No, you said, and the WHO for that case, that it was “very complicated and required extended intimacy”. If the case is positive it would mean that person to person contagion of this particular strand of virus is way easier than expected.
I don’t read that, not that you can say me what to read, you don’t have the ability to control what I chose to read, sorry. It was just the first result when googling the news.
you don’t have the ability to control what I chose to read, sorry.
What does the word “please” mean to you? It’s a well-informed suggestion, and you were always free to ignore it.
As for the quote “very complicated and required extended intimacy”, can you point me to where the WHO has said that regarding this outbreak? Neither your article nor mine says those exact words.
“Person-to-person transmission of ANDV has only been documented following close and prolonged contact.”
ECDC in this particular case. I’m quickly looking for quotes on my phone. But I doubt WHO have a different response. As the current academic knowledge of the virus is just that. The most studied case was of the Argentinian chilean epidemic when it was though that all contagions had close and intimate contact.
If the flight attendant case is positive then we should reevaluate our knowledge on the virus.
At this early stage of the investigation with limited available information, we consider everyone on the ship to be close contacts, due to the closed setting and shared social areas and activities, aligned with the precautionary principle.
If a cruise ship is close and personal, a fuselage is obviously close and personal. The virologists are taking this into account; you’re not going to have any considerations they haven’t already thought of with 1000x more expertise and scrutiny.
I heard that. But also the news that a flight attendant got infected after a brief contact with an infected person.
https://nypost.com/2026/05/07/world-news/klm-flight-attendant-hospitalized-after-coming-in-contact-hantavirus-cruise-ship-passenger-who-died/
No, you said, and the WHO for that case, that it was “very complicated and required extended intimacy”. If the case is positive it would mean that person to person contagion of this particular strand of virus is way easier than expected.
I don’t read that, not that you can say me what to read, you don’t have the ability to control what I chose to read, sorry. It was just the first result when googling the news.
What does the word “please” mean to you? It’s a well-informed suggestion, and you were always free to ignore it.
As for the quote “very complicated and required extended intimacy”, can you point me to where the WHO has said that regarding this outbreak? Neither your article nor mine says those exact words.
https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/hantavirus-associated-cluster-illness-cruise-ship-ecdc-assessment-and
“Person-to-person transmission of ANDV has only been documented following close and prolonged contact.”
ECDC in this particular case. I’m quickly looking for quotes on my phone. But I doubt WHO have a different response. As the current academic knowledge of the virus is just that. The most studied case was of the Argentinian chilean epidemic when it was though that all contagions had close and intimate contact.
If the flight attendant case is positive then we should reevaluate our knowledge on the virus.
Yeah, how close and personal is a flight attendant expected to get? This doesnt seem good.
If you’d read it, you would know:
If a cruise ship is close and personal, a fuselage is obviously close and personal. The virologists are taking this into account; you’re not going to have any considerations they haven’t already thought of with 1000x more expertise and scrutiny.