Based on all the comments in this thread, this seems like the best course to me.

Honestly, I didn’t know much about this and didn’t have a strong opinion from the beginning. I just looked quick on Google and saw the results for America was to only seek treatment if there’s been a confirmed bite or scratch.

This Canadian advice makes way more sense. I like that last paragraph that explains the protocol from 1998 to 2009 would have required treatment of 314,000 people to prevent one case. This poor kid in the article might have been that one case.

But it seems like under the current recommendations the kid would not have been tested. It says now treatment only only after direct contact, defined as a bat touching or landing on a person. In this situation, I think they didn’t know if the bat had touched the kid at all.

Okay that’s sort of what I thought.

So the protocol, from like an insurance coverage decision-tree standpoint, in this situation, would have been to test the bat if possible and if not possible administer the vaccine?

I was under the impression that the vaccine is pretty awful and a health ordeal in itself, and that while the dose wasn’t expensive, the aftercare is.

And that is why, as I understand, the CDC protocol is only seek medical attention if there’s a visible bite.

What do you mean? Yes. They checked the kid over and saw nothing. Obviously there was an exposure that either left no mark, left a mark that appeared normal, or the parents didn’t see it.

I looked at the CDC website before posting Aunt. It says the only indication for treatment is a bite or a scratch from species known to carry rabies. It doesn’t say anything about testing for mere exposure.

I guess I see the counterpoints.

It’s a kid. The duration of the exposure is unknown. Whether there was any contact is unknown. Bat. Bites or scratches can be invisible. Bires or scratches could be mistaken.

What’s the scuttlebutt here, your saying in this situation to test the kid or administer a vaccine?

I’m certain the medical staff 's determination of The credibility of a fact attested to by a child is not a factor.

We’re also assuming this kid isn’t a straight up victim of healthcare inequality. The article is light on details. Perhaps the parents considered this, searched the web, searched for bites or scratches, and the cost of seeking care felt too great for this family? I didn’t catch if this happened in a civilized nation with universal health.

Fuck, this story is terrifying. Reminds me in some ways of when a kid dies in a hot car.

Sounds possible. Bats are mammals, maybe it sneezed, covered, but didn’t wash it’s hands, gave the kid a high five, and then the kid wiped a booger out of his eye with it.

Poor kid, never had a chance.

There’s like eleven kinds of blood tests for rabies. None of them work on people, or is it by the time they work it’s too late?

The indication for testing according the CDC is a bite.

The rabies test is cheap. Could have tested the kid or the bat, but again why would they do it if there’s no indication for exposure. This was the first case in the province of someone being infected with rabies inside their own home since 1967.

When you hear hoofbeats you don’t think it’s zebras.

Obviously they overlooked a scratch or a bite. Rabies isn’t airborne.

No scratches, no bite. Why would they?

Man if it’s made well and some people like it, that’s a mid.

These streaming companies are dreaming. I hope people will just stop streaming. There will be massive street markets for hard drives and thumb drives loaded with pirated content.

Should label them as initialism, acronym, etc.

Damn what a sweet boy. I meant bot, not boy, but I keep it.

Oh yeah, I don’t know firsthand but I’d bet it’s pretty common.

I mean everything is legal unless someone enforces the contrary.

Oh, sure, it comes down to knowledge of the facts. If the owner manifests an intention not to recover it, then it is abandoned. But if you just find the scooter, or even if the company has said it’s going out of business, that’s not the same as having knowledge that the owner has no intent to retrieve the property.

It’s not abandoned property unless the finder doesn’t know who it belongs to.

If the name of the company is on the scooter, it is mislaid property, not abandoned property.

The classic bar exam question on this involves the finder of a bag of money. In one hypothetical, it’s a plain canvas bag. In another, it has the name of a bank on the bag.

When the name is there, you have to give it back. The finder only gets to keep it if after legal notice and a waiting period, the owner fails to reclaim it. In most states there is a statute on this, and most of them require turning the property over to police temporarily.

I remember back at Digg and MySpace. Same vibe.

“This will blow over.”

It always blows over until it doesn’t. Only take once.