• Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    18 hours ago

    The CDC guidelines are a bit confusing too, like is just being in a house common behavior, as in the part about keeping bats out, or a sign of rabies as in an earlier part? Should you check for physical contact or just go get tested? (And in the US, will your insurance cover the test without symptoms showing?) Should you get the fucking plague beast out of your house while avoiding contact, or try to catch it for testing?

    https://www.cdc.gov/rabies/prevention/bats.html

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      17 hours ago

      I thought by the time it is detectable in tests on a person, that person is already terminal. My understanding is if you have any chance of exposure from an animal you skip the tests and go get the shots. IDK about insurance.

      • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        I agree and I was just being cynical about health insurance companies denying care for cruelly stupid reasons. Although I remember some old TV shows where “if the animal can be quickly caught and it tests negative for rabies, the child won’t have to undergo the painful series of abdominal shots.” Not sure if the treatment is still as miserable as portrayed.

      • maniii@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Get shots, pay health insurance. Dont get shots, life insurance pays your loved ones.

        Macabre and sadly true.