Covid 19 and pets

@shavixmir said
https://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/covid-19/pets.html#risk

There you go.
Yes. Pets can catch covid. The chances of pets spreading covid is low.

And don’t put masks on your pets.
Or let them lick your nose and mouth.

I added that last sentence, by the way. The CDC doesn’t mention it. I presume they just don’t think bestiality in the maga-conspiracy incelidom is worth mentioning.

Yes, a disease is generally described in the medical sciences as having a "low" risk of transmission if it can't be passed on to others unless, say, one swaps spit with someone who has the disease.

I take it the forum's Imbecile-in-Chief doesn't know what "low risk" means?

@metal-brain said
I already said the CDC said that and I also said I don't believe them. They have lied about everything else. Why should you believe them without a study to back it up?

If you go to their site (or any other health authority in the world), you can find the studies they use.

They don’t just suck information out of their arses.
Or, like you, from under your tinfoil hat.

Moron.

@shavixmir said
If you go to their site (or any other health authority in the world), you can find the studies they use.

They don’t just suck information out of their arses.
Or, like you, from under your tinfoil hat.

Moron.

Then post the study if they list one. Can't you do that?

"They don’t just suck information out of their arses."

Yes they do. That is exactly what they do. Where is the study that proves face masks stopped causing more harm than good as they said the first time when they included the study to prove they did more harm than good? The CDC does not always post a study when they make a claim.

@sh76 said
High risk?

Do you worry about getting rinovirus or RSV or other coronaviruses from pets?

It might be true, but so what? Live your life, dude. Take reasonable precautions but don't let an endemic respiratory virus run your life.

"Do you worry about getting rinovirus or RSV or other coronaviruses from pets? "

No, I don't have pets so why should I worry? I have chickens, but they don't get SARS2. Who said I was worried anyway? Not me. dude, get a grip on reality. I am simply pointing out the stupidity of covid policies. Pets spread the SARS2 virus as well. Cats, dogs and ferrets are known carriers.

Show me a study if you have something to prove instead of making up stuff I never said.

@metal-brain said
Then post the study if they list one. Can't you do that?

"They don’t just suck information out of their arses."

Yes they do. That is exactly what they do. Where is the study that proves face masks stopped causing more harm than good as they said the first time when they included the study to prove they did more harm than good? The CDC does not always post a study when they make a claim.

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/dashboards/tableau/sars-dashboard

For example. Link readily found on CDC website.

Now, I can easily find you similar studies and data banks from all over the world.
And I can easily explain to you how the information out these studies is processed and how conclusions are drawn.

But I won’t. Do some bloody research.
Stop listening to this extremist BS which keeps clogging your mind and sending you down rabbit holes.

There is no world wide conspiracy about covid-19, pets or anything disease related.
Just speculation by morons who can’t accept basic facts of life:

- somethings are just complicated.
- corners are sometimes cut to convey a message as simply as possible.
- the more data, the more positions must change (so when it comes to science, viewpoints change over time).

- when it comes to new diseases there are basic procedures, acceptance levels in the civilian populution and advanced procedures due to extra data.

- There’s a balancing act there which is hard to get right. And it depends on the population group how the message has to be sent. That makes it even more complicated.

Take face masks as an example.
Face masks are a basic, first-line, precaution to stop a viral person spreading a disease. They don’t work particularly well and in mass populations over an extended time, lead to frustration.

Health authorities didn’t actually want to implement them. Health-wise, isolation and quarantine work waaaayyyyy better.
So, that’s the advice. Until the nature of the beast is determined.

But, there are economic advisors, social advisors, etc. all giving relevant input to the government. Suddenly it’s not just a health issue, it’s an economic-social issue as well.

So, the health authorities are told their measures are not in proportion to other aspects of running a country.
Masks, ventilation, complicated advice on social distancing based on incubational periods, etc. are then required.
A fluid set of rules, small pieces, when strung together, make the situation managable, whilst not destroying the health systems which are in place.
And if you think that’s a simple sum, you are gravely mistaken.

Then there’s misinformation, fear and anger to contend with.

Like it or lump it, when people are scared they need direct and simple guidelines. And that’s hard to give in a fluid situation.

It’s bloody difficult.
It’s not a conspiracy. It’s people doing their best during a pandemic.

Pets? Good grief.

@metal-brain said
@shavixmir
You moron. That link doesn't prove a damn thing!
You were suckered again.

Even the CDC's sources don't prove anything they claimed. You idiot!

You really are hopeless.

As I stated, there is plenty of research. Now, scurry off and find it. You’re being very obnoxious.

@shavixmir said
You really are hopeless.

As I stated, there is plenty of research. Now, scurry off and find it. You’re being very obnoxious.

That link provided no comparison to people. Provide a link that does instead of a number of cases from animals that has no representation of how much they spread it compared to humans.

That link proved nothing. Why were you dumb enough to think it did?