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.
Yes, the Typhus transmitted by fleas has a 1-4% fatality rate. You are correct in your correction. However, that's still fairly high for simply a flea bite, isn't it? When I had pets and I interacted with pets owned by others (and this was before that topical flea treatment existed that quells all flea infestations with one drop), I'd get bitten around 100 times every Summer, and if all those fleas were infected with typhus, those are not good odds, eh?
I'm glad you're enjoying your Columbus Day. I'm at a bistro on San Vicente Blvd. enjoying a nice plate of Lombardic food to celebrate the discovery of the Americas.
Lol. My friend - for “1%-4%” to be meaningful, you’d have to supply the data on how many flea bites are made on humans by fleas infected with Murine Typhus. And, while I’m not feeling motivated to research that at this time, I’m gonna suggest it’s probably an exceedingly low %, because, if it were at all significant, the danger would be heralded loudly and widely.
Sorry fleas like you so much! They don’t like me a bit ... er, a bite. I have a big smelly dog. I’ve had to treat him for fleas a couple times over the years. Never found a flea or bite on me. Just lucky, Iguess?
Anyway ... here’s to Chris! A great sailor!
Although, to think on it a minute, I’m betting there were fleas on his crew
Defend? Defend what? That the situation has been mischaracterized as to the nature of the problem? You don’t approve of accurate information?
When I saw this in the news day before yesterday, I was waiting for someone like Exitus to post it as a homelessness issue. Sure enough, here we are.
It’s a rats and what attracts them issue. Now, if you’re going to say “well, homeless encampments attract rats ...” ... I’m going to agree with you. And therein lies one vector ... of many. Fair enough to include it. Appropriate even.
That said, LA is in the running internationally for “top ten” rat infestation ... which problem exists and has existed for reasons far beyond the homeless. Thus, it is speciously disingenuous to use a small (so far) outbreak of Murine typhus infections as yet another excuse to vilify the homeless problem as if it is the source of the problem and the problem is “deadly”.
As the article noted: typhus has always existed in LA and likely always will - with or without the homeless. Hell, typhus (Epidemic Typhus, no less) exists in flying squirrels in Pennsylvania countryside.
Now that you’ve been better informed - if you still want to live in mortal fear of something non-mortally dangerous that has always existed all around you ... and you want to stay in your house, only going outside with your pants tucked into your socks ... um, yeah, I am going to laugh at you.
Somehow, I suspect you have several lifestyle habits that are a lot more likely to kill you than typhus ... drive a car much?
Typhus is not caused by rats, but by bacteria. That bacteria is spread mostly by lice and fleas. Homeless people are permitted to have pets co-reside with them on the streets, which is odd because their living conditions surely would not permit them to adopt a pet. Their pets are then in contact with those lice and or fleas and in turn human beings are also so exposed.
Homeless people in DTLA have a staggering number of pets. Pets are an expensive luxury and the pets themselves require clean surroundings and some level of medical care. Homeless people, unless they are drug dealers, generally do not have the resources to buy pet food, let alone give their pet good surroundings. This ridiculous situation of not taking the pet away for its own good is due to a fear of public outcry and emotionality under the theory that the pets are "giving so much to the homeless who have nothing else." These pets should be taken away from the homeless. Surely they are not licensed and many are likely abused and ill.
-- Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (UK)
How can you expect the taxpayer to pay for the homeless and even their PETS? Oh wait, I know why...when one has no concept of how expensive it is to live in LA because one lives in a DoD (military) subsidized marina where rent is so cheap that rent is hardly even an expense. Such a person would see no problem with already over burdened homeowners paying more in taxes to pay for, not just bums, but their beloved pets.
Typhus is not caused by rats, but by bacteria. That bacteria is spread mostly by lice and fleas. Homeless people are permitted to have pets co-reside with them on the streets, which is odd because their living conditions surely would not permit them to adopt a pet. Their pets are then in contact with those lice and or fleas and in turn human beings are also so exposed.
Homeless people in DTLA have a staggering number of pets. Pets are an expensive luxury and the pets themselves require clean surroundings and some level of medical care. Homeless people, unless they are drug dealers, generally do not have the resources to buy pet food, let alone give their pet good surroundings. This ridiculous situation of not taking the pet away for its own good is due to a fear of public outcry and emotionality under the theory that the pets are "giving so much to the homeless who have nothing else." These pets should be taken away from the homeless. Surely they are not licensed and many are likely abused and ill.
-- Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (UK)
How can you expect the taxpayer to pay for the homeless and even their PETS? Oh wait, I know why...when one has no concept of how expensive it is to live in LA because one lives in a DoD (military) subsidized marina where rent is so cheap that rent is hardly even an expense. Such a person would see no problem with already over burdened homeowners paying more in taxes to pay for, not just bums, but their beloved pets.
Funny, OC.
1. I didn’t say typhus was caused by rats ... I said, correctly, that fleas on rats are the primary vector for Murine Typhus.
2. Lice are NOT a transmitter of Murine Typhus ... lice are a transmitter of Epidemic typhus (the most dangerous kind).
3. I haven’t argued a thing about pets of the homeless in this thread context ... although I agree that pets in homeless street camps are very likely to pick up fleas from street rats - and thus are a potential vector of concern for this incipient outbreak. Therefore I agree public health officials would be right in adopting protocols to address fleas on the homeless’ pets - as ONE of numerous assaults on the outbreak. Absolutely.
4. I also haven’t said a thing about what taxpayers should be expected to pay in this regard ... although I certainly can go to that tangent and we can discuss how many subsidies the everyday taxpaying people contribute to the welfare of the wealthy?
The problem with this thread is that its entire intent was to vilify the homeless, solely, for a problem that is at least latently omnipresent in LA regardless of homelessness.
As to your last snark about where I live ... lmfao, OC ... for someone who constantly snaps back at anyone who comments on his personal circumstances - well, that’s rich. No, I don’t give a damn what you bring up about me and my lifestyle. But I’d point out the logcal fallacy in your comment: where a person lives, and how he lives precludes absolutely zip about what that person is capable of knowing about COL issues. It’s quite publicly obvious what costs are. That I am content to live so inexpensively and happy doing so only speaks to sensibility - not to ignorance.
To expand educationally, here is some more detail on the type of typhus we are reading about:
Quote:
Murine typhus, also known as "endemic typhus," "Mexican typhus," and "flea-borne typhus," is a flea-borne infection of humans worldwide. Symptoms are similar to those of epidemic typhus fever (transmitted by the human body louse), but typically much less severe. If untreated, patients with murine typhus can require hospitalization, but the case fatality rate is only about 2% in the U.S. However, travelers to Asia and African should note that the case fatality rate is thought to approach 70% in certain areas in which murine typhus occurs.
In the U.S., 20-80 cases of murine typhus are reported each year, but many more cases go undiagnosed. The vast majority of cases occur in Texas, but several are reported each year in California and Hawaii. The causative agent is a bacterium that exists primarily in rodents in urban areas. However, murine typhus also exists in rural areas in a transmission cycle that involves opossums, feral cats, feral dogs, and the cat flea Ctenocephalides felis. https://extension.entm.purdue.edu/pu...ea/typhus.html
1. I didn’t say typhus was caused by rats ... I said, correctly, that fleas on rats are the primary vector for Murine Typhus.
2. Lice are NOT a transmitter of Murine Typhus ... lice are a transmitter of Epidemic typhus (the most dangerous kind).
3. I haven’t argued a thing about pets of the homeless in this thread context ... although I agree that pets in homeless street camps are very likely to pick up fleas from street rats - and thus are a potential vector of concern for this incipient outbreak. Therefore I agree public health officials would be right in adopting protocols to address fleas on the homeless’ pets - as ONE of numerous assaults on the outbreak. Absolutely.
4. I also haven’t said a thing about what taxpayers should be expected to pay in this regard ... although I certainly can go to that tangent and we can discuss how many subsidies the everyday taxpaying people contribute to the welfare of the wealthy?
The problem with this thread is that its entire intent was to vilify the homeless, solely, for a problem that is at least latently omnipresent in LA regardless of homelessness.
As to your last snark about where I live ... lmfao, OC ... for someone who constantly snaps back at anyone who comments on his personal circumstances - well, that’s rich. No, I don’t give a damn what you bring up about me and my lifestyle. But I’d point out the logcal fallacy in your comment: where a person lives, and how he lives precludes absolutely zip about what that person is capable of knowing about COL issues. It’s quite publicly obvious what costs are. That I am content to live so inexpensively and happy doing so only speaks to sensibility - not to ignorance.
1. I didn’t say typhus was caused by rats ... I said, correctly, that fleas on rats are the primary vector for Murine Typhus.
2. Lice are NOT a transmitter of Murine Typhus ... lice are a transmitter of Epidemic typhus (the most dangerous kind).
3. I haven’t argued a thing about pets of the homeless in this thread context ... although I agree that pets in homeless street camps are very likely to pick up fleas from street rats - and thus are a potential vector of concern for this incipient outbreak. Therefore I agree public health officials would be right in adopting protocols to address fleas on the homeless’ pets - as ONE of numerous assaults on the outbreak. Absolutely.
4. I also haven’t said a thing about what taxpayers should be expected to pay in this regard ... although I certainly can go to that tangent and we can discuss how many subsidies the everyday taxpaying people contribute to the welfare of the wealthy?
The problem with this thread is that its entire intent was to vilify the homeless, solely, for a problem that is at least latently omnipresent in LA regardless of homelessness.
As to your last snark about where I live ... lmfao, OC ... for someone who constantly snaps back at anyone who comments on his personal circumstances - well, that’s rich. No, I don’t give a damn what you bring up about me and my lifestyle. But I’d point out the logcal fallacy in your comment: where a person lives, and how he lives precludes absolutely zip about what that person is capable of knowing about COL issues. It’s quite publicly obvious what costs are. That I am content to live so inexpensively and happy doing so only speaks to sensibility - not to ignorance.
The comment about living arrangements was not an attack, but an explanation of perspective. I don't fault you for living as you do. In fact, it is quite smart and since it is available, you smartly avail yourself of that right to housing in that area. Again, I am ok with it and I don't think any less of you in any way, quite the contrary, actually.
Although I don't agree with them, your opinions on the homeless are also not outside of the mainstream either to be honest. I think the broader point is that it is very expensive to live in SoCal for most people. Taxes are high. Many of us do not want to pay for the the homeless (and yes, not all are bums). Yet, kicking and screaming, we are being pushed in that direction. You did not address the point about the homeless' pets. That is a big problem and one that is not discussed and needs to be. Why must we pay for their luxury in addition to extremely expensive housing (because, as we discussed elsewhere, we "cannot" house them in cheap areas because indignity, because this and because that)? What I notice is that those who are not subject to being taxed the most, persons like myself, are lectured to by others who don't have to pay for these high taxes and are not subject to losing property value because of shelters and the like coming to your community (not to mention a diminished QOL). In other words, who has skin in this game?
Last edited by LuvSouthOC; 10-08-2018 at 04:35 PM..
Location: West Los Angeles and Rancho Palos Verdes
13,583 posts, read 15,664,868 times
Reputation: 14049
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC
Typhus is not caused by rats, but by bacteria. That bacteria is spread mostly by lice and fleas. Homeless people are permitted to have pets co-reside with them on the streets, which is odd because their living conditions surely would not permit them to adopt a pet. Their pets are then in contact with those lice and or fleas and in turn human beings are also so exposed.
Homeless people in DTLA have a staggering number of pets. Pets are an expensive luxury and the pets themselves require clean surroundings and some level of medical care. Homeless people, unless they are drug dealers, generally do not have the resources to buy pet food, let alone give their pet good surroundings. This ridiculous situation of not taking the pet away for its own good is due to a fear of public outcry and emotionality under the theory that the pets are "giving so much to the homeless who have nothing else." These pets should be taken away from the homeless. Surely they are not licensed and many are likely abused and ill.
-- Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (UK)
How can you expect the taxpayer to pay for the homeless and even their PETS? Oh wait, I know why...when one has no concept of how expensive it is to live in LA because one lives in a DoD (military) subsidized marina where rent is so cheap that rent is hardly even an expense. Such a person would see no problem with already over burdened homeowners paying more in taxes to pay for, not just bums, but their beloved pets.
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.
