blogcutter

Have you adopted a pet or service animal during the pandemic? Many people have, and are finding their companion animals to be a source of enormous comfort and support.

There are of course people who, for various reasons, cannot or should not have a pet, but they may nonetheless benefit from some sort of pet therapy. So today I want to highlight two organizations which provide those services. One of them, Ottawa Therapy Dogs, is local:

https://www.ottawatherapydogs.ca

The other, Therapeutic Paws of Canada, is based in Hawkesbury but national in scope:

http://tpoc.ca

On the TPOC website there's a wealth of resources, including an extensive selection of videos of working dogs and cats, listening to children learn to read, visiting libraries, hospitals and seniors' homes, or just chilling out with their humans while these humans read stories or tell their own.

When we're still grappling with the logistics of positive/negative Covid-19 testing and contact tracing, some might say we need to put thoughts of other tests on the back burner for now. But that view strikes me as short-sighted and self-defeating. It's a bit like the fable of the kid who walked his bike all the way to school even though he was already late - so late he didn't have time to stop and get on the bike!

Wastewater analysis has been great as an early warning system, if only to warn us how rapidly the virus can replicate. But it seems to me we need to be looking much more closely at how people develop antibodies and immunity, and which people develop immunity and how long immunity lasts. Those are obviously crucial decisions in developing a vaccine and determining vaccination schedules once we have that vaccine. We need to get a handle on asymptomatic carriers too, which presumably would entail random testing - the simpler the test, the better, and affordable self-test kits from the drugstore sound ideal to me. And probably we still need tests to better determine how many different ways and over what distances the virus is spread (droplets, airborne, surfaces) and how long the virus persists in different conditions (heat, cold, indoors, outdoors).

One thing we may not have thought so much about is transmission between humans and household pets. So far, cats and dogs do not seem to be particularly susceptible to the virus themselves but the hope is that by studying pets whose humans have had COVID-19, we can gain a better understanding of the virus itself, how it moves through populations, and how immunity develops.

Below is an excerpt from an e-mail I received from Ottawa Veterinary Hospital, soliciting prospective participants for their seroprevalence study:

Seroprevalence Study
The current pandemic has affected us all in ways unimaginable only six short months ago but together we are learning how to adapt and manage in our new reality. At VCA Canada, we feel an intense responsibility to do our part to help protect our clients, Associates and of course our patients while still providing the exceptional care you've come to expect from us.
A large part of our collective success in managing the pandemic comes from our ability to better understand the SARS CoV-2 virus and how it may move through the population. To that end, we are working with the Ontario Veterinary College and the University of Guelph to help facilitate a SARS CoV-2 seroprevalence study in dogs and cats from COVID-19 positive households (the study will look to see if the pet’s immune system has identified and responded to the virus). This project is part of a broader research program evaluating the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from people to animals.
This component of the study aims to evaluate the prevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in dogs, cats, and ferrets whose owners had COVID-19. Serological testing provides a retrospective evaluation of exposure and is done after SARS-CoV-2 has been eliminated in the household. If you have had COVID-19 we would invite you to participate by arranging for your pet to have blood sampling performed at our hospital.
Study procedures and eligibility
• Dogs and cats from a household where one or more people were diagnosed with COVID-19, or who were told by a healthcare provider or other public health personnel that they likely had COVID-19, are eligible.
• You can call or email our hospital to arrange an appointment time for blood sampling.
• Sampling must occur at least 2 weeks after the last infected person in the household was identified by their healthcare provider or public health to be non-infectious. At this point, your pet is considered to be non-infectious (even if it had been previously infected).
• Sampling consists of routine blood collection during which a small sample of blood will be drawn and submitted for evaluation.
• You will be asked to fill out a brief questionnaire outlining the timing of illness, whether the diagnosis was confirmed, and the type of contact you normally have with your pet.
• Samples and completed questionnaires will be submitted to the researchers at OVC.
Participation in this study is completely optional and there are no costs associated with blood sampling and testing. However, if sampling is done at the time of other veterinary care, normal costs for care apart from blood sampling will apply.
Your contribution to this research is greatly appreciated. Please note, VCA Canada has not shared any client or patient information with the OVC team or any third-party affiliates.
Please contact us to schedule a time to participate in this study. Questions about the study can be directed to Dr. Scott Weese of the University of Guelph.


I'll be interested to learn the findings of the study.





 

In today's blogcutter café, I'm going to tackle the question: Is pet ownership a right? Already I can almost hear your snorts of derision. But bear with me.

First, a brief aside. I'm using the term "pet-owner" as a kind of shorthand here. I'm well aware that we don't truly "own" another living creature.

Numerous studies suggest that pet ownership is THE most important factor in determining life satisfaction. Yes, more important than having good relationships with friends or family (of the human variety); more important than whether you have any life-threatening disease; certainly more important than how wealthy you are.

At the same time, many folk buy into the "deserving" vs. "undeserving" dichotomy when it comes to things like health care. Some feel that if you smoke heavily, or are an alcholic or drug addict, or otherwise engage in high-risk or self-destructive behaviour, you should pay higher health care premiums than if you do not do these things. Of course, private insurance agents do typically charge more in premiums for people in some of these categories. And don't get me started on some of this country's policies with respect to immigrants.

So given that pet ownership has such a positive effect on a person's mental health - in itself a benefit to society as a whole, before you even begin to factor in the reduction in the number of unwanted animals - would it not in a way make sense to offer lower insurance rates to people who have pets? Maybe even government-funded medicare should be extended to our four-legged friends? Perhaps it should be a violation of the human rights code for a landlord to refuse to rent to a pet-owner, for public and inter-city transit vehicles to disallow pets on board or for business-owners to refuse entry to people who arrive with their pets. Don't laugh - it's already become a human rights issue to disallow guide-dogs for the blind in such situations so if we're talking allergies here, it's just as possible to be allergic to a guide-dog as it is to some other kind of dog!

Part of the resistance to labelling pet ownership a "right" may be the way people tend to feel that "right" is the opposite of, say, "responsibility", or "privilege". And it ain't necessarily so. Pet ownership is DEFINITELY a responsibility. I'm not suggesting for one moment that someone who is unable or unwilling to properly look after an animal, or who (for example) has a somewhat erratic or itinerant lifestyle,
or whose environment is unsuitable (e.g. living in a small apartment with a large dog which needs lots of exercise), should embark upon inappropriate pet ownership. On the other hand, I'm not so sure financial considerations alone should necessarily preclude pet ownership. (For example, the Public Citizen in today's Ottawa Citizen dealt with a woman who had agreed to have her cat picked up by the Ottawa Humane Society for some urgent medical attention - if the OHS does decide to proceed with the treatment as opposed to euthanasia, the woman will not be allowed to have the cat back, even though it seems she has done nothing wrong and the cat is something of a lifeline for the housebound owner; it's all making me seriously reconsider my membership in and future donations to the OHS.)

As for "privilege", I'm also well aware that it's definitely a privilege to earn the affection and trust of a companion animal - something that can at times be an up-hill struggle, even for the most kindly and attentive of pet-owners.

As modern medicine becomes more sophisticated, it make sense to devote more time and energy to PREVENTATIVE measures rather than simply after-the-fact fancy pharmaceuticals and technologies. I say, let's start looking at pet ownership as proactive health care!