The topic came up in comments to our article [article="30096"]Rabies What You Need To Know To Protect Your Cat[/article] and I think it deserves a full-fledged discussion. I've researched this quite a bit, consulted with doctors, vets and epidemiologists and came up with some interesting facts which I want to share here.
It's a question that many cat owners ask themselves: Considering the affects of vaccines on cats, and specifically vaccine-associated sarcoma, why should we have to vaccinate indoor cats every year, or even once every three years?
Here's the thing. The title of the article is somewhat misleading. Yes, we want to protect our cats but when it comes to rabies, it's about protecting the people even more. Rabies vaccinations are determined by public health considerations more than anything else. We have a larger population of people living with animals inside their homes. Those animals, mostly dogs and pets, are potential vectors for rabies. Vaccinating them creates an added buffer between the disease and human beings.
Why not vaccinate human beings directly?
That's actually a good question. We give everyone tetanus shots, so why not rabies? Tetanus is just as uncommon. The answer to that is that tetanus shots have very few side effects. Severe adverse reactions to DT (diphtheria-tetanus) shots are extremely rare. Most people won't experience anything and a few will have local pain for a few days and maybe 24 hours of feeling a bit bleh. That's an acceptable price for being protected from a horrible disease like tetanus.
Now, the rabies vaccine is different. Not only is it a more complex protocol (several shots and not one), there are more side effects. It's not a fun vaccine at all. Not dangerous but can give you temporary neurological side effects. It's a vaccine which isn't really a good solution for the entire population. With that in mind, a different strategy is applied: Vaccinating high-risk groups, such as veterinarians and animal control personnel and vaccinating our dogs and cats. By having our pets vaccinated, we eliminate the most common vector of infection. Yes, you can still get rabies from bats or even from raccoons but contact with wildlife is way more rare than contact with pets.
But what about indoor-only cats? Surely their chance of catching rabies is practically zero?
Excellent question. Now, I am not an epidemiologist and not the one making the decisions but applying what I do know, I think this is the explanation. The risk from cats is very real and it's hard for the "authorities" to tell which cats are indeed kept indoors-only 100% of the time. What about a cat whose owners say they keep indoors-only yet goes out to the porch twice a day, potentially coming in contact with wildlife? What about a cat that got outside for 24 hours and was found and taken back home? What about the scenario of a bat getting inside and coming in contact with the cat? Possibly going out again with no one even knowing about the encounter? And bats absolutely can carry rabies, as we all know. When a human comes in contact with a bat, they can tell us about it. Your cat will keep quiet and you may never know it happened.
Rabies is literally the most lethal virus known to humankind. I know about the Milwaukee treatment protocol but a. without it you have 100% chance of dying b. with it your chances of survival are extremely low and c. it doesn't actually "heal" anyone completely. So, for all intents and purposes, consider rabies still as a certain death sentence. A particularly agonizing death at that.
You don't want to take chances with rabies. An infected cat is a very very bad thing for all concerned. It's far better to have the cat vaccinated than to have to deal with the risk of rabies.
And here's a fact I learned which really surprised me. In the US Cats get more rabies than dogs.
Here's the information from the most current CDC report -
Fortunately, none of these cases ended with people being infected. However, cats with rabies is way too close to getting people infected, so it's something I think all cat owners should keep in mind.
I don't know about you but to me that data came as a surprise. I somehow assumed dogs were the culprit where rabies is concerned. Turns out cats are the more common potential vector. I also wonder about the increase. They don't specify in the report but I suspect it's related to people avoiding vaccines because of the vaccine-associated sarcoma risk.
What's my bottom line?
I think that as cat owners, we should be more aware of the risk of rabies. I still believe the vaccine program for each cat should be carefully considered and cats should not be getting vaccines unless they are absolutely necessary. That said, the laws about rabies vaccines are there for a very good reason. They reflect how common rabies is in your area. Knowing what I know now about rabies, I would keep all of my cats fully vaccinated against it if living in the US.
Last, but not least. The risk for vaccine-associated sarcoma has been attributed to the adjuvant in the shots. There's an entire line of vaccines available for cats that contains no adjuvants. It's called Purevax and it should immensely lower the risk for local side effects, including the sarcoma. So, make sure your veterinarian is using Purevax but do get your cats vaccinated against rabies according to the protocol required in your area. It could save your own lives and the lives of your family members.
And this isn't an article, just me sharing my insights and recently acquired information, so feel free to discuss and argue
Also, if you have any questions, do ask and I'll try and get us answers from the experts.
It's a question that many cat owners ask themselves: Considering the affects of vaccines on cats, and specifically vaccine-associated sarcoma, why should we have to vaccinate indoor cats every year, or even once every three years?
Here's the thing. The title of the article is somewhat misleading. Yes, we want to protect our cats but when it comes to rabies, it's about protecting the people even more. Rabies vaccinations are determined by public health considerations more than anything else. We have a larger population of people living with animals inside their homes. Those animals, mostly dogs and pets, are potential vectors for rabies. Vaccinating them creates an added buffer between the disease and human beings.
Why not vaccinate human beings directly?
That's actually a good question. We give everyone tetanus shots, so why not rabies? Tetanus is just as uncommon. The answer to that is that tetanus shots have very few side effects. Severe adverse reactions to DT (diphtheria-tetanus) shots are extremely rare. Most people won't experience anything and a few will have local pain for a few days and maybe 24 hours of feeling a bit bleh. That's an acceptable price for being protected from a horrible disease like tetanus.
Now, the rabies vaccine is different. Not only is it a more complex protocol (several shots and not one), there are more side effects. It's not a fun vaccine at all. Not dangerous but can give you temporary neurological side effects. It's a vaccine which isn't really a good solution for the entire population. With that in mind, a different strategy is applied: Vaccinating high-risk groups, such as veterinarians and animal control personnel and vaccinating our dogs and cats. By having our pets vaccinated, we eliminate the most common vector of infection. Yes, you can still get rabies from bats or even from raccoons but contact with wildlife is way more rare than contact with pets.
But what about indoor-only cats? Surely their chance of catching rabies is practically zero?
Excellent question. Now, I am not an epidemiologist and not the one making the decisions but applying what I do know, I think this is the explanation. The risk from cats is very real and it's hard for the "authorities" to tell which cats are indeed kept indoors-only 100% of the time. What about a cat whose owners say they keep indoors-only yet goes out to the porch twice a day, potentially coming in contact with wildlife? What about a cat that got outside for 24 hours and was found and taken back home? What about the scenario of a bat getting inside and coming in contact with the cat? Possibly going out again with no one even knowing about the encounter? And bats absolutely can carry rabies, as we all know. When a human comes in contact with a bat, they can tell us about it. Your cat will keep quiet and you may never know it happened.
Rabies is literally the most lethal virus known to humankind. I know about the Milwaukee treatment protocol but a. without it you have 100% chance of dying b. with it your chances of survival are extremely low and c. it doesn't actually "heal" anyone completely. So, for all intents and purposes, consider rabies still as a certain death sentence. A particularly agonizing death at that.
You don't want to take chances with rabies. An infected cat is a very very bad thing for all concerned. It's far better to have the cat vaccinated than to have to deal with the risk of rabies.
And here's a fact I learned which really surprised me. In the US Cats get more rabies than dogs.
Here's the information from the most current CDC report -
Cats Cats accounted for 61.1% (272/445) of the rabid domestic animals reported in 2014, a 10.12% increase, compared with the 247 reported in 2013 (Table 1).
Fortunately, none of these cases ended with people being infected. However, cats with rabies is way too close to getting people infected, so it's something I think all cat owners should keep in mind.
I don't know about you but to me that data came as a surprise. I somehow assumed dogs were the culprit where rabies is concerned. Turns out cats are the more common potential vector. I also wonder about the increase. They don't specify in the report but I suspect it's related to people avoiding vaccines because of the vaccine-associated sarcoma risk.
What's my bottom line?
I think that as cat owners, we should be more aware of the risk of rabies. I still believe the vaccine program for each cat should be carefully considered and cats should not be getting vaccines unless they are absolutely necessary. That said, the laws about rabies vaccines are there for a very good reason. They reflect how common rabies is in your area. Knowing what I know now about rabies, I would keep all of my cats fully vaccinated against it if living in the US.
Last, but not least. The risk for vaccine-associated sarcoma has been attributed to the adjuvant in the shots. There's an entire line of vaccines available for cats that contains no adjuvants. It's called Purevax and it should immensely lower the risk for local side effects, including the sarcoma. So, make sure your veterinarian is using Purevax but do get your cats vaccinated against rabies according to the protocol required in your area. It could save your own lives and the lives of your family members.
And this isn't an article, just me sharing my insights and recently acquired information, so feel free to discuss and argue