Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it were only lions I would post this in a humor thread. Domestic cats are a more serious matter since those can be vectors to spread to people. To my point, I believe that "social distancing" is an act of futility. Makes us feel virtuous but accomplishes little.
On a separate note I received this repast to my OP:
I would be happy to engage this on the merits. My concern is not only with my life. If we are being forced to distance, and we are wasting our time by doing so, does someone have a better idea? I'm a pragmatist, not a venter.
We are already seeing less numbers than we would be if not for social distancing. I don't understand why you are adding cats into the social distancing argument. If I'm living with my cats, I'm the danger to them, not the other way around. It sounds like you're suggesting that as long as cats can get Covid, and as long as people live with cats, then social distancing is pointless. Is that what your argument is?
There is no evidence yet that cats can infect humans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silibran
Distancing is working where I live.
But while it may be "working" which I doubt, can we ever stop distancing without defeating the whole purpose? Excuse my asking a simpleton question like that but my IQ is 79.
It's funny how "social distancing" is the popular phrase this year. For the past many years if I recognized someone as being ill I would just tell them: "Get back. I don't want your s**t." Now we're told common sense is all "scientific". Give me a break. As far as cats well, my wife's cat is also my buddy so no, not gonna practice "social distancing" in this regard.
But while it may be "working" which I doubt, can we ever stop distancing without defeating the whole purpose? Excuse my asking a simpleton question like that but my IQ is 79.
I check the stats every day at my county health department web page. I know the number of new cases is fewer than last week. They have a graph that shows this. So yes, it is working.
I just found out that our Gov is allowing some construction to resume with restrictions and distancing. So, I think we are beginning a slow, careful return to some version of normalcy.
I already hear talk about differences in how restaurants will do their seating. There might be a great emphasis on takeaway. I just read that AMC theaters will not reopen till the summer. I am not sure we will have baseball. Those things are stuff I am thinking about off the top of my head. I suspect we are many months away from our old normal.
If we had not done a shut down, more of us would be dead. Our hospitals would still be crammed with very sick patients. Our medical people still working on high alert—as they are now in Mass.
We might begin opening up in May. Our shutdown has bought time. But we are months away from a vaccine or drug treatment. And so, I think we are months away from our old normal.
We might begin opening up in May. Our shutdown has bought time. But we are months away from a vaccine or drug treatment. And so, I think we are months away from our old normal.
How does what you're describing differ from a shutdown?
And the only way it's "working" is that the people that were susceptible to severe or even diagnosable illness have already gotten sick. Basically it passes back and forth without pattern. And people basically don't get sick.
We are already seeing less numbers than we would be if not for social distancing. I don't understand why you are adding cats into the social distancing argument. If I'm living with my cats, I'm the danger to them, not the other way around. It sounds like you're suggesting that as long as cats can get Covid, and as long as people live with cats, then social distancing is pointless. Is that what your argument is?
There is no evidence yet that cats can infect humans.
Exactly, there may be situations where humans have infected cats, but there is no evidence that humans can get the virus from cats. My inclination is to think if this was possible we'd be seeing documented cases of it.
Exactly, there may be situations where humans have infected cats, but there is no evidence that humans can get the virus from cats. My inclination is to think if this was possible we'd be seeing documented cases of it.
Thank you for posting this. It makes me see red when people throw out the "cats have tested positive for Covid-19" idea as a way to deflect blame to the cats, when they got it FROM humans. I truly fear that some stupid people might start killing stray and even pet cats thinking that they are disease vectors, when they are actually the victims of their human handlers and owners.
Thank you for posting this. It makes me see red when people throw out the "cats have tested positive for Covid-19" idea as a way to deflect blame to the cats, when they got it FROM humans. I truly fear that some stupid people might start killing stray and even pet cats thinking that they are disease vectors, when they are actually the victims of their human handlers and owners.
I worry about that as well. It actually happened fairly early in the 20th century, when the rumor went around that dogs and cats can spread polio. Thousands were murdered for no reason.
If 2 cats tested positive, then it's obvious that other cats (and other animals in general) have it, they just haven't been tested for it. I guess in theory, you could be at risk from your pets if they produce aerosol or touch objects. Practically though, 99% of the time it would be the pet that is at risk of getting it from you. The only exception I could see is if you took your dog out for a walk and somehow the dog interacted with another dog who had it, and then the dog brought it home and somehow spread it to you. A cat wondering out of the house, could theoretically somehow come in contact with it, and bring it home too.
Again, I would think 99% of transmission would be from owners who have it, and then transfer it to their animals. Although, it does highlight that to be on the super-safe side, it's probably best not to interact with pets you don't know. Also, social distancing your animals even at parks where there are lots of people walking pets is probably a good idea. Even some people practicing good social distancing may innocently let their dogs interact with one another if they pass by each other while walking. The reason I worry more about dogs is because they pant heavily (and thereby create a lot of aerosol). Now we don't know exactly how susceptible dogs are, but assuming they can catch it (even if only asymptomatically), given that they pant a lot, they can create a lot of aerosol and theoretically could effectively spread it to humans.
All that to say.....everyone should ensure to social distance their pets too (and if you happen to get covid, ensure that you quarantine your pets from everyone also while you (and your pet) are recovering).
I worry about that as well. It actually happened fairly early in the 20th century, when the rumor went around that dogs and cats can spread polio. Thousands were murdered for no reason.
Was this during the Spanish Flu pandemic? And I think the transmission goes both ways. There is no reason to believe in one-way transmission.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
