I think "to a serious infection" is wrong. I think 'to' has to be replaced by 'because of.'
Eight-year-old Zion Harvey lost both his hands and feet to a serious infection when he was just two years old. Earlier this month, doctors from Penn Medicine joined the CHOP team in a 10-hour surgical transplant of two hands for Zion. (Video via The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia)

I think "to a serious infection" is wrong. I think 'to' has to be replaced by 'because of.'

Question

I think "to a serious infection" is wrong. I think 'to' has to be replaced by 'because of.'
Eight-year-old Zion Harvey lost both his hands and feet to a serious infection when he was just two years old. Earlier this month, doctors from Penn Medicine joined the CHOP team in a 10-hour surgical transplant of two hands for Zion. (Video via The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia)

I think "to a serious infection" is wrong. I think 'to' has to be replaced by 'because of.'

Answer

It isn't wrong. Paul's correct, there's more than one way to phrase it.

The phrase "lost [X] to [Y]" carries the idea that Y has "taken" X away. It involves personalizing Y, thinking of it almost as an evil spirit. In this case, the infection took away his hands and feet.

These are all correct:

--In the 1986 baseball World Series, the Boston Red Sox lost to the New York Mets.

--They lost because of player Bill Buckner's error.

--During Napoleon's retreat from Moscow, more French were lost to typhus than to enemy action.

Answer

It's not wrong. But neither is using 'because of'. There is more than one way to phrase it.