastly, Gigi did a great job of analyzing the article. She went through each part of the article explaining what she believed the article succeeded in and what can be fixed. Gigi successfully wrote a clear and interesting review of the article she read.
Although Gigi presented a great review of the article, there were some aspects where she could have improved. First, Gigi could have added more to the paragraph where she discusses the importance of the topic. She says that there are many areas of the world that do not have access to superior medical supplies, but she does not relate it to the efficiency of the drug and the improvements that need to happen. Also, Gigi could have read over her review to check for grammar and spelling errors. There were a few typos amongst the review which distracted me as a reader. These issues are both easy to fix in order to make Gigi’s review even better. Even though there were some parts of the review that Gigi could have improved, I think she wrote a great review of the article.
I thought Gigi did a great job in writing her review and I really enjoyed reading it. I chose this article because every year I get my own influenza shot and I have never gotten the flu. I wanted to learn why sometimes the vaccine is not successful. I find it very interesting that the common flu shots protect no more than 60% of people who receive them. After reading Gigi’s review, my perception of the vaccine has changed and I want to learn more about this topic. Overall, I think Gigi successfully wrote a clear and detailed review of her article.
Sarah Goodell
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Bio: Current Event Comment
5 November, 2017
Current Event #7
Cohen, Jon, “Why Flu Vaccines so Often Fail.” Science Magazine, 21 Oct. 2017, www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-often-failhttp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-ohttp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-often-failften-fail.
This week, I read Gigi’s reflection on the article titled “Why Flu Vaccines so Often Fail” by Jon Cohen from Science Magazine. Throughout Gigi’s review, she includes three aspects that make it exceptional. First off, Gigi did a great job using quotes directly from the article and from trusted sources within the original article, which served to establish her credibility as an author. Secondly, she provided her audience with an understandable discussion about why the flu sometimes fails and did not merely repeat the original article back to us. In doing so, Gigi was able to engage her audience and make the article easier to understand. Finally, at the end, Gigi wrote a critique of the author and his article, which allowed her audience to be more informed about the article as a whole before reading it.
Despite having a cohesive and thoughtful response, Gigi’s review lacked in two specific areas. In the beginning, Gigi could have provided her audience with more background on the flu virus in case her readers are unfamiliar with the sickness itself. By doing so, she would have informed her audience better before diving into the discussion about flu vaccines and why they often fail. Secondly, the paragraph when she writes about the importance of this article does not fully connect to the topic at hand. Although she does discuss the flu and how that is relevant to most everyone, she does not detail exactly why understanding if the vaccines fail is crucial in our lives. If she had addressed this, she could have stayed more on topic and would have left her readers with fewer questions.
This topic is relevant to our society because the flu virus is something that affects all of us. Therefore, it is important for us to understand that there is a high chance that we could still get the flu even if we have gotten the flu shot. It is critical to note that nothing can fully protect us from the magnitude of germs in the world and how easily and how quickly they can spread from person to person. I chose Gigi’s article because I have always been curious as to how some unlucky people get the flu even after getting the vaccine, but Gigi’s review has helped me understand why this is the case.
Mairead Cain
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
A.P. Biology E/F
6 November 2017
“Why Flu Vaccines so Often Fail.” Science Magazine, 21 Oct. 2017, www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-often-failhttp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-ohttp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-often-failften-fail
Gigi Chrappa did a very nice job with her current event review on the article “Why Flu Vaccines so Often Fail,” from the Science Magazine. I decided to review her report as my flu vaccines often fail and I constantly find myself getting sick despite the precautions I took. There are many good techniques she uses throughout her report. One example is when she explains why, exactly, the flu vaccine does not work on countless people. Gigi explains that when scientists create the new vaccine each year, most of the research behind it is guess work. Her focus on this factor of the original report is important as it provides background information to help the reader understand the topic at hand. Another aspect of Gigi’s writing that was done rather well was when she included statistical information concerning the amount of people who do not get any benefits from receiving the flu vaccination. This input of information further aids the reader in understanding how to flu vaccination is usually hit or miss. Lastly, I appreciated how Gigi discussed the problems that countless people across the world experience when the get the flu and how they do not have the resources to treat their illness. She explained that people from the less fortunate areas of the world are more likely to suffer severely from the flu as they cannot treat themselves.
Overall, Gigi’s report was extremely interesting and informative, however there are some details that she could tweak and add to make the current event report even that much better. I recommend that she explains how researchers plan on advancing the vaccines by making them more reliant. It would have been beneficial for her to go into some detail about this part of the current event as it would have given readers up to date information and how the future of flu vaccinations could change. Also, she could have given more information concerning the sources the article is taking information from. This would have given readers a further insight on the background of the research in discussion.
Gigi’s report was very informative and I learned extensively about how unreliable flu vaccinations are and how this factor affects countless people across the world. Before reading the report, I had a weak understanding about how many people are being deeply affected by the unreliable flu vaccination. Countless people across the world are negatively affected by the deadly flu disease, and it extremely important that proper resources are given to all who are not positively affected by the flu vaccination.
Cory Ramundo
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
7 November 2017
“Why Flu Vaccines so Often Fail.” Science Magazine, 21 Oct. 2017, www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-often-failhttp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-ohttp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-often-failften-fail
This week, I read Gigi Charapa’s review on “Why Flu Vaccines so Often Fail.” In this well-written review, she does many good things. First off, Gigi adds many quotations from the original article. By quoting, “‘The most commonly used flu shots protect no more than 60% of people who receive them; some years, effectiveness plunges to as low as 10%. Given that a bad flu season can kill 50,000 people in the United States alone, "10% to 60% protection is better than nothing,’” it gives the reader a sense of credibility and makes them more inclined to believe that what you are saying is factual. By doing this, she establishes that what she is saying is true, and giving quotes creates a stronger trust between the reader and the author. Gigi also goes into a great deal of depth regarding what the author did well and what he did not so well. This is important, because she is not only restating the article, but she adds another dimension to it by giving a well rounded review on the author and his techniques. Lastly Gigi does a good job at going into depth about why the vaccine is unreliable. Not only does she give quotes from the article, but through her analyzation of it by stating, “the article warns that much of the science behind the vaccine is actually more similar to ‘guessing’ and can be quite ineffective. It is extremely difficult for scientists to determine which stem of the virus will prevail throughout the upcoming flu season,” she gives background to why it is ineffective. This gives the reader an overall better understanding of the article through this explanation.
Although Gig does many good things in her article, there were a couple of areas that needed improvement. Her paragraph that discusses the relevance of the topic is a bit unrelated. The article is discussing the ineffectiveness of vaccines, but she somehow turns this into other medicines that are available to only certain people. It seemed that it was a bit of a reach and another possible example could have been used. Furthermore, there were some grammatical and spelling errors in her review that were careless mistakes. This could have been avoided if it were reread over, and some of these mistakes took away from the main idea she was trying to convey
Gigi’s article was extremely informative and really made me aware of how ineffective vaccines are. I previously believed that they worked well and hence the reason we get them. This is eye opening because it shows that we should not think we are immune to certain illnesses just because we received the vaccine. We should still be safe and take other methods to ensure that we do not get these sicknesses, and be aware that just because you received the vaccine does not mean you could still potentially receive the sickness.
David Weild
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Bio: Current Event Comment
7 November, 2017
Current Event #7
Cohen, Jon, “Why Flu Vaccines so Often Fail.” Science Magazine, 21 Oct. 2017, www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-often-failhttp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-ohttp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-often-failften-fail.
I read Gigi’s review of “Why Flu Vaccines so Often Fail,” by Jon Cohen from Science Magazine. Gigi does three things very well. For example, Gigi uses quotes directly from the article which allows the reader a deeper understanding of the article. Along with this, Gigi does a nice job establishing a good background of the article. Thus, the reader is informed with every main detail of the article that is most important. Lastly, Gigi writes a quality critique of the author and his article allowing the reader to have a view from another person about what was done well and what needed improvement in the article.
Overall Gigi did a great job but there are two things I would suggest to make her writing better. One, Gigi could add more to the importance paragraph because she states how many areas need medical supplies; she does not relate it to the efficiency of the drug and the improvements that need to happen for the drug to function better in people. Secondly, I found that a few typos got in the way of reading this review. I would suggest that Gigi review her writing before publishing it. If Gigi can fix these minor problems, I think her writing would be exceptional.
This is a very relevant article because most every kid receives a flu shot in the U.S.. It is important for us who receive this medication to understand the possibility that we still may get the flu even after the shot. It is interesting and scary that in this world, nothing can protect us from all germs. I chose Gigi’s article because I was not aware of people getting the flu, even after getting the vaccine but Gigi’s review has helped me understand why this is the case.
Caroline McGrath
ReplyDelete1/30/20
Current Event 15
https://bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2017/10/why-flu-vaccines-often-fail.html
“Why Flu Vaccines so Often Fail.” Science Magazine, 21 Oct. 2017,
www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-often-failhttp://www.sciencema
g.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-ohttp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/why-flu-vaccines-so-often-failften-fail.
I thought the review was very well written, it was straightforward and to the point, allowing for easy interpretation, without making the review seem choppy. She also does a good job of explaining how and why scientists guess when making the vaccine for the year, saying “. It is extremely difficult for scientists to determine which stem of the virus will prevail throughout the upcoming flu season. So, when manufacturers are producing the treatment, they tend to guess which stem of the virus they must produce the most treatment for.”. Another good thing the author did was pointed out the effectiveness of the statistics taken which added to the reliability of the article.
In order to improve her review, I would suggest expanding on the summary more so that the reader gets the full picture behind the science and research done for these vaccines. For instance, I think it would be important to explain how scientists can make the assumptions on why the vaccine they made is thought to be preventing the years strand. I also think her grammar could be improved as she frequently say “I” instead of “a” and “for” instead of “of”.
I think this is very important, especially in today’s society. The flu has been devastating for so many years and this article does a good job of explaining why vaccines never seem to be very good. I learned through this article that the flu vaccine is mostly a guess and very rarely dependent on the actual strand.