Don’t be ridiculous. That is infected saliva coming into contact with your blood and you would absolutely be exposed. If you tended to an infected animal’s cut that was bleeding with bare hands you would be in no danger, assuming the animal did not bite you.
In this case, the vet was obviously lying about thinking the cat had rabies. She admitted as much at her inquiry. (Yes, I did break freeper tradition and actually read the article. :-) )
To the point about rabies, this animal was shot through the HEAD, and brain tissue is a definite risk for rabies which could infect a person through any small scratch already present. A vet would know that and not handle the animal at all without gloves and would submit it for testing. There is the same concern about non-bite or scratch contact with animals that groom by licking, like bats and cats, because the virus would likely be all over their fur.
That said, the risk of rabies in cats is very low in most of the US, (one exception used to be West Texas South of I-10) and rabies treatment isn’t really much of a deal anymore, except for having to make several visits for very unimpressive shots.
Love,
O2
If you don’t have a cut on you. Do you really want to play that game? Go ahead and I’ll bring the popcorn. I also said look at her gloves. They are not protective. Guess you couldn’t bother but wanted to start something.