Kelly Baclija
Mr. Ippolito
AP Bio
January 7, 2020
Wu, Katherine J., and Rebecca Robbins. “As Rollout Falters, Scientists Debate New Vaccination Tactics” The New York Times, The New York Times, 4 Jan. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/health/coronavirus-vaccine-doses.html.
In “As Rollout Falters, Scientists Debate New Vaccination Tactics” by Katherine Wu and Rebecca Robbins, it is explained how scientists are wondering the question--is it the best course of action to delay second doses of the Covid-19 vaccine in the United States? Should most of the population receive half-doses instead? Britain has already decided to delay the second doses in order to distribute the partial protection that is offered by a single shot instead of two. Health officials in America have been opposed to this idea until recently when Moncef Slaoui, scientific adviser of Operation Warp Speed, supported an alternative, that is to give some Americans two half-doses of the Moderna vaccine (a full dose contains 100 micrograms of the active ingredient), as a way to get more immunity from the limited vaccine supply; he stated that in trials, those who received two half-doses produced an “identical immune response to the 100 microgram dose”. This debate has arisen from the fact that the number of Americans who received first doses was incredibly below what the administration hoped for by the end of 2020, and is even more difficult when health measures are carried into politics and many are hesitant to take the vaccine. The vaccines authorized in the US, by companies Pfizer and Moderna, are intended to be delivered in multiple doses on a strict schedule; the first shot allows the immune system to recognize a new pathogen by showing it a harmless version of the virus’s significant features. After the body has time to study these features, the second shot shows them again and helps immune cells commit it to memory and the subsequent dose should increase the potency and durability of immunity. Nonetheless, some protection is provided after the first shot, but experts are unsure how quickly it would fade; some now argue that spreading vaccines thinly across the population would save more lives than half as many individuals receiving both doses on schedule. Steven Danehy, a spokesman for Pfizer, poses an opposition; “Although partial protection from the vaccine appears to begin as early as 12 days after the first dose, two doses of the vaccine are required to provide the maximum protection against the disease, a vaccine efficacy of 95 percent”.
The topic of this article has a great impact on society because experts are ultimately looking for solutions to the urgent need for more doses for Covid-19, however, no one is settled on the best way to achieve it. Whatever is deemed to be the greatest alternative will also continue to affect our nation depending on how long it will take for things to go back to (relatively) normal and how many more deaths will occur. Furthermore, coming up with a solution for the number of doses will not solve other problems and logistical issues, against the backdrop of a weary health care system and skepticism around vaccines. Ultimately, with a disappointingly slow vaccine rollout in the United States and concerns about a new and fast-spreading variant of the coronavirus, a strategy like delaying second doses is one worth exploring.
“As Rollout Falters, Scientists Debate New Vaccination Tactics” is an incredibly well-written article. It provides many expert opinions which allow the reader to gain a robust understanding of the issue at hand; it also presents both sides of the debate and it is explained in terms of the science behind the vaccine, the behavior of society, and the statistics of the trials recorded. The information is also presented in a way that makes it easy for the audience to follow along. However, there are some improvements that can be made; for instance, although some of the actions that British officials are taking in terms of vaccination tactics are included, it could be beneficial to include some other things of what other countries that have developed a vaccine are doing as well. Ultimately, this was a well-written article, and its topic proves to be highly relevant, especially to our world today.
Willy Swenson
ReplyDeleteWu, Katherine J., and Rebecca Robbins. “As Rollout Falters, Scientists Debate New Vaccination Tactics” The New York Times, The New York Times, 4 Jan. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/health/coronavirus-vaccine-doses.html.
Baclija, Kelly. “As Rollout Falters, Scientists Debate New Vaccination Tactics.” Blogspot.com, 7 Jan. 2021, bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2021/01/as-rollout-falters-scientists-debate.html. Accessed 7 Jan. 2021.
In Kelly’s review of “As Rollout Falters, Scientists Debate New Vaccination Tactics, Kelly did an amazing job to summarize this article. It is very important, especially in this type of format, to have a comprehensive review of the article. Since the reader is not reading the review, we must rely on the author’s summary of their article to make informed decisions of our own on the topic at hand. I think Kelly did a great job at this. Secondly, I thought Kelly did a good job of keeping her tone professional and formal. In these types of review, it is important to keep a professional tone, so your claims sound less biased and more credible. While she did have a good personal tone as well, the professional tone was good for the review. Lastly, she opened the review with a great hook. She started by asking the reader a series of interesting questions that got the reader hooked on what she had to say. I myself wanted to continue reading after asking those questions to myself.
Two areas in which Kelly could improve upon is supporting evidence and personal connection. I thought Kelly’s review lacked specific evidence to substantiate her claims. For example, many of her claims were not supported by the article she read or any outside information. Although I trust Kelly not to lie in her reviews, I believe that her article can be strengthened by adding in some specific evidence. Lastly, I think that Kelly could’ve made better connections to how it impacts our lives. While she did talk about society and the country as a whole, I would have liked it if Kelly focused more on the local ecosystem, such as how it could’ve impacted our school, doctors in Bronxville, or something along those lines.
I chose this article because I did not know much about vaccines. Before reading this review, I thought vaccine distribution was running very smoothly, but I was sorely mistaken. I had a moment of realization that medicine is hard. With the entire world working on this vaccine for over a year, and finally gaining approval, there are more challenges to overcome. This problem is a logistical nightmare every step of the way, and I have gained a new found respect for anyone working to distribute these vaccines.
Hugh Duffy
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Bio
1/6/2021
Wu, Katherine J., and Rebecca Robbins. “As Rollout Falters, Scientists Debate New Vaccination Tactics” The New York Times, The New York Times, 4 Jan. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/health/coronavirus-vaccine-doses.html.
Baclija, Kelly. “As Rollout Falters, Scientists Debate New Vaccination Tactics.” Blogspot.com, 7 Jan. 2021, bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2021/01/as-rollout-falters-scientists-debate.html. Accessed 7 Jan. 2021
Kelly’s review of “As Rollout Falters, Scientists Debate New Vaccination Tactics.” was well written and highly informative. She explained the article with great detail, specifically emphasizing the important pieces of the text. One segment she commented on referred to the plan that companies will be taking in order to spread the immunity that comes with the COVID-19 vaccination. Pfizer and Moderna both have strict inoculation schedules tied to their vaccines, and they may be changing them. I think this is the most important part of the article, as the American public will want to understand exactly what is being administered to them, especially with a vaccine that the general public has already grown skeptical of. Another positive aspect of Kelly’s review was her lack of bias. She explained the situation with no external influence, and only regarded the science and official statements. This level of integrity is admirable in modern informative text.
Kelly’s review was great, however there are some aspects she could have improved. In particular, her use of evidence. While Kelly did a fantastic job in bringing the key points of the article to the reader, she only takes direct quotes from the article twice. I think her review may have benefitted from including more direct evidence. This next criticism isn’t directly about her writing, however I would’ve been impressed with a display of external research. While reading Kelly’s review, I didn’t feel as though there had been much research done on this topic outside of the article itself. I think the review may have benefitted from displaying a counter argument for a different schedule for vaccinations.
I chose this review because virology is quite interesting to me, and the title grabbed my attention. Microbiology is incredibly diverse, and viruses are never the same. The amount of work and research put into developing vaccines is colossal, and this is just one of the many things that make viruses so amazing. Kelly’s review was well written, and certainly increased my general interest in the topic. Now we must wait for the vaccine to become available to the rest of the public.