Close
today i learned (til)

The 2019 Novel Coronavirus Disease (2019-nCoV) Outbreak that Everybody is Talking About

April 3, 2020

People have different preferences for how they want to follow what is going on around the scientific world without having to spend too much time seeking for information. However, seldom scientific information is presented in all possible formats that could satisfy diverse people’s preferences. Specifically, some information comes only in either auditory, writing, kinesthetic or visual. Although people may want to keep up with scientific events, particularly in topics that are of general concern, most of the time, that information comes in formats not always preferred by some groups. 

Personally, I have noticed that visual formats help me to understand the information faster and a more complete way. Using visual aids, I am going to be discussing what brought my attention more than anything else these past weeks. 

News about an outbreak caused by Coronavirus has been the top story during the last weeks. It started in China in December 2019 with a few hospitalized cases with respiratory infections. It originally spread throughout the city of Wuhan, but currently we are seeing cases in 26 countries around the world. As of today (February 7, 2020), there are more than 31,503 confirmed cases and it has already taken the lives of 638 people (5). The virus causes a severe illness – most confirmed cases were hospitalized– and could lead to permanent sequelae.  The rate of premature death among confirmed cases is about 2%. Very little is still known about how the virus circulates and there is no vaccine to prevent infection nor known medications to treat its symptoms. 

Sources have explained that this virus had some relation to seafood or live animal markets, which meant that the virus could spread from animals to people (1). Eventually they realized that some affected people have not been in contact with animal markets indicating that the virus could be transmitted by person-person contact. (1)

Genetically, the coronavirus, as seen in the picture above, is known to have spikes on their circular surfaces. Fehr and Perlman have concluded and identified that Coronavirinae has the largest identified RNA genome (2).Coronaviruses are generally a single strand of RNA and as the American Society of Microbiology mentions that since this family of viruses have a high frequency of recombination, this leads to problems when trying to detect the infection (3)  Known as CoVs, these viruses can cause severe respiratory disease in animals and even humans. As in this outbreak, coronaviruses are known to be transmitted among people and animals, otherwise known as zoonotic

.

Symptoms are very similar to common respiratory infections. That can include runny nose, fever, cough and other similar symptoms (4). Since the symptoms are quite like common respiratory infections, it is harder to identify the Coronavirus or 2019-nCoV without a full-work laboratory test.  In the presence of these symptoms both patients and doctors could believe it is just a regular respiratory infection. Moreover, since these months are considered high on influenza activity, these cases may well be confused for flu cases which could also lead to a severe illness. 

While the immediate risk of this new virus to the US public is believed to be low at this time, in order to prevent a Coronavirus infection, the World Health organization (WHO) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advise to stay away from unprotected animals and possibly other infected people or with cold or flu-like symptoms. Additionally, frequently cleaning hands with soap and water or alcohol-based sanitizers and not to travel to places with active outbreak are important measures to prevent respiratory infections.   

Now, the main concern from the public health organization nationally and internationally is to reduce the spread of the Coronavirus. More cases are likely to be identified and probably in more countries around the world.  Since this epidemic is rapidly evolving and changing, there are still various uncertainties that will take time to figure out and much longer to put in place effective measures to monitor the disease, identify cases, isolate infected people, treat sick people and prevent new infections.

References

  1. 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Situation Summary. (2020, February 7). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/summary.html
  2. Fehr, A. R., & Perlman, S. (2015). Coronaviruses: an overview of their replication and pathogenesis. Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 1282, 1–23. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2438-7_1 
  3. Rohde, R. (2020, January 31). 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Update: Uncoating the Virus. Retrieved February 3, 2020, from https://asm.org/Articles/2020/January/2019-Novel-Coronavirus-2019-nCoV-Update-Uncoating 
  4. Yadav, N. (2020, January 26). What are Coronavirus’ symptoms and why is it dangerous? Retrieved February 3, 2020, from https://www.indiatvnews.com/lifestyle/health-what-is-coronavirus-symptoms-explained-china-new-virus-latest-health-news-581546 
  5. Novel coronavirus. (2020, February 6). Retrieved February 7, 2020, from https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/novel-coronavirus-china 

 

0Likes
About Author

Claudia is an Biology graduate student at Georgia Tech. She loves photography, traveling, baking, and swimming. In her spare time she enjoys swimming, watching soccer, exploring new places and hanging out with friends. She is excited to research and learn new things in the world of science.

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
It’s a ghost… it’s a UFO… It’s… Ball Lightning?
Field Notes, Story Time, today i learned (til)
CS4641 Project 3: Neural Networks Reflection
Story Time, today i learned (til)
Reflection on CS4641 Project
today i learned (til)
Artificial Rain- Real or Sci-Fi

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.