Exclusive: While risk of H5N1 pandemic in humans is low, ‘it’s really important to think about vulnerable populations’, Melbourne researcher says

Summary

A study reviewing 1,500 research papers found that 90% of pregnant women who contract bird flu (H5N1) die, with 87% of their unborn babies also dying.

Most surviving babies are born prematurely.

While human cases are rare and usually result from direct contact with infected birds, the findings highlight the vulnerability of pregnant women, who often face exclusion from vaccine trials and public health programs.

Experts stress the need for pandemic preparedness and ethical studies on vaccine safety in pregnant women as H5N1 continues to spread globally.

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
    793·
    2 days ago

    Wow, so clearly the party who values the unborn will take strict and swift measures against H5N1 and advocate nation-wide for vaccination once it’s out…

    … right?

    • affiliate@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      23 hours ago

      on the contrary. if the woman dies you no longer have to worry about her getting an abortion. so the bird-flu is pro-life in that way.

    • Zip2@feddit.ukEnglish
      14·
      2 days ago

      Steady on there with your blasé attitude to vaccines. We don’t need no herd immunity, and they cause 5g. /s

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
        241·
        2 days ago

        Ah, shit, dude, you’re right, I forgot that talking about one of the most traveled-to and traveled-from countries with 330 million people whose government is going to be an anti-vaxx disinformation superspreader, is likely to restrict vaccinations, and is therefore liable to make an H5N1 pandemic substantially worse globally is off-limits for discussion as long as the study in the article was performed by an Australian doctor. Me and my US-centrism, grr.

      • Natanael@slrpnk.netEnglish
        4·
        2 days ago

        Do you count blood samples and vaccination as some kind of sinister “medical experiments”?

        • Revan343@lemmy.caEnglish
          1·
          2 days ago

          Vaccine trials are in fact medical experiments. Not sure where you’re getting ‘sinister’ from

          • Natanael@slrpnk.netEnglish
            5·
            1 day ago

            Vaccines are very well understood, the reason for those exceptions is the very high complexity and sensitivity of pregnancies, there’s no significant indicators of danger but they aren’t willing to risk missing some unknown.

            women are enrolled in vaccine safety studies, sometimes those women will inadvertently become pregnant, and there’s an opportunity to ethically study what happens to those women.”

            This is the point of the study, the point of the article, the interest being advocated here by Dr Rachael Purcell. Conducting vaccine trials on pregnant women.

            This is essentially the exact opposite of what you’re saying. This is just collecting data on a group of women who only incidentally end up fitting the criteria. Nobody’s selecting pregnant women to expose them to anything.

          • lad@programming.devEnglish
            1·
            1 day ago

            As the vast majority of the population are not pregnant women

            …there is no reason to try to change whatever bad is expected to happen to them. I can understand your point, but it doesn’t sound humane to me