The patient from Missouri has recovered, but health officials are still investigating how they became infected.

US health officials have confirmed a human case of bird flu in a patient that had no immediately known animal exposure.

The patient, in the state of Missouri, was treated in hospital and has since recovered, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said.

It is the 14th human case of bird flu in the US in 2024 and the first without a known occupational exposure to infected animals, according to the CDC.

  • єχтяαναgαηтєηzумєEnglish
    2·
    8 days ago

    Then why does bird flu have more invasive symptoms and a higher mortality rate compared to human influenza’s? I was taught by a virologist who’s been around the block many times and got her PhD in the USSR. She was adamant that a parasite never wants to kill it’s host, as this results in no longer being able to reproduce in the host and shortens it’s reproduction time in future host.

    Most viral offspring are not capable of infection, as without mutations, viruses would not be able to reproduce effectively and could not adapt to changing environments. To disprove a hypothesis simply means one aspect of the statement is incorrect. So while the cause and effect occurs, the explanation for why wasn’t dialed. Or at least, this would be my guess for how it could have been disproven.

    • merthyr1831@lemmy.mlEnglish
      2·
      8 days ago

      The same relationship of the cost of high virulence hurting the fitness of a pathogen may not apply if hosts are kept in proximity that a fast death doesn’t necessarily mean the pathogen cannot find a new host.

      It may have been how the 1918 flu pandemic was so deadly yet still successful at spreading to new hosts; being spread amongst soldiers in trenches and infirmaries and troop ships compared.

      Plus, there are evolutionary pressures on pathogens to become more virulent; using less resources by the host only leads to being outcompeted by more virulent pathogens. While mortality is a limiting factor, there is a temporary benefit to strategies that select for virulence until that limit is reached.

      • єχтяαναgαηтєηzумєEnglish
        2·
        7 days ago

        Virulence is defined as causing damage to the host. If the virus kills everyone in that small proximity, the virus will no longer be able to reproduce or spread, plain and simple.

        Viruses are super crafty in obtaining their limited number of proteins from the host. However, some viruses bring enzymes with them to get the job done without much help from the host. These are typically larger RNA viruses. Influenza is in this group, but it still steals the 5’ cap from the host. This happens without miss as it’s able to interact with the host RNA polymerase undetected and then this cap makes it so the influenza RNA appears to be host RNA.

        The 1918 influenza was so deadly as it had just jumped to a new host, humans. The same exact influenza responsible for the 1918 pandemic has relatives still in circulation. It’s not in circulation as the less virulent versions were more successful. This explicitly demonstrates the preference to be less virulent.

        If a virus doesn’t need many proteins from the host, it’s able to reproduce much more quickly than one dependant on more host resources. The more resources it needs, the increased ability of the immune system to prevent it’s reproduction. So in many situations, a lower requirement for host resources can make it more successful. Regardless, it can be very dependent on host resources, like many DNA viruses, and still not be very virulent. A great example of this is Hepatitis D. Virology is a fascinating field and it’s highly intricate as a virus is more like it’s host than any other viruses. There’s not a lot of commonality between different viruses and their reproduction cycles. So viruses in the same family are compared, and the 1918 becoming less virulent shows there’s a preference for becoming less virulent over time.