Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by Black101 | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

Black101

They should ban traveling too because I have heard of many fake vaccine certificates...

View on HN

Rabies is a lot more lethal and it’s fortunately very rare in the US. The ban makes a lot of sense to me.

25 cases in a decade

You are more likely to die by crossing the street

I would be interested to know what it was at its peak. You have to wonder how much of the rabies "scare" of the 90s was manufactured.

Is that globally? Or is that in the US, with restrictions/vaccinations/etc?

Edit: why downvote?

From TFA:

> rabies remains widespread across the world, killing some 59,000 people annually

So no, 25 / year is not globally.

That's basically my point. The restrictions and vaccinations seem to be working.

Rabies cases in America are rare specifically because the authorities take it seriously. If authorities stop taking rabies seriously, expect:

> An estimated 31,000 human deaths due to rabies occur annually in Asia,[2] with the majority – approximately 20,000 – concentrated in India.

If you have been bit by a dog that cannot be located anymore, or that has an uncertain vaccination record, health care providers will initiate the rabies protocol regardless.

That's one of the reasons why it is rare in the US.

>Each year, rabies causes approximately 59,000 deaths worldwide.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6823e1.htm

It is an absolutely horrible way to die. This may appear to be over the top for 25 cases, but should the vector be via puppies who very much chew and bite their owners, it would certainly be more than 25 cases. It is very prevalent in raccoons, squirrels and skunks — things that attract the attention of dogs.

Did I mention, it is an awful way to die because of a puppy and its forged vaccination papers?

Squirrels very rarely have it.

> Rabies is a lot more lethal

which virus are you talking about?

All of them? Per the CDC, "to date less than 20 cases of human survival from clinical rabies have been documented"

I would think HIV. It won't kill you quickly, but it will eventually contribute to one's death. There have only been maybe one or two people cured (I forget if it came back or not).

Once you show symptoms of rabies, you are dead in about 10 days, with 100% percent certainty. You might live 100 years after contracting HIV (we don't know because we haven't known about HIV for 100 years.)

Sure, but some people survive rabies. You're talking lethality with a 99.9% kill rate for rabies vs 100% kill rate for HIV. They're just different timeframes.

Not to mention, you are liking about symptomatic cases. It's possible to cure non symptomatic cases of rabies, but that's not possible with HIV.

Somewhere on the order of 1-to-10% of people have an innate resistance to HIV. HIV, untreated, is very deadly, but not nearly as deadly as rabies.

Resistance isn't immunity. It's possible there are some people with innate 'resistance' to rabies.

"HIV, untreated, is very deadly, but not nearly as deadly as rabies."

You might want to look up the definition of deadly. They both lead to death at a high rate - HIV at 100% eventual fatality and 99.9+% for symptomatic rabies. Again, pre and post exposure treatments for rabies are much more effective than for HIV. HIV has a higher fatality rate and less effective pre and post exposure curative treatment. It's pretty easy to compare 100% to 99.9% and know which one is bigger.

> HIV at 100% eventual fatality

You are simply wrong about that. Even without any treatment at all, you are wrong about that. I'm getting the sense that HIV being the worst possible is some matter of ideology to you, as though you think rabies being worse somehow diminishes the importance of addressing HIV. I suggest you go read the wikipedia page for both of these viruses with an impartial attitude.

Haha ok

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27254748/

I think you're comment is a little over the top. But it is true that many pathogens spread through global travel. It's just that most people are either unaware of the risks or feel that they are acceptable.

It was a bit of a sarcastic comment... they should probably fix the certificates' authenticity problems instead.

I think covid is a very poor example - it's already endemic through out the world. The real risk will be from things like zika, chikenguya, and things we don't even know about (and that we don't have vaccines or great treatments for).

I could be wrong, but I don't think the comment you are replying to is completely serious. I think they are saying that the disease risk of global human travel seems similar to, or higher than, the disease risk of global dog travel and that similar challenges exist. Given this, banning global dog travel and not banning global human travel seems inconsistent.

If banning human travel due to disease risk is over the top, is banning dog travel over the top as well?

I think the difference, as you say, is that the benefits are not equal.

It seems the benefits of a ban would be greater with human bans.

You don't need to be vaccinated to enter the US, you only need a negative COVID test done within 72 hours before traveling.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/internat...

But you do need to be vaccinated to get permanent residency.

(which is an interesting requirement for those cases where the person has been living as a 'temporary resident' for years already)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com