>17.  The 1997 version of the compendium does not differ from the 1992
>version with regard to ferrets and the provision of a post-bite
>quarrantine period (there is no established quarantine which would
>ensure a ferret is free from rabies). Thus the accepted standard has not
>changed from 1992.
 
>32.  Our department is compelled to recommend that the ferret at issue
>be immediately euthanized and tested for rabies of on the basis of the
>careful consideration of:  1) the individual circumstances of this
>exposure incident, 2) the Michigan specific facts about rabies cited
>above,  3) the body of knowledge about rabies and in particular the lack
>of data on the shedding of the bat-variant strain of the rabies virus in
>ferrets, and 4) the current recommendations of the national authorities
>responsible for forming public health policy concerning rabies
>prevention as set out in the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention in
>Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) March 22, 1991 and the
>National Association of State Ppublic Health Veterinarians compendium of
>Animal Rabies Control for 1992 and 1997.
 
Though the first sentence of 17 is true, the last sentence of this is
untrue.  The standard HAS changed, in ways that are important to this case,
if I remember right.  I don't have my compendiums in front of me, but I
thought that one of the biggest changes from 1992 to 1997 were in the
take-circumstances-and-species-into-account area and the
ferrets-should-get-vaccinated area.  The other thing that has changed
massively since 1992 is the information known about ferret rabies shed time
in two important species, which to me is an important fact about the
species, which the language says they are to take into account.
 
I think an important question is, if they ARE taking into account the
circumstances, species info, etc, then what circumstances and species info,
if any, WOULD cause them to back off?  If the answer is none or something
ridiculous, then they are ignoring the 1997 Compendium.
 
>27.  In contrast to dogs and cats, the period between onset of bat
>variant rabies shedding in saliva and development of recognizable signs
>of rabies has not yet been established for ferrets.  We are aware that
>studies are currently underway to try ot determine a virus shedding
>period for the bat variant strain of rabies virus in ferrets, but these
>studies have not been completed.
 
Is the bat info truly known for dogs and cats?  If no, then why don't they
discriminate against dogs and cats on this?  If yes, how long has such bat
info been known about dogs and cats?  If yes, hmm, that does seem to make it
a little bit more difficult for us.
 
>30.  Studies show that there are significant differences in the ferret
>rabies virus shedding period between the skunk rabies variant and
>raccoon rabies variant; thus we know that the virus variants are not
>homogeneous.  It is therefore possible that once studied, the bat rabies
>variant shedding period may be lengthy.
 
(A weak point here on my part, but: perhaps not that significant, and
probably not likely that different.  Not found to shed to 2-3 days is still
fairly mellow and acceptable for our purposes.  It's not like the viral
species where ferrets shed showed 2 weeks or a month shed time.  Besides,
were cats and dogs found not to shed at all with some strains?  If no, dogs
and cats are worse than ferrets in this regard.  Were the studies in dogs
and cats found to show exactly the same results in all virus variants?)
 
Man, these people are rabid.
 
Todd
[Posted in FML issue 1940]