Dynamics and ecological consequences of avian influenza virus infection in greater white-fronted geese in their winter staging areas

Recent outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in poultry have raised interest in the interplay between avian influenza (AI) viruses and their wild hosts. Studies linking virus ecology to host ecology are still scarce, particularly for non-duck species. Here, we link capture-resighting data of greater white-fronted geese Anser albifrons albifrons with the AI virus infection data collected during capture in The Netherlands in four consecutive winters. We ask what factors are related to AI virus prevalence and whether there are ecological consequences associated with AI virus infection in staging white-fronted geese. Mean seasonal (low pathogenic) AI virus prevalence ranged between 2.5 and 10.7 per cent, among the highest reported values for non-duck species, and occurred in distinct peaks with near-zero prevalence before and after. Throat samples had a 2.4 times higher detection frequency than cloacal samples. AI virus infection was significantly related to age and body mass in some but not other winters. AI virus infection was not related to resighting probability, nor to maximum distance travelled, which was at least 191 km during the short infectious lifespan of an AI virus. Our results suggest that transmission via the respiratory route could be an important transmission route of AI virus in this species. Near-zero prevalence upon arrival on their wintering grounds, in combination with the epidemic nature of AI virus infections in white-fronted geese, suggests that white-fronted geese are not likely to disperse Asian AI viruses from their Siberian breeding grounds to their European wintering areas

Socioeconomic status is associated with symptom severity and sickness absence in people with infectious intestinal disease in the UK

BACKGROUND: The burden of infectious intestinal disease (IID) in the UK is substantial. Negative consequences including sickness absence are common, but little is known about the social patterning of these outcomes, or the extent to which they relate to disease severity. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis using IID cases identified from a large population-based survey, to explore the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and symptom severity and sickness absence; and to assess the role of symptom severity on the relationship between SES and absence. Regression modelling was used to investigate these associations, whilst controlling for potential confounders such as age, sex and ethnicity. RESULTS: Among 1164 cases, those of lower SES versus high had twice the odds of experiencing severe symptoms (OR 2.2, 95%CI;1.66-2.87). Lower SES was associated with higher odds of sickness absence (OR 1.8, 95%CI;1.26-2.69), however this association was attenuated after adjusting for symptom severity (OR 1.4, 95%CI;0.92-2.07). CONCLUSIONS: In a large sample of IID cases, those of low SES versus high were more likely to report severe symptoms, and sickness absence; with greater severity largely explaining the higher absence. Public health interventions are needed to address the unequal consequences of IID identified