3 ms·

Me before reading the article: is it wolbachia? Me after reading the article: it's wolbachia. We've been using these here in Singapore for a while now (lookin

by raynr 5y ago

Me before reading the article: is it wolbachia? Me after reading the article: it's wolbachia. We've been using these here in Singapore for a while now (looking at it since about 2016 [0]), and it's not like it was a secret [1], hell even the BBC has reported on wolbachia before (by the same James Gallagher!) [2], so it's a bit surprising that it is presented in this BBC article as something "miraculous" and new. What's curious to me is that the information presented in the BBC articles is slightly different from what has been reported here in Singapore. The BBC articles say that the wolbachia infection is passed on. Our reporting has been that male mosquitos infected with wolbachia that mate with females will not produce viable eggs, but otherwise, infected females will pass the wolbachia infection on. I wonder what the details are. [0] https://www.nea.gov.sg/corporate-functions/resources/research/wolbachia-aedes-mosquito-suppression-strategy https://www.nea.gov.sg/corporate-functions/resources/researc... [1] https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/wolbachia-mosquitoes-new-facility-aedes-aegypti-dengue-12145012 https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/wolbachia-mos... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-50487724 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-50487724

nomoreusernames 5y ago
its for the clicks. you would think that at least they would say 'hey we are cool, we reported on this before, you should trust us more' but no i think 'hey new discovery, you are living in the future now, we have it first, click here' seems to sell more.
- signal11 5y ago
  Counterpoint: I read this article and the 2019 BBC piece, this one reports the result of a large scale study which has very positive results. Vs the 2019 article which describes a promising technique with relatively smaller trials. Even lay people who know Wolbachia is promising will find the result interesting. Also the “miraculous” in the headline comes from a a researcher who described Wolbachia as naturally miraculous. I’d say that makes it fair game for a headline writer. The newer article should have mentioned that this technique has been trialled before and provided some context about why this trial is important, eg it was a 3 year RCT, and the evidence it presents is of a higher standard, etc. But that doesn’t detract from the fact that this result is useful and worth a new report — and in fact the “explore further” link on the page on the topic of Mosquitoes links to previous stories on the topic, including the story the previous commenter mentioned. Science and health journalism (other than COVID) isn’t always as sexy as other areas of journalism, I think we should be a little wary of crying “clickbait” for everything. A victory over dengue is worth shouting about — it’s a nasty disease that causes a lot of suffering.
signal11 5y ago
The CDC says “When male Ae. aegypti mosquitoes with Wolbachia mate with wild female mosquitoes that do not have Wolbachia, the eggs will not hatch.”[1] https://www.cdc.gov/mosquitoes/mosquito-control/community/sit/wolbachia.html https://www.cdc.gov/mosquitoes/mosquito-control/community/si...
acdha 5y ago
They’re quoting one of the researchers after a large trial confirms the promising earlier studies that older coverage was based on. Given the impact this has on human lives, for hundreds of millions of people, that doesn’t seem unreasonable — especially because this isn’t especially hard or expensive to deploy.

by raynr 5y ago

nomoreusernames 5y ago

its for the clicks. you would think that at least they would say 'hey we are cool, we reported on this before, you should trust us more' but no i think 'hey new discovery, you are living in the future now, we have it first, click here' seems to sell more.

signal11 5y ago
Counterpoint: I read this article and the 2019 BBC piece, this one reports the result of a large scale study which has very positive results. Vs the 2019 article which describes a promising technique with relatively smaller trials. Even lay people who know Wolbachia is promising will find the result interesting. Also the “miraculous” in the headline comes from a a researcher who described Wolbachia as naturally miraculous. I’d say that makes it fair game for a headline writer. The newer article should have mentioned that this technique has been trialled before and provided some context about why this trial is important, eg it was a 3 year RCT, and the evidence it presents is of a higher standard, etc. But that doesn’t detract from the fact that this result is useful and worth a new report — and in fact the “explore further” link on the page on the topic of Mosquitoes links to previous stories on the topic, including the story the previous commenter mentioned. Science and health journalism (other than COVID) isn’t always as sexy as other areas of journalism, I think we should be a little wary of crying “clickbait” for everything. A victory over dengue is worth shouting about — it’s a nasty disease that causes a lot of suffering.

signal11 5y ago

The CDC says “When male Ae. aegypti mosquitoes with Wolbachia mate with wild female mosquitoes that do not have Wolbachia, the eggs will not hatch.”[1] https://www.cdc.gov/mosquitoes/mosquito-control/community/sit/wolbachia.html https://www.cdc.gov/mosquitoes/mosquito-control/community/si...

acdha 5y ago

They’re quoting one of the researchers after a large trial confirms the promising earlier studies that older coverage was based on. Given the impact this has on human lives, for hundreds of millions of people, that doesn’t seem unreasonable — especially because this isn’t especially hard or expensive to deploy.