159
submitted 2 months ago by BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world to c/canada@lemmy.ca
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] saigot@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

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.

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

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.

this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
159 points (98.2% liked)

Canada

7273 readers
550 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


๐Ÿ Meta


๐Ÿ—บ๏ธ Provinces / Territories


๐Ÿ™๏ธ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


๐Ÿ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


๐Ÿ’ป Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


๐Ÿ’ต Finance, Shopping, Sales


๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ Politics


๐Ÿ Social / Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS