COVID-19 - Wuhan Coronavirus (a non-political thread, see pg. 36 #1778)

[QuikSand]

Bad information, at this point, plays such a central role now. The issue has been fully politicized and polarized, and I don't see how we undo that.

So, how many deaths among people like me would it take for the hypothetical "me" to start to take something seriously? I don't know, to be honest.

A million dead Americans, probably a click or two more than that if you measure by the more neutral "excess deaths" metric... and most of the country has decided it's time to back off. And many are now furious that we did any of the things that we did to try to slow/stop it as an article of faith.

It's bananas and driven by such irrationality that I don't think this is about math.

[QuikSand]

I work with and around political people, professionally. I wear a mask a lot more than the average person, especially of late, so I end up tagging myself (like it or not) as out of the mainstream. And I have lost track of the anecdotes from relatively mild covid-deniers who have fully hinged their actions on the most specious and absurd little things. That anecdote about the car crash victim dying of physical trauma but being "counted as a covid death because he tested positive" is just a get-out-of-thinking-free card for an awful lot of people (and these are people charged with making decisions on behalf of the public). It's just staggering.

-Nobody really dies of this, I got it and it was just like a cold
-I heard about the hospital just using covid numbers to get more funding
-The car crash guy story, gimme a break
-The studies say that the vax was always a lie and does nothing at all
-The studies say that masks were always a lie and do nothing at all

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Bad information, at this point, plays such a central role now. The issue has been fully politicized and polarized, and I don't see how we undo that.

So, how many deaths among people like me would it take for the hypothetical "me" to start to take something seriously? I don't know, to be honest.

A million dead Americans, probably a click or two more than that if you measure by the more neutral "excess deaths" metric... and most of the country has decided it's time to back off. And many are now furious that we did any of the things that we did to try to slow/stop it as an article of faith.

It's bananas and driven by such irrationality that I don't think this is about math.

A million plus dead is crazy. We had a poll on this I need to look at again.

A million is roughly 1 in 330 people in this country that have died from covid. I'd imagine if you filled a stadium with 50k people and announced 150 people would randomly be chosen to die it's something that would be taken seriously.

Then again, a significant percentage of people don't believe that number and always have a friend or relative that knows someone that died in a car accident and the death certificate listed covid as the cause of death.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Atocep

A million is roughly 1 in 330 people in this country that have died from covid. I'd imagine if you filled a stadium with 50k people and announced 150 people would randomly be chosen to die it's something that would be taken seriously.

Then again, a significant percentage of people don't believe that number and always have a friend or relative that knows someone that died in a car accident and the death certificate listed covid as the cause of death.

If you told people that, for the Super Bowl, 150 people would be killed and there's nothing they could do about it. After all the hemming and hawing and rules lawyering came to nothing, there would still be a full stadium full of people thinking "it won't be me" rather than an empty stadium full of people going "I'd rather not give myself an extra 1 in 300 chance of dying today".

SI

[QuikSand]

ping Shirley Jackson

[QuikSand]

I know this misses 100% of the audience who really would need to grok it, but I still love the fuck out of it...

In 2018, "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial" was published in the British Medical Journal.

It sought to determine if wearing a parachute when jumping from a plane had any impact on survivability.

It did not. pic.twitter.com/SkyzKRDgrc

— c0nc0rdance (@c0nc0rdance) February 23, 2023

[QuikSand]

Oh, to one day experience the joy felt by the data scientists developing this abstract:

Abstract

Objective To determine if using a parachute prevents death or major traumatic injury when jumping from an aircraft.

Design Randomized controlled trial.

Setting Private or commercial aircraft between September 2017 and August 2018.

Participants 92 aircraft passengers aged 18 and over were screened for participation. 23 agreed to be enrolled and were randomized.

Intervention Jumping from an aircraft (airplane or helicopter) with a parachute versus an empty backpack (unblinded).

Main outcome measures Composite of death or major traumatic injury (defined by an Injury Severity Score over 15) upon impact with the ground measured immediately after landing.

Results Parachute use did not significantly reduce death or major injury (0% for parachute v 0% for control; P>0.9). This finding was consistent across multiple subgroups. Compared with individuals screened but not enrolled, participants included in the study were on aircraft at significantly lower altitude (mean of 0.6 m for participants v mean of 9146 m for non-participants; P<0.001) and lower velocity (mean of 0 km/h v mean of 800 km/h; P<0.001).

Conclusions Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention. However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability of the results to clinical practice.

[Ksyrup]

However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps.

I would even go so far as to suggest EXTREMELY cautious extrapolation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Then again, a significant percentage of people don't believe that number and always have a friend or relative that knows someone that died in a car accident and the death certificate listed covid as the cause of death.

I can't fathom how ANYONE believes that number. That's far scarier than Covid ever was.

[tzach]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Well, throw out that assumption, then, as it's rather tangential. I guess where my head was at is that COVID convinced me that it would take a truly existential threat for society, as currently constructed, to actually respond meaningfully and correctly en masse, and I wonder exactly what the nature of that threat would need to be (e.g. a pandemic with a 50% mortality rate?).

unfortunately it seems to me that the worse the threat, the more chaotic society responds. at least it has been like that throughout history and covid reminded us of that.

[molson]

The football stadium example is good to comprehend scope but it doesn't say much about whether or to what degree we "take COVID seriously" (I'm never sure what that means).

I've traveled internationally the last few years and did stuff like go to the movies and restaurants as soon as they were open. Those things increased my risk of infection, illness, and death, to some degree, but, all of those things could have happened if I didn't go too. And my personal risk was further muddled by working in an office with people most of that time, and living with someone who worked in a grocery store the entire time. It seemed silly to avoid mostly-empty theaters when I lived with someone who was around hundreds of people every day indoors, most of that time with no mask mandate.

Vaccines were an easy choice, so was masks, deciding not to give up experiences I'll never get back was an easy choice too - COVID wasn't nearly scary enough. And I believe all the numbers. As it was I tested positive one time, and then negative the next day. I wish I did more traveling and socializing, I probably would have got through it all cleaner from a mental health standpoint. Or maybe I would have died. But it would have been worth the risk.

[Edward64]

Nothing to worry about yet …

Bird Flu has been around for a while. I’d hope if/when it becomes person to person transmissible, we should be better prepared in treating it vs Covid.

https://www.nytimes.com/explain/2023...cambodia-death

After a father and daughter were diagnosed with bird flu, officials in Cambodia scrambled to test nearly a dozen of their contacts for infection the H5N1 virus, which has been causing mass die-offs of birds worldwide. The daughter, an 11-year-old, has died, but the World Health Organization said on Friday that 11 contacts have so far tested negative for the infection.

Why the concern? While hundreds of human cases have occurred over the years, scientists have become increasingly concerned that the virus one day may become adapted to people. Any evidence of human-to-human transmission would accelerate worries that a new pandemic could be on the way.

Most experts believe that the cases in Cambodia were likely caused by direct exposure to infected birds. At the moment, the risk to most people remains low, they say.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Atocep

A million plus dead is crazy. We had a poll on this I need to look at again.

A million is roughly 1 in 330 people in this country that have died from covid. I'd imagine if you filled a stadium with 50k people and announced 150 people would randomly be chosen to die it's something that would be taken seriously.

I still look at this in the opposite direction. A million plus dead is incredibly low. Astonishingly so. A third of a percent. That's not to minimize anything about the pandemic or the tragedy of the people dying, but just to put it perspective.

[Edward64]

I think 1M+ is high. Recent annual Flu deaths are typically below 60k.

I do wonder (knowing what we know now, without all the uncertainties then) with the relatively low impact to younger folks, would we still do what we did like school closures, the remote work etc. What could we have done differently with the 100% hindsight.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I still look at this in the opposite direction. A million plus dead is incredibly low. Astonishingly so. A third of a percent. That's not to minimize anything about the pandemic or the tragedy of the people dying, but just to put it perspective.

[Poll] How many actual COVID pandemic deaths in the USA (once the pandemic is over)? - Front Office Football Central

It was lower than I thought we would have at the very start of the pandemic (though we had a lot of fog of war about the numbers coming out of China) but higher than I thought we would get to around June, apparently (from thread above).

SI

[Edward64]

Bottom-line. The various US agencies disagree if Covid was a lab leak or (un)natural transmission via the Wuhan market.

I don't understand why US Energy Dept gets a vote at the table on this (?) but the FBI believes it.

A Lab Leak in China Most Likely Origin of Covid Pandemic, Energy Department Says - WSJ

The U.S. Energy Department has concluded that the Covid pandemic most likely arose from a laboratory leak, according to a classified intelligence report recently provided to the White House and key members of Congress.

The shift by the Energy Department, which previously was undecided on how the virus emerged, is noted in an update to a 2021 document by Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines’s office.

The new report highlights how different parts of the intelligence community have arrived at disparate judgments about the pandemic’s origin. The Energy Department now joins the Federal Bureau of Investigation in saying the virus likely spread via a mishap at a Chinese laboratory. Four other agencies, along with a national intelligence panel, still judge that it was likely the result of a natural transmission, and two are undecided.

Who are the other 4 agencies that disagree? Not identified

The National Intelligence Council, which conducts long-term strategic analysis, and four agencies, which officials declined to identify, still assess with “low confidence” that the virus came about through natural transmission from an infected animal, according to the updated report.

The Central Intelligence Agency and another agency that officials wouldn’t name remain undecided between the lab-leak and natural-transmission theories, the people who have read the classified report said.

And the FBI won't share their rationale.

Lawmakers have sought to find out more about why the FBI assesses a lab leak was likely. In an Aug. 1 letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Sen. Roger Marshall, a Kansas Republican, requested that the FBI share the records of its investigation and asked if the bureau had briefed Mr. Biden on its findings.

In a Nov. 18 letter, FBI Assistant Director Jill Tyson said the agency couldn’t share those details because of Justice Department policy on preserving “the integrity of ongoing investigations.”

So yeah, I'd like the congressional hearing on the origins of Covid and also the lessons learn & recommendations for next time.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So yeah, I'd like the congressional hearing on the origins of Covid and also the lessons learn & recommendations for next time.

With this Congress?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't understand why US Energy Dept gets a vote at the table on this (?)

Office of Science - Wikipedia

[Edward64]

Thought to check the CDC website for updated metrics.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Now on 10/10

The CDC COVID Data Tracker shows

> 12 is at 76.3% (2 shots)
> 12 is at 88.9% (at least 1 dose)

Now 4+ months later, we are at

CDC COVID Data Tracker

> 12 is at 77.4% (2 shots)
> 12 is at 90.3% (at least 1 dose)

And the bivalent (shot #5 I believe) metrics are much worse with everyone other than 65+ with < 20% for bivalent.

It will be good to combine flu+covid into one shot otherwise I suspect most Americans won't want to come back another day to get the covid shot. Flu shots are in the 50-52% range.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm planning to get another booster for the 4 of us before my boys head (via plane) to see my folks for Spring Break.

[albionmoonlight]

I understand the government's reluctance to ask people to do too much on the theory that people will then get confused/frustrated and do nothing.

But there are those of us who want to get vaccinated as much as needed to decrease our chance of catching COVID. And I think that we are being ignored/left behind.

I'd like the government to give us their thoughts on whether every 4 months makes sense for a booster. Or every 6. I Understand that most people won't do that. But it feels like there is now a deliberate decision to let immunity wane for people who don't want it to wane simply because the government is afraid of what some anti-vaxxers might say about them asking for too much.

[flere-imsaho]

I suspect the ideal frequency for boosters is once a quarter, actually, but regardless any message about regular boosters is one with almost 0 political upside.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

any message about regular boosters is one with almost 0 political upside.

I don't disagree.

And that sucks. No one is making anyone get a shot. I'm just asking the government not to withhold information from those of us who want it because it will hurt some people's feelings to know that other people are making different choices than they are.

[Kodos]

Yeah, they could give a simple guideline: The optimal frequency for boosters is every X months. We will continually update the booster to work for the most current variants. Come get 'em if you like, if you don't, good luck.

I've avoided catching it so far. I'd like to keep the streak going.

[Ghost Econ]

Just don't give the 5g proteins to anyone else.

Bill to prevent mRNA vaccine recipients from donating blood is killed

[Edward64]

Well crap, no combo shot this year.

I get an annual combo of Flu+Covid probably is not "optimal" for Covid vaccinations (e.g. prob 6-8 month range, so twice a year instead of annual) but do think this is the best compromise. With flu shots in the 50-52% range, it's a good way to get the low hanging fruit done.

I have to believe it'll be ready for 2024.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/flu-cov...official-says/

Vaccines that offer protection against both COVID-19 and influenza with a single shot will likely not be ready in time for this year, a top federal official said Wednesday. However, tweaks to update the current COVID vaccines and drugs are expected soon.

The Food and Drug Administration's top vaccines official, Dr. Peter Marks, had previously said in September that vaccines to cover both viruses could be deployed this year.

But at a webinar this week by the National Foundation for Infectious Disease, Marks acknowledged the effort had proved "too heavy a lift" for this fall, ending hopes of a combined option for the 2023 fall and winter respiratory illness season.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm planning to get another booster for the 4 of us before my boys head (via plane) to see my folks for Spring Break.

I got my 3rd booster a month before we went on a cruise and my wife got her 2nd booster 2 weeks before and she got Covid and I had pretty much the same symptoms but tested negative (so far). I suppose it made it milder but who knows.

[Edward64]

Basically, reputable research firm says masks "makes little or no difference".

I googled on other articles about this and there is definitely pushback on the methodology and other stuff etc. But Cochrane is reputable, so do think it's good to keep an open mind that the conventional wisdom of wearing masks (including N95) may not be correct.

It's not intuitive to me, I know masks are not near 100% but would still think there's some level of protection for getting/passing on bugs.

Masks Cochrane review: There’s still not strong evidence for masks’ effectiveness.

Which brings us to the recent Cochrane Review, which considered whether physical interventions—including masks—reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Reviews are widely considered the gold standard of evidence-based medicine.

“Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference,” the review authors concluded of their work comparing masking with non-masking to prevent influenza or SARS‐CoV‐2. What’s more, even for health care workers providing routine care, “there were no clear differences” between medical or surgical masks versus N95s.

But as the saying goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The review doesn’t show that masks definitely do not reduce the spread of COVID—only that studies to date have not proven that they do.

[sterlingice]

Yet, even that "high quality" study is a mess.

In the case of masking, there’s been some consternation about the predispositions of the review authors. Tom Jefferson, a senior associate tutor at Oxford University, has spearheaded Cochrane Reviews of interventions to reduce the spread of respiratory viruses since 2006. But Jefferson has raised some eyebrows, as he has publicly expressed skepticism about masks. In a recent interview, he suggested that physical contact and fomites play a role in SARS-CoV-2 transmission. (Slate was unable to reach Jefferson for comment.) Senior review author John Conly of the University of Calgary—who has downplayed airborne COVID transmission, contrary to most experts, who think transmission is primarily airborne—is also the senior author of one of the key studies included in the review.

And, just to get in the weeds a little, since my wife works in academic publishing (so guess what gets talked about at the dinner table. That's a review study. It's in Cochrane, which is a good, legit journal and not some predatory bunch of hacks. However, there's no actual new science being done there - it basically aggregates other reviews and tries to draw a conclusion from them. The heavy lifting in a review article is being done by which studies you choose to include - which you choose to leave in because you think it's "good science" and which you choose to omit because it's "bad science". And that Slate article talks about the limitations of that sort of study. There's a reason why review articles are some of the hardest to get accepted in major journals - because you're just reporting on science that's already been done, as opposed to original research or case studies. So who is making the determination of your review articles matters a lot more than what the science says in those. (And, seriously? Talking about fomite transmission 3 years into COVID? I get it in the early days when we were trying to get our arms around this, but now? Really? When there's been very little evidence for it? That really calls into question the potential conflicts of interests from the author)

SI

[PilotMan]

To keep it short... the correlation between the number of golf balls that make it into the cup in golf was unchanged when controlling for trees. Therefore trees on the course have no bearing on the ball going into the cup.

That's how I feel most of the right sums up mask usage. You take that particular conclusion and say what you wanted to say all along. Regardless of the nuances that are abandoned to reach that conclusion.

[QuikSand]

I tried very hard to find a decent analogy for the central flaw in the Cochrane meta-analysis that got Bret Stephens etc to declare that masks "do nothing."

It's this: "Imagine you found 100 papers showing that it’s hard to get kids to replace sugary snacks with broccoli..." pic.twitter.com/KB443Y5vtC

— Derek Thompson (@DKThomp) March 3, 2023

[GrantDawg]

Doesn't matter. The paper is out that comes to the conclusion I like. Therefore, no criticism of it matters. I refuse to allow surgical staff to wear masks when they do surgery because this study says it is useless, and it will make libs angry. Yee-haw!

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Basically, reputable research firm says masks "makes little or no difference".

I googled on other articles about this and there is definitely pushback on the methodology and other stuff etc. But Cochrane is reputable, so do think it's good to keep an open mind that the conventional wisdom of wearing masks (including N95) may not be correct.

It's not intuitive to me, I know masks are not near 100% but would still think there's some level of protection for getting/passing on bugs.

Masks Cochrane review: There’s still not strong evidence for masks’ effectiveness.

The study itself admits it's basically useless. It rates its conclusion as "low confidence" and cites the ridiculous reasoning that they don't know if many people in the masked cohorts actually wore masks.

Completely stupid to even publish garbage like that. One might say intentionally irresponsible.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

One might say intentionally irresponsible.

I've been reading more critiques about the study and this is what I'm starting to think.

I've not seen a rebuttal from Cochrane to all the criticism. I'd like to see what they say or have them issue a clarification/retraction.

[Edward64]

As I was reading the article, I was just thinking "why, why do this". I do think we need to do the research but it seems like a free for all right now, and there are some scientists/hobbyist that may not have rigorous controls.

Viruses in permafrost: Scientists have revived a 'zombie' virus that spent 48,500 years frozen | CNN

Claverie studies a particular type of virus he first discovered in 2003. Known as giant viruses, they are much bigger than the typical variety and visible under a regular light microscope, rather than a more powerful electron microscope — which makes them a good model for this type of lab work.

His efforts to detect viruses frozen in permafrost were partly inspired by a team of Russian scientists who in 2012 revived a wildflower from a 30,000-year-old seed tissue found in a squirrel’s burrow. (Since then, scientists have also successfully brought ancient microscopic animals back to life.)

In 2014, he managed to revive a virus he and his team isolated from the permafrost, making it infectious for the first time in 30,000 years by inserting it into cultured cells. For safety, he’d chosen to study a virus that could only target single-celled amoebas, not animals or humans.

He repeated the feat in 2015, isolating a different virus type that also targeted amoebas. And in his latest research, published February 18 in the journal Viruses, Claverie and his team isolated several strains of ancient virus from multiple samples of permafrost taken from seven different places across Siberia and showed they could each infect cultured amoeba cells.

Important quote.

“If there is a virus hidden in the permafrost that we have not been in contact with for thousands of years, it might be that our immune defense is not sufficient,” she said. “It is correct to have respect for the situation and be proactive and not just reactive. And the way to fight fear is to have knowledge.”

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I've been reading more critiques about the study and this is what I'm starting to think.

I've not seen a rebuttal from Cochrane to all the criticism. I'd like to see what they say or have them issue a clarification/retraction.

The Cochrane Review 'Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses' was published in January 2023 and has been widely misinterpreted.

Karla Soares-Weiser, Editor-in-Chief of the Cochrane Library, has responded on behalf of Cochrane:

Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation.

It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses.

The review authors are clear on the limitations in the abstract: 'The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.' Adherence in this context refers to the number of people who actually wore the provided masks when encouraged to do so as part of the intervention. For example, in the most heavily-weighted trial of interventions to promote community mask wearing, 42.3% of people in the intervention arm wore masks compared to 13.3% of those in the control arm.

The original Plain Language Summary for this review stated that 'We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.' This wording was open to misinterpretation, for which we apologize. While scientific evidence is never immune to misinterpretation, we take responsibility for not making the wording clearer from the outset. We are engaging with the review authors with the aim of updating the Plain Language Summary and abstract to make clear that the review looked at whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.

source link: https://www.cochrane.org/news/statem...viruses-review

[Edward64]

Thanks.

From Mar 10. You'd think they would have offered a clarification a little earlier. But good walk back I guess.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I feasted positive for COVID for the first time yesterday. It was a good three year run.

[Ksyrup]

Purely anecdotal as I've seen zero news coverage of any type of an increase in positives, but 4 people in my office have had spouses or kids test positive in the past 2 weeks. None of us, though, have tested positive despite living with those people through it all.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Thanks.

From Mar 10. You'd think they would have offered a clarification a little earlier. But good walk back I guess.

Yes, it certainly took them long enough.

[albionmoonlight]

Three years ago, things looked bleak. But at least we were united. We had a common enemy. We had a sense of purpose. If you had told me then that the pandemic would end up, like everything else, being eaten by red versus blue, I would’ve been skeptical. It felt like maybe something was finally bigger than that.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

From Mar 10. You'd think they would have offered a clarification a little earlier. But good walk back I guess.

Best I can imagine they may have still been operating in the mindset of "we didn't think people would wilfully misinterpret our findings from what is basically a pretty niche academic exercise and that it would be used to drive widespread misinformation".

I mean, that would be pretty naive, but institutional inertia is a bitch, and academics generally have a pretty tough time understanding the ways in which things like facts and studies can be wildly misinterpreted or misunderstood by non-academic.

[cuervo72]

Whoops!

An Ivermectin Influencer Died. Now His Followers Are Worried About Their Own ‘Severe’ Symptoms.

[albionmoonlight]

As a lib, I feel owned/sad that my fellow humans are slowly poisoning themselves to death.

So, I guess good job by them. Owned a lib on the way out and all that.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

As a lib, I feel owned/sad that my fellow humans are slowly poisoning themselves to death.

So, I guess good job by them. Owned a lib on the way out and all that.

"He took it wrong" "He was murdered by Big Pharma- the Biden Crime Family- Hilary Clinton- The Easter Bunny."

[NobodyHere]

When did the Easter Bunny turn liberal!?!?!

[Lathum]

That story is so damn sad. We truly are a country of idiots.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Lathum

That story is so damn sad. We truly are a country of idiots.

The part about people giving this stuff to their kids made me slightly physically ill.

[Edward64]

Yeah, the kids part pisses me off.

The adults, no problem. Free(ish) country, that's why we have the Darwin awards.

[Edward64]

Article says Bird Flu not too much of a concern right now for humans. But I can see tremendous damage done to our poultry industry. I didn't know this was a reason why egg prices are so high.

Avian Flu is Far From Becoming a Human Pandemic | Time

Across the U.S., some 58 million birds have died or had to be killed because of infection. These nationwide depopulations are one of the main reasons that eggs are so expensive right now—a shortage of laying hens means a shortage of eggs.

The good news: Aside from the damage they’ll cause to your wallet, there are no other dangers to eating eggs and poultry right now, especially if they’re well-cooked.

For as long as the virus has been around, there have been cases of infection in humans, of which over 50% have been fatal. But overall cases have been fairly rare.

This is primarily due to the way that flu viruses bind to cells during the process of infection. The receptors that they exploit on the outside of cells look a bit different in every vertebrate class, and viruses tend to play favorites, evolving to stick to certain creatures’ cells more effectively than others. For H5N1, the target is birds. Still, “just because it has an avian-receptor binding preference does not mean that it cannot bind at all to human cells,” says Samantha Lycett, a University of Edinburgh researcher who studies how disease evolves and spreads. “It just doesn’t do it very well.”