• Polkira@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    My thinking would be why risk not getting checked out? Unfortunately worst case scenario happened this time :(

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

            • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              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.

      • delirious_owl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        As soon as a rabies test comes back positive, you have a death sentence.