Wyoming woman still in hospital while Ohio man released after facing ‘respiratory and non-respiratory symptoms’

Summary

Two people in Wyoming and Ohio were hospitalized with H5N1 bird flu, with one still in care. Both had contact with infected poultry.

The cases heighten concerns about reassortment with seasonal flu, potentially creating a more dangerous strain. No human-to-human transmission has been detected.

The CDC is monitoring outbreaks as the Trump administration considers shifting containment strategies. Studies suggest prior H1N1 exposure may offer some immunity, but experts warn protection is uncertain.

The U.S. has reported 70 human H5N1 cases since detection in cows last year.

  • ignirtoq@fedia.io
    24·
    2 days ago

    The woman was exposed to poultry in a backyard flock that tested positive for H5N1, the CDC report said, adding that she remained hospitalized at the time of the report.

    A man in Mercer county, Ohio, was infected while depopulating, or killing, H5N1-positive poultry at a commercial facility, according to a statement from the Ohio department of health.

    So both very likely caught it from poultry, as opposed to other people. As we see more cases, though, it’s only a matter of time before it mutates and becomes capable of human-to-human transmission.

    Also:

    “I am very worried about H5N1 in patients that are being treated in hospitals where there are also many seasonal flu patients because this creates opportunities for reassortment, which could potentially produce a pandemic-capable H5N1,” Rasmussen said.

    I hadn’t even considered reassortment with the seasonal flu. Yet another thing to keep me up at night.

    • Ben Hur Horse Race@lemm.eeEnglish
      5·
      1 day ago

      You hadn’t? This is the main concern by the virologists I follow. You’re confident enough to announce that it’s only a matter of time before human-to-human transmission happens, but hadn’t thought about it re-assorting w/ the flu.

      • ignirtoq@fedia.io
        41·
        1 day ago

        A lot of stuff going on in the world for me to keep up with, so no, I hadn’t dived that deep into the virology of bird flu. Are we gatekeeping trusting experts now? Am I not allowed to repeat what they say at a high level about mutations and statistics until I pass some threshold of detailed understanding of mechanism?

        • Ben Hur Horse Race@lemm.eeEnglish
          2·
          1 day ago

          its not that man, its that you go out here and say “it is only a matter of time” then admit you don’t really know what’s going on.

          This thing is definitely going to happen!

          I don’t really have a grasp of the fundamentals, but you know, I can predict the outcome.

          Thats what I was bitching about.

          The reality of why I’m going on at all is that I really, really don’t want to go through another disastrous pandemic. I lost immediate family members what feels like just a short time ago. So, I get a bit hot when people make predictions with a sense of assurity when we don’t actually know what will happen, when virologists know that they don’t know what will happen.

          I wound up typing because after predicting doom you wrote that you didn’t even know why one of the more possible nightmare scenarios was even something to consider.

          • ignirtoq@fedia.io
            1·
            1 day ago

            I don’t want to go through another pandemic either. COVID has ravaged my body, so I don’t know if I could handle H5N1 anywhere near as well as I could 5 years ago. But does bitching at me about how I may be not exactly correct help that in any way? There’s tons of people all over social media spouting full on wrong or outright deceitful information over and over again, and I’m trying to push the narrative towards experts’ messages as well as I can. People don’t remember information because it’s correct, they remember what they hear the most. We can’t just sit back and hope the experts are loud enough on their own to combat misinformation.

            I apologize for sounding more definitive than the reality. This is probability and statistics, so it’s not a sure thing until it actually happens. What I was trying to point out was that as long as we’re complacent and allow an “acceptable level” of cases, the probabilities will keep getting worse. I have to simplify something, and I guess I went too far this time. Do you have a better way to phrase it that doesn’t get so mired in the details people’s eyes will glaze over?