Still can't figure out how he got in.

I had to chase it with a blanked until it got too tired to fly.

I then threw it outside.

It made a vibrating sound when I had the blanket over it.

On Feb 14, 10:48*pm, Terry wrote:
Still can't figure out how he got in.

I had to chase it with a blanked until it got too tired to fly.

I then threw it outside.

It made a vibrating sound when I had the blanket over it.

So, that's where my electronic spy-bat went!

Boikat

Terry wrote:

Still can't figure out how he got in.

I had to chase it with a blanked until it got too tired to fly.

I then threw it outside.

It made a vibrating sound when I had the blanket over it.

Vibrated? You sure it wasn't just an overcharged novelty vibrator?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

On Feb 14, 8:48 pm, Terry wrote:
Still can't figure out how he got in.

I had to chase it with a blanked until it got too tired to fly.

I then threw it outside.

It made a vibrating sound when I had the blanket over it.

If I recall right from "Abbot and Costello Meet Dracula," you just
had a very close call.

Terry wrote:

Still can't figure out how he got in.

I had to chase it with a blanked until it got too tired to fly.

I then threw it outside.

It made a vibrating sound when I had the blanket over it.

That's is silly way to do it.
Just open some windows, and it will just fly back out.
Bats are much better at it than birds,
who will continue to hit the one window that isn't open.

Echo location really helps,

Jan

On Feb 15, 4:57 am, (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
Terry wrote:
Still can't figure out how he got in.

I had to chase it with a blanked until it got too tired to fly.

I then threw it outside.

It made a vibrating sound when I had the blanket over it.

That's is silly way to do it.
Just open some windows, and it will just fly back out.
Bats are much better at it than birds,
who will continue to hit the one window that isn't open.

Echo location really helps,

Jan

Only works if they *want* to leave. I once lived in a house with attic
bat-cave. At one point, we found a long-undusted vase in the living
room to be a baby-bat nursery. The little things are actually cute.

But bats are apparently able to squeeze through small openings, which
may explain all the times people say "I can't figure out how it got
in."

-tg

"Terry" wrote in message
...
Still can't figure out how he got in.

I had to chase it with a blanked until it got too tired to fly.

I then threw it outside.

It made a vibrating sound when I had the blanket over it.


Try to find out where it got in or it may come back again. I had that
happen a few years ago. In my case, it was the window with an air
conditioner that was not properly sealed at the top. They only need a very
tiny hole to get through.

In article ,
(John Wilkins) wrote:

Vibrated? You sure it wasn't just an overcharged novelty vibrator?

The Hello Kitty kind? I saw an ad. for those once; later I read they
were not meant to be sold outside Japan.

nmp wrote:
Terry wrote:

Still can't figure out how he got in.

I had to chase it with a blanked until it got too tired to fly.

I then threw it outside.

It made a vibrating sound when I had the blanket over it.

Animal cruelty, I say.

Um...what?

On Feb 15, 6:51*am, "Geoff" wrote:
nmp wrote:
Terry wrote:

Still can't figure out how he got in.

I had to chase it with a blanked until it got too tired to fly.

I then threw it outside.

It made a vibrating sound when I had the blanket over it.

Animal cruelty, I say.

Um...what?

Truely, "Say what?" It would have been more cruel to know that bat
was in the house and not do anything about it, since there would
likely not be enough food around for the bat to eat, and it would have
starved after a day or so.

Boikat

On 15 Feb, 04:48, Terry wrote:
Still can't figure out how he got in.

I had to chase it with a blanked until it got too tired to fly.

I then threw it outside.

It made a vibrating sound when I had the blanket over it.

Going by an episode of _House, M.D._, you may have to think about
rabies an' stuff like that. (I hope you get to read this reasonably
promptly.)

In the United Kingdom, bats are legally protected and generally you
can't remove them from property, but they are unlikely to set up home
in human living space - and if a building is properly maintained, they
usually won't get in.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:47:04 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Terry" wrote in message
.. .
Still can't figure out how he got in.

I had to chase it with a blanked until it got too tired to fly.

I then threw it outside.

It made a vibrating sound when I had the blanket over it.


Try to find out where it got in or it may come back again. I had that
happen a few years ago. In my case, it was the window with an air
conditioner that was not properly sealed at the top. They only need a very
tiny hole to get through.

That may be where the bat came in at. I lost site of it when I was
getting the blanket. It had landed on the window in my bedroom that
has the window AC unit.

After reading your message I checked and the insulation that goes
between the window may have been pushed up a small amount.

Thanks

BTW if it gets in again it has to die. I would rather not kill living
things. The ones that stay outside are safe, but the ones inside have
to go.

On Feb 15, 1:57*pm, nmp wrote:
boikat wrote:
On Feb 15, 6:51*am, "Geoff" wrote:
nmp wrote:
Terry wrote:

Still can't figure out how he got in.

I had to chase it with a blanked until it got too tired to fly.

I then threw it outside.

It made a vibrating sound when I had the blanket over it.

Animal cruelty, I say.

Um...what?

Truely, "Say what?" *It would have been more cruel to know that bat was
in the house and not do anything about it, since there would likely not
be enough food around for the bat to eat, and it would have starved
after a day or so.

"I then threw it outside" seemed quite harsh. If you want to rescue a bat
from starvation you don't throw it outside, you release it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm sure that's what he meant. I doubt he meant he threw it out like
he was throwing a fast ball.

Boikat

On Feb 15, 3:13*pm, nmp wrote:
boikat wrote:
On Feb 15, 1:57*pm, nmp wrote:
boikat wrote:
On Feb 15, 6:51*am, "Geoff" wrote:
nmp wrote:
Terry wrote:

Still can't figure out how he got in.

I had to chase it with a blanked until it got too tired to fly.

I then threw it outside.

It made a vibrating sound when I had the blanket over it.

Animal cruelty, I say.

Um...what?

Truely, "Say what?" *It would have been more cruel to know that bat
was in the house and not do anything about it, since there would
likely not be enough food around for the bat to eat, and it would
have starved after a day or so.

"I then threw it outside" seemed quite harsh. If you want to rescue a
bat from starvation you don't throw it outside, you release it.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm sure that's what he meant. *I doubt he meant he threw it out like he
was throwing a fast ball.

I see no reason to be so sure / doubtful as you describe.

Now he says the bat must die if it dares inconvenience him again. Like if
he is talking about a mosquito or something (killing mosquitos I can
understand).

Bad Terry! No biscuit!


Killing bats is like killing puppies or kittens, people. You shouldn't do
it if you want children to love and respect you

I am biased of course. I have been bitten several times by bats that I
caught when I was a volunteer in a research project, many years ago. Only
made me admire them more. They are such fragile little things, but with a
lot of character.- Hide quoted text -


Agreed. Bats come under the heading of "So ugly, they're cute". I
did not see his (her) earlier post on Google when I posted earlier. :P

Boikat
- Show quoted text -

Robert Carnegie wrote:

On 15 Feb, 04:48, Terry wrote:

Still can't figure out how he got in.

I had to chase it with a blanked until it got too tired to fly.

I then threw it outside.

It made a vibrating sound when I had the blanket over it.


Going by an episode of _House, M.D._, you may have to think about
rabies an' stuff like that. (I hope you get to read this reasonably
promptly.)

In the United Kingdom, bats are legally protected and generally you
can't remove them from property, but they are unlikely to set up home
in human living space - and if a building is properly maintained, they
usually won't get in.


AFAIK it's the same in the USA.

Or so it would seem by what's said by this aptly named firm:

http://www.flybynightinc.com/

A friend in Florida hired them to "evict" a mess of bats which took up
residence under the tiles on his home's his "Spanish tile" roof. The
company used their "one way doors" to let the bats out and then keep
them out


Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10^12 furlongs per fortnight.

On 15 Feb 2008 21:13:15 GMT, nmp wrote:

boikat wrote:

On Feb 15, 1:57*pm, nmp wrote:
boikat wrote:
On Feb 15, 6:51*am, "Geoff" wrote:
nmp wrote:
Terry wrote:

Still can't figure out how he got in.

I had to chase it with a blanked until it got too tired to fly.

I then threw it outside.

It made a vibrating sound when I had the blanket over it.

Animal cruelty, I say.

Um...what?

Truely, "Say what?" *It would have been more cruel to know that bat
was in the house and not do anything about it, since there would
likely not be enough food around for the bat to eat, and it would
have starved after a day or so.

"I then threw it outside" seemed quite harsh. If you want to rescue a
bat from starvation you don't throw it outside, you release it.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm sure that's what he meant. I doubt he meant he threw it out like he
was throwing a fast ball.

I see no reason to be so sure / doubtful as you describe.

Now he says the bat must die if it dares inconvenience him again. Like if
he is talking about a mosquito or something (killing mosquitos I can
understand).

Killing bats is like killing puppies or kittens, people. You shouldn't do
it if you want children to love and respect you

I am biased of course. I have been bitten several times by bats that I
caught when I was a volunteer in a research project, many years ago. Only
made me admire them more. They are such fragile little things, but with a
lot of character.


Ok. Next time he comes in I will bring him to your house.

I hope your shots are up to date.

Although I suspect geopgraphy would get in the way, I would love to take
your bat.

I have hoped to attract them for a while now, with little obvious success.
Bat's is neat and cool!
"Terry" wrote in message
...
On 15 Feb 2008 21:13:15 GMT, nmp wrote:

boikat wrote:

On Feb 15, 1:57 pm, nmp wrote:
boikat wrote:
On Feb 15, 6:51 am, "Geoff" wrote:
nmp wrote:
Terry wrote:

Still can't figure out how he got in.

I had to chase it with a blanked until it got too tired to fly.

I then threw it outside.

It made a vibrating sound when I had the blanket over it.

Animal cruelty, I say.

Um...what?

Truely, "Say what?" It would have been more cruel to know that bat
was in the house and not do anything about it, since there would
likely not be enough food around for the bat to eat, and it would
have starved after a day or so.

"I then threw it outside" seemed quite harsh. If you want to rescue a
bat from starvation you don't throw it outside, you release it.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm sure that's what he meant. I doubt he meant he threw it out like he
was throwing a fast ball.

I see no reason to be so sure / doubtful as you describe.

Now he says the bat must die if it dares inconvenience him again. Like if
he is talking about a mosquito or something (killing mosquitos I can
understand).

Killing bats is like killing puppies or kittens, people. You shouldn't do
it if you want children to love and respect you

I am biased of course. I have been bitten several times by bats that I
caught when I was a volunteer in a research project, many years ago. Only
made me admire them more. They are such fragile little things, but with a
lot of character.


Ok. Next time he comes in I will bring him to your house.

I hope your shots are up to date.

I had the same thing happen. First, one bat, then a few days later another
one showed up.

I started with this link for some info....,

http://unexco.com/bat.html

......and then clicked on the other links at the bottom of that page.

"Terry" wrote in message
...
Still can't figure out how he got in.

I had to chase it with a blanked until it got too tired to fly.

I then threw it outside.

It made a vibrating sound when I had the blanket over it.

nmp wrote:
Terry wrote:
I hope your shots are up to date.

I hardly see a reason for that.

The US Department for Health and Social Services
operates the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which
has a very interesting article on bats and rabies:

http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/bats.html

Here are two short quotes:

"Most of the recent human rabies cases in the United
States have been caused by rabies virus from bats."

"... any bat that is active by day, is found in a
place where bats are not usually seen (for example, in
a room in your home or on the lawn), or is unable to
fly, is far more likely than others to be rabid."

Of course it is your pets that should have up to date
rabies shots...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
nmp wrote:
Terry wrote:
I hope your shots are up to date.

I hardly see a reason for that.

The US Department for Health and Social Services
operates the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which
has a very interesting article on bats and rabies:

http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/bats.html

Here are two short quotes:

"Most of the recent human rabies cases in the United
States have been caused by rabies virus from bats."

"... any bat that is active by day, is found in a
place where bats are not usually seen (for example, in
a room in your home or on the lawn), or is unable to
fly, is far more likely than others to be rabid."

Of course it is your pets that should have up to date
rabies shots...

I remember Snoopy in the cartoons grimacing and clutching at his "arm"
after the shot... Back to _House, M.D._, this is one where ol' Greg's
magic did not work (homeless woman; cardboard shelter full of bats;
this they figured out later). Dr Foreman found the bats and got the
shots, I think. Patient died.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...s-rabies_x.htm
asserts that (in Wisconsin) you "should seek treatment after any
possible contact with a bat or a bite from any other wild animal.
Symptoms of the disease usually do not appear until about a month
after exposure, and by then it is too late to get the vaccine." /Any/
posible contact with a bat? Ri-ight.

Some people handle bats for fun or as a job, and presumably they, like
garbage workers, get the shots first, appropriate to each situation.

nmp wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

nmp wrote:
Terry wrote:
I hope your shots are up to date.

I hardly see a reason for that.

The US Department for Health and Social Services operates the Centers
for Disease Control (CDC), which has a very interesting article on bats
and rabies:

http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/bats.html

Here are two short quotes:

"Most of the recent human rabies cases in the United States have been
caused by rabies virus from bats."

"... any bat that is active by day, is found in a place where bats are
not usually seen (for example, in a room in your home or on the lawn),
or is unable to fly, is far more likely than others to be rabid."

OK, far more likely (I would not argue your CDC). But how much more
likely exactly? It does not say.

I do admit, after a bit of reading (wikipedia and such), that perhaps
bats in the Americas (and a few other regions) are indeed "more likely"
to have (and transmit) rabies. Compared to other regions, that is.

You've totally missed the point. There is nothing there
comparing regions. It just says, without equivocation,
that bats are a *very* *common* vector for human rabies.
In the US it happens to be the most common (for a reason,
as explained below).

If you do even more research what you'll find is that
bats are one of the several types of animals in which
rabies is very commonly endemic. That means in any
given population it is always present (and is not
necessarily always fatal for every animal which has it).

Of course it is your pets that should have up to date rabies shots...

Rabies kills people, too.

Pre-exposure human rabies vaccination is not routine. On
the other hand, for people like a veterinarian or a
researcher working with bats, they would in fact get a
pre-exposure vaccination.

Regardless of that, around the world 99% of human rabies
cases are the result of contact with rabid dogs. That
is not true in the US because a dogs commonly receive a
rabies vaccine...

The CDC article seems very well balanced. At least it says that not all

I cited that particular article for good reason.

bats have rabies and the method they describe to catch bats in your house
is quite humane.

They recommend that bats caught in your home be tested
for rabies. The bat does not survive that test...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:25:03 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:



Regardless of that, around the world 99% of human rabies
cases are the result of contact with rabid dogs. That
is not true in the US because a dogs commonly receive a
rabies vaccine...

I am sure that 99% of all shark bites happen in water too. Which is
why sharks are going to have to learn how to walk before I get bit.

I am giving the bat one extra chance.

nmp wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

nmp wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

nmp wrote:
Terry wrote:
I hope your shots are up to date.

I hardly see a reason for that.

The US Department for Health and Social Services operates the Centers
for Disease Control (CDC), which has a very interesting article on
bats and rabies:

http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/bats.html

Here are two short quotes:

"Most of the recent human rabies cases in the United States have
been caused by rabies virus from bats."

"... any bat that is active by day, is found in a place where bats
are not usually seen (for example, in a room in your home or on the
lawn), or is unable to fly, is far more likely than others to be
rabid."

OK, far more likely (I would not argue your CDC). But how much more
likely exactly? It does not say.

I do admit, after a bit of reading (wikipedia and such), that perhaps
bats in the Americas (and a few other regions) are indeed "more likely"
to have (and transmit) rabies. Compared to other regions, that is.

You've totally missed the point. There is nothing there comparing
regions.

Not in the article you quoted but here, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies#Rabies_and_bats

It just says, without equivocation, that bats are a *very*
*common* vector for human rabies. In the US it happens to be the most
common (for a reason, as explained below).

If you do even more research what you'll find is that bats are one of
the several types of animals in which rabies is very commonly endemic.
That means in any given population it is always present (and is not
necessarily always fatal for every animal which has it).

This may all be true but there is still no answer: how many (in a
hundred) animals *will* have the virus, in other words, how much risk
does one little bat really pose to you if you know nothing about it?

It can be a very common infection for bats, and still be quite rare.

Which is made insignificant by the simple fact that,
rare or not, if you catch it... you die. *EVERY TIME*.

Of course it is your pets that should have up to date rabies shots...

Rabies kills people, too.

Pre-exposure human rabies vaccination is not routine. On the other
hand, for people like a veterinarian or a researcher working with bats,
they would in fact get a pre-exposure vaccination.

I don't remember vaccination but it was like 20 years ago, in Belgium. I
wasn't the researcher, but a sort of batcatcher. With a big scoop net

Twenty years ago they may not have had a suitable
vaccination.

Regardless of that, around the world 99% of human rabies cases are the
result of contact with rabid dogs. That is not true in the US because a
dogs commonly receive a rabies vaccine...

The CDC article seems very well balanced. At least it says that not all

I cited that particular article for good reason.

bats have rabies and the method they describe to catch bats in your
house is quite humane.

They recommend that bats caught in your home be tested for rabies. The
bat does not survive that test...

They recommend this if you think you may have been bitten. Otherwise, it

How sure can you be though? One story I read was of a
young girl that woke up to find a bat in her bedroom,
and while she didn't think she had been bitten, she was
examined throughly anyway. They found no indication
that she had been bitten.

She died of rabies.

(The bat had been killed and tossed outside. They
actually found the carcass, and it tested positive.)

Taking risks with rabies is like playing Russian
Roulette.

says: "If you see a bat in your home and you are sure no human or pet
exposure has occurred, confine the bat to a room by closing all doors and
windows leading out of the room except those to the outside. The bat will
probably leave soon. If not, it can be caught, as described, and released
outdoors away from people and pets."

Incidentally, my perspective on this is from living in
an area where we have rabies quarantines almost every
spring. The disease is endemic in Arctic foxes, which
like bats start showing up in places they should not be
and acting in ways that are not normal. I don't know
what the percentages are with bats, but with foxes they
are virtually *all* rabid if they exhibit those
characteristics.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Feb 15, 4:57 am, (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
Terry wrote:
Still can't figure out how he got in.

I had to chase it with a blanked until it got too tired to fly.

I then threw it outside.

It made a vibrating sound when I had the blanket over it.

That's is silly way to do it.
Just open some windows, and it will just fly back out.
Bats are much better at it than birds,
who will continue to hit the one window that isn't open.

Echo location really helps,

Jan

The hi-rise I live in gets bats all the time and the method
you suggest works every time.

gregwrld

nmp wrote:
boikat wrote:

On Feb 15, 6:51 am, "Geoff" wrote:
nmp wrote:
Terry wrote:

Still can't figure out how he got in.

I had to chase it with a blanked until it got too tired to fly.

I then threw it outside.

It made a vibrating sound when I had the blanket over it.

Animal cruelty, I say.

Um...what?

Truely, "Say what?" It would have been more cruel to know that bat
was in the house and not do anything about it, since there would
likely not be enough food around for the bat to eat, and it would
have starved after a day or so.

"I then threw it outside" seemed quite harsh. If you want to rescue a
bat from starvation you don't throw it outside, you release it.

Who said it was starving?

On 17 Feb, 23:07, nmp wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Taking risks with rabies is like playing Russian Roulette.

Russian roulette is one bullet in six or seven chambers.
We are talking about, what, a thousand chambers here?

Ten thousand? We still don't know.

Technically, I believe the original "Russian roulette" is fictional or
hear-say - I think it's conditions in an army bar near the front in
_War and Peace_ or something - and a single chamber in the revolver
is /not/ loaded. If you hit that one chamber, you lose. You have to
go on living.

The official recommendation seems to be, if the bat that you handled
has flown away then let it worry about itself, but you, get the damn
vaccination. It's a couple of bucks, I assume. And if you don't get
it, then stay the hell away from me, till, let's say June. Will that
be about right?

Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 17 Feb, 23:07, nmp wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Taking risks with rabies is like playing Russian Roulette.

Russian roulette is one bullet in six or seven chambers.
We are talking about, what, a thousand chambers here?

Ten thousand? We still don't know.

Technically, I believe the original "Russian roulette" is fictional or
hear-say - I think it's conditions in an army bar near the front in
_War and Peace_ or something - and a single chamber in the revolver
is /not/ loaded. If you hit that one chamber, you lose. You have to
go on living.

The official recommendation seems to be, if the bat that you handled
has flown away then let it worry about itself, but you, get the damn
vaccination. It's a couple of bucks, I assume. And if you don't get
it, then stay the hell away from me, till, let's say June. Will that
be about right?

A rabies vaccination series might cost $1500-2000.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 18 Feb, 14:14, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 17 Feb, 23:07, nmp wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Taking risks with rabies is like playing Russian Roulette.

Russian roulette is one bullet in six or seven chambers.
We are talking about, what, a thousand chambers here?

Ten thousand? We still don't know.

Technically, I believe the original "Russian roulette" is fictional or
hear-say - I think it's conditions in an army bar near the front in
_War and Peace_ or something - and a single chamber in the revolver
is /not/ loaded. *If you hit that one chamber, you lose. *You have to
go on living.

The official recommendation seems to be, if the bat that you handled
has flown away then let it worry about itself, but you, get the damn
vaccination. *It's a couple of bucks, I assume. *And if you don't get
it, then stay the hell away from me, till, let's say June. *Will that
be about right?

A rabies vaccination series might cost $1500-2000.

For real? Man. Okay, go bite a cop or something. I bet you get it
for free. There may be drawbacks, however.

(Google) http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/...bies.shots.ap/
from 2000, refers to getting $1500 worth of shots at the 2000 price if
bitten, and a study where 40 per cent of patients getting the shots
didn't need them, presumably having been not bitten by a rabid
animal. Often having been bitten by an animal of undetermined
condition, I suppose.

Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 18 Feb, 14:14, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 17 Feb, 23:07, nmp wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Taking risks with rabies is like playing Russian Roulette.

Russian roulette is one bullet in six or seven chambers.
We are talking about, what, a thousand chambers here?

Ten thousand? We still don't know.

Technically, I believe the original "Russian roulette" is fictional or
hear-say - I think it's conditions in an army bar near the front in
_War and Peace_ or something - and a single chamber in the revolver
is /not/ loaded. *If you hit that one chamber, you lose. *You have to
go on living.

The official recommendation seems to be, if the bat that you handled
has flown away then let it worry about itself, but you, get the damn
vaccination. *It's a couple of bucks, I assume. *And if you don't get
it, then stay the hell away from me, till, let's say June. *Will that
be about right?

A rabies vaccination series might cost $1500-2000.

For real? Man. Okay, go bite a cop or something. I bet you get it
for free. There may be drawbacks, however.

(Google) http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/...bies.shots.ap/
from 2000, refers to getting $1500 worth of shots at the 2000 price if
bitten, and a study where 40 per cent of patients getting the shots
didn't need them, presumably having been not bitten by a rabid
animal. Often having been bitten by an animal of undetermined
condition, I suppose.

The significance of the price tag seems to be flying over
a few heads...

Pre-exposure immunization, due to the cost, is not
practical for the general population. People with a
very high potential for exposure, however, certainly
should get a vaccination. That includes, for example,
veterinarians and others who normally work with animals
that have a high incidence (bat researchers being an
example).

Otherwise, only post-exposure vaccination is likely to
be considered reasonable by most people. My position
all along has been that if there is even the slightest
possibility, vaccination is the only sensible route.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 17 Feb, 23:07, nmp wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Taking risks with rabies is like playing Russian Roulette.
Russian roulette is one bullet in six or seven chambers.
We are talking about, what, a thousand chambers here?

Ten thousand? We still don't know.
Technically, I believe the original "Russian roulette" is fictional or
hear-say - I think it's conditions in an army bar near the front in
_War and Peace_ or something - and a single chamber in the revolver
is /not/ loaded. If you hit that one chamber, you lose. You have to
go on living.

The official recommendation seems to be, if the bat that you handled
has flown away then let it worry about itself, but you, get the damn
vaccination. It's a couple of bucks, I assume. And if you don't get
it, then stay the hell away from me, till, let's say June. Will that
be about right?

A rabies vaccination series might cost $1500-2000.

Shots of any kind are a profit center for the medical industry these
days. Managed to gash my hand doing some plumbing last year- the ER
charged me over 100 bucks just for the tetanus shot, on top of what the
stitches cost.

aem sends...

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

The significance of the price tag seems to be flying over
a few heads...

Pre-exposure immunization, due to the cost, is not
practical for the general population. People with a
very high potential for exposure, however, certainly
should get a vaccination. That includes, for example,
veterinarians and others who normally work with animals
that have a high incidence (bat researchers being an
example).

Otherwise, only post-exposure vaccination is likely to
be considered reasonable by most people. My position
all along has been that if there is even the slightest
possibility, vaccination is the only sensible route.

Pre exposure vaccination still requires post-exposure vaccination if
exposure occurs. Those who have had pre-exposure vaccination require fewer
doses post exposure (usually two or three).

--
Dave

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:55:44 -0800, Robert Carnegie wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
nmp wrote:
Terry wrote:
I hope your shots are up to date.

I hardly see a reason for that.

The US Department for Health and Social Services
operates the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which
has a very interesting article on bats and rabies:

http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/bats.html

Here are two short quotes:

"Most of the recent human rabies cases in the United
States have been caused by rabies virus from bats."

"... any bat that is active by day, is found in a
place where bats are not usually seen (for example, in
a room in your home or on the lawn), or is unable to
fly, is far more likely than others to be rabid."

Of course it is your pets that should have up to date
rabies shots...

I remember Snoopy in the cartoons grimacing and clutching at his "arm"
after the shot... Back to _House, M.D._, this is one where ol' Greg's
magic did not work (homeless woman; cardboard shelter full of bats;
this they figured out later). Dr Foreman found the bats and got the
shots, I think. Patient died.

Dr. Foreman needed the shots because he got bit by the patient.

In the old days (don't know how old), rabies shots were horribly painful,
so people really wanted to be sure they were needed. That excuse has
diminished substantially.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

The significance of the price tag seems to be flying over
a few heads...

Pre-exposure immunization, due to the cost, is not
practical for the general population. People with a
very high potential for exposure, however, certainly
should get a vaccination. That includes, for example,
veterinarians and others who normally work with animals
that have a high incidence (bat researchers being an
example).

Otherwise, only post-exposure vaccination is likely to
be considered reasonable by most people. My position
all along has been that if there is even the slightest
possibility, vaccination is the only sensible route.

Pre exposure vaccination still requires post-exposure vaccination if
exposure occurs. Those who have had pre-exposure vaccination require fewer
doses post exposure (usually two or three).

--
Dave

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

The significance of the price tag seems to be flying over
a few heads...

Pre-exposure immunization, due to the cost, is not
practical for the general population. People with a
very high potential for exposure, however, certainly
should get a vaccination. That includes, for example,
veterinarians and others who normally work with animals
that have a high incidence (bat researchers being an
example).

Otherwise, only post-exposure vaccination is likely to
be considered reasonable by most people. My position
all along has been that if there is even the slightest
possibility, vaccination is the only sensible route.

Pre exposure vaccination still requires post-exposure vaccination if
exposure occurs. Those who have had pre-exposure vaccination require fewer
doses post exposure (usually two or three).

--
Dave

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

The significance of the price tag seems to be flying over
a few heads...

Pre-exposure immunization, due to the cost, is not
practical for the general population. People with a
very high potential for exposure, however, certainly
should get a vaccination. That includes, for example,
veterinarians and others who normally work with animals
that have a high incidence (bat researchers being an
example).

Otherwise, only post-exposure vaccination is likely to
be considered reasonable by most people. My position
all along has been that if there is even the slightest
possibility, vaccination is the only sensible route.

Pre exposure vaccination still requires post-exposure vaccination if
exposure occurs. Those who have had pre-exposure vaccination require fewer
doses post exposure (usually two or three).

--
Dave

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 17 Feb, 23:07, nmp wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Taking risks with rabies is like playing Russian Roulette.
Russian roulette is one bullet in six or seven chambers.
We are talking about, what, a thousand chambers here?

Ten thousand? We still don't know.
Technically, I believe the original "Russian roulette" is fictional or
hear-say - I think it's conditions in an army bar near the front in
_War and Peace_ or something - and a single chamber in the revolver
is /not/ loaded. If you hit that one chamber, you lose. You have to
go on living.

The official recommendation seems to be, if the bat that you handled
has flown away then let it worry about itself, but you, get the damn
vaccination. It's a couple of bucks, I assume. And if you don't get
it, then stay the hell away from me, till, let's say June. Will that
be about right?

A rabies vaccination series might cost $1500-2000.

Shots of any kind are a profit center for the medical industry these days.
Managed to gash my hand doing some plumbing last year- the ER charged me
over 100 bucks just for the tetanus shot, on top of what the stitches
cost.

You need some of that socialist medicine that we have over this side of the
pond

aem sends...

On 18 Feb, 16:29, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:11:16 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie





wrote:
On 18 Feb, 14:14, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 17 Feb, 23:07, nmp wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Taking risks with rabies is like playing Russian Roulette.

Russian roulette is one bullet in six or seven chambers.
We are talking about, what, a thousand chambers here?

Ten thousand? We still don't know.

Technically, I believe the original "Russian roulette" is fictional or
hear-say - I think it's conditions in an army bar near the front in
_War and Peace_ or something - and a single chamber in the revolver
is /not/ loaded. *If you hit that one chamber, you lose. *You have to
go on living.

The official recommendation seems to be, if the bat that you handled
has flown away then let it worry about itself, but you, get the damn
vaccination. *It's a couple of bucks, I assume. *And if you don't get
it, then stay the hell away from me, till, let's say June. *Will that
be about right?

A rabies vaccination series might cost $1500-2000.

For real? *Man. *Okay, go bite a cop or something. *I bet you get it
for free. *There may be drawbacks, however.

(Google)http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/...bies.shots.ap/
from 2000, refers to getting $1500 worth of shots at the 2000 price if
bitten, and a study where 40 per cent of patients getting the shots
didn't need them, presumably having been not bitten by a rabid
animal. *Often having been bitten by an animal of undetermined
condition, I suppose.

You don't have to be bitten to contract rabies.

Further reading on bats supports this... So I wonder how they
determined whether subjects had or had not needed the shots. I
suppose it can only be on whether or not the animal had rabies in
fact? Which the ER didn't know, and, I am going to say, couldn't
reasonably determine for sure?

Huh. A lot of research is pretty poor...