You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
MRSA and cats?
- Thread starter Jane
- Start date
Interesting but at the same time - kind of like the "revelations" that you can get cepacia from onions and pseudo from soil.
<br />
<br />We probably should all be washing our hands after handling our pets anyway! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
<br />
<br />We probably should all be washing our hands after handling our pets anyway! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">
Re-read the article: "I think the woman infected the cat and the cat had it and might have reinfected the woman,". It doesn't mean you get MRSA from cats/pets. It means if the bug is present/an infection is present, pets, exactly like the husband and kids, can keep reinfecting you.
Re-read the article: "I think the woman infected the cat and the cat had it and might have reinfected the woman,". It doesn't mean you get MRSA from cats/pets. It means if the bug is present/an infection is present, pets, exactly like the husband and kids, can keep reinfecting you.
Re-read the article: "I think the woman infected the cat and the cat had it and might have reinfected the woman,". It doesn't mean you get MRSA from cats/pets. It means if the bug is present/an infection is present, pets, exactly like the husband and kids, can keep reinfecting you.
Re-read the article: "I think the woman infected the cat and the cat had it and might have reinfected the woman,". It doesn't mean you get MRSA from cats/pets. It means if the bug is present/an infection is present, pets, exactly like the husband and kids, can keep reinfecting you.
Re-read the article: "I think the woman infected the cat and the cat had it and might have reinfected the woman,". It doesn't mean you get MRSA from cats/pets. It means if the bug is present/an infection is present, pets, exactly like the husband and kids, can keep reinfecting you.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Sevenstars
New member
Yeah but that's the scary part. Most diseases and illnesses that affect pets are not communicable to people. It would suck to have mrsa (or anything, at all), give it to your cat, you get better and get rid of it from antibiotics, then the cat gives it back to you.
It's just like living with another person you have to worry about getting you sick, I guess. Which I guess is what you said, but I understood that to begin with and I think that's what people are agreeing sucks lol.
It's just like living with another person you have to worry about getting you sick, I guess. Which I guess is what you said, but I understood that to begin with and I think that's what people are agreeing sucks lol.
Sevenstars
New member
Yeah but that's the scary part. Most diseases and illnesses that affect pets are not communicable to people. It would suck to have mrsa (or anything, at all), give it to your cat, you get better and get rid of it from antibiotics, then the cat gives it back to you.
It's just like living with another person you have to worry about getting you sick, I guess. Which I guess is what you said, but I understood that to begin with and I think that's what people are agreeing sucks lol.
It's just like living with another person you have to worry about getting you sick, I guess. Which I guess is what you said, but I understood that to begin with and I think that's what people are agreeing sucks lol.
Sevenstars
New member
Yeah but that's the scary part. Most diseases and illnesses that affect pets are not communicable to people. It would suck to have mrsa (or anything, at all), give it to your cat, you get better and get rid of it from antibiotics, then the cat gives it back to you.
It's just like living with another person you have to worry about getting you sick, I guess. Which I guess is what you said, but I understood that to begin with and I think that's what people are agreeing sucks lol.
It's just like living with another person you have to worry about getting you sick, I guess. Which I guess is what you said, but I understood that to begin with and I think that's what people are agreeing sucks lol.
Sevenstars
New member
Yeah but that's the scary part. Most diseases and illnesses that affect pets are not communicable to people. It would suck to have mrsa (or anything, at all), give it to your cat, you get better and get rid of it from antibiotics, then the cat gives it back to you.
It's just like living with another person you have to worry about getting you sick, I guess. Which I guess is what you said, but I understood that to begin with and I think that's what people are agreeing sucks lol.
It's just like living with another person you have to worry about getting you sick, I guess. Which I guess is what you said, but I understood that to begin with and I think that's what people are agreeing sucks lol.
Sevenstars
New member
Yeah but that's the scary part. Most diseases and illnesses that affect pets are not communicable to people. It would suck to have mrsa (or anything, at all), give it to your cat, you get better and get rid of it from antibiotics, then the cat gives it back to you.
<br />
<br />It's just like living with another person you have to worry about getting you sick, I guess. Which I guess is what you said, but I understood that to begin with and I think that's what people are agreeing sucks lol.
<br />
<br />It's just like living with another person you have to worry about getting you sick, I guess. Which I guess is what you said, but I understood that to begin with and I think that's what people are agreeing sucks lol.
Well yeah, but the husband and the kids kept "reinfecting" her also. Some people could read that article and not properly take in it's contents, and come away with "OH MY GOD PETS ARE GIVING US MRSA!!!", which is not the case. Considering that her husband AND her kids all had the bacteria present on their skin and in their sinuses, they could have easily been the avenue of reinfection, just as likely as her cat. Given that data, I have no idea why people would place the blame solely on the cat. Maybe it's due to people being more human centric than they should be. Cats are mammals just like us, so if the pathogen (MRSA) was being transmitted topically like it seems the article was insinuating, that has nothing to do with the complex differences internally of the cat vs the humans.
Also, while we have no idea how often she pet/cuddled with her cat, I would venture that she probably had more contact with her husband, and especially her two young children, as mothers usually do. People are indeed stupid enough to read that article and then round up their cats and drop them off at the shelter to be euthanised, cause granny has a recurring MRSA infection, and they blame the cats. It's not really that different (in it's properties of atleast what could happen) than the cruelty that was levied upon felines during the plague.
Also, while we have no idea how often she pet/cuddled with her cat, I would venture that she probably had more contact with her husband, and especially her two young children, as mothers usually do. People are indeed stupid enough to read that article and then round up their cats and drop them off at the shelter to be euthanised, cause granny has a recurring MRSA infection, and they blame the cats. It's not really that different (in it's properties of atleast what could happen) than the cruelty that was levied upon felines during the plague.
Well yeah, but the husband and the kids kept "reinfecting" her also. Some people could read that article and not properly take in it's contents, and come away with "OH MY GOD PETS ARE GIVING US MRSA!!!", which is not the case. Considering that her husband AND her kids all had the bacteria present on their skin and in their sinuses, they could have easily been the avenue of reinfection, just as likely as her cat. Given that data, I have no idea why people would place the blame solely on the cat. Maybe it's due to people being more human centric than they should be. Cats are mammals just like us, so if the pathogen (MRSA) was being transmitted topically like it seems the article was insinuating, that has nothing to do with the complex differences internally of the cat vs the humans.
Also, while we have no idea how often she pet/cuddled with her cat, I would venture that she probably had more contact with her husband, and especially her two young children, as mothers usually do. People are indeed stupid enough to read that article and then round up their cats and drop them off at the shelter to be euthanised, cause granny has a recurring MRSA infection, and they blame the cats. It's not really that different (in it's properties of atleast what could happen) than the cruelty that was levied upon felines during the plague.
Also, while we have no idea how often she pet/cuddled with her cat, I would venture that she probably had more contact with her husband, and especially her two young children, as mothers usually do. People are indeed stupid enough to read that article and then round up their cats and drop them off at the shelter to be euthanised, cause granny has a recurring MRSA infection, and they blame the cats. It's not really that different (in it's properties of atleast what could happen) than the cruelty that was levied upon felines during the plague.
Well yeah, but the husband and the kids kept "reinfecting" her also. Some people could read that article and not properly take in it's contents, and come away with "OH MY GOD PETS ARE GIVING US MRSA!!!", which is not the case. Considering that her husband AND her kids all had the bacteria present on their skin and in their sinuses, they could have easily been the avenue of reinfection, just as likely as her cat. Given that data, I have no idea why people would place the blame solely on the cat. Maybe it's due to people being more human centric than they should be. Cats are mammals just like us, so if the pathogen (MRSA) was being transmitted topically like it seems the article was insinuating, that has nothing to do with the complex differences internally of the cat vs the humans.
Also, while we have no idea how often she pet/cuddled with her cat, I would venture that she probably had more contact with her husband, and especially her two young children, as mothers usually do. People are indeed stupid enough to read that article and then round up their cats and drop them off at the shelter to be euthanised, cause granny has a recurring MRSA infection, and they blame the cats. It's not really that different (in it's properties of atleast what could happen) than the cruelty that was levied upon felines during the plague.
Also, while we have no idea how often she pet/cuddled with her cat, I would venture that she probably had more contact with her husband, and especially her two young children, as mothers usually do. People are indeed stupid enough to read that article and then round up their cats and drop them off at the shelter to be euthanised, cause granny has a recurring MRSA infection, and they blame the cats. It's not really that different (in it's properties of atleast what could happen) than the cruelty that was levied upon felines during the plague.
Well yeah, but the husband and the kids kept "reinfecting" her also. Some people could read that article and not properly take in it's contents, and come away with "OH MY GOD PETS ARE GIVING US MRSA!!!", which is not the case. Considering that her husband AND her kids all had the bacteria present on their skin and in their sinuses, they could have easily been the avenue of reinfection, just as likely as her cat. Given that data, I have no idea why people would place the blame solely on the cat. Maybe it's due to people being more human centric than they should be. Cats are mammals just like us, so if the pathogen (MRSA) was being transmitted topically like it seems the article was insinuating, that has nothing to do with the complex differences internally of the cat vs the humans.
Also, while we have no idea how often she pet/cuddled with her cat, I would venture that she probably had more contact with her husband, and especially her two young children, as mothers usually do. People are indeed stupid enough to read that article and then round up their cats and drop them off at the shelter to be euthanised, cause granny has a recurring MRSA infection, and they blame the cats. It's not really that different (in it's properties of atleast what could happen) than the cruelty that was levied upon felines during the plague.
Also, while we have no idea how often she pet/cuddled with her cat, I would venture that she probably had more contact with her husband, and especially her two young children, as mothers usually do. People are indeed stupid enough to read that article and then round up their cats and drop them off at the shelter to be euthanised, cause granny has a recurring MRSA infection, and they blame the cats. It's not really that different (in it's properties of atleast what could happen) than the cruelty that was levied upon felines during the plague.
Well yeah, but the husband and the kids kept "reinfecting" her also. Some people could read that article and not properly take in it's contents, and come away with "OH MY GOD PETS ARE GIVING US MRSA!!!", which is not the case. Considering that her husband AND her kids all had the bacteria present on their skin and in their sinuses, they could have easily been the avenue of reinfection, just as likely as her cat. Given that data, I have no idea why people would place the blame solely on the cat. Maybe it's due to people being more human centric than they should be. Cats are mammals just like us, so if the pathogen (MRSA) was being transmitted topically like it seems the article was insinuating, that has nothing to do with the complex differences internally of the cat vs the humans.
<br />
<br />
<br />Also, while we have no idea how often she pet/cuddled with her cat, I would venture that she probably had more contact with her husband, and especially her two young children, as mothers usually do. People are indeed stupid enough to read that article and then round up their cats and drop them off at the shelter to be euthanised, cause granny has a recurring MRSA infection, and they blame the cats. It's not really that different (in it's properties of atleast what could happen) than the cruelty that was levied upon felines during the plague.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Also, while we have no idea how often she pet/cuddled with her cat, I would venture that she probably had more contact with her husband, and especially her two young children, as mothers usually do. People are indeed stupid enough to read that article and then round up their cats and drop them off at the shelter to be euthanised, cause granny has a recurring MRSA infection, and they blame the cats. It's not really that different (in it's properties of atleast what could happen) than the cruelty that was levied upon felines during the plague.
<br />
<br />