Submitted by EmbarrassedActive4 t3_yh4ue1 in askscience
iayork t1_iuci24o wrote
In the US, human rabies is extremely rare, so the very small risk from the vaccine might still be higher than the avoided risk of rabies. (If there are 1 in a million serious side effects, that would still be 100 times more risky than the actual case rate.).
Note that people genuinely at high risk - veterinarians, mainly - do in fact get vaccinated, because that changes the risk calculation.
In African countries, and India, it becomes more of a cost calculation. There are almost certainly more effective ways to use that money to save lives in those countries.
If the money was available, it would almost certainly be more cost and safety effective to increase vaccination of animals - the US approach. Removing the source of human rabies, while not putting humans at any increased risk, is probably a much better approach.
GeriatricZergling t1_iue2c1m wrote
>Note that people genuinely at high risk - veterinarians, mainly - do in fact get vaccinated, because that changes the risk calculation.
I know a lot of bat biologists, and all of them get vaccinated for rabies. "Let's deliberately catch the most common vector for this disease" is a pretty big shift in risk, after all.
Mlpaddict t1_iudpp60 wrote
At the local veterinary college, the jobs with animals all require rabies vaccination.
[deleted] t1_iue0hbs wrote
[removed]
Cannie_Flippington t1_iugnyjy wrote
Some states that have theoretically eradicated rabies in their animal populations actually drop salt blocks with vaccine in them in high animal traffic areas on their borders to help prevent outbreaks.
This article is about a recent effort by the fed but I'm certain some individual states have been doing it for far longer.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments