Concerns about rising hantavirus cases has Americans reflecting on the coronavirus pandemic.

Although COVID-19 began with a foreign strain and spread rapidly around the world, experts say it’s not likely that hantavirus will behave the same way.

The rare Andes virus, which was linked to the MV Hondius cruise ship outbreak, is the only known hantavirus strain that has the capability to spread from person to person, usually through prolonged close contact.

RARE HANTAVIRUS HUMAN-TO-HUMAN TRANSMISSION SUSPECTED ON LUXURY CRUISE SHIP WHERE 3 HAVE DIED

Fox News senior medical analyst Dr. Marc Siegel spoke with Fox News Digital about the similarities and differences between hantavirus and coronavirus, noting that there is “no comparison.”

“You could say the comparison ends at that they’re both single-stranded RNA viruses,” he said. “That’s a comparison, but [hantavirus] has been unchanged basically for decades.”

Coronavirus was different because it began to mutate, which started to cause “all kinds of problems,” Siegel noted.

“We don’t know why it started to mutate, but this one doesn’t appear to have done that,” he said. “And every day that goes by seems to show that theory is correct – the genetics of it is the same.”

DR MARC SIEGEL: HANTAVIRUS CRUISE OUTBREAK IS ALARMING BUT FEAR IS SPREADING FASTER THAN FACTS

“So, there’s no comparison between these two viruses, other than that the single-stranded RNA viruses are both carried by animals.”

Siegel added that COVID is an airborne virus, while hantavirus is mainly a secretion-borne virus, although it can be transmitted through dust and droppings in the air.

“It’s not airborne … in terms of respiratory droplets hanging in the air,” he said. “It’s very difficult to transmit.”

While coronavirus “moved in the direction of humans in a significant way,” hantavirus has not, except for “very rare” human-to-human transmission, according to the doctor.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER

There have been hantavirus cases in the U.S. for decades, although they are “very rare,” Siegel noted.

Certain factors of this disease spread are changing, including warming temperatures that are causing rodents to migrate north toward Buenos Aires, according to the doctor.

DEADLY CRUISE VIRUS TIMELINE SHOWS HOW HANTAVIRUS SPREAD AMONG PASSENGERS

The current outbreak stemming from the cruise ship did not help the cause, Siegel went on — but this spread doesn’t suggest that the virus has changed. Rather, it shows how close quarters on a ship are “very conducive” to spread, he said.

“Every day that goes by shows that … we’re not seeing a second generation of spread,” he reiterated.

The better comparison to make is between hantavirus and bird flu, which is a predominantly animal-based virus that “occasionally infects humans,” Siegel said.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE HEALTH STORIES

“There are billions of birds, and every year we talk about how it’s going to cause a pandemic, but it would have to mutate significantly,” he pointed out. “I feel that [hantavirus] would have to mutate significantly before it could go human to human in any significant way, because this is basically an animal virus … it’s very comfortable inside a rodent host.”

Siegel went on, “If you get this virus, you’re in trouble, but getting this virus is very difficult.”

Regarding fears that another global pandemic may be looming, Siegel said that just because one virus becomes widespread does not mean all viruses will.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Coronaviruses are airborne anyway. This is not. And coronaviruses mutate a lot, and this does not,” he said. “I’m much more concerned about flu than this. Flu can mutate all the time, and it’s already going human to human all over the place, and it’s airborne.”

TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ

“Most infectious disease specialists are much more worried about flu than this, as deadly as this can be,” he added.

“We’re talking apples and oranges, and any comparison you make after that provokes fear.”

Fox News Digital’s Melissa Rudy contributed to this report.

One morning just before Christmas, Michelle stood in a Thrifty-Wash, watching her seven loads of laundry tumble and spin. The machine at the Airbnb had broken and flooded the place. It had been a blessing, in a way — Michelle needed this time alone to think.

The night before, Los Angeles Unified School District officials had hosted a Zoom webinar for parents, in which they had promised to present all the evidence that campus was safe. Michelle had gone in with high hopes, maybe even optimism. Afterward, she called it “the Zoom from hell.”

The officials had opened the meeting by announcing that Pali High’s students would go back to campus at the end of January. Michelle had peered at the screen, squinting to make sense of their color-coded maps, charts and checklists as district officials and their third-party contractors used wonky terms to describe what sounded to Michelle like rudimentary decontamination methods: “visual inspections,” “glove tests,” “subjective evaluations for smoke odor” and the copious use of wet wipes.

The “Environmental Concerns” WhatsApp group began pinging with live commentary. “It’s like they’re all hanging out with my insurance company,” one mother typed. “Transparency my a$$,” wrote another.

During the question-and-answer portion, parents flooded the submission box: Why weren’t the porous ceiling tiles removed? (“We did our best to remove any surface contaminants that we could see visually,” one contractor replied.) Did they realize that lithium had been detected in smoke-damaged homes near the school? (“Lithium, we determined, was not going to be a high-priority metal for us,” another contractor explained.) And why hadn’t they tested for benzene, carbon tetrachloride or perchloroethylene — some of which had been found in other Palisades buildings after the fires?

Michelle had a hunch she knew the answer, but she assumed no official would ever admit it. Then the project manager for one of the contractors came on the screen.

“There are hundreds — literally — of different compounds that could be produced during a fire,” he said, “and there are analytical methods that can be very, very precise in sampling for those.” But the problem, he said, was that it “lacks specificity in what we can actually deal with … ”

Michelle had shaken her head in disbelief. The project manager interrupted himself. “That was the wrong way to put that,” he muttered.

This morning, Michelle had waked to some parents on the “Environmental Concerns” chat talking about putting their kids in virtual learning. Others were hoping to transfer. Michelle was fantasizing about protesting the return to campus, even dreaming up the picket signs: “Lead should only be in pencils,” or maybe, “Test on the school, not on the kids.”

A new weight-loss drug variation is showing promise in early trials.

Research from the Institute for Diabetes and Obesity at Helmholtz Munich in Germany, published in the journal Nature, tested an experimental obesity and diabetes drug called GLP-1-GIP-Lani.

The drug combines GLP-1 and GIP — two natural hormones that help regulate appetite and blood sugar, similar to popular weight-loss drugs like Ozempic — with PPAR activity, which may improve insulin sensitivity, inflammation, fat metabolism and liver health.

‘NEXT OZEMPIC’ AIMS TO DELIVER 30% WEIGHT LOSS WITH FEWER SIDE EFFECTS

The team of researchers, led by Professor Timo D. Muller at Helmoltz Munich, called the drug a quintuple agonist, as it targets five receptor systems.

In a press release, Muller described the drug as a “Trojan horse”: the incretin component — hormones that help regulate blood sugar and appetite — allows it to enter target cells, and once inside, the PPAR “cargo” activates to help the body better use insulin, process fat and reduce inflammation.

This allows for the dosage of the drug to be lower, which could reduce side effects.

“A major advantage is the amount,” Muller said. “Because the second component is not administered separately and systemically, but ‘travels along’ with the incretin part, it can be used at a dose that is orders of magnitude lower.”

NEW WEIGHT-LOSS SHOT SHOWS MAJOR FAT REDUCTION, BUT EXPERTS URGE CAUTION

The study tested the drug combination in mouse models, including mice with diabetes-induced obesity, insulin resistance and genetic obesity.

In these mice, the compound was found to lower body weight, food intake, fat mass, blood sugar and insulin-related problems more than GLP-1 and GIP alone. It also outperformed semaglutide.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE HEALTH STORIES

The researchers reported that typical gastrointestinal side effects were similar to those seen with existing therapies.

“We see a principle with strong effects in the animal model — now the task is to optimize the approach for humans and move it toward the clinic,” Muller said in the release.

Dr. Peter Balazs, MD, a hormone and weight-loss specialist practicing in New York and New Jersey, said the drug is designed to target obesity and insulin resistance “at multiple key sites simultaneously, including the brain, pancreas and metabolic tissues.”

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER

“This is a novel mechanism because it’s not just relying on a higher dose of an existing drug,” he told Fox News Digital in an interview.

“Current GLP-1 medications are highly effective appetite suppressants, while this quintuple agonist seems to function both as an ‘appetite brake’ and a metabolic engine,” he added.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

While traditional GLP-1s primarily reduce appetite, slow gastric emptying and increase insulin secretion, this quintuple agonist “appears to do all of the above” while also “directly improving insulin sensitivity in the liver and muscle, reducing inflammation in adipose tissue and remodeling lipid metabolism,” the expert confirmed.

“The result may be greater weight loss through a combination of caloric restriction, enhanced fat oxidation and potentially increased central energy expenditure,” Balazs said.

TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ

Although the drug provides a “promising direction for the future,” Balazs noted that the study was conducted only on mouse models and there is no human safety or efficacy data, which means the drug cannot yet be recommended for clinical use.

“Additionally, it was conducted over a relatively short period of time, so we cannot draw conclusions about long-term effects,” he added.