Infection hosts have rarely determined the tendency of viruses to infect humans.
Researchers at the Scottish University of Glasgow have concluded that the likelihood of new viruses spreading from animals to humans does not depend on a specific source. In other words, bats as carriers of coronavirus infections do not pose a greater threat than other animals that carry potentially dangerous pathogens. An article refuting the myth of the emergence of new dangerous diseases is published in the journal Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences.
–
The scientist collected the largest set of information about the contacts of 415 DNA and RNA-containing viruses and their reservoirs of natural origin, that is, long-term hosts, including birds and mammals. In addition, researchers from Scotland analyzed the history of the occurrence of zooanthroponoses – infections that can be transmitted from animals to humans. It turned out that infection hosts rarely determined the susceptibility of viruses to infecting people. If we take into account that the mammalian palette of viruses is higher than that of birds, then the potential number of infections dangerous to humans increases depending on the species richness within the animal order.
Even those animals that are usually considered a source of infection (rodents and bats) have as many infections as can be expected in groups of mammals of the appropriate size. From the point of view of scientists, it is the characteristic features of viruses, and not their hosts, that can be predictors of the transmission of zoonoses to humans.
Although bats are recognized as sources of coronaviruses and ebolaviruses, dangerous viruses that can cause epidemics or pandemics also circulate in populations of other animals living in the wild. The search for potential threats to humanity should cover a greater number of animal species than now.
Read the material: “” In hell, the boiler burns for you “: the doctor turned to the Russian violators”
– .
