richard_smith237

Your pal is an idiot. Why take the risk? Rabies has a 100% death rate. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98wyllp170o The survivor fallacy which is often wheeled out; rather unintelligently, to justify poor decisions or just dumb behaviour.... “My mate fell off his motorcycle without a helmet and was absolutely fine”....

I think the concern is not specifically about the number of rabies-related deaths; seven so far this year, if I’m not mistaken, but in the fact that its a threefold increase, which indicates a surge in cases among cats and dogs. Thus: while the death toll itself remains relatively low, this spike in animal infections should not be dismissed. At a certain point, rising case numbers cross a threshold; what might be called a critical mass, where the spread becomes self-sustaining and increasingly difficult to contain. When that happens, the risk of exponential transmission grows, especially in areas with high stray populations, low vaccination coverage, and poor public awareness. What’s particularly worrying is that rabies, once established in an area, is extraordinarily difficult to eliminate. The virus is almost always fatal once symptoms appear, and by the time it's identified in animals, it's often too late to prevent transmission to humans. Add to that the challenge of monitoring and controlling free-roaming or feral animals, and you have the makings of a public health problem that could easily escalate if left unchecked. Additionally, public complacency plays a role, people often only become concerned when a crisis is already at their doorstep. But the true value of disease control lies in early intervention, not reactive panic. Thus: with rising case numbers as an early warning signal, now is the time to step up surveillance, reinforce vaccination efforts in animals, and ensure that the public knows when and how to seek post-exposure treatment. In short, while the current situation is clearly not a crisis, the trajectory suggests a growing risk that demands proactive management before it becomes a more serious problem. So, while some may casually dismiss the current situation...saying, "It’s only a handful of cases".... that complacency is precisely what allows problems to grow unnoticed. Fast-forward five years, and the very same voices may be asking, "Why wasn’t this addressed earlier?" Public health threats rarely explode overnight; they build quietly, often in the background, while attention is elsewhere. By the time the consequences become visible, the opportunity for simple, preventive action has usually passed. What was once manageable now requires costly and complex intervention. It’s far wiser to recognise the warning signs now and take measured, proactive steps, than to look back in hindsight, asking why no one acted when the risks were still containable. Its exactly the same as the 'stray dog' sitation in the first place !!!

No... It just makes you someone who commented without reading any other part of this thread !!! Because it was answered here >>> I'm referring to a handful of folk on this forum who are 100% against ALL vaccines... any... and that goes for Measles (MMR), Polio etc... (so not just a covid vax discussion - which again is separate conversation, but also somewhat based around the hysteria of the anti-vax movement).... And yes, as far as tested and proven vaccines are concerned... if someone is anti-vaccination, be it Rabies, Polio, MMR etc... then I am most definitely not with you, and by very definition, against you (and whoever the 'us' is you refer to).

Yea, she's pretty responsible. Drives herself to the vet, on E-MB of course, wearing a helmet, and pays by scanning the QR code with her iPhone 😎 C'mon... I don't buy that for a second.... MG don't make E-Bikes.....

That's a pretty stupid F'g question. NO, I'd definitely roll the dice with a 100% fatal disease Its good that your dog makes the important decisions in your household then !!!...

Would you take a rabies vaccine if bitten by an unknown stray dog ?

Because it costs MONEY!!!!! A number of reasons explain why pre-exposure rabies vaccination isn't routinely given to the general population, including children... Post-exposure vaccination is effective: Rabies vaccines can be administered after a potential exposure (i.e. after a bite or scratch), and are highly effective if given promptly. This makes preemptive vaccination unnecessary in most cases. Low general exposure risk: While rabies is present in Thailand, the overall prevalence is relatively low. The majority of people will never be exposed to a rabid animal, especially if they do not routinely interact with strays or wildlife. Targeted vaccination for high-risk groups: Pre-exposure vaccination can be applied for people in high-risk occupations or situations - such as veterinarians, animal control staff etc... rather than the general public. Transmission requires direct contact: Rabies is not airborne; it is transmitted through bites, scratches, or saliva from infected animals entering an open wound. This specific mode of transmission does not justify broad immunisation of the population. Exposure events are identifiable: Unlike diseases that spread without obvious signs, rabies exposure is usually clear and tied to a specific event, such as an animal bite. This allows for swift post-exposure intervention without the need for preemptive vaccination. Cost-effectiveness and logistics: Rabies vaccines are expensive, require multiple doses, and may need boosters. For a large population with low risk, routine vaccination would be economically impractical and medically unnecessary. Public health strategy prioritises surveillance and rapid response: Resources are more effectively used in monitoring animal populations, controlling stray dog numbers, and ensuring access to post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) when needed (or rather it should !!!)

I'm anti-mRNA jabs but have undergone the rabies vaccine course. Does this make me an anti-vaxxer? No... It just makes you someone who commented without reading any other part of this thread !!!

Within this forum, there are individuals who can quite readily be classified as Anti-Vax - that is, opposed to all vaccinations. The ongoing discussions in the 'Off the Beaten Path' sub-forum leave little room for doubt on this.

Does this include JFK junior? This can be discussed in the 'off the beaten path' sub-forum... where there are also discussions regarding whether or not the moon-landings were faked, if the earth is flat rather than an oblate spheroid etc take place. But... Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s record indicates that he is anti-vaccine, not merely anti-COVID vaccine - I believe its important for transparency, so I don't think anyone should be against independent, unbiased, transparent and open investigations into the safety and effectiveness all vaccines and any other matter of public health.

That would solve a lot of the problem... It was announced (in May) that Bangkok was setting new pet ownership rules to curb stray animals.... ... of course, that was just an announcement - nothing has happened since !!... nevertheless, this should be a national policy - remove all strays from the streets and beaches.

Agreed. I concur that older adults, those with comorbidities, and individuals deemed high-risk should follow medical advice and receive COVID vaccines, alongside their seasonal influenza shots. (I’m not looking to reopen the COVID vaccine debate, but it’s worth noting that at the start of the pandemic, when vaccines first became available, there was considerable uncertainty about who exactly was ‘at risk.’ At that time, I was comfortable taking the vaccine as a precaution. However, given my current circumstances, I now feel it unnecessary for myself. Were I over 65 and travelling, though, I would likely choose to receive it.).

7 a year from rabies Vs 30 a day from rtas. Seems the money would be better spent reducing traffic deaths. In anticipation the predictably foolish response typical of this forum, I'd handled that point already (see below). The existence of one issue in no way justifies ignoring another - both can and should be dealt with.

Answered above already: Its not necessary for the general population... So no. But, if I were bitten by an unknown dog or stray cat etc... then of course, I'd get the vaccine. The crux of the matter boils down to three factors: the contagiousness of the illness, its prevalence in a given area, and our individual risk of exposure. For instance, I wouldn’t bother with an influenza vaccine if I were staying in Thailand and going about my daily routine during the winter months. However, if I were travelling to the UK or Europe, I'd get vaccinated - I wouldn’t want a bout of flu to spoil several days of my holiday. The chances of catching flu on the flight or in crowded places like UK pubs or busy city areas are far higher. Similarly, if I were bitten by a dog in the UK, I would be less inclined to seek rabies vaccination, given that rabies is not present there. That said, I would still seek medical advice for other potential risks such as bacterial infections.

The JYNNEOS vaccine can be taken up to 4 days after exposure to Monkey Pox to prevent onset of the disease and between 5 to 14 days it may not prevent infection, but can reduce severity of symptoms. Thus: just like Rabies, post 'exposure medical care' in the way of a vaccine prevents severity of symtoms. For a 'regular person' the JYNNEOS vaccine is unnecessary as the risk of exposure is so low. For 'high risk' individuals, such as, Healthcare workers handling mpox patients, lab staff, contact tracers etc, then it might be advised that they take the vaccine. The same could be argued of those who handle stray dogs or work in high-risk environments, they should seriously consider getting a pre-exposure rabies vaccination, but its not necessary for the general population.