For my current
events, I read an article titled Researchers Seek Crucial Tool: A Fast,
Finger-Prick Ebola Test by Andrew Pollack. This
article talked about a new idea in the search for easier and faster Ebola
tests. This method would require only a few drops of blood, and would give to
results on the spot, rather than have to take the blood sample back to a lab. The
article talked about how this method could be used to screen travelers at
airports very quickly. The article states that The
WHO, or World Health Organization is encouraging the development of faster
tests, as is the federal government. The FDA is authorizing the use of different
qualified Ebola tests in fighting the disease. On Oct. 25, it allowed for a
one-hour test that requires more than a few drops of blood and the results are
sent to a laboratory. Many companies are hoping to get their tests into Africa
within the next few months, but it is not clear how many will be in time to
help the outbreak. Many health officials are worried about the accuracy of
these tests, and are not sure if these tests will help, or make the issue
worse.
This article talks
about a development that could aid society in getting rid of Ebola. If these
finger-prick tests work and are available in airports, it could allow health
officials to know immediately if someone with Ebola is entering the country.
This method of testing could not only aid the US, but countries battling Ebola
could benefit greatly as well. If this method worked and was used in Africa,
doctors could immediately tell if anyone has Ebola, and quarantine them as soon
as possible. Basic blood tests take days to confirm, and with the time it
takes, comes dangerous risks. People suspected of having
Ebola must wait in holding rooms until the results come back. If someone in the
room has Ebola and has contact with this person, they could easily catch the
disease. If they do not have Ebola when
they enter the room, they may have it by the time they leave.
After reading Nanda’s review on this article, I thought that she did a very good job. The first thing that I felt Nanda did well was within her summary. There were a lot of details and facts that allowed me to perfectly understand what the article was about. I also thought that Nanda’s explanation of why this article is important to science was thoughtful and reflected the idea that this article was trying to portray. I feel that Nanda is correct when she mentions how creating this blood test could help Ebola from spreading from country to country through air travel because this is how Ebola got to America from Africa. Finally, I feel that the way this review was organized was very well done. Nanda broke the review down into three paragraphs, which made it easier to comprehend what each paragraph was about. I think that this format is helpful when reading a review like this because it allows the reader to not have to read one giant paragraph. Great job!
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I think Nanda could improve on in her writing is adding more details to her final paragraph about the critique of the article. I thought that it was somewhat vague and could have more about what the author needs to work on or what he/she did well. Nanda could also work on proof reading her writing. I think that in the last paragraph, she didn’t fully complete her sentence, though this may have been that she didn’t copy and paste the whole document by accident.
I was really fascinated by how much scientists and medical professionals are focusing in on solving this Ebola outbreak, where as a few months ago it didn’t seem to serve any problem. I hope that all this work and effort that is being put into Ebola safety and possibly a cure finally pays off.
William Bogatyrenko
ReplyDeleteI read Nanda’s review of Andrew Pollack’s article, “Researchers Seek Crucial Tool: A Fast, Finger-Prick Ebola Test.” One thing I thought she did well was explain the “finger-prick Ebola test.” She explained what it was, and how it worked very well. This increased my understanding of her review dramatically. Another thing I thought Nanda did well was explain the practical use of this test. She introduced the concept of using the finger prick test in airports in her summary, and then took the concept to another level with her analysis of how it would affect the world and why it would help. For example, she explained how Ebola travels, and how this test will provide a quick answer to who has Ebola in the country. Last, I think Nanda summarized the article very well in her review. Her summary was not too long, but it was not too short either. She included all of the important facts, as well as introduced the practical use of the test, while keeping her summary concise. It is very important that she did not make her summary too long, so that the reader does not get bored.
One thing Nanda could’ve done better is critique the article she read. She only critiqued two minor things, and I am very sure that there are more things that were done better than the grammar and length of the article she read. She could’ve explained what parts of the article could have been shortened, or given an example of grammar and spelling needing correction. Last, Nanda had some grammar and spelling mistakes in her article. For example, at the end, her review stops abruptly in the middle of a word, without a period.
One thing I was impressed by while reading Nanda’s review of the article she read was the practicality of this test. The finger-prick test could be very efficient if it was developed more and the results were given to the user faster, and it could be a big step in the extermination of Ebola, because it would help stop the virus from spreading. I was fascinated at how efficient and innovative this idea was, and this review opened up my eyes to what we can do when the world works together to stop something.
Olivia scotti
ReplyDeleteCurrent event
The review I am reviewing was written by Nanda Fraser and is about how researchers are looking for a tool to quickly tell if someone has Ebola. I think Nanda did a good job on explaining why this tool would be useful to the world. Also she did a good job on telling you what the tool was and how it could be used. The last thing that I thought was good was her critique because it really showed how the article was poorly written. One thing she could improve on is making her sentences easier to understand. Another thing she could improve on is adding more detail to what she is talking about so the reader gets more information on this topic. One thing that I learned is there might be a tool soon that could help with the Ebola breakout.
Charlotte Prior Current Event Comment
ReplyDeleteD Block Even
Pollack, Andrew. "Researchers Seek Crucial Tool: A Fast, Finger-Prick Ebola Test." The New York Times. The New York Times, 04 Nov. 2014. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.
I read Nanda Fraser’s article of the new method researchers are developing that uses only a few drops of blood to test for ebola. Something that I liked about Nandas report was when she gave the background information “ This method would require only a few drops of blood, and would give to results on the spot, rather than have to take the blood sample back to a lab.” This is an excerpt from Nanda’s report that describes the workings of the blood test, for us to understand. She also gives great detail on who is helping to get this done she mentions the “WHO” organization and the “FDA” and tells us how the affect this event. Nanda also talks about how this issue relates to us and our planet entirely she says, “ This method of testing could not only aid the US, but countries battling Ebola could benefit greatly as well.” We have all seen Ebola in the news lately and we know this would have a huge impact.
There is not much Nanda needs to work on, her report was well written. An obvious mistake would be the fact that the report ends in the middle of a word and sentence, so we didn't get to see the whole document. This means he critique of the article wasn't as great as it could have been, had she added more. Another thing Nanda could improve on is telling us when this new technology will be available, she never mentioned how long it may take to get these to work and ebola is a time sensitive thing. By giving us an indication on when this will be available would help a lot.
I was amazed that such technology is actually available to us today. When something serious is this comes up scientists are able to work together to create something magnificent that can be used to save lives of all different people. If this thing works we will be able to slowdown or even stop the continuing spread of ebola with just a quick blood test a person with the symptoms of ebola will be able to know, for sure, if they were sick or not. This way treatment could be given as soon as possible before symptoms worsen.This will change peoples lives in all over this world this serious sickness will not spread to countries uninfected so far.
Current Events: Researchers Seek Crucial Tool: A Fast, Finger-Prick Ebola Test
ReplyDeleteIn Fernanda’s review, she did a fairly good job summarizing the article. She explained the new tool that pricks people’s finger to get a sample of their blood. Although I understood what the article was about, providing more details as to why this tool works would have been helpful. Another thing Fernanda did well was explaining how this new Ebola test tool relates to us. She states that if these tools are available at airports, then health officials would know immediately if someone leaving or entering a country has Ebola. This can potentially stop the spread of Ebola into other countries. One last thing Fernanda did a good job on was critiquing the article. She stated the structural and grammatical problems of the article. On the other hand, Fernanda forgot to write the last word completely in the critique paragraph. In addition, Fernanda forgot to include the proper MLA citation with the hyperlink. Although she missed some minor things, her article review was very informative. I did not know that a small prick of the finger could potentially eliminate the spread of Ebola!