A new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has yet to identify lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The report examined the status of obligations and expenditures related to COVID-19 and how FEMA estimated spending from January 2020 to March 2024. For fiscal years 2020 through 2024, Congress passed both annual and supplemental appropriations for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) totaling $97 billion, the GAO said.
The COVID-19 pandemic was the first time a president authorized the use of the DRF, meant to provide aid during natural disasters, to respond to a nationwide public health emergency. Since March 2020, the president has issued 59 major disaster declarations for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, five territories, and three Tribes. FEMA manages the DRF.
Initially, FEMA officials told GAO officers that $17.6 billion for COVID-19 assistance was allocated for the pandemic response in 2020, but a FEMA official told the GAO that the first few months of the pandemic "blew that [funding] out of the water."
"As of March 2024, FEMA had committed to spend $125.3 billion from the fund for COVID-19related assistance like vaccinations, testing sites, and moreand had spent $103.6 billion of it," the GAO wrote. New York, Texas, and California had been given at least $15 billion each, the report states.
The funds have been used for a variety of activities, including reimbursements for funeral expenses, vaccination and testing sites, and personal protective equipment for medical staff. FEMA has said it expects to fulfill funding obligations for the pandemic through August 2026.
According to the report, FEMA has estimated that obligations would total $142.2 billion through the end of fiscal year 2024 and $171.6 billion for the entire disaster. The agency, however, has not been within 10% of the annual estimate by the end of any fiscal year since 2021.
To remedy this, the GAO recommends more work from FEMA to describe lessons learned during the first 4 years of the pandemic.
"In the future, FEMA may face challenges responding to a catastrophic event that is similar in scope or duration to COVID-19 and that could increase the risk of exceeding DRF resources," the GAO wrote. "By identifying and documenting lessons learned for estimating obligations based on its experience with COVID-19, FEMA can better position itself to adapt to similar estimation challenges in the future."
By identifying and documenting lessons learned for estimating obligations based on its experience with COVID-19, FEMA can better position itself to adapt to similar estimation challenges in the future.
FEMA, however, said it does not agree with the recommendation that it produce a document of lessons learned related to estimating obligations for declared catastrophic disasters based on its experience with COVID-19. FEMA officials also told the GAO they have no plans to do so.
New coronavirus hospitalizations haveclimbed on Long Island over the last few weeks, leading many physicians to continue urging people to get a booster.
But some experts say the timing of the next jab is based on an individual's personal health picture and other factors.
On Long Island on Friday, the rate was1.17 per 100,000, up from 0.33 that day in the prior year.As of Tuesday, 213 were newly hospitalized for COVID-19 in New York, and 48 of those cases were out of Long Island, state data shows.
As of Tuesday, the seven-day statewide average of new COVID-19 hospitalizations was the highest since March, coming in at a rate of 0.77for every 100,000 people, state data shows. In July of last year, the highest seven-day average was 0.31 per 100,000 residents.
The current figures do not outpace those of 2022, and those who currently contract the virus tend to be less likely to die because of available treatments such as the antiviral Paxlovid and prior vaccination, experts say.
Still, physicians say the current uptick likely fueled by factors such as waning vaccine immunity and new, more evasive coronavirus subvariants is concerning.
Getting a booster, they say,is important.However, some experts say the timing of getting the shot varies and is based on factors such as whether a person is immunocompromised, over 65, or is caring fora vulnerable person.
Experts say there will likely be an updated vaccine in the fall that might be better suited to fight against the newer subvariants, leaving many with a choice.
In exact timing [of getting another vaccination], I think it's all dependent on how vulnerable you think you are, what your plans are for the summer and what your plans are for the fall, said Dr. Stuart Ray,a medicine and infectious diseases professor at Johns Hopkins University.
In the future, Ray hopes to use genetic information to predict the risk of a severe COVID-19 infection for vulnerable groups, such as immunocompromised people.
Experts say a vaccine dose provides protection for a few months, and an additional dose can usually be spaced out by three months.
Dr. Bruce Farber,chief of epidemiology and public health with Northwell Health,said he would tell people to wait until the possible updated vaccine, except for certain groups that include those who are highly immunosuppressed and those who are unvaccinated.
I'm recommending, for the most part, with rare exceptions, to just hang in there until then, he said in a phone interview.
But Dr. Alan Bulbin of Catholic Health said people may be able to get vaccinated now and in the fall.If you are one of these at-risk groups, there's no downside in my mind of getting the already existing vaccine, he said.Any immunity, at this point is better than none, said Bulbin, infectious disease director at St. Francis Hospital.
Yet many Americans have thus far avoided getting an updated coronavirus vaccine. As of mid-May, roughly 22% of all adults hadthe 2023-24 coronavirus vaccine, according to weekly estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Dr. Paul Mustacchia, chair of the Department of Medicine at Nassau University Medical Center, warned that the coronavirus can be unpredictable. Now is a good time to get vaccinated if it has been several months since the last dose, especially those who are obese or chronically ill, he said.
The primary concern is that we don't often know how COVID is going to behave, he said.
Education: Howard University
Tiffany Cusaac-Smith came to Newsday in 2023 after being a race and history reporter at USA TODAY, where she wrote enterprise and spot articles examining how the past shapes the present. Previously, she worked as the race and justice reporter at the USA TODAY Network of New York, covering issues such as criminal justice reform, housing, environmental justice, health care and politics. At The Journal News/lohud.com in Westchester County, she covered Yonkers, the state's third-largest city. She also worked at The Associated Press in Atlanta.
Honors and Awards: Criminal justice reporting fellowship with the National Press Foundation; New York News Publishers Association award for distinguished investigative reporting; Contributed reporting for Best of Gannett honor; Member of Table Stakes, a program funded by the Knight-Lenfest Local News Transformation Fund and managed by the American Press Institute to transform local news.
No matter who wins in November, preparing for the next pandemic needs to be a top priority for America's leaders. An essential first step must be holding the last pandemic's main culpritthe Chinese governmentaccountable.
COVID-19 resulted in over 28 million excess deaths around the world, including 1.1 million in America. As our new Nonpartisan Commission on China and COVID-19 report shows, the financial cost to our country amounted to 18 trillion dollars. Despite these astronomical damages, however, our government has so far failed to hold China to account for its unacceptable negligence and malfeasance.
The strong preponderance of evidence supports our assessment that a research-related incident in Wuhan was most likely the source of the initial outbreak. But our assertion of Chinese culpability holds regardless of how the initial spillover happened, whether from a laboratory accident or, as some allege, as a result of China's illegal wildlife trade. Either way, what followed was a coverup.
Beijing could have contained the outbreak early on byalerting its own citizensand the worldto the threat. Instead, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) maximized COVID-19's spread and impact by destroying samples, hiding records, imprisoning journalists, gagging scientists, blocking international investigations, and lying to and seeking to co-opt the World Health Organization.
>>>Holding China Accountable for Its Role in the Most Catastrophic Pandemic of Our Time: COVID-19
That's why accountability today is so important to our safety tomorrow. Without it, every authoritarian state official facing similar circumstances in the future will be incentivized to follow the CCP's COVID-19 playbook of lies and obfuscation.
To that end, our report lays out a blueprint for the next administration to hold China accountable. One of our most important recommendations is that the U.S. government empower American victims of COVID-19 to hold Chinese entities liable through mass tort class action lawsuits.
Establishing liability is an essential tool for fostering accountability in any functioning domestic legal system. The same principle can be applied appropriately in the international context. But while America's Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) provides a limited path forward for potential plaintiffs, the bar for these types of actions remains dauntingly high.
This restrictiveness makes sense in normal circumstances and helps prevent international chaos. But these are not normal circumstances. Our world remains dangerously and unnecessarily at risk for future pandemics because we've collectively failed to establish accountability for the last one.
Congress can fix this problem with a single-paragraph amendment to the FSIA. Republicans and Democrats should work together to ensure that U.S. federal courts are granted jurisdiction over cases where injured American citizens are seeking monetary damages against a foreign state, with the important caveat that the foreign state must have directly through malfeasance or indirectly through negligence sparked a pandemic leading to over a million excess deaths in America and failed to carry out or allow a comprehensive and unfettered investigation.
>>>China and the Global Culture War: Western Civilizational Turmoil and Beijings Strategic Calculus
Congress should take this action for three essential reasons. First, it would give teeth to ongoing American and international efforts exploring the pandemic's origins that the CCP is currently impeding. Second, it would remind China that misleading the world comes with a cost. Third, and most important, it would establish a precedent encouraging all countries to respond to pathogenic outbreaks with transparency and accountability.
Although these steps may seem aggressive, particularly in the context of worsening relations between the United States and China, we have already lived through the consequences of the status quo. Twenty-eight million people are dead as a result of a totally avoidable pandemic. If we do not take tough action now, future pandemics will almost certainly be far worse.
Our children's safety shouldn't be a partisan issue. Fighting for answers about what went wrong with COVID-19 shouldn't be something we put off until the next pandemic is upon us. By holding the Chinese government accountable today, our leaders can save countless American and other lives tomorrow.
A. Measuring opinion-based affective polarization regarding COVID-19 vaccination using thermometer scores
We assessed opinion-based affective polarization regarding COVID-19 vaccination in a multistep process. To begin with, we asked respondents to indicate on an 11-point scale ranging from 0 complete rejection to 10 complete support how strongly they oppose or support COVID-19 vaccination (Mean (M)Sample FRA=6.83, (M)Sample GER=7.8, (M)Sample ITA=7.7, (M)Sample SPA=7.96, (M)Sample SWI=7.26, (M)Sample UK=8.14).
The left panel in Fig.2 shows the mean levels of support for COVID-19 vaccination across our six countries. Generally, support is very high with mean levels of 7 on the scale from 0 to 10. The lowest level of support is found in France and the highest in the UK and Spain. The violin plots in the right panel of Fig.1 again illustrate this finding as the distribution is skewed in favor of COVID-19 vaccination. However, the distribution shows that a consistent minority opposes COVID-19 vaccination in all six countries. That is, the issue has triggered the formation of two groups: one for and one against it.
Mean support for COVID-19 vaccination and its distribution.
In a next step, we applied the most widely used measurement approach for affective polarization, the feeling thermometer8,40, in which respondents are asked to rate their feelings about a specific subject on a temperature scale9,40. First, we dichotomized the variable on the position regarding COVID-19 vaccination and classified respondents who indicated a value from 0 to 4 as opponents of COVID-19 vaccination (anti-vaccination group) and those who indicated a value from 6 to 10 as supporters of COVID-19 vaccination (pro-vaccination group). We excluded respondents who indicated a value of 5 as they were neutral on the issue. Second, we asked respondents of the respective groups to rate their feelings toward a) supporters of COVID-19 vaccination and b) opponents of COVID-19 vaccination on a scale from 5 (very cold and negative) to+5 (very warm and positive). We transformed this scale to range from 0 to 10 and subsequently used the absolute difference between the two ratings to obtain a measure for affective polarization ((M)Sample FRA=5.1, (M)Sample GER=6.05, (M)Sample ITA=6.12, (M)Sample SPA=6.44, (M)Sample SWI=5.32, (M)Sample UK=6.03). The descriptive results are reported below using bar graphs for readability. Formal t-tests are reported in the supplementary material, section C, Tables 1214.
Figure3 shows the thermometer scores for the two groups separated by group membership (supporters vs. opponents) and country. The feelings toward COVID-19 vaccination supporters (left panel in Fig.3) show a clear pattern: Supporters feel very positive and warm toward other supporters ((M)Supp FRA=8.9, (M)Supp GER=9.18, (M)Supp ITA=8.96, (M)Supp SPA=8.93, (M)Supp SWI=8.93, (M)Supp UK=9.05). Conversely, opponents feel somewhat cold and negative toward supporters, with values below the neutral value of 5 ((M)Opp FRA=4.86, (M)Opp GER=4.43, (M)Opp ITA=4.17, (M)Opp SPA=4.79, (M)Opp SWI=4.65, (M)Opp UK=4.47). These values are statistically significant and different at the 95% level.
Thermometer ratings of feelings toward COVID-19 vaccination supporters and opponents by group and country.Notes: Figure3 shows the mean thermometer ratings of feelings toward vaccination supporters and opponents separated by group and country, with 95% confidence intervals. Reading example for France in the left panel: In France, vaccination opponents have an average thermometer rating of feelings toward vaccination supporters of 6.15, while vaccination supporters have an average thermometer rating of feelings toward vaccination supporters of 7.04 on a scale of 010. The difference is statistically significant.
Looking at the thermometer scores for COVID-19 vaccination opponents, we see a mirror image. Opponents feel relatively positive and warm toward other opponents ((M)Opp FRA=6.55, (M)Opp GER=6.73, (M)Opp ITA=6.77, (M)Opp SPA=5.78, (M)Opp SWI=6.85, (M)Opp UK=5.96). Yet, these positive in-group feelings are comparatively lower among opponents than among supporters. It seems that there is less group cohesion among opponents than among supporters of COVID-19 vaccination. Furthermore, supporters express very cold and negative feelings toward opponents, as expected ((M)Supp FRA=2.46, (M)Supp GER=2.07, (M)Supp ITA=2.27, (M)Supp SPA=1.76, (M)Supp SWI=2.73, (M)Supp UK=2.32). All differences between supporters and opponents are statistically significant at the 95% level.
Figure4 reveals the absolute difference between both thermometer ratings, separated by group and country. Supporters show a relatively high average difference in feelings toward the in-group and the out-group ((M)Supp FRA=6.63, (M)Supp GER=7.17, (M)Supp ITA=7.01, (M)Supp SPA=7.35, (M)Supp SWI=6.46, (M)Supp UK=6.86). Opponents also show a difference in feelings for their in- and out-group, but this difference is less pronounced ((M)Opp FRA=2.65, (M)Opp GER=2.95, (M)Opp ITA=3.18, (M)Opp SPA=2.93, (M)Opp SWI=2.87, (M)Opp UK=3.02). All differences in affective polarization are significant at the 95% level. The highest levels of affective polarization are found in Germany and Spain among supporters and in Italy and the United Kingdom among opponents. Both groups express affective polarization regarding COVID-19 vaccination, but it is stronger among the pro- than among the anti-vaccination group. As expected, affective polarization is asymmetric, implying that both in-group attachment and out-group dislike are stronger among the pro-vaccination group than among the anti-vaccination group.
Affective polarization of COVID-19 vaccination supporters and opponents.Notes: Figure4 shows the mean level of affective polarization (thermometer measure) by group and country, with 95% confidence intervals. Reading example: In France, vaccination opponents show an average affective polarization of 2.65 and vaccination supporters of 6.63 on a scale from 0 to 10. The difference is statistically significant.
To further evaluate our findings, we used a second common measure of affective polarization: character trait ratings14,17,40. Here, respondents from the pro-vaccination camp and the anti-vaccination camp (as coded above) are asked to rate various character traits of the twodifferent groups. Although trait ratings are a typical measure of affective polarization, they reflect more than just negative affect but also shed light on the perceived stereotypical appearance of a group9. In this vein, these trait ratings allow us to identify whether respondents assign negative or positive characteristics to their respective in-group and out-group. Research has shown that trait ratings and thermometer scores, although conceptually somewhat distinct, correlate fairly well with each other and show little systematic differences40. In our full sample, the affective polarization scores for both measures correlate at (r)Sample=0.62 (r)Sample FRA=0. 61, (r)Sample GER=0.64, (r)Sample ITA=0.67, (r)Sample SPA=0.57, (r)Sample SWI=0.59, (r)Sample UK=0.65).
In our study, we asked respondents to rate the extent to which two positive character traits (openness to compromise and critical thinking) and two negative character traits (selfishness and narrow-mindedness) apply to a) supporters of COVID-19 vaccination and b) opponents of COVID-19 vaccination on a scale from 1 (does not apply at all) to 5 (fully applies). In addition to the assigned values, we also calculated the absolute differences between the scores assigned to the in- and the out-group for each trait. Subsequently, we combined these differences into an additive score for affective polarization ((M)Sample FRA=1.72, (M)Sample GER=2.08, (M)Sample ITA=1.92, (M)Sample SPA=1.99, (M)Sample SWI=1.87, (M)Sample UK=2.01).
This alternative measure reveals a similar picture of affective polarization regarding COVID-19 vaccination as the feeling thermometer. Figure5 is analogous to Fig.3 and shows the character trait ratings for supporters and opponents of COVID-19 vaccination by group and country. For the sake of readability, we combine the two positive and negative traits each (see supplementary material, section D, Fig.1 for the individual character trait ratings). The upper panel of Fig.5 shows the ratings of the two negative traits combined. As we can see in the upper left panel, supporters do not believe that other supporters are selfish and narrow-minded ((M)Supp FRA=1.87, (M)Supp GER=1.77, (M)Supp ITA=2.15, (M)Supp SPA=2.16, (M)Supp SWI=2.00, (M)Supp UK=1.68). Conversely, opponents tend to assign these negative traits to supporters ((M)Opp FRA=2.63, (M)Opp GER=3.00, (M)Opp ITA=3.33, (M) Opp SPA=2.79, (M)Opp SWI=3.04, (M)Opp UK=2.81). The opposite picture emerges when we look at the upper right panel: Consistent with in-group favoritism, opponents do not believe that other opponents are selfish or narrow-minded ((M)Opp FRA=1.87, (M)Opp GER=1.94, (M)Opp ITA=2.08, (M)Opp SPA=2.49, (M)Opp SWI=1.98, (M)Opp UK=2.23). Supporters, however, believe that opponents are selfish and narrow-minded ((M)Supp FRA=3.83, (M)Supp GER=4.10, (M)Supp ITA=4.08, (M)Supp SPA=3.94, (M)Supp SWI=3.96, (M)Supp UK=3.91). All differences are significant at the 95% level.
Perceived character traits of COVID-19 vaccination supporters and opponents by group and country.Notes: Figure5 shows the mean perceived character traits for vaccination supporters and opponents separated by group and country, with 95% confidence intervals. For example, in the top left-hand panel for France: In France, vaccination opponents perceive vaccination supporters to have negative traits with an average of 2.63 while vaccination supporters perceive vaccination supporters to have negative traits with an average of 1.87 on a scale of 15. The difference is statistically significant.
The lower part of Fig.5 shows the ratings of the positive traits combined. Here, an analogous but less consistent trend is observed compared to the ratings of the negative traits. Supporters assign positive traits to their in-group ((M)Supp FRA=2.99, (M)Supp GER=3.64, (M)Supp ITA=3.45, (M)Supp SPA=3.69, (M)Supp SWI=3.56, (M)Supp UK=3.79). Conversely, opponents do not ascribe these traits to supporters ((M)Opp FRA=2.61, (M)Opp GER=2.48, (M)Opp ITA=2.83, (M)Opp SPA=2.85, (M)Opp SWI=2.49, (M)Opp UK=2.78). All differences between supporters and opponents are significant at the 95% level.
Opponents see themselves as more open to compromise and able to think critically ((M)Opp FRA=2.80, (M)Opp GER=3.48, (M)Opp ITA=3.03, (M)Opp SPA=3.14, (M)Opp SWI=3.27, (M)Opp UK=2.86). Yet, supporters do not think that these positive traits apply to opponents ((M)Supp FRA=2.78, (M)Supp GER=2.21, (M)Supp ITA=2.59, (M)Supp SPA=2.50, (M)Supp SWI=2.49, (M)Supp UK=2.27). All differences are significant at the 95% level, except those for France.
Although less pronounced, Fig.5 provides further evidence that supporters and opponents of COVID-19 vaccination tend to view their in-group positively and their out-group negatively. Figure6, which shows the absolute difference in character trait ratings by group and country, corroborates these observations. While both groups show a difference in ascribed character traits toward the in-group and the out-group, the average difference is again slightly but statistically significantly (at the 95% level) greater among vaccination supporters ((M)Supp FRA=2.04, (M)Supp GER=2.31, (M)Supp ITA=2.09, (M)Supp SPA=2.18, (M)Supp SWI=2.03, (M)Supp UK=2.24) than among vaccination opponents ((M)Opp FRA=1.25, (M)Opp GER=1.49, (M)Opp ITA=1.51, (M)Opp SPA=1.23, (M)Opp SWI=1.61, (M)Opp UK=1.22).
Affective polarization among COVID-19 vaccination supporters and opponents.Notes: Figure6 shows the mean level of affective polarization (according to the character trait ratings) by group and country, with 95% confidence intervals. Reading example: In France, vaccination opponents have an average affective polarization of 1.25, while vaccination supporters have an affective polarization of 2.04 on a scale from 1 to 5. The difference is statistically significant.
Overall, our data suggest a divide around peoples opinions on COVID-19 vaccination. Supporters and opponents dislike each other and tend to attribute positive traits to their in-group and negative traits to the respective out-group. Thus, our data indicates the presence of opinion-based affective polarization regarding COVID-19 vaccination in six European democracies in early 2022. Importantly, however, this affective polarization is asymmetric, as the pro-vaccination group tends to be more polarized than the anti-vaccination group. Naturally, this finding raises the question of potential correlates of this form of polarization. As a first step in this direction, exploratory analyses reported in the supplementary material, section E, Figs. 24 show that older age, lower social trust, higher levels of conscientiousness, and a general support for COVID-19 vaccination are associated with higher levels of opinion-based affective polarization regarding COVID-19 vaccination.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}
Avian influenza, or bird flu, has public health officials on alert after an unprecedented spread in dairy cows in the United States this year. Four dairy workers have also tested positive in the country.
A particularly severe variant of the H5N1 strain has been spreading around the world in animals since 2020, causing lethal outbreaks in commercial poultry and sporadic infections in other species from alpacas to house cats. Until this year, it had never infected cows.
Different bird flu strains have been found in Australia and Mexico in humans, while different H5 subtypes are also present around the world in both animals and humans, in countries including China and Cambodia.
FERRET STUDY SHOWS BIRD FLU FOUND IN US COWS CARRIES LOW RISK OF AIRBORNE TRANSMISSION
Most of the human cases reported exposure to poultry, live poultry markets, or dairy cattle prior to infection, but scientists are worried the virus could mutate in ways that make it more easily spread from person-to-person, which could spark a pandemic. The World Health Organization says the risk to people is low at this point.
Below are occurrences of varying types of the bird flu virus that have been found in humans this year.
The first known cases of infected dairy cattle occurred in Texas in March, and is now in dairy herds in 12 states. The U.S. Agriculture Department said tests so far indicate that the virus detected in cows is the same H5N1 virus affecting wild birds and commercial poultry flocks. The four dairy workers who have tested positive for the virus this year had mild symptoms such as conjunctivitis, or pink eye.
A particularly severe variant of the H5N1 strain has been spreading around the world in animals since 2020. (Reuters/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo)
The H5N1 virus in the United States belongs to the clade 2.3.4.4b, genotype B3.13, a genotype detected only in North America so far, the European Food Safety Agency said in a scientific report.
A resident of Mexico died with the first known cases of H5N2 avian influenza in humans, the WHO said on June 5. Mexico's government said chronic illness, rather than bird flu, was the cause of death. The person had no known exposure to animals.
The WHO on June 7 said a child with H5N1 bird flu reported by Australia had traveled to Kolkata, India. Genetic sequencing showed the virus was a subtype of H5N1 and part of a strain that circulates in Southeast Asia and has been detected in previous human infections and in poultry.
Australia is separately dealing with three outbreaks of different strains of the virus on poultry farms - H7N3, H7N8 and H7N9 - that authorities say likely arrived on farms via wild birds.
The WHO on June 11 reported a case of human infection with bird flu caused by the H9N2 subtype in a four-year-old child in the eastern Indian state of West Bengal. It was the second human infection of H9N2 bird flu from India following a case in 2019, the agency said. While the H9N2 virus typically tends to cause mild illness, the United Nations agency said further sporadic human cases could occur as this is one of the most prevalent avian influenza viruses circulating in poultry in different regions.
Vietnam reported a 21-year-old student had died from the H5N1 bird flu in March. He had no underlying medical conditions, but had been exposed to wild birds from hunting a couple of weeks prior to onset of symptoms. No contact with dead or sick poultry was reported at the time.
Vietnam also reported an outbreak of H9N2 in a 37-year-old man, EFSA said.
The Southeast Asia nation and Vietnam neighbor has reported five human cases of H5N1 as of June 20.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
China this year detected human cases caused by the H5N6, H9N2 and H10N3 strains, with two fatal H5N6 cases in the Fujian province. Both of those cases had exposure to backyard poultry before the onset of symptoms, EFSA said.
The case of H10N3 avian influenza was the third one ever reported globally.
Germany reported a rare outbreak of highly pathogenic H7N5 bird flu on a farm in the western part of the country, near the border with the Netherlands, the World Organization for Animal Health said on July 4. It was the first outbreak anywhere of H7N5 on WOAH's public records.
In scientific experiments designed to assess the threat from H5N1 avian flu in the milk of infected cows, researchers today reported that the virus can bind to both avian and human-type cell receptors but doesn't easily spread through respiratory routes.
The research team, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, two universities in Japan, and Texas A&M Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory,detailed its findings today inNature.
So far, H5N1 has been confirmed on at least 140 dairy farms since March, with infections identified in four dairy workers. Since the virus first emerged in dairy cattle, scientists have been closely watching for changes in the virus that would signal a greater pandemic threat and conducting experiments to gauge infectivity and transmission.
In one set of experiments, researchers dripped milk from infected cows into the noses of mice and ferrets, which caused severe disease in the animals. Ferrets are often used to examine potential influenza A transmission patterns in people, because the animals show similar clinical symptoms and immune responses.
In the intranasal experiments, researchers compared the infectivity of three different viruses: H5N1 from cows, a Vietnamese H5N1 strain, and seasonal H1N1. Mice receiving the H5N1 viruses had high virus levels in respiratory and non-respiratory organs, including mammary tissues and muscles, but H1N1 was found only in respiratory tissues. The group also found that the virus can spread from mice mothers to their pups, likely via infected milk.
In ferrets, H5N1 was found only in the respiratory system.
"Together, our pathogenicity studies in mice and ferrets revealed that HPAI H5N1 derived from lactating dairy cattle may induce severe disease after oral ingestion or respiratory infection, and infection by either the oral or respiratory route can lead to systemic spread of virus to non-respiratory tissues including the eye, mammary gland, teat and/or muscle," the group wrote.
Our study demonstrates that bovine H5N1 viruses may differ from previously circulating HPAI [highly pathogenic avian influenza] H5N1 viruses by possessing dual human/avian-type receptor-binding specificity with limited respiratory droplet transmission in ferrets.
The group also found that mice can become sick after drinking even a small amount of raw milk from an infected cow, a finding that some of the same researchers had reported in a May research letter to the New England Journal of Medicine.
In yet another set of experiments, researchers mixed the H5N1 virus from cows with different types of receptors, which the virus uses to enter cells. They found that the virus can bind to receptors that can recognize both avian and human influenza viruses, which adds more evidence that the virus may be adapting to human hosts and that it may have the ability to bind to cells in the human upper respiratory tract.
The team wrote, "Collectively, our study demonstrates that bovine H5N1 viruses may differ from previously circulating HPAI [highly pathogenic avian influenza] H5N1 viruses by possessing dual human/avian-type receptor-binding specificity with limited respiratory droplet transmission in ferrets."
Another big question about the virus is how well it can spread through the air. To gauge transmission, researchers placed H5N1-infected ferrets in cages that were near, but not touching, the cages of uninfected ferrets. None of the four exposed ferrets got sick or tested positive for the virus. However, follow-up tests found that one ferret had antibodies to H5N1.
When they did the same experiment with seasonal flu, they found efficient noncontact spread.
Yoshihiro Kawaoka, PhD, a group leader and professor of pathobiological sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said in a news release from the school, that the finding "suggests that the exposed ferret was infected, indicating some level of airborne transmissibility but not a substantial level."
Ian Brown, PhD, a group leader in avian virology with the UK-based Pirbright Institute, said data from mice doesn't always directly correlate to humans, but the new work on predicted cell binding offers new evidence for wider attachment, including cells lining the upper airway of humans. However, he added that more study is needed to understand the underlying factors.
"Overall the study findings are not unexpected but this report provides further science insight to an evolving situation, that emphasises the need for strong monitoring and surveillance in affected or exposed populations, both animals and humans to track future risk,"he said.
Ed Hutchinson, PhD, senior lecturer at the MRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, said it's notable that both H5N1 viruses can spread through the bodies of infected animals, including the mammary glands."Now that were looking, it seems like spreading into the mammary glands is something that any of these highly pathogenic H5N1 viruses could do," he said. The results of the ferret respiratory transmission experiments are somewhat reassuring, but he said there is still reason for concern.
It seems like spreading into the mammary glands is something that any of these highly pathogenic H5N1 viruses could do.
When the researchers compared bovine H5N1 with the other H5N1 strain, they saw some evidence that the bovine strain had already started to gain some of the properties linked to the ability to spread through respiratory transmission in humans.
"Although it is good news that cow flu cannot yet do this, these findings reinforce the need for urgent and determined action to closely monitor this outbreak and to try and bring it under control as soon as possible," Hutchinson said.
Whats the difference? is a new editorial product that explains the similarities and differences between commonly confused health and medical terms, and why they matter.
The term man flu takes a humorous poke at men with minor respiratory infections, such as colds, who supposedly exaggerate their symptoms.
According to the stereotype, a man lies on the sofa with a box of tissues. Meanwhile his female partner, also with a snotty nose, carries on working from home, doing the chores and looking after him.
But is man flu real? Is there a valid biological reason behind mens symptoms or are men just malingering? And how does man flu differ from flu?
Man flu could refer to a number of respiratory infections a cold, flu, even a mild case of COVID. So its difficult to compare man flu with flu.
But for simplicity, lets say man flu is actually a cold. If thats the case, man flu and flu have some similar features.
Both are caused by viruses (but different ones). Both are improved with rest, fluids, and if needed painkillers, throat lozenges or decongestants to manage symptoms.
Both can share similar symptoms. Typically, more severe symptoms such as fever, body aches, violent shivering and headaches are more common in flu (but sometimes occur in colds). Meanwhile sore throats, runny noses, congestion and sneezing are more common in colds. A cough is common in both.
Flu is a more serious and sometimes fatal respiratory infection caused by the influenza virus. Colds are caused by various viruses such as rhinoviruses, adenoviruses, and common cold coronaviruses, and are rarely serious. Colds tend to start gradually while flu tends to start abruptly.
Flu can be detected with laboratory or at-home tests. Man flu is not an official diagnosis.
Severe flu symptoms may be prevented with a vaccine, while cold symptoms cannot.
Serious flu infections may also be prevented or treated with antiviral drugs such as Tamiflu. There are no antivirals for colds.
Again, lets assume man flu is a cold. Do men really have worse colds than women? The picture is complicated.
One study, with the title Man flu is not a thing, did in fact show there were differences in mens and womens symptoms.
This study looked at symptoms of acute rhinosinusitis. Thats inflammation of the nasal passages and sinuses, which would explain a runny or stuffy nose, a sinus headache or face pain.
When researchers assessed participants at the start of the study, men and women had similar symptoms. But by days five and eight of the study, women had fewer or less-severe symptoms. In other words, women had recovered faster.
But when participants rated their own symptoms, we saw a somewhat different picture. Women rated their symptoms worse than how the researchers rated them at the start, but said they recovered more quickly.
All this suggests men were not exaggerating their symptoms and did indeed recover more slowly. It also suggests women feel their symptoms more strongly at the start.
Its not straightforward to tease out whats going on biologically.
There are differences in immune responses between men and women that provide a plausible reason for worse symptoms in men.
For instance, women generally produce antibodies more efficiently, so they respond more effectively to vaccination. Other aspects of womens immune system also appear to work more strongly.
So why do women tend to have stronger immune responses overall? Thats probably partly because women have two X chromosomes while men have one. X chromosomes carry important immune function genes. This gives women the benefit of immune-related genes from two different chromosomes.
Oestrogen (the female sex hormone) also seems to strengthen the immune response, and as levels vary throughout the lifespan, so does the strength of womens immune systems.
Men are certainly more likely to die from some infectious diseases, such as COVID. But the picture is less clear with other infections such as the flu, where the incidence and mortality between men and women varies widely between countries and particular flu subtypes and outbreaks.
Infection rates and outcomes in men and women can also depend on the way a virus is transmitted, the persons age, and social and behavioural factors.
For instance, women seem to be more likely to practice protective behaviours such as washing their hands, wearing masks or avoiding crowded indoor spaces. Women are also more likely to seek medical care when ill.
Some evidence suggests men are not over-reporting symptoms, and may take longer to clear an infection. So they may experience man flu more harshly than women with a cold.
So cut the men in your life some slack. If they are sick, gender stereotyping is unhelpful, and may discourage men from seeking medical advice.
While H5N1 avian influenza virus taken from infected cow's milk makes mice and ferrets sick when dripped into their noses, airborne transmission of the virus between ferrets -; a common model for human transmission -; appears to be limited.
These and other new findings about the strain of H5N1 circulating among North American dairy cattle this year come from a set of laboratory experiments led by University of WisconsinMadison researchers, reported today in the journal Nature. Together, they suggest that exposure to raw milk infected with the currently circulating virus poses a real risk of infecting humans, but that the virus may not spread very far or quickly to others.
"This relatively low risk is good news, since it means the virus is unlikely to easily infect others who aren't exposed to raw infected milk," says Yoshihiro Kawaoka, a UWMadison professor of pathobiological sciences who led the study alongside Keith Poulsen, director of the Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, and with collaborators at Texas A&M University, Japan's University of Shizuoka and elsewhere.
Kawaoka cautioned, however, that the findings represent the behavior of the virus in mice and ferrets and may not account for the infection and evolution process in humans.
In their experiments, the UWMadison team found that mice can become ill with influenza after drinking even relatively small quantities of raw milk taken from an infected cow in New Mexico.
Kawaoka and his colleagues also tested the bovine H5N1 virus's ability to spread through the air by placing ferrets infected with the virus near but out of physical contact with uninfected ferrets. Ferrets are a common model for understanding how influenza viruses might spread among humans because the small mammals exhibit respiratory symptoms similar to humans who are sick with the flu, including congestion, sneezing and fever. Efficient airborne transmission would signal a serious escalation in the virus's potential to spark a human pandemic.
None of the four exposed ferrets became ill, and no virus was recovered from them throughout the course of the study. However upon further testing, the researchers found that one exposed ferret had produced antibodies to the H5N1 virus.
That suggests that the exposed ferret was infected, indicating some level of airborne transmissibility but not a substantial level."
Yoshihiro Kawaoka, UWMadison professor of pathobiological sciences
Separately, the team mixed the bovine H5N1 virus with receptors -; molecules the virus binds to in order to enter cells -; that are typically recognized by avian or human influenza viruses. They found that bovine H5N1 bound to both types of molecules, representing one more line of evidence of its adaptability to human hosts.
While that adaptability has so far resulted in a limited number of human H5N1 cases, previous influenza viruses that caused human pandemics in 1957 and 1968 did so after developing the ability to bind to receptors bound by human influenza viruses.
Finally, the UWMadison team found that the virus spread to the mammary glands and muscles of mice infected with H5N1 virus and that the virus spread from mothers to their pups, likely via infected milk. These findings underscore the potential risks of consuming unpasteurized milk and possibly undercooked beef derived from infected cattle if the virus spreads widely among beef cattle, according to Kawaoka.
"The H5N1 virus currently circulating in cattle has limited capacity to transmit in mammals," he says. "But we need to monitor and contain this virus to prevent its evolution to one that transmits well in humans."
Source:
Journal reference:
Eisfeld, A. J., et al. (2024). Pathogenicity and transmissibility of bovine H5N1 influenza virus.Nature. doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07766-6.
DENVER, COLORADO JANUARY 6: Governor Jared Polis make an announcement to help provide Coloradans with short-term and long-term relief from high energy costs at his office in the Colorado State Capitol on February 6, 2023 in Denver, Colorado. (Photo by RJ Sangosti/The Denver Post)
Nearly 2 million chickens at a Weld County egg-laying facility will be killed because of the latest outbreak of the avian flu virus, according to the Colorado Department of Agriculture.
The department said Tuesday that 1.78 million birds will be killed at the location known as Weld 11 following a presumptive positive confirmation Friday from the Colorado State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory. The National Veterinary Sciences Lab confirmed the result Monday. It appeared that the facility is east of Keenesburg, based on a quarantine map of the area. A spokeswoman was not immediately available for comment about the address late Tuesday.
Outbreaks of the Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza virus have been threatening Colorado domestic birds since March 2022, according to state officials.
Gov. Jared Polis last week verbally declared a disaster emergency as a result of the outbreak at the Weld facility, the office reported on Monday. The declaration is meant to ensure that state officials can provide resources to protect the agriculture industry, officials said.
The declaration specifically unlocks the resources necessary to help affected poultry facilities respond to and contain outbreaks of avian flu, according to a news release from Poliss office. It directs the state Office of Emergency Management to help with all response, recovery and mitigation related to the latest outbreak.
The virus affected more than 6.3 million commercial chickens, 1,635 backyard poultry and 15,801 game birds across the state in May, which is the last time the state Department of Agriculture issued a report. An update on the report is expected this week, said Olga Robak, the Department of Agriculture director of communications and public awareness.
Bird owners are encouraged to keep their flocks away from wild birds and not to touch any dead wild birds. There have been rare cases of human infection with avian influenza, according to the department.
Domestic animals such as dogs and cats may become infected with avian flu if they eat or are exposed to sick or dead birds infected with the virus, or if the animals are exposed to an environment contaminated with feces of infected birds.
More information about the states response to avian flu can be found at ag.colorado.gov/HPAIresponse.
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) After weeks of clean reports, the Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development has confirmed there is a new outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza or bird flu within a dairy herd.
The latest outbreak is in a herd in Gratiot County. Data from MDARD shows it was first reported on July 5 and confirmed by testing at the Michigan State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory.
Before this latest outbreak, MDARD had gone five weeks without reporting a new case, by far the longest stretch of inaction since the first outbreak among dairy herds was confirmed in late March.
According to MDARD, it is the 34th confirmed outbreak of the year and the 26th in a dairy herd.
The bird flu epidemic started in earnest in 2022 and has impacted farms across the country. In the last two years,more than 97 million poultryhave been culled because of infections. It returned to Michigan in earnest in March, with the first infection registered among a dairy herd in Montcalm County. Since then, another 24 dairy herds have confirmed outbreaks, and another eight poultry flocks.
Highly pathogenic avian influenza is quite deadly in birds, but the survival rate is high among cattle. Though it is rare, humans can also catch the virus.
Since the 2022 outbreak started, five human cases have been reported in the U.S. Four have come since the start of April, includingtwo in Michigan. Most human cases are fairly mild and those cases have not spread to other people. However, a person from Mexicodied earlier this yearfrom a bird flu infection.
MDARD issued theHPAI Risk Reduction Response Orderon May 1, outlining specific measures that poultry and dairy farmers should take to try to prevent spreading the virus. It includes strict protocols for disinfecting vehicles and equipment and shutting down animal showcases until the spread is under control.
We know that transmission of this virus is possible not just from cow to cow, but through people, vehicle and equipment movement, as well. The decreasing number of positive detections can be attributed in large part to the combined and coordinated federal interstate movement restrictions and state level biosecurity requirements, MDARD Director Tim Boring said.
