Casey McKhann
Mr. Ippolito
January 19th, 2020
AP Biology/ Current Event 11
Kai Kupferschmidt. "New coronavirus variants could cause more reinfections, require updated
vaccines." Science | AAAS, 15 Jan. 2021, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/new-coronavirus-variants-could-cause-more-reinfections-require-updated-vaccines.
Kai Kupferschmidt’s informative and engaging article "New coronavirus variants could cause more reinfections, require updated vaccines” informs the reader about groundbreaking studies and the concerns that have arisen regarding variations of the COVID-19 virus. The article discusses that new strains could bypass antibodies, and reinfect individuals who should be immune. The author cites an incident in Manaus, Brazil as an example of the situation in which a new variant could be leading to rising rates of infectivity. However, the rising number of infections could also just be a result of waning immunity among past carriers. The additional variable of the new variations makes researching the issue much more difficult. Additionally, there are a seemingly endless number of new variations of the virus appearing all across the globe, greatly increasing the difficulty of scientific research as each individual strain of the virus needs to be investigated. The uncertainty and fear arises when scientists ponder about the ability of the current vaccines to prevent additional mutations of the virus from infecting the human body. While currently, it is believed that variations do not bypass the current vaccine, it is not certain that this is true.
This article is very important to modern society. While it appears that as a society we are nearing the end of this hellish pandemic, these variants present the potential to set our society back to floor 1. This could mean an additional long quarantine period before scientists figure out solutions to these variations. While it does not seem like that is necessary at the moment, it is still a possibility that all individuals would like to avoid. The article should also hopefully raise people's awareness about the virus, especially those who have already suffered from it. It is important that individuals realize that they are not safe just because they have been infected before.
The article as a whole was extremely informative and lacked many weaknesses. It presented the information very clearly and did a good job presenting solely facts to the reader. It served as an important warning to the reader about potential arising dangers. I think that is important for everyone to read this article because of the information it shares. However, I do believe that the subtopics led to the article becoming slow and boring at times and felt that natural transitions would have been better for the flow of the article. Apart from this one issue, I believe that it was incredibly well written.
Nate Kim
ReplyDeleteAP Bio, Mr. Ippolito
2/2/21
Current Event 12
Kai Kupferschmidt. "New coronavirus variants could cause more reinfections, require updated
vaccines." Science | AAAS, 15 Jan. 2021, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/new-coronavirus-variants-could-cause-more-reinfections-require-updated-vaccines.
McKhann, Casey. “New coronavirus variants could cause more reinfections, require updated
Vaccines." Blogspot.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Feb. 2021.
Casey’s deep dive into ""New coronavirus variants could cause more reinfections, require updated vaccines" is a brilliant display of analytical genius that is able to properly inform his audience on the topic of the coronavirus and the vaccines made to stop it. Casey does a great job of weaving in his own personal commentary in the intro paragraph where he gives a summary of the article. As a result, there is great flow between ideas and the summary becomes more cohesive as a result. I loved the way Casey gave clear reasons as to why he chose this article. It really gives us great insight into his thoughts and creates a connection with the audience that makes him seem more trustworthy and reliable. Lastly, I liked his connections and extrapolation of ideas. Casey does not just regurgitate the ideas from the article. He adds to them with original and unique thoughts of his own.
Although I really enjoyed reading Casey’s analysis, I believe that there are places that could be improved. Firstly, Casey did not use any quotes in his review. Quotes would have aided his credibility, as they are claims directly from the source. Casey could have discussed the different aspects of the new mutations in more detail. As readers, we are only given a taste of what new mutations have surfaced. Casey mentions the Brazilian mutation, but says nothing about some of the other prevalent mutations, such as the British mutation. This is easily remedied by simply talking about the dangers of the newer strains.
Casey’s review was informative and interesting to read. Personally, I learned a lot about the new strains of the coronavirus and the new problems they present to researchers and the general public. The importance of Casey’s article is astronomical during these times; bringing the issue of new strains to light is something that needs to be more widespread. Still, there are people in America who refuse to wear their masks and/or don’t believe that the virus is real. It’s real, alright, and extremely dangerous.
Willy Swenson
ReplyDeleteAP Bio, Mr. Ippolito
2/2/21
Current Event 12
McKhann, Casey. “Casey McKhann New Coronavirus Variants Could Cause More Reinfections, Require Updated Vaccines.” Blogspot.com, 3 Feb. 2021, bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2021/01/casey-mckhann-new-coronavirus-variants.html#comment-form. Accessed 3 Feb. 2021.
Kai Kupferschmidt. "New coronavirus variants could cause more reinfections, require updated
vaccines." Science | AAAS, 15 Jan. 2021, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/new-coronavirus-variants-could-cause-more-reinfections-require-updated-vaccines.
Casey’s review of “New Coronavirus variants could cause more reinfections, require updated vaccines” was a very complete one. One of the strengths of the review was the full summarization of the article. Casey’s complete summary kept the reader informed on the topic he was writing about and was essential to understanding the review as a whole. Without his strong summary of the article, the reader would have trouble understanding Casey’s perspective on the topic at hand and making their own conclusions about it. As well as this, Casey did a great job intertwining his own opinions of the topic into the article. Using background information about Casey’s expertise in the subject, he is very well informed about the medical field of the virus, and as a result has great insight into the topic. Finally, another strength of the review was that Casey had a great tone during the review. It was professional, yet creative and well received.
Despite the many strengths of this review, there were areas of improvement for Casey in this review. While Casey’s summary of the article was on point, it is important to note that he did not include quotations from the article. While I clearly understood his points, it is always important to include quotations/direct evidence from credible sources to anchor opinions in logic. This aspect of the review could easily be improved by adding 1-2 quotes in support of his claims or during his summary. While reading, I noticed that Casey was very broadly describing the mutations. After reading the original article for myself, it mentions more than what Casey had talked about. I think it is important to include all information in the review to give the reader the opportunity to make connections for themselves.
In total, the review was very comprehensive and I really enjoyed reading about Casey’s point of view on the topic. I had heard about the new strains entering the US, so it was interesting to read more about this fascinating topic. It is always important to bring awareness to the new strains of COVID and to always remain vigilant during these trying times.