For what it’s worth, pets really can get covid. Especially cats. That’s not a nonsensical story; it’s a fact.
Other than that, I agree with the main thrust of your post.
Other than that, I agree with the main thrust of your post.
> For what it’s worth, pets really can get covid. Especially cats. That’s not a nonsensical story; it’s a fact.
The CDC reports[1]:
> A small number of pets worldwide, including cats and dogs, have been reported to be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19, mostly after close contact with people with COVID-19.
Cornell School of Vet Medicine says:
> Very importantly, there is currently NO EVIDENCE that SARS-CoV-2 can be passed from cats to people, so there is no need for owners to do anything that would endanger the welfare of their cats (i.e. relinquish to a shelter or abandon them) even if a cat is diagnosed with COVID-19.[2]
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/...
[2] https://www.vet.cornell.edu/departments-centers-and-institut...
This hand-wavy reassurance from Cornell is the same kind of bullshit we got with "no evidence" of aerosol transmission. (Yes, that now seem the main risk.) Or "no evidence" community masking helps. (It obviously does.).
Or most infamously, WHO's credulous relaying of lies from China that there was "no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission" in mid-January (https://www.businessinsider.com/who-no-transmission-coronavi...), when there was growing community transmission inside & outside of China, & the CCP had already mobilized behind-the-scenes for that fact.
And you seem to have strange expectations. On one hand you acknowledge it is an "emerging & understudied phenomenon", but on the other you expect the WHO to prove by mid-January (2.5 weeks after the first observed pneumonia cases) that the Chinese-supplied information was wrong (when there were almost no cases outside of China).
Take the Cornell statement for what it is: a statement at a point in time. I gave you a link to the document and it has a timestamp. Understand whether it makes an affirmative declaration or whether it is simply expressing uncertainty. Also be prepared to jettison old information if new info comes out to disprove the old. You seem to already be willing to throw out statements of the WHO and FDA and CDC. Maybe you should go back and look at the nuance of the statements and whether they were clarified later.
Re-read your source. They follow the emphasized 'NO EVIDENCE' with the phrase "there is no need to do anything". They answer many questions but finally at the bottom suggest nothing more than "owners wash their hands before and after interacting with their cats and litter boxes" - before again repeating the hypnotic, "no evidence" claim.
But as a smart person, what's your guess on whether it will ever be shown that cats can transmit Covid-19 to humans? Isn't it highly likely to be eventually demonstrated, given what we know so far? After all, how did the cat get it? If the cat tests positive, isn't it almost certainly shedding viruses? Aren't those viruses likely in the same exhaled aerosols that cause human-to-human infections? Don't many cats like to lick or nuzzle people's hands & faces?
If by basic understanding of the underlying processes, such transmission is likely – just not yet proven – is Cornell giving responsible advice? 'No evidence' is not just a "statement at a point in time" from Cornell. It's a mantra repeated six times in Cornell's FAQ, twice in all-caps for emphasis, always with the intent of putting people at ease, never paired with any analysis of the liklihood it just hasn't bee proven yet. Why don't they also say, "There's NO EVIDENCE that cats can't transmit Covid-19 to humans," which is equally true?
If you had an over-65 obese diabetic relative, with cats, and one of the cats had respiratory symptoms, and tested positive for Covid-19, would you give your relative the advice, "Cornell & the CDC say all you can do is wash your hands more"?
Or would that advice be just as fatal as WHO etc assuring people "no evidence" of human-to-human transmission existed at a date when it was WHO's primary job to know better? Or there was "no evidence" of aerosol transmission? Or "no evidence" community-masking was helpful?
The issue i have with statements like this is that they convey a lot of false information; Within the general public definition of 'get covid' is 'dangerously contagious'. So unless you change that definition most pets can't get covid; As in most pets, either the viral load is so low they couldn't spread it or it manifests as a gastrointestinal disease and so wouldn't be contagious unless you eat the animal.
I see this often, people not being sensitive enough to the common definition of important words, or worse, purposely misusing words knowing the common definition will mislead people into thinking stories are more sensational and important than they are.