WHAT'S NEW WITH THE FLU? Flu season again. Lizzie Wade provides a basic explainer of what's going on now at ScienceNow. Ars Technica is running an updated verion of its 2009 primer on the flu virus.
Carl Zimmer gives us background on this season's virus and points out that the flu virus is actually something of a wimp. The virus mutates so often, far more often than many other viruses, that it frequently sabotages itself. Since the viruses that remain are hale enough to make half a million people or more very sick every year, and kill an appreciable number of them, I guess we should be grateful for that high mutation rate.
Doc Craig Bowron provides some current data at the HuffPost Blog, but his is mainly a heavy critique of the flu vaccine situation overall. It's based on a major report from last fall pointing out that we know less than we think we do about vaccine effectiveness partly because people tend to apply the word "flu" to any old case of respiratory illness. Few cases of "flu" are confirmed with lab testing. A careful look at what data there are suggests that annual shots will prevent flu in fewer than 6 out of 10 people. It has often been claimed that current vaccines are much more effective than that, which has discouraged companies from launching the billion-dollar projects that would be required in order to do better.
Will there ever be a universal flu vaccine, one effective against all (or at least many) strains of the flu virus? That hope, it turns out, is not at all nutty. At the Nature Medicine blog Spoonful of Medicine, Hannah Hoag centers her terrific piece on Yoshinobu Okuno, the scientist who began the decades-long search for antibodies that can neutralize many subtypes of the virus. Thanks partly to the work of others who joined in, the search is bearing fruit. It has taken so long in part because the hemagglutination inhibition assay has been the "gold standard" test for antibodies to the virus, and the new antibodies don't inhibit hemagglutination. New, more sensitive assays have been developed. More good news: the new research approaches offer hope for vaccines against other respiratory infections, dengue, and rabies.
And what of therapy for influenza? Knight Science Journalism Tracker Paul Raeburn calls attention to a post by doc and clinical trials expert Harlan Krumholz, who makes it clear that the data on Tamiflu's effectiveness as a therapy for the disease are not all that convincing. What there is of it.
At his Virology Blog, uber-virologist Vincent Racaniello presents a graphics-heavy post and concludes that yes, it appears that this flu season peaked late in December, earlier than the last couple years, and the amount of illness it's causing is nothing out of the ordinary. Racaniello acknowleges the flu vaccine's imperfections, but is still irritated by anecdotal reports from people (including science writers) complaining about getting the flu despite getting vaccinated. Needless to say, these complainers are not, by and large, people whose ailment has been confirmed to be flu by lab tests.
It is not useful for anyone to relay anecdotal information about immunization and infection unless you know for sure that you had influenza virus. It only further discourages widespread immunization, which is already isn’t where it should be (~40%).
It's not entirely clear whether, as Racaniello says, the flu season has peaked. OTOH, I have my doubts whether Robert Gonzalez's warning at io9 is justified: "Holy crap, this year's flu season is shaping up to be downright terrifying." I know io9 specializes in declarations that the sky is falling, but — in view of the uncertainties — this hed (and the post it covers) is shaping up to be downright irresponsible.
Is this just an intriguing example of a clash between a too-conservative assessment by a world-class expert and an alarmist attempt by a science writer to grab the most page views? Is Racaniello being too cautious? Will Gonzalez turn out to have been right after all? I'm sticking this one into my Future File and will try to get back to you on that a few months from now. My money is on Racaniello, but we'll see whether my expert-worship is vindicated.
AND NOW FOR A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT VIRUS. Why does 'Net content go viral? Carson Ward shares conclusions at the Daily SEO Blog, which is presumably the horse's mouth. Among them: Most viral content is really good, the posts are long and in-depth, they inspire emotions like anger, awe, and anxiety, they are useful or surprising, they are funny, and — this boggled my mind — they tend to be written by women. Caution is advised, since his post was based on a study of most-emailed New York Times pieces. A limited sample if there ever was one. HT to a tweet from Bora Zivkovic.
BABY, IT'S REALLY REALLY COLD OUTSIDE. I live in Tucson, which is just resurfacing from a 4-day hard freeze. Meaning that temps fell into the 20s for a few hours in the very early morning. There's quite a good chance the warming that began yesterday spells the end of serious winter here. Before long, things will begin to leaf out. But I'm grumpy because the feathery branches of our gorgeous jacarandas are droopy and brown, and I fear there will be no huge lilac-like blooms in May.
Thank heavens for the reality check bestowed on me by an old friend and colleague, Joel Shurkin. Joel has been posting about research to measure the recession of Arctic sea ice at the Science Friday blog. Here is number two in his series. Turns out it ain't easy to measure the recession of Arctic sea ice. Lots of coaxing equipment to function. Lots of coping with unpleasant conditions and waiting for polar bear families to amble on. You will learn all about clothing that will keep you warm at 40 below and how duct tape holds Alaska together.
NO NOBEL FOR CARL WOESE, PRONOUNCED WOES. In Memoriam Carl Woese, who died December 30. It's pronounced Woes and no wonder. He deserved a Nobel Prize and now will never get one.
Why did he merit a Nobel? Because, after years spent classifying bacteria, Woese discovered a new form of life, the Archaea. That is a unique event in the history of science.
The Archaea look like bacteria but are nothing like them inside. Despite their superficial resemblance to bacteria, they may be more closely related to us — the eukaryotes, that is. Jennifer Frazer's splendid post at The Artful Amoeba will tell you all about life's Third Domain.
.png)
