• 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours 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.

        • Backlog3231@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Rabies works by slowly working its way towards your nervous system. 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.

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