can't make this shit up

Truly it boggles the mind.

There is the tale (which has a grain of truth in it.) of how vaccination from chickenpox came to be via milkmaids and cowpox, so maybe folks think bird flu will work the same?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3758677/

this one took a while

"Sick people given hugs"

Assuming you mean viral load referring to mucuses or blood of the infected. Given that the human influenza virus' entry requires the viral surface proteins (hemagglutinin (HA)) to bind to acids present on respiratory epithelial cells along with cleavage of HA by host cell proteases (enzymes that breakdown proteins) to facilitate membrane fusion. These trypsin-like proteases are mainly expressed in airway tissues, restricting influenza viral tissue response to the respiratory tract. I would say it would be highly unlikely for influenza viral replication existing in an environment lacking this crucial interaction let alone a low-pH environment like the GI tract

That's a fascinating question. I'd love to hear from an actual epidemiologist.

You don't swallow all of the milk and thus not all of the virus particles. There's always some residue that can then start to infect you just as if you inhaled the virus.

TLDR: If I interpreted what you are getting at, no. The rest of the comment is about questions surrounding yours that I think are more relevant.

If you inhale a certain amount of virus particles vs drinking the same amount of virus particles, the amount of virus particles that are able to infect cells would be lower in the drink than what was inhaled. So no, the amount of virus particles that can infect you would be lower in the milk.

Fun side fact: there are some routes in your gut to access your immune system, such as the lacteals. Some vaccine researchers have targeted these, but it's notoriously difficult to produce an oral vaccine that is effective as administration by other routes.

The route of infection isn't always important once an injection takes hold. If you get infected by the same virus via drinking vs inhaling, you're still infected with that virus and your body will still have to fight it off.

Quantity doesn't matter so much once you pass the bar for an active viral infection because viruses produce an obscene amount of replicates once they infect a cell. The bar for infection does vary by the pathogen and route of exposure, so it can take a much larger quantity of virus particles for an infection to take hold through your gut than through your lungs. Different viral species are able to more efficiently infect you via different routes as well.

Aside from those effects, how are differences in the route of an infection important?

1. The types of protection your body provides against infection varies by route. Mucous, antibodies, the types of immune cells, the density of immune cells, and environmental factors like pH and clearance of mucous (how quickly it is removed and replaced) all affect how difficult it is for a pathogen to get through and infect it's target cell type. Some examples are: your nose protects you by catching things in the mucous and then running out your nose or down your throat, your stomach is acidic and lined in mucous, so viruses can't get through as easily and are likely to be destroyed by the acid, the layers of your skin make it extremely difficult for anything to get through unless you get an open wound.

2. The route of the infection changes the types of immune cells that encounter the pathogen, which can affect the type of protection your body develops against that pathogen. Sometimes this is the type of cell formed, but it can also be where are most of these cells located.

A pathogen in your muscle (or an injected vaccine) will produce cells to fight the infection and cells to remember the pathogen as well as help fight an infection caused by that pathogen in the future. This can reduce the severity and length of symptoms you experience with future infections.

A pathogen in your mucous membrane (I'm mainly talking your nose and nasal-spray vaccines) will produce all of the types of protection that would be produced in your muscle, but it can also produce antibodies that will interact with the pathogen and prevent a new infection from occurring.

Vaccine researchers are trying things like nasal sprays instead of intramuscular injections in order to target this preventative immune protection. This isn't the only potential benefit, but it's one reason to do this and some vaccines are available as nasal sprays.

All of this is generalized and immunology is vastly more complex than I made it sound here. To be frank, immunology is so complex that we still largely are guessing during vaccine research. We know things, but everything in the immune system is interconnected and there are still many things we don't know. We only have part of the puzzle and are missing the picture on the box. Even when we do find an effective treatment, chances are it was an educated guess, but we don't actually know all of the mechanisms behind the protection.

Hopefully that helps make things a bit clearer.

Drinking infected milk sounds like an ineffective and potentially dangerous way to protect yourself, but frankly, it's not entirely without merit. I definitely won't be doing it.

Plz don't, I work retail.

I get that a lot and have to click the "hd" full version button for it to load

Oh I know this one:

What is "Gambler's Fallacy" or "Survivorship bias."

You're missing the point and you're probably wrong.

At least you are straightforward with your username.

It’s sad that bACoN means more to people than the very lives of their loved ones on top of all the moral atrocities inherent in animal ag.

The top reason I don’t have hope for the future. People don’t care if the world burns and disease runs rampant if it means they get their tendies right now.

I happen to think Militant Vegans should be eaten or composted but even I will agree that your first sentence is broadly correct. Industrialized agriculture and CAFO operations are to blame for this so you can generally say that consuming animal products is to blame.

Your second point is highly speculative and not based on any factual evidence. The speculated worst case scenario seems to be maybe 20x COVID-19, or 140 million worldwide.

As a vegan, I should think you'd celebrate even that high rate of attrition. It would mean, overall, far fewer delicious animals being consumed.

Claims

Claims held by raw food proponents include:

• That heating food above 104–118 °F (40–48 °C) degrades enzymes in raw food that aid digestion, when in fact enzymes in food play no significant role in the digestive process, prior to being digested themselves.
• That raw foods have higher nutrient values than foods that have been cooked,  when in fact cooking affects nutrient contents variably – depending on the plant food and cooking method – and may actually increase availability of fat-based nutrients, such as vitamin E and beta-carotene.
• That foods cooked at high temperatures, especially meat, may contain harmful toxins, including trans fatty acids produced by heating oil, acrylamide produced by frying, advanced glycation end products (AGEs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Not all cooked food contains harmful chemicals, and a diet containing a mix of cooked and raw food is normal. According to the American Cancer Society, it is not clear as of 2019 whether acrylamide consumption affects the risk of cancer. Public health authorities recommend reducing consumption of overly cooked starchy foods or meats.

Health effects

A raw food diet is likely to impair the development of children and infants. Care is required in planning a raw vegan diet, especially for children, as there may not be enough vitamin B12, vitamin D, and calories for a growing child on a totally raw vegan diet.

Food poisoning is a health risk for all people eating raw foods, and increased demand for raw foods is associated with greater incidence of foodborne illness,especially for raw meat, fish, and shellfish. Outbreaks of gastroenteritis among consumers of raw and undercooked animal products (including smoked, pickled or dried animal products) are well-documented, and include raw meat, raw organ meat, raw fish (whether ocean-going or freshwater), shellfish, raw milk and products made from raw milk, and raw eggs.

One review stated that "Many raw foods are toxic and only become safe after they have been cooked. Some raw foods contain substances that destroy vitamins, interfere with digestive enzymes or damage the walls of the intestine. Raw meat can be contaminated with bacteria which would be destroyed by cooking; raw fish can contain substances that interfere with vitamin B1 (anti-thiaminases)"

I don't speak for all of lemmy, but yeah I think I am going to hate on the raw food movement

This isn't hating on raw food movement, this is like having a water main break and being advised to boil and/or filter water before drinking it.

A lot of dairy cows are infected with a new virus. Raw/unpasteurized milk has a greater chance if transmission to those consuming it. Recommended to refrain from consuming raw milk until there is no longer such a high rate of infection...

I've been hating on the raw food movement for much longer than lemmy even existed. Drinking raw milk is especially stupid.