Julia Reich
Mr. Ippolito
AP Biology C even
4/8/21
Link to article:
Saey, Tina Hesman. “Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccines May Reduce Coronavirus
Transmission.” Science News, 30 Mar. 2021, www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-vaccine-moderna-pfizer-transmission-disease.
Tina Hesman Saey covers the U.S used vaccines against COVID-19 and their ability to block infection as well as disease. Millions of people are terrified of the potential for a fourth surge in the U.S due to variants and lifting of mask/social distancing mandates. However, Jeff Burgess, associate dean for research at the Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health at the University of Arizona in Tucson has recently proven that they, “‘clearly showed in our study that if you were at least 14 days out from your first shot, you had 80 percent protection’ from infection.”’ Their study concentrates on the evidence which suggests that vaccines may not only just reduce the risk of getting seriously ill, but also can prevent catching the virus initially. ‘““If you can’t get infected, you can’t infect anyone else, which means the vaccines can reduce transmission as well as the disease,’ says Marm Kilpatrick, an infectious diseases researcher at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who was not involved in the study.” According to a Texas report, 234 of 8.969 (2.61%) unvaccinated employees tested positive from December 15 to January 28. For those with one shot, the numbers were 112 of 6,144 (1.82%). For fully vaccinated employees, there was a 0.05% of those who tested positive (4 of 8,121). These are data which begin to prove that vaccines are working, and the nation needs younger people to sign up as soon as possible. Vaccines, social distancing, and masks are the keys to getting through this pandemic.
I chose to read this article as the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are highly spoken about today. The vaccines (globally as well) are all so new and testing may not be 100% accurate, which may cause doubt in people. However, the data shown in Saey’s article begins to prove that the vaccines are nearly 100% effective. Even if you do contract the virus, the likelihood that you will end up in the hospital is low, and that is what the vaccine’s goal is. It works similarly to the flu vaccine, and I think that is a detail many people are not aware of. Hopefully Saey’s article will convince those who are unsure of the vaccines to sign up.
Saey’s article had many strengths, one including the fact that she added a lot of data from numerous sources. She included studies from Arizona, California, Texas, and more. This includes a variety of numbers and locations. Secondly, her article is well written and very easy to read and understand. This makes the information accessible to all audiences. I don’t think she had many weaknesses in this article, except that it was highly opinionated. This was not an issue for me (as I agree with her), but others may feel less inclined to read and understand. To improve this, she would simply take out a few paragraphs that have subjective comments. Overall, I loved learning about the subject and reading her article.
Olivia Cevasco
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology - C Even
8 April 2021
Current Event 18 - Comment on Julia Reich’s Review
Saey, Tina Hesman. “Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccines May Reduce Coronavirus Transmission.” Science News, 30 Mar. 2021, www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-vaccine-moderna-pfizer-transmission-disease.
Reich, Julia. “Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccines May Reduce Coronavirus Transmission.” Bronxville AP Biology, 5 Apr. 2021, bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2021/04/julia-reich-mr.html.
Julia’s review of “Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccines May Reduce Coronavirus Transmission” uses statistics from a recent study to argue that the COVID-19 vaccines are extremely effective. Julia successfully utilizes data from the main article to bolster her point that the vaccines reduce Coronavirus, and she compares the data to statistics about COVID-19 infection in unvaccinated people. She says that: “According to a Texas report, 234 of 8,969 (2.61%) unvaccinated employees tested positive from December 15 to January 28. For those with one shot, the numbers were 112 of 6,144 (1.82%). For fully vaccinated employees, there was a 0.05% of those who tested positive (4 of 8,121).” In addition to supporting Julia’s argument, the statistics provide more credibility since this is a university of study that occurred across multiple states. Additionally, Julia addresses a possible concern of her audience in order to establish a connection with the reader. She notes that “The vaccines (globally as well) are all so new and testing may not be 100% accurate, which may cause doubt in people,” and addressing the uncertainty about the accuracy of the data is used to prove her point that this study is more trustworthy and accurate, compared to previous studies. Julia’s technique appealed to me because I’m aware that some of the first studies about the efficacy of the vaccines weren’t that accurate. But with this new data, she helps her readers be more confident in the vaccine. Julia wraps up her review in addressing a potential weakness in the main article, saying that “I don’t think she had many weaknesses in this article, except that it was highly opinionated.” Addressing this can help the reader begin to sort out what might be opinion and what is fact in the main article and in Julia’s review so that they are aware that some parts might not be supported by data.
To improve Julia’s review, I would encourage her to explain two of her points in her relevance paragraph better. She says that “Even if you do contract the virus, the likelihood that you will end up in the hospital is low,” but doesn’t support this point with any data, so it makes the reader uncertain if this is fact or opinion. To improve this, she could find data, perhaps from the main article, or perhaps from online to demonstrate that the likelihood of hospitalization is low. Second, I would encourage Julia to describe how the COVID-19 and flu vaccines work when she says that “It works similarly to the flu vaccine, and I think that is a detail many people are not aware of.” Her audience might not know how the flu vaccine works which is why they might not be aware that the COVID-19 and flu vaccines work in a similar manner. Explaining this a little more would help the reader understand.
I chose to comment on Julia’s review because it directly applies to me. I’m getting my vaccine soon and some family members already have the first vaccine, so understanding the data is important for me at this stage. I enjoyed reading this review because of its use of statistical data so I understood facts and not opinion—and there is a lot of opinion surrounding the vaccine. Julia’s review changes my perception of the vaccine because it gave me more confidence in it, and I’m excited to get it soon!
Holden D’Avico
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Bio
4/8/21
Current Event 18 - Comment on Julia Reich’s Review
Saey, Tina Hesman. “Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccines May Reduce Coronavirus Transmission.” Science News, 30 Mar. 2021, www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-vaccine-moderna-pfizer-transmission-disease.
Reich, Julia. “Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccines May Reduce Coronavirus Transmission.” Bronxville AP Biology, 5 Apr. 2021, bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2021/04/julia-reich-mr.html.
Julia’s review of “Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccines May Reduce Coronavirus Transmission” by Tina Hesman was well-written and easy to understand. The first aspect that was well presented occurs in the first paragraph where Julia cites a lot of scientific data. Julia quotes reports and studies such as when she writes “according to a Texas report, 234 of 8.969 (2.61%) unvaccinated employees tested positive from December 15 to January 28. For those with one shot, the numbers were 112 of 6,144 (1.82%). For fully vaccinated employees, there was a 0.05% of those who tested positive” (Reich). This gave the reader confidence when reading the article as we know the data supports the author’s comments. The second aspect that was well presented is in the second paragraph where Julia breaks down a common misconception about the vaccines. She describes the vaccines are highly effective in preventing transmission and fully effective in preventing severe illness or hospitalization. The third aspect that was well presented occurs in the third paragraph where Julia suggests the author be a little less subjective. I agree that COVID-19 is a new virus and since there is so little we know, it is pointless to add our own thoughts or opinions on it.
My first suggestion is to actually include more of the author’s opinion on this topic. Julia says the author was pretty subjective, however, Julia mostly only cites facts and data in her article. Although data is important, I would have liked examples of the author’s opinions to gain more context. My second suggestion is to include more about why this article in particular was chosen. It is mentioned that the vaccines and virus are highly talked about today, but I would’ve liked to know more about why this article was chosen and its significance.
The fact that I was most impressed by is that only 0.05% of fully vaccinated employees tested positive for the virus. This shocked me because it made me realize how effective the vaccine is in preventing infection.
Kelly Baclija
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Bio
April 7, 2021
Reich, Julia. Bronxville AP Biology, 1 Jan. 1970, bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2021/04/julia-reich-mr.html#comment-form.
Saey, Tina Hesman. “Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccines May Reduce Coronavirus
Transmission.” Science News, 30 Mar. 2021, www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-vaccine-moderna-pfizer-transmission-disease.
Julia’s article on “Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccines May Reduce Coronavirus Transmission” by Tina Hesman Saey is very informative and well-written. She introduces the topic well by stating that, “Millions of people are terrified of the potential for a fourth surge in the U.S. due to variants and lifting of mask/social distancing mandates”; she immediately discusses what the article will be about and grabs the reader’s attention. Later on, she writes that “According to a Texas report, 234 of 8.969 (2.61%) unvaccinated employees tested positive from December 15 to January 28. For those with one shot, the numbers were 112 of 6,144 (1.82%). For fully vaccinated employees, there was a 0.05% of those who tested positive (4 of 8,121)”. These are significant statistics that increase Julia’s credibility to the audience, which overall strengthens her article. Finally, she says, “Even if you do contract the virus, the likelihood that you will end up in the hospital is low, and that is what the vaccine’s goal is. It works similarly to the flu vaccine, and I think that is a detail many people are not aware of”-- she shares her opinion to the readers and this helps further strengthen their perspective on the discussion of Covid-19 vaccines.
Although Julia’s article is well-written, there are a few areas of improvement. Firstly, she writes that “These are data which begin to prove that vaccines are working, and the nation needs younger people to sign up as soon as possible” and she could possibly elaborate on this point so the audience can gain a better understanding on the topic. Also, Julia has a few typos throughout the review, such as missing a segment of the title of the original article and writing ‘8.969’ instead of ‘8,969’, although this is relatively insignificant to the actual content but could strengthen her credibility to the readers.
I chose to read this article because I was curious to learn more about the Covid-19 vaccines as more and more people are becoming eligible to receive the doses. I ultimately learned that they are in fact useful in ending the pandemic and that some people are still skeptical on this idea. It will change my understanding going forward as the pandemic will hopefully soon end by social distancing, wearing masks, and vaccines.
Hugh Duffy
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
4/7/2021
Saey, Tina Hesman. “Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccines May Reduce Coronavirus Transmission.” Science News, 30 Mar. 2021, www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-vaccine-moderna-pfizer-transmission-disease.
Reich, Julia. “Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccines May Reduce Coronavirus Transmission.” Bronxville AP Biology, 5 Apr. 2021, bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2021/04/julia-reich-mr.html.
I was thoroughly pleased with Julia’s review of Tina Hesman Saey’s “Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccines May Reduce Coronavirus Transmission.” The review was eloquently written and an intriguing read. Julia cites specific evidence on many occasions. “If you can’t get infected, you can’t infect anyone else, which means the vaccines can reduce transmission as well as the disease,’ says Marm Kilpatrick, an infectious diseases researcher at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who was not involved in the study.” While this seems like an obvious concept, for a while the Centers for Disease Control have advised vaccinated individuals to continue social distancing and wearing masks in fear of the vaccine being less effective than previously thought. As of recent numbers, all three vaccines have been proven effective in preventing the contraction of Covid-19. Through these studies it is becoming evident that a fully or mostly vaccinated population can achieve immunity to this virus, pushing us past the pandemic that has ravaged the business and social lives of many for the past year.
One aspect I think Julia could improve on was just proofreading. There really weren’t many mistakes with her review, but there were some instances where a quick proofreading would’ve made the text flow easier. I also think that Julia could have bulked up some of her explanations of evidence from the article, but seeing as she wasn’t writing a paper in response to an article - but rather a review - this vagueness is completely understandable.
I chose this review to read in particular because I myself have not been vaccinated yet, and was curious to read more about the vaccines before deciding to get the inoculation myself. Reading this article provided me with additional information, and strengthened my trust in the vaccine.
Erin Foley
ReplyDeleteAP Biology C Block Odd
April 7th, 2021
Current Event 18
Saey, Tina Hesman. “Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccines May Reduce Coronavirus
Transmission.” Science News, 30 Mar. 2021, www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-vaccine-moderna-pfizer-transmission-disease.
Reich, Julia. “Modern and Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccines May Reduce Coronavirus
Transmission.” Bronxville AP Biology, Blogspot.com, 5 April 2021, https://bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2021/04/julia-reich-mr.html.
Julia’s review of the article “Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccines May Reduce
Coronavirus Transmission” provides a thorough yet palatably concise overview of the efficiency of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines and their significance. She explains the key point, that “vaccines may not only just reduce the risk of getting seriously ill, but also can prevent catching the virus initially”, illustrating how the vaccine not only reduces the chance of becoming seriously sick but also reduces transmission of the disease itself. This description is concise and is not littered with perplexing biological jargon, but still gets the article’s most important information across. Moreover, Julia paints a clear picture of the article’s significance for readers. She describes the widespread doubt in the vaccine trials that has caused a slower roll-out of the vaccine, and explains how this article can help combat that doubt and bring about a faster transition out of the pandemic. Finally, Julia’s article is efficient in its analysis of the article. She notes the article’s subjectivity, and suggests that the author remove subjective comments in order to reach/persuade a wider audience. Julia’s summary and analysis of the article make for an informative and enjoyable read.
Despite its near-perfect content, Julia could adjust a few aspects of her review in order to improve. Firstly, she might consider elaborating on her assertion that “if you do contract the virus, the likelihood that you will end up in the hospital is low”. The word “low” denotes vagueness, and in this context - the thought of ending up in the hospital - can be nerve-wracking for readers. She may want to provide a statistic showing exactly how low the numbers are of those who received the vaccine and still had an intense reaction to the virus, as this number is extremely low and might help persuade more readers to be vaccinated. Secondly, she describes the article as “highly opinionated”, citing this as its main weakness. I would urge her to elaborate on how the author came off as opinionated, as it reduces the credibility of the author in the reader of the review’s eyes. Perhaps the author was merely confident in science rather than biased. Even without these nit-picked tweaks, however, Julia’s review is thorough and fair.
As a recent recipient of the Pfizer vaccine, I was inclined to read this review and was happy with what I learned. I learned that not only am I and the millions of other vaccine recipients at an exponentially lower risk of being infected, but we are also at a lower risk of transmitting the virus. Despite my strengthened confidence in the vaccine, this review also reinforced the importance of continuing safety measures, leaving a lasting impact on my day-to-day life.
Henry Min
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Ap Biology
4/7/21
Saey, Tina Hesman. “Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccines May Reduce Coronavirus
Transmission.” Science News, 30 Mar. 2021, www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-vaccine-moderna-pfizer-transmission-disease.
Julia’s review on the article “Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccines May Reduce Coronavirus was very easy to comprehend. As I read his review, I felt like I needed to be reading it and was surprised that I hadn’t already heard this information. Moreover, Julia’s description of the way nanobodies work as well as how they will be used to treat COVID was concise and easy to understand. He compares the coronavirus to being “like a key that opens doors to infections when it binds to a protein receptor on the surface of some cells,” and analogizes the nanobodies to locks, blocking the virus from infecting cells. This description reads very well and makes an extremely complex topic understandable to those without extensive knowledge of biology. Finally, Julia considers the author’s good work as well as his/her room for growth, as he says that the article “should’ve detailed how the experiment was conducted and how the data was collected”. His dialectical thinking about the author’s work reminds the reader about the importance of clear descriptions and inclined me to reader further on the subject, as I don’t quite understand the experiment myself.
After reading, I feel much more hopeful for the future in terms of COVID-19 treatments and the general welfare of our world. The stress and uncertainty surrounding the pandemic is what drove me to read this article, as we are constantly looking for more information that could ease the anxiety. Although the pandemic is a tragedy with long-term consequences for a sizable portion of our population, this article’s findings on nanobody treatments is comforting. The significance of what we’re currently learning in bio - cell structure, enzymes, cellular interactions - has again been reinforced in my mind by this article and review.