Coming soon: Movie theater to reopen at Great Northern Mall by early summer
WEWS:Michael Goldberg, associate professor of design and innovation at Weatherhead School of Management and executive director oftheVeale Institute for Entrepreneurship, discussed some ofthechallenges facing theater operators since COVID.
This article has been reviewed according to ScienceX's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:
by Germans Trias i Pujol Research Institute
close
In December, the journal Vaccines published an analysis of COVID-19 vaccination coverage among people with HIV in Catalonia between December 2020 and July 2022. The study led by the Center for Epidemiological Studies on HIV/AIDS and STI of Catalonia (CEEISCAT), a group from the Germans Trias i Pujol Research Institute (IGTP), in collaboration with researchers from the PISCIS Cohort group, evaluated the primary, monovalent, and booster doses.
The research aims to develop concrete action plans tailored to specific profiles to facilitate and promote vaccination. The study included a sample of over 200,000 individuals, 18,330 of whom have HIV and were vaccinated against COVID-19.
The researchers observed a lower rate of complete primary vaccination schedule in people living with HIV (78.2%) compared to those without this condition (81.8%), with the difference being more pronounced among migrant populations. However, people living with HIV received more booster doses than the rest.
The authors identified several factors that may contribute to the lower complete vaccination rates: having a previous diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, the status of HIV infection, being a migrant, or having a complicated socioeconomic situation. These factors reflect barriers to vaccine access and health care.
The analysis has helped identify patterns and contexts that encourage vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 among people living with HIV, as well as determining the need to improve vaccine access and address the hesitancy of vulnerable populations in taking the doses, highlighting their efficacy and safety.
The same group of researchers has published another article in the Open Forum Infectious Diseases journal, this time focusing on migrant individuals with HIV. The findings indicate that these individuals (over 3,000 in the sample) have undergone fewer SARS-CoV-2 tests, yet they have a similar cumulative diagnosis rate as local natives.
Their vaccination rate, both in terms of the complete schedule and booster doses, is lower compared to those born in Catalonia. In contrast, there were more hospitalizations and admissions to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) among migrants, even with similar durations of stays and mortality rates. Moreover, having two or more comorbidities in migrant individuals has been associated as a risk factor for severe COVID-19.
The study suggests possible impediments that could justify these results, such as economic inequalities, lack of information, structural discrimination, language barriers, or distrust in the health care system. With this data, strategies are expected to be developed to reach the migrant population and promote vaccination, as it is crucial for protecting the individual and curbing future epidemics at a social level.
More information: Daniel Kwakye Nomah et al, Comparative Analysis of Primary and Monovalent Booster SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Coverage in Adults with and without HIV in Catalonia, Spain, Vaccines (2023). DOI: 10.3390/vaccines12010044
Daniel K Nomah et al, Disparities in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Clinical Outcomes and Vaccination Coverage Among Migrants With Human Immunodeficiency Virus in the PISCIS Cohort: A Population-Based Propensity ScoreMatched Analysis, Open Forum Infectious Diseases (2024). DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofad693
Provided by Germans Trias i Pujol Research Institute
CLAIM
Official CDC data: 143,233% surge in fatal cancers among Vaxxed Americans
DETAILS
Inadequate support: No reliable scientific study shows an association between COVID-19 vaccines and cancer. VAERS reports record any adverse events occurring following vaccination, regardless of whether the vaccine caused the event. Therefore, cancer-related reports to VAERS alone cant demonstrate that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer. Misleading: Reporting requirements for COVID-19 vaccines are more stringent than for earlier vaccines, so simply comparing the number of reports for COVID-19 vaccines and flu vaccines can lead to erroneous conclusions.
KEY TAKE AWAY
Safety data and multiple studies show that COVID-19 vaccines effectively reduce the risk of severe or fatal COVID-19 cases, while the risk of serious side effects from vaccination is very small. But COVID-19 vaccines come with tighter reporting requirements than earlier vaccines, which results in more adverse event reports to vaccine safety databases compared to other vaccines. This doesn't indicate any safety issues but instead reflects an increased reporting rate.
The figure most likely originated from an article published on The Expos on 8 December 2023 titled, U.S. Government Data Reveals a Staggering 143,233% Surge in Fatal Cancer Cases. The article explicitly attributed this increase to the experimental Covid-19 injections.
The Expos is an outlet created in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic that has since published misinformation and conspiracy theories, often based on distorted or misinterpreted data. The article discussed here is another example of such.
Contrary to what the headline and the Instagram post might suggest, the 143,233% figure doesnt come from an official report from the CDC or other public health agency. Instead, it was calculated by The Expos based on data from the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
In this review, we will show that these calculations are incorrect and misleading in multiple ways and dont support the claim that COVID-19 vaccines cause or increase the risk of cancer. This claim is also inconsistent with published studies showing that people who received a COVID-19 vaccine arent more likely to develop cancer compared to unvaccinated people.
The Expos based its calculations on the number of cancer-related adverse events reported to VAERS after COVID-19 vaccination and after vaccination with the flu vaccines. Between December 2020 and August 2022, VAERS registered a total of 2,579 cancer-related adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination. The number of reports for flu vaccines was 64 between 2008 and 2020.
The article didnt specify whether the search for cancer-related adverse events included all events or only fatal, life-threatening and/or serious adverse events.
Considering the total number of COVID-19 and flu vaccine doses administered in the U.S. during those periods, The Expos calculated the rate of cancer-related reports per 100,000 doses administered. The result was 0.43 for COVID-19 vaccines (2,579 reports x 100,000 divided by 606 million doses administered) and 0.0003 for flu vaccines (64 reports x 100,000 divided by 1,720,400,000 doses administered).
The article claimed that the higher reporting rate following COVID-19 vaccination compared to flu vaccination was evidence that COVID-19 vaccines caused cancer, whereas flu vaccines didnt. Specifically, the article calculated that COVID-19 vaccination was 1,433 times (0.43/0.0003) or 143,233% (0.0003100/0.43) more likely to cause cancer than flu vaccination. But this isnt true.
The first hint that these figures are unreliable lies in the fact that The Expos made a mathematical error in calculating the rate of cancer reports per 100,000 flu vaccine doses. The result should be 0.003, not 0.0003 as the article claimed. This means that the alleged increase in cancer reporting is actually ten times lower than claimed: 143 times (or 14,323%) instead of 1,433 times (or 143,233%).
And the second and most important is that VAERS reports alone are inadequate to establish associations between a vaccine (in this case, the COVID-19 vaccine) and a health problem (in this case, cancer), although they can provide useful signals for further investigation that may establish a causal association. Therefore, the entire reasoning behind the calculations is flawed and doesnt support the claim.
VAERS is a national vaccine surveillance system co-managed by the U.S. CDC and the Food and Drug Administration. VAERS collects reports on any adverse events that occurred following vaccination, regardless of what caused them. This system is useful for rapidly detecting unusual patterns of adverse events that might be early signs of a safety problem with a vaccine. However, VAERS reports alone cant determine whether a vaccine caused an adverse event.
Furthermore, anyone can submit a report to VAERS, which means the database may also contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable.
A disclaimer on the site notifies users about these limitations, clearly stating:
The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted as evidence of a causal association between a vaccine and an adverse event, or as evidence about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines.
In brief, The Exposs calculations are based on a misuse of VAERS reports, and therefore dont provide any reliable evidence of a link between COVID-19 vaccines and cancer.
COVID-19 vaccines require stricter VAERS reporting compared to earlier vaccines, as Health Feedback explained in multiple reviews. Simply comparing the number of VAERS reports for different vaccines doesnt take into account these differences and can therefore be highly misleading.
In the case of COVID-19 vaccines, healthcare providers are required by law to report all serious adverse events that occur following vaccination regardless of causality. These include death, life-threatening adverse events, hospitalization, congenital anomalies, heart inflammation, multisystem inflammatory syndrome, serious COVID-19 cases, and any other important medical event that may require medical or surgical intervention. Cancer-related events likely fall within these categories.
In contrast, for flu vaccines healthcare providers are only required to report certain adverse events. These include anaphylaxis, shoulder injury related to vaccine administration, vasovagal syncope, Guillain-Barr Syndrome, and events described as contraindications in the manufacturers package insert. In general, only those serious adverse events, including deaths, that are linked to known side effects of the vaccine require reporting. It is doubtful that any flu vaccine lists cancer as a side effect.
In other words, while cancer and cancer-related adverse events that occur after COVID-19 vaccination must be reported to VAERS, reporting these events after flu vaccination is voluntary. Therefore, the higher rate of cancer-related reports following COVID-19 vaccination compared to flu vaccination most likely reflects differences in reporting rather than an actual increase in cancer rates among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.
Determining whether a vaccine is causally associated with an adverse event requires an investigation that goes far beyond the number of VAERS reports. One critical step is to assess whether the vaccine is a plausible cause for the observed event. This isnt the case with COVID-19 vaccines and cancer.
As we explained above, The Expos didnt clarify whether the VAERS search for cancer-related adverse events involved new diagnoses, deaths, or other types of adverse events. Yet, the headline mentioned fatal cancers, conveying the message that at least some of these events were indeed fatal. However, this message is at odds with available scientific evidence.
The 2024 report by the American Cancer Society on cancer trends shows that, while some common cancers have been on the rise for the last three decades, the risk of dying from cancer has actually declined. This trend continued through 2021[1], which is inconsistent with COVID-19 vaccines leading to cancer deaths.
Published studies also show that people vaccinated against COVID-19 arent more likely to die from any cause compared to unvaccinated people[2,3].
After being extensively studied, no reliable evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccines cause or increase cancer risk. Claims stating otherwise are usually founded on misinterpreted data and have no basis in fact.
The American Cancer Society and the U.S. National Cancer Institute state that no evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccines cause or make the cancer grow or recur. In fact, cancer patients are at a high risk for severe complications from COVID-19. Therefore, both institutions recommend that people with cancer and cancer survivors, as well as caregivers and close contacts, get the COVID-19 vaccine.
In a recent development, the latest COVID-19 vaccine is found to offer significantly higher protection against the symptoms of the virus compared to those who are unvaccinated. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the vaccine provides an increased protection of 54% against the virus, a promising development in the fight against the pandemic.
According to the CDCs updated information, the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine shows enhanced protection against the variants responsible for most infections and hospitalizations in the United States. The vaccine has shown to be effective against many variants of the virus, reducing the likelihood of getting COVID-19 by 54%. The CDC recommends everyone aged six months or older to get the updated COVID-19 vaccine, especially those at higher risk of severe illness from respiratory diseases.
The latest COVID-19 vaccines offer robust protection against symptomatic infection, including from the JN.1 variant, as shown by early CDC data. The vaccines provided a significant 54% protection against symptomatic infection among immunocompetent adults who were recently vaccinated. The US COVID-19 vaccination program aims to prevent severe disease, and tracking vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection provides an early look at how well the vaccines are working.
Data suggests that COVID-19 continues to circulate at high levels in the US, with tens of thousands of hospitalizations and hundreds of deaths each week. Unfortunately, only about 1 in 5 adults and 1 in 9 children have received the latest COVID-19 vaccine, compared to nearly half who have received the flu vaccine this season.
The updated 2023-2024 monovalent XBB 1.5 COVID-19 vaccine has shown increased protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly in relation to the co-circulating Omicron variants. The vaccine provided approximately 54% increased protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to those who did not receive the updated vaccine. Vaccination provides protection against JN.1 and other circulating lineages. The CDC recommends all persons aged six months and older should receive the updated COVID-19 vaccine.
Despite the promising effectiveness of the updated vaccine, the vaccination coverage in the U.S. remains low. According to the latest data from the CDC, only 22% of U.S. adults and 11% children have received the new shots. The CDC urges everyone over six months to get the new shots for protection against COVID and evolving variants. Experts emphasize that vaccine effectiveness is known to wane over time, but getting the vaccine remains crucial even if cases are declining in a community.
In conclusion, the latest COVID-19 vaccine offers a compelling defense against the virus, particularly regarding symptomatic infections. As the virus continues to evolve, it is vital to stay updated with your vaccination status and adhere to CDC guidelines for maximum protection.
February 2, 2024
More good news on the real-world effectiveness of the updated COVID-19 vaccine! A recent analysis by the CDC found that people who received the updated COVID vaccine were less than half as likely to have a symptomatic COVID infection over the next four months, including the time period of the new JN.1 variant.
Like all observational studies, these data have some potential biases that could both under or overestimate the vaccine effectiveness. But combined with other recent data showing good protection against hospitalization for those who had the updated vaccine, the evidence for the value of getting the updated vaccine is mounting.
And obviously, Taylor and Travis know the benefit of vaccines All too well .
Link to Original FB Post
RALEIGH, N.C. (WNCN) Duke University researchers are working toward developing a more effective flu shot that could last longer and protect against numerous flu strains. They recently announced some promising findings.
Right now, a yearly shot is the only option because the flu viruses change each year.
Basically the World Health Organization guesses what the new flu is going to be, explained Dr. Garnett Kelsoe, the James B. Duke Distinguished Professor of Immunology at Duke. Because it really is a guess mean its an informed guess, but its a guess were off a bunch of the times, and on average, influenza vaccines are only about 50% effective at preventing infection or illness.
Duke scientists want to take the guesswork out of the flu shot, and Kelsoe says theyre making progress. Along with Harvard University researchers, they recently discovered a part of the flu virus that doesnt change and is found on almost all strains of flu. By targeting that part of the virus, researchers say they could potentially create a vaccine that would last for 3-5 years, target most strains of the flu, and could be much more effective than current vaccines.
I think it would be highly effective to most not all, but the great majority of existing influenza viruses on in the world. Kelsoe noted.
He says studies in mice have shown a lot of promise. The next step will be studies in non-human primates. If those are successful, Kelsoe says human trial could begin within five years.
Rich and Shanon Cheney get their annual flu vaccines, but say theyd welcome a less frequent shot.
Obviously less pain, but one less thing to remember in your busy schedule, Shanon said.
Kelsoe thinks that a more effective and less frequent shot would encourage more people to get vaccinated.
I think as vaccine efficacy increases, vaccine hesitancy decreases, he said.
A study has found that the combination of terpenes, an organic compound found in cannabis and other plants, and cannabidiol (CBD) acted as an effective barrier in preventing cells from infection from both the coronavirus and influenza A virus in cells. This two-year study, led by Richard Boxer, MD, clinical professor of urology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, in collaboration with scientists in Israel, discovered that terpenes exhibit anti-inflammatory properties through cytokine inhibition, which was further boosted by the presence of CBD.
Viral infections continue to be a significant cause of illness and death. The pursuit of antiviral treatments with minimal toxicity and limited side effects is critical. The rapid mutations occurring in both coronaviruses and influenza viruses underscore the urgent need for the development of effective antiviral drugs. Additionally, the effectiveness of vaccinations diminishes over time, and certain populations lack access to vaccines. The authors say a natural and safe antiviral solution could prove beneficial as a protective measure, especially for those who may not be eligible for vaccination.
Researchers introduced terpenes into human lung cell cultures, exposing some to influenza viruses and others to a coronavirus variant like the one causing COVID-19. The terpenes acted as a barrier, preventing these viruses from entering the cells. This protected the cells from destruction and hindered the replication of the virus. In additional experiments where cells were infected with coronavirus and influenza, terpenes successfully prevented the cytokine storm responsible for severe lung damage and, ultimately, death in patients.
The findings suggest that terpenes could serve as an effective solution for preventing individuals from contracting the coronavirus or influenza. Researchers highlight that terpenes are present in all plants globally, making them readily available and affordable. For populations without access to or resources to afford vaccinations or medications like Paxlovid, a treatment based on the use of these compounds could reduce the impact of these diseases.
The studys authors are Richard Boxer of UCLA, Lior Chatow and Einat Zelinger of Hebrew University, and Adi Nudel, Nadav Eyal, Tal Lupo, Silvia Ramirez, and Iris Nesher of Eybna Technologies.
The study is published in the peer-reviewed journal Biotechnology Reports.
Lior Chatow, Nadav Eyal, Silvia Ramirez, and Adi Nudel are employees of Eybna Technologies, a company that manufactures terpenes-based formulations. Iris Nesher and Richard Boxer are advisors of Eybna Technologies.
When the stomach flu hits, you know how miserable it can be to try to eat anything. But even if you feel like a zombie, you are, in fact, still human. And humans need food and fluids to recover.
But when youre in the throes of nausea, vomiting and diarrhea from the stomach flu, food may be the last thing on your mind. After all, it can be tough to imagine getting anything down when youve seen it coming back up so recently. And thats OK.
If youre down with a stomach bug and dont feel like eating yet, dont push it, family physician Laura Lipold, MD, says. Try to focus first on recovering, resting and staying hydrated. Food can come later.
But what should you drink and eat when you have the stomach flu? And when? And what will make matters worse? Dr. Lipold shares advice to get you back on your feet again.
The stomach flu otherwise known as viral gastroenteritis is an entirely different beast from the common flu, or influenza. Influenza is a respiratory virus. It comes with symptoms like coughs, fevers and a runny or stuffy nose.
The stomach flu is the one that has you reaching for the bucket or running to the bathroom.
And the biggest problem with the stomach flu is that vomiting and diarrhea deplete your bodys fluids. That leaves you at risk for dehydration, which can really complicate things. So, when the stomach flu hits, food isnt your first concern. Keeping up your fluids is.
Severe dehydration could mean a trip to the hospital to receive IV fluids. So, its important to try to stay hydrated if you can, Dr. Lipold shares.
Wait until about two hours have passed since your last episode of vomiting, and start with small, frequent sips so as not to overwhelm your belly. Dr. Lipold suggests:
For most people, itll take several hours after youve finished vomiting before food seems even remotely appealing.
But after things begin to settle down, your body will start giving you a gentle nudge that its feeding time again.
Wait until youre able to keep down fluids before trying to eat foods. And even then, youll want to tread slowly and be thoughtful about how you begin to refuel. The right foods can help your body recover. The wrong ones can cause cramping and stomach pain or send you racing back to the bathroom all over again.
I always advise people to eat only when they feel up to it when they have the stomach flu and even then, stick to small meals and snacks at first, Dr. Lipold says. If youre still actively vomiting or having a hard time keeping down clear fluids, its not the time to try to eat yet.
She shares some examples of easy-on-the-belly foods for when youre fighting the stomach flu.
Some of the best foods for the stomach flu are foods that are soft, bland and easy to digest. When youre coming off a bout of nausea and diarrhea, your belly will be happiest if it doesnt have to work too hard.
Thats when the BRAT diet comes into play. BRAT stands for:
The BRAT diet may not be the most exciting or enticing menu perhaps. But mild and easy on the belly? Absolutely.
Thats because these foods are good sources of complex carbohydrates, which are gentle on your stomach and some of the best choices to start to replace nutrients you lost in your (many) trips to the bathroom.
Complex carbohydrates digest slowly into your bloodstream, so they can help your body recover without putting too much effort on your taxed GI system, Dr. Lipold explains. They also contain vitamins, minerals and fiber that your body needs.
In addition to the BRAT diet, other complex carbs for stomach flu recovery include:
Foods that have high water content can also help as you start to recover from the stomach flu. Theyll also help rehydrate you at the same time. Try foods like:
Ginger can help ease the way that food travels through your gastrointestinal (GI) tract, which can help calm your vomiting reflex.
Some good sources of ginger for stomach flu relief include:
What about the famous ginger ale fix? Not likely to help.
Many people stand by ginger ale as a remedy for nausea, but in truth, it doesnt contain enough real ginger to actually settle your stomach any better than other clear liquids, Dr. Lipold reports. And the carbonation can make bloating, gas and indigestion worse.
What you dont eat can be as important as what you do eat when you have the stomach flu. Some foods can be too much for your already overworked belly.
While youre recovering, youll want to avoid foods that burden your GI tract. That includes things like:
Prolonged nausea and vomiting can take a big toll on your body. Talk with a healthcare provider if you:
The best way to recover from the stomach flu is with plenty of rest and plenty of liquids. Eat when you can, and take it easy. Your body has been through a lot.
After declining trends over the past few weeks, flu activity rose in some parts of the country, while COVID-19 and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) levels continued overall declines, according to the latest updates today from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Though flu indicators declined following the winter holidays, the CDC has said that it is watching for a second peak that sometimes occurs after the winter holidays. In its respiratory virus snapshot, the CDC said some regions are seeing rising flu indicators, especially in the Midwest and South-Central regions.
Also, the percentage of respiratory samples that were positive for flu at clinical labs rose last week to 16.2%, compared to 14.2% the previous week, the CDC said in its weekly flu update. Influenza A is still dominant, with 60.4% of subtyped samples belonging to the 2009 H1N1 subtype. There were increases in the percentages of H3N2 and influenza B detections compared to the previous week.
Outpatient visits for flulike illness held steady and have been above the national baseline since November. However, CDC surveillance shows a rise for one age-group: people ages 5 to 24 years.
Eight more pediatric flu deaths were reported, lifting the season's total to 65. The deaths all occurred in January. Four were linked to influenza A, and four involved influenza B. Overall deaths from flu declined slightly compared to the week before.
Most COVID markers declined last week, except for deaths, which held steady. Hospitalizations for COVID, one of the CDC's main severity indicators, decreased by 10.9% compared to the previous week.
Among early indicators, test positivity declined 4.6% and it at 6.3% nationally. However, levels were a bit higher in the Midwest, South, and parts of the Northeast. Emergency department visits dropped 11% compared to the previous week and remain highest for infants and seniors.
The CDC's wastewater tracking shows that virus detection levels are high, down from "very high" the week before. Meanwhile, Biobot wastewater tracking shows that a steady decline in SARS-CoV-2 detections since late December has slowed, with the western region showing a slight increase.
In its every-other-week variant projections, the CDC said JN.1 continued to expand its dominance and now makes up 93.1% of sequenced samples, up from 84.3% in its last update.
Earlier this week, South African virus sequencing experts identified a new lineage from samples in South Africa that has more than 100 mutations. Tulio de Oliveira, PhD, who directs South Africa's Centre for Epidemic Response and Innovation and is also deputy director of the Wellcome Sanger Institute Genomic Surveillance Unit, said on X (formerly Twitter) that the lineage is the most divergent one identified this year.
The same group in South Africa was the first to identify the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant.
Scientists have designated the new variant as BA.2.87.
The lineage has been found in eight samples from two different provinces between September and November. It is distinct from currently circulating Omicron lineages and shows some diversity in the samples collected over a 10-week period.
De Oliveira said enhanced genetic surveillance shows very few signs that the new variant is spreading widely or replacing current lineages. He added that work is under way to assess potential transmissibility and pathogenicity.
The CDC said RSV activity has declined across many parts of the nation. Hospitalizations, still elevated, are declining in young children, but they remain elevated in older adults.
In its vaccination updates, the CDC estimated that 20.8% of eligible adults ages 60 and older have received an RSV vaccine.
Representational image
2024 seems to have begun on a somber note for wildlife conservationists as a concerning trend of first-evers sparks chaos over the usually tranquil environs of Antarctica. In January, the first-ever polar bear death due to avian influenza came to light, with reports of the first penguin deaths due to the same bird flu following hot on its heels in February.
While we humans were engrossed in our own hellish lives amid the COVID-19 pandemic, a mini pandemic of sorts has been reigning terror over the wildlife in the Northern Hemisphere, around the Atlantic, Pacific Ocean and Southern Africa since 2022. A highly pathogenic strain of the bird flu virus has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of seabirds. And experts fear that the worst is yet to come.
Already, the deadly visitor H5N1, which probably reached Antarctica by air, water, or possibly both, has caused the death of several penguins in the region. This unwelcome guest, confirmed in two deceased gentoo penguins on Sea Lion Island, marks a chilling first for the Antarctic region. Further, at least 35 adults and chicks have also been reported as either symptomatic or dead.
At the Falkland Island, over 200 chicks, alongside a handful of adults, have succumbed, government spokesperson Sally Heathman told Reuters. Other seabird individuals, like the Southern Fulmar, Black Browed Albatross and the Skua, have also died on various islands of Antarctica, as per the Falkland Islands Department of Agriculture.
The situation is particularly concerning for penguins already facing diverse threats like climate change, pollution, and overfishing. This virus presents a unique challenge due to penguins' lack of immunity and their densely packed colonies, perfect breeding grounds for rapid transmission. The devastating impact seen in South America, where thousands of Humboldt penguins perished, serves as a stark warning.
However, the ongoing events are far from surprising. Experts have been raising alarm about how we could be facing one of the largest ecological disasters of modern times if bird flu reached remote Antarctic penguin populations. And their predictions seem to be coming true, sadly.
The virus reached South Georgia in October 2023, infecting numerous bird species and marine mammals like seals and sea lions. The mass die-off witnessed in South America serves as a grim foreshadowing for Antarctica's future.
While infections haven't been confirmed on the mainland yet, experts fear the virus might be spreading undetected. The race is on to understand the scope of the outbreak and implement mitigation strategies to protect these vulnerable creatures. The fate of penguins and the entire Antarctic ecosystem hangs in the balance.
**
For weather, science, space, and COVID-19 updates on the go, download The Weather Channel App (on Android and iOS store). It's free!
