this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
157 points (98.2% liked)
Canada
7204 readers
332 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Communities
π Meta
πΊοΈ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
ποΈ Cities / Local Communities
- Calgary (AB)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
π Sports
Hockey
- List of All Teams: Post on /c/hockey
- General Community: /c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- MontrΓ©al Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Football (CFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Baseball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Blue Jays
Basketball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Raptors
Soccer
- List of All Teams:
unknown - General Community: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
π» Universities
π΅ Finance / Shopping
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
π£οΈ Politics
- Canada Politics
- General:
- By Province:
π Social and Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No scratches, no bite. Why would they?
Bats have tiny teeth and it's possible to be bitten without there being any visible mark. You should always go for treatment if you have had an interaction with a bat. Better safe than dying one of the worst ways possible.
Most commonly they bite you while you're sleeping, so you don't know
My thinking would be why risk not getting checked out? Unfortunately worst case scenario happened this time :(
The indication for testing according the CDC is a bite.
The rabies test is cheap. Could have tested the kid or the bat, but again why would they do it if there's no indication for exposure. This was the first case in the province of someone being infected with rabies inside their own home since 1967.
When you hear hoofbeats you don't think it's zebras.
You can't test the kid, only the bat. So if they didn't catch it testing is a no go.
There's like eleven kinds of blood tests for rabies. None of them work on people, or is it by the time they work it's too late?
By the time it's detectable it's too late.
Okay that's sort of what I thought.
So the protocol, from like an insurance coverage decision-tree standpoint, in this situation, would have been to test the bat if possible and if not possible administer the vaccine?
I was under the impression that the vaccine is pretty awful and a health ordeal in itself, and that while the dose wasn't expensive, the aftercare is.
And that is why, as I understand, the CDC protocol is only seek medical attention if there's a visible bite.
Rabies works by slowly working its way towards your ~~nervous system~~ brain. Its pretty slow and not really active during this time and it isnt detectable at this stage. Once it hits your nervous system though it screams into overdrive and its basically fatal from that point on. That's what makes rabies so scary.
As soon as a rabies test comes back positive, you have a death sentence.
How do you think the child got rabies in this situation?
Obviously they overlooked a scratch or a bite. Rabies isn't airborne.
This you?
What do you mean? Yes. They checked the kid over and saw nothing. Obviously there was an exposure that either left no mark, left a mark that appeared normal, or the parents didn't see it.
Maybe it drooled into their open mouth or something. Or onto their hand and later they picked their nose.
Sounds possible. Bats are mammals, maybe it sneezed, covered, but didn't wash it's hands, gave the kid a high five, and then the kid wiped a booger out of his eye with it.
Poor kid, never had a chance.
Heartbreaking
That's literally the health institutions protocol now a days. Though for kids it depends how credible the kid is about not being exposed.
I looked at the CDC website before posting Aunt. It says the only indication for treatment is a bite or a scratch from species known to carry rabies. It doesn't say anything about testing for mere exposure.
I guess I see the counterpoints.
It's a kid. The duration of the exposure is unknown. Whether there was any contact is unknown. Bat. Bites or scratches can be invisible. Bires or scratches could be mistaken.
What's the scuttlebutt here, your saying in this situation to test the kid or administer a vaccine?
I'm certain the medical staff 's determination of The credibility of a fact attested to by a child is not a factor.
We're also assuming this kid isn't a straight up victim of healthcare inequality. The article is light on details. Perhaps the parents considered this, searched the web, searched for bites or scratches, and the cost of seeking care felt too great for this family? I didn't catch if this happened in a civilized nation with universal health.
Fuck, this story is terrifying. Reminds me in some ways of when a kid dies in a hot car.
You can't test the kid. What I'm saying is a lot of people in here are quick to judge the parents, but clearly even to medical professionals the situation is not cut and dry.
As I mentioned in another comment, I've been there. I have been through PPE, and I had to seriously advocate for myself to the ER doctor for him to go consult an infectious disease specialist before they agreed.
Health Canada guidance is a bit more nuanced
Based on all the comments in this thread, this seems like the best course to me.
Honestly, I didn't know much about this and didn't have a strong opinion from the beginning. I just looked quick on Google and saw the results for America was to only seek treatment if there's been a confirmed bite or scratch.
This Canadian advice makes way more sense. I like that last paragraph that explains the protocol from 1998 to 2009 would have required treatment of 314,000 people to prevent one case. This poor kid in the article might have been that one case.
But it seems like under the current recommendations the kid would not have been tested. It says now treatment only only after direct contact, defined as a bat touching or landing on a person. In this situation, I think they didn't know if the bat had touched the kid at all.