A Michigan farmworker is diagnosed with bird flu in case tied to dairy cows
npr.org
npr.org
EDIT this is the only thing I've been able to find
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2024/02/17/coyote-captured-a...
https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2019/02/05/colorado-ru...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/three-grizzly-bear...
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/29/12/23-0464_article
Also shows neurological symptoms in cats (and high mortality),
- www.cdc.gov/ (domain)
- cdc.gov (domain)
- wwwn.cdc.gov/ (domain)
- wwwnc.cdc.gov/ (domain)
- www2c.cdc.gov/ (domain)
- blogs.cdc.gov/ (domain)
- emergency.cdc.gov/ (domain)> Human infections with HPAI A(H5N1) virus have been reported in 23 countries since 1997, resulting in severe pneumonia and death in about 50% of cases.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/avianflu/influenza-a-virus-subtypes....
The number of things that could mutate into a human pandemic is quite large. I'm still not worried. The current hype is over dairy farm workers being exposed to it, but as someone who used to work in a large poultry operation (100K birds at a time), I can assure you that the viral load (and thus mutation possibilities) of bird flu is far higher in an infected poultry operation than any dairy farmer will ever experience.
Over 1000 people got infected worldwide. Mortality rate >50%
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22401-bird-fl...
> So far, there is only one confirmed human case. Rick Bright, an expert on the H5N1 virus who served on President Biden’s coronavirus advisory board, told me this is the crucial moment. “There’s a fine line between one person and 10 people with H5N1,” he said. “By the time we’ve detected 10, it’s probably too late” to contain.
You need to start worrying about it when 3 people have caught it, because if you wait until a “significant “ number of people have caught it, it’s too late to stop another pandemic.
It's like 2020 is on replay, with the exact same downplaying, nearly word for word.
This is not airborne, nor have we seen it spreading between people. All the cases we've seen so far in the States have been from people who were known to be in contact with infected animals.
It certainly warrants further investigation and precautions for those working with livestock, but panic seems like an overreach.
However, I would agree that dismissing the domain experts who asserted that there was good evidence that Covid was airborne right from the early days of the pandemic was problematic in the extreme.
In hindsight, it should have been obvious that airborne spread was a strong possibility as soon as a cruise ship saw Covid continue to spread from cabin to cabin even after locking the passengers down in their cabins.
The categorical denial that airborne spread was even possible was the single biggest failure in public health leadership in decades.
Sea lions are dying en masse. That's the big news. Because they are spreading it to each other's lungs through the air.
If it adapts to human lung cells it isn't going to be deniable that it's airborne and extremely deadly in that case.
The relevant authorities are currently waiting for that strain to emerge -it's called the pandemic strain- before declaring states of emergency and authorizing vaccines. The reason is that it is (A) unknown if or when that will happen, and (B) unknown whether a vaccine against the current strain which doesn't infect human lungs would be effective against the theoretical future mutant strain that does. Therefore from a public health perspective it's better in large bore to save the resources and not start producing a possibly useless vaccine now.
COVID wasn't airborne in humans either until Dec 2019, then very suddenly it was. The virus didn't come out of thin air, it mutated and gained the ability to spread in humans. One morning the world woke up and there was a new virus with human-to-human transmission.
> Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a viral respiratory disease of zoonotic origin caused by the virus SARS-CoV-1, the first identified strain of the SARS-related coronavirus.
In December 2019, a second strain of SARS-CoV was identified: SARS-CoV-2. This strain causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the disease behind the COVID-19 pandemic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS
The two strains are closely genetically related.
There was already evidence of airborne spread back during the 2002 SARS-CoV-1 outbreak.
That entire discussion was an absurd comedy, of a piece with the CDC initially saying masks were useless (in an attempt to save the national supply of masks).
In this case, it isn't really questionable that H5N1 is extremely infectious and airborne between and within any species that have epithelial lung cells it has adapted to. So far, that doesn't include humans. The only serious question is how many mutations until it does, and what's the mutation rate in that direction. Additionally, what are the odds that the virus would need to make some trade-off in virulence to mutate to infect human lungs.
From that we can extrapolate an approximate date range in which it will go human to human, globally. Cross that with the readiness and effectiveness of existent vaccine stockpiles and extant solutions for traditional vaccine growth, moderated by limitations on adjuvants, plus possible mRNA vaccines. Take into account that in some species of mammals so far it has a neglibile mortality rate, and in other species it approaches 90% in local populations.
Do that math and it's obvious that governments need to be accelerating pre-pandemic H5N1 vaccines right now, not waiting for the pandemic strain to authorize them.
Both jurisdictions have an official traceability scheme - each animal is legally mandated to have a unique identifier (RFID), and its birth, movement between locations, and death are recorded in a national database - NLIS[0] for Australia and NAIT[1] for New Zealand.
In theory - if a disease outbreak happens, you find the animals RFID by scanning the eartag, alert the relevant government agency, and they have a full record of where the animal has been, which other animals it might have been in contact with, etc etc. I say "in theory" because recording an animals movements is not always well practiced or enforced - but this is hearsay, I'm not a farmer.
Interestingly, the US has its own scheme, US Cattle Trace [2]. In my estimation it's technically superior as it has provisions for ultra high frequency RFID tags, making it a lot easier to scan animals (AU & NZ are stuck with antiquated low-frequency tags by law). The scheme, however, remains voluntary.
[1] https://www.mpi.govt.nz/animals/national-animal-identificati...
I know that knee-jerk reactions will cause a lot of people to respond negatively to my comment, but, just like climate change, all the data and science unequivocally support my statements.
The problem of hyperindividualism is getting only more pronounced in the US, and it's possible there will be a hard shift right to deregulation, strip-mining of social welfare, destruction of community commonwealth, austerity, and tax cuts for the rich.
If anything we need a return to more celebration and protection of the individual.
Easy to exploit.
BTW if you fear control by tyrants maybe the US version of capitalism is a bad idea.
Aside from the fact that red meat is not particularly nutritious in terms of calories or nutrient variety and has well established health hazards for us, the density of nutrition doesn't matter. The resources needed to produce a certain amount of calories / 'nutrition' involved do.
Beef has just about the worst possible resources-to-calories/'nutrition' value of any mass-produced food. The amount of water, land, and feed that goes toward growing cattle until they're old enough to go to the slaughterhouse is enormous compared to grains, legumes, nuts, chicken, fish, etc. Legumes often are a more complete source of "protein", which is actually several variations of protein.
And then there's cattle being the number one source of methane in the world, and methane is a major greenhouse gas.
>a mostly vegetarian country like India is heavily reliant on the milk that comes from cows for their protein requirement.
Legumes like chickpeas and lentils are far more likely than the more resource and labor intensive processes involved in dairy/cheese.
If you think otherwise you apparently don't do much grocery shopping.
Though I also contest the claim that animal foods are more nutrient dense compared to plants while singling out one nutrient.
What about nutrients like vitamin C, fiber, and vitamin E? What about averaging their %RDA across all nutrients per calorie or gram like the "All Targets" column on Cronometer?
Plant-based foods would rank above animal products in such a comparison.
[0]: https://chefscornerstore.com/blog/high-protein-vegetables/
500 calories (150g) of TVP (soy chunks) has 100%+ of each EAA while 500 calories (200g) of steak is sub-100% in three EAAs. The soy chunks also have 25g more protein than the steak. I use it in all recipes that call for ground beef as it's similar is texture.
The 500 calories of soy chunks also has 59% of the day nutrition while the steak only has 47% (source: Cronometer).
Seems to me that if you're going to bring up a concept like incomplete protein (which I think is a nonsensical concept), you'd have to bite the bullet on steak being incomplete and plant protein being superior.
I dismiss the concept because we aren't limited to 500 calories per day. But if we were, I'd rather be stuck with TVP.
Animal proteins are generally more complete, containing all essential amino acids, which is more difficult to find with plant protein.
> and has well established health hazards for us,
Mostly correlative studies, I wouldn't call them well established.
> The amount of water, land, and feed that goes toward growing cattle until they're old enough to go to the slaughterhouse is enormous
These stats are fairly deceitful. Cattle are raised on low quality "marginal land" that would otherwise not be able grow proper crops. Cows with their four stomachs can digest rough grasses that grow there, making the otherwise useless land useful. Generally when you hear the "amount of water" required to raise a cow, this is simply rainwater. These headlines that get thrown around imply a massive amount of resources being diverted away from growing crops to raise cattle instead, but that is completely false.
> densely nutritious
No, plant products are far more dense in proportion to water, fertilizer, land, and energy used to produce them. 10x the plants are required to get 1x the meat.
* The density of protein is not important at all. What is important is that you get the sufficient daily amount of protein, which is easily achievable by eating plant-based foods only.
* It is a myth that the "amino acid spectrum" is not always complete. Plants contain all essential amino acids, and as long as you aren't on a strict white-rice diet, you'll get everything you need from a modest variety of foods.
Please stop spreading misinformation.
At equivalent mass, red meat has 30% the protein of seitan.
If you're going to pick one nutrient of comparison (which doesn't even make sense since we need more than protein), why wouldn't you compare foods that are dense in that nutrient? Would you accept someone comparing tofu to pig skin to conclude that plants massively dominate animal flesh in protein?
Let's pretend you can only eat 500 calories per day (which is usually part of the weird implication in these claims). Seitan gives you 100%+ of all EAAs except one (70%). A steak gives you 100%+ of the EAAs except for three (85%, 80%, 77%). Seitan also contains double the total protein of the steak.
Wouldn't you have the bite the bullet on steak being nutritionally deficient if seitan is?
If that's not good enough for you, we could look at another protein dense plant-based food: TVP aka soy chunks. 500 calories of soy chunks have 100%+ of the EAAs, 25g more protein than steak, in 50g less food than steak.
One to two fifths of Indians are vegetarian [1]. The majority eat meat.
You misread the quote. Less than 30% consume meat regularly; 30% consume it infrequently.
Boca-bug-burgers would be an infinitely renewable 'meat' and farmable on massive scales, without destroying forests or watersheds. Without subjecting users to antibiotics.
Bug-burgers for the win.
FWIW, more than 25% of humans eat bugs regularly around the world.
As soon as everyone eats bugs, then industrial big farms will start up, and all the worrisome problems discussed will appear with bugs too.
There will also be crowding, bugs feeding a country aren't going to be wild harvested, how would you even do that, and we'd need massive quantities.
So disease would be a thing.
And we'd need massive amounts of water too, and we'd have massive amounts of leavings, just as with cattle.
Any "but we can just" scenarios, like using their leavings as fertilizer, can also be done with cattle.
Some bugs are likely smarter that the cattle I've been around, and they feel pain, so what of the bug activists? What of the queen, and the hive mind?
Are we going to claim we know that they aren't feeling pain from crowding, or their situation?
What happens when we harvest in the same area over and over, a massive building just for this? Bugs excrete chemical warnings to communicate, and poison during stress, will these all build up month after month of harvest?
There are endless questions to be resolved, but all I hear is "well we can just...." eat bugs, with no other validation or justification about scale, safety, etc.
There are plenty of alternatives.
Lobster, crab, shrimp, crawfish, mussels, clams. If you go to very small bugs- the yeast that ferments beer, cheese, kimchi, pickles, saurkraut, yoghurt. We also eat honey made by bugs. In some places spiders are eaten as are scorpions.
Also of course, every time you eat bread, pasta, rice or any grain product you're also eating small amounts of bugs that were ground up in the process.
It's an arbitrary cultural thing. Is it weird to eat the flesh of a mammal? Weird to eat a fungus growing off a decaying log? Weird to eat seaweed? Weird to drink milk from a lactating mother cow? Weird to eat a cricket?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_animal_feeding_op...
Instead, some current methods of animal husbandry exhibit some of the concerns you raise.
For example, animals that free range live lives far, far better than any wild counterparts. They get health care (vaccines), protection from predators, and more.
The disney-eqsue view that wild animals live in a paradise is false, few deer die of old age.
Water and environmental impacts are falsehoods as a solid rule, there are loads of sustainable cattle ranches in, for example, Quebec. Free ranged in summer, slaughter down for winter, hay grown by crop rotation and without fertilizer for over wintering.
You're confusing one type of farming with all methods, big agriculture with litte, and more.
For example, everyone used to have a few pigs and chickens. The pigs ate left over refuse as part of their diet, all those potato peelings, carrot ends and leaves, and food about to go bad. Give it to the pig, and you can eat it later upon slaughter.
So environmentally friendly.
Chickens eating worms, bugs, the pests of man. Chickens mean our small gardens are not eaten bare by pests.
If you truly wanted change, advocate change to better methods.
You will never get us to give up meat, a hard requirement for a healthy life for European genes.
Most of my ancestry is European, but I eat relatively little meat -- not every day, and small portions when I do. My spouse is vegetarian. What health risks are we taking?
- Pandemic evolution, a few examples: BSE, COVID (indirectly), MERS, Q fever, Nipah, H1N1, H1N2, H2N2, H3N1, H3N2, H5N1, H7N7
- Climate change
- Antibiotic resistance (given to cows because they can't digest corn properly)
- Lower overall caloric production and net higher food prices
- Freshwater and oceanic dead zones
- Air pollution
- Soil pollution
- Somewhere down the list is animal cruelty, but it's historically been an unpersuasive argument
Edit: Erroneously listed "H1N1" twice
Edit2: Maybe not force, but taxation to make an FDA prime steak cost $1000 instead of $100.
It's not that people believe meat has no downsides, it's that we believe the positives outweigh the negatives.
We enjoy meat.
And even after lab grown meat becomes the norm there will still be cows raised for food to satisfy high end markets.
My point is that the world is not going to switch to plant or insect protein.
Shhh you’re giving the hall monitors ideas.
To be clear, this is a wild avian virus that jumped the species barrier to numerous mammals in the wild now, including marine mammals, with no relationship ever to farming practices.
Yes, factory farming is gross and dangerous and a disease vector. Currently, though, it is likely the only vector through which this virus is being monitored for a potential further jump to humans.
The vegan argument that keeps cropping up here is not much more than a "tisk tisk, you deserve horrors because... (X)". In each of these posts you could replace farming practices with overpopulation, spread of humans into wildlife populations, global warming, overuse of antivirals/antibiotics, ventilation systems, air travel, large religious gatherings, or people not wearing masks all day every day.
My point is just that responding to a post about a virus jumping species by writing a public service announcement implying that people have brought this upon themselves because of your pet cause "X" is basically the HN equivalent of the guy with the sandwich board saying REPENT THE END IS NEAR.
The purpose of a system is what it does.
The rest aside, wasn't the "bird" part of bird flu referring to poultry, mainly? Which presumably would be related to farming practices.
You could have the cleanest, ethicalest, modernest chicken farm known to man, but there's only so much you can do until a wild disease sees a high population density and says "I'mma infect that".
You are correct that we need a more preferable alternative. Our best shot is probably lab-grown meat, which unfortunately is now banned in FL because some conservatives have chosen to make it a culture war issue. However, perhaps it will gain traction elsewhere. Really we need massive government support - a moon shot for lab-grown meat - to accelerate its development.
> lab-grown meat, which unfortunately is now banned in FL
Unless Florida is no longer a democracy, I don't see how these two statement square. It's clearly possible to ban things with enough political will, no matter how smart or stupid the ban is.
Anecdotally,
oh, that rings a bell. I heard that in a different context over and over again for about 2.5 years. I heard grim promises that I will suffer and die, everyone I know will suffer and die too, the economy will collapse and the world will end - unless I trust the soyence and accept it as my lord and savior, of course.