The discrepancy I find more interesting is that the Italian traveler doesn't seem like the sort of person to be severely malnourished. Assuming it really is the same disease, it's one small indication that the 'trivial infection, abysmal baseline health status' explanation is not adequate.
I don't know what they meant by "have recovered" but if he has recovered, it shouldn't be that bad. But the phrasing is weird: why hospitalize a patient who has recovered? Is it because he was sick on arrival and got better in the hospital? Because of some after-effects? For analysis? For an unrelated reason?
