I can blame the parent for bad parenting and call myself informed and everyone else should be … because I know about bats carrying rabies
But I also know that most people have no clue that any of this can happen … it’s the first case of someone dying from rabies in Ontario from an infection that originated in Ontario since 1967 … people have no clue that this is even possible in this day in age
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/rabies-death-1.7341335
About eight or ten years ago I woke up one night in my cottage to a bat flying around my place. It was dark inside and I saw this thing fluttering around in my room. I opened a window and let it out and never thought anything of it. About a year later, I happened to be reading some stuff about rabies … the hair in the back of my neck went up and it’s freaked me out since.
After that bat in my room, I never went for treatment, I never got checked out and I never thought anything of it. It’s been about ten years and I keep worrying that some day I’ll start feeling the effects of it. I think most people in Ontario would do the same because everyone thinks we got rid of rabies decades ago or that it is a third world disease that isn’t possible here.
I feel terrible for that parent … death from rabies is a horrible way to die and it happened to this child with their parents watching it all happen.
I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy … let alone someone I would accuse of bad parenting.
Quick heads up that we do have effective treatments UNTIL you start exhibiting symptoms, after that you can’t really be cured anymore and would just have to live with it (and manage the symptoms until it kills you shortly after)
I can blame the parent for bad parenting and call myself informed and everyone else should be … because I know about bats carrying rabies
Most provinces and the federal’s health protocols no longer recommend automatic treatment for “bat in room” situations. Only if there’s reasonable doubt of having been bitten. I’ve been there and I really had to advocate to the ER doctor that there was no way for me to know.
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?
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.
Get shots, pay health insurance. Dont get shots, life insurance pays your loved ones.
Macabre and sadly true.
My life insurance pays a hell of a lot better than my health insurance does.
Little known fact groundhogs are also rabies vectors
He just popped out, saw his shadow, pulled out a switchblade, and then started running straight towards us
I try not to judge, but I’m also utterly confused as to why the parents wouldn’t immediately have brought the child in for the shot after finding the bat, visible bite or not…
No scratches, no bite. Why would they?
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?
Rabies works by slowly working its way towards your
nervous systembrain. 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.
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.
Health Canada guidance is a bit more nuanced
Post-exposure prophylaxis or testing of a bat is generally recommended after direct contact with the bat (refer to Bat Exposure) because it is very difficult to ensure that a bite did not take place
Bat exposure: Post-exposure rabies prophylaxis following bat contact is recommended when both of the following conditions apply:
- There has been direct contact with a bat, AND
- A bite, scratch, or saliva exposure into a wound or mucous membrane cannot be ruled out.
Direct contact with a bat is defined as a bat touching or landing on a person.
In a child, a bat landing on clothing could be considered a reason for intervention, as a history to rule out a bite, scratch or mucous membrane exposure may not be reliable.
From 1998 to 2009, NACI recommended that people who may not be aware of or able to report a bat bite (e.g., sleeping person, young child, cognitively impaired) be offered intervention if a bat was found in the room with them. This recommendation was revised (as described above) in 2009 based on the rarity of human rabies related to bats (one case in Canada reported approximately every 5 years). Analysis conducted in Canada estimated that a case of human rabies related to bedroom exposure to a bat (i.e., finding a bat in the room of a sleeping person with no recognized physical contact with the bat) is expected to occur in Canada once every 84 years. In addition, it has been determined that, to prevent one case of rabies from bedroom exposure to a bat, using a conservative estimate, 314,000 people would need to be treated.
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.
