I know that you love your dogs, and don’t think its serious. But even if the dog cannot be infected and spread the virus to humans, he was in contact with the infected nurse. It can be on his fur, face, tongue, paws, etc. and hitchhike to other surfaces, hands, and faces.
If there is any possibility that the dog could transmit the virus then it should be put down, sorry to say. The dog is innocent, yes it is a shame. But careless would be letting it live to infect another dozen victims. It’s basically the same carelessness as “no we are not going to ban flights carrying people who have been in a country suffering an ebola epidemic”.
Also, we know that there is no history of a dog being infected. But they can certainly pass it on by carrying it around on their bodies. Ebola has never been this bad, it’s in at least 3 or 4 continents right now. It doesn’t get better from here. It’s starting to get worse. I personally would rather have the dog put down, then risk it passing it around. This is not the time to put a dogs life above a humans, in fact the rest of the globe. Each victim there is increases the chance of the virus mutating to something even worse and more virulent. Around a 50% fatality rate now. What if it jumped to 75%, and became airborne?
In Reston the strain was airborne. But did not transfer to humans. If it becomes airborne then God help us all. Worrying about a dog when at least half of humanity is at stake is way more dangerous than advocating for the death of said dog.
I do love my dogs, but on the contrary, I think it's very serious. Go-gooder know-nothings are going to panic and start killing them because they don't have a clue.
But even if the dog cannot be infected and spread the virus to humans, he was in contact with the infected nurse. It can be on his fur, face, tongue, paws, etc. and hitchhike to other surfaces, hands, and faces.
What do you think a virus is, radiation? It lives for a certain period of time outside of a host and then dies. If this is the standard by golly you'd better burn down the house and plow up the yard and sidewalk.
If there is any possibility that the dog could transmit the virus then it should be put down, sorry to say.
Well, it would be useful to first know that the virus is present, now wouldn't it? Go back and read the topic of the thread and get back to me.
The dog is innocent, yes it is a shame. But careless would be letting it live to infect another dozen victims. It’s basically the same carelessness as “no we are not going to ban flights carrying people who have been in a country suffering an ebola epidemic”.
There is no documented evidence whatsoever of any human being infected by a dog, period. Even in Africa. Allowing infected people to come streaming in to this country with no precaution combined with freaking out over something that has never infected anyone is maximizing the pain inflicted and does no good in stopping the spread of contagion.
Also, we know that there is no history of a dog being infected.
You haven't read a thing on this and are just winging it, otherwise you would not have written this.
But they can certainly pass it on by carrying it around on their bodies.
Again (and again), there is no documented evidence whatsoever of a human being infected with Ebola by a dog. Not here, not in Spain, not even in Africa. And what's this about carrying it on their bodies?
Ebola has never been this bad, it’s in at least 3 or 4 continents right now. It doesn’t get better from here.
To our knowledge it hasn't and it does not look good, but hope springs eternal.
I personally would rather have the dog put down, then risk it passing it around.
And again, there is no documented evidence whatsoever of a human being contracting Ebola from a dog, not even in Africa.
I have difficulty taking anyone seriously who does not know the difference between "then" and "than," and so my reply to you ends here.
You have a lot to learn before commenting again upon this topic, let alone recommending the killing of dogs out of ignorance.