BVA response is inappropriately restrictive and will harm pet welfare

RE: BVA response is inappropriately restrictive and will harm pet welfare

Iain Richards — Wed, 01 Apr 2020 07:46:47 GMT

That's fine Michael, your risk assessment and based on how I am remaining "clear" whilst my wife is corona +ve, good biosecurity is working.
The wider picture though is that people are not good at biosecurity and anything that looks like "normal" will be a further excuse for them not to practice safe distance/hand washing. Sadly humans are lazy b......

RE: BVA response is inappropriately restrictive and will harm pet welfare

Michael Woodhouse — Tue, 31 Mar 2020 19:43:01 GMT

I don't really care if the BVA advice is to hold a chicken in the air and stick a deckchair up my nose. I think the RCVS advice is much clearer on 2nd vaccs and vaccinating high risk puppies.

We're still working to our oath and the AWA 2016.

RE: BVA response is inappropriately restrictive and will harm pet welfare

Mark Rowland — Tue, 31 Mar 2020 15:38:42 GMT

I agree with the rabbit vacc bit. In fact the president touts herself as an exotic vet. She worked for me for a time, Oh the stories I could tell ...

RE: BVA response is inappropriately restrictive and will harm pet welfare

Bob Russell — Tue, 31 Mar 2020 15:02:13 GMT

I just cannot see how a devastated economy is anything but a disaster. Suicides run at about 7000 a year. How much is this going to rise as a stream of people find their businesses on their knees or worse?

There has to be some balance but I don't see how many businesses can survive a prolonged period of closures without even more help. My income is not protected, I do not get any help with my household income.

I have some reserves to dig into but they are not going to cover a period of inactivity.

If we knew a time limit we could plan. Sadly we just don't know.

RE: BVA response is inappropriately restrictive and will harm pet welfare

Neil Wheadon — Tue, 31 Mar 2020 15:01:55 GMT

The test will come in 6 to 8 weeks time

The BVA have released a vaccination statement saying

We're advising that all adult boosters and most primary vaccinations in puppies, kittens and other naïve animals should be postponed to protect human health and help curb the spread of Covid-19

Now read on

Vets will exercise their clinical judgement in the spirit of protecting human health and the government’s instruction to people to stay at home and only travel if absolutely necessary. If the government extends the current restrictions beyond three weeks, we may need to revisit our advice.

All that these organisations can do is advise in the present and this is for 3 weeks, during which time there will be harm but hopefully nothing too serious to veterinary businesses. It's a sensible but short term measure

Looking at other countries lockdown will last longer, and after 6-8 weeks economics will be the primary, so more practices will be wanting to vaccinate simply to survive. Advise at the moment is far easier than then and I hope that the RCVA/BVA are gaming this scenario. If I was to guess, I think we will see classic 'chapter wording' (used in DEFRA guidance for disease outbreaks) Words such as should, may etc will give discretion. Words such as must etc will not.

Parallel to this may well be a ramping up of lockdown and this has happened in other European Countries. Italy has only just banned non essential travel. In effect legislation has had to be enacted to stop businesses trying to save themselves.

Neil

www.bva.co.uk/.../

RE: BVA response is inappropriately restrictive and will harm pet welfare

easy307 — Tue, 31 Mar 2020 14:11:02 GMT

No shut down results in a lot more deaths in the short term, then hopefully herd immunity, and perhaps a less devastated economy.

Would a less devastated economy result in less collateral deaths / suffering in net terms when assessed over the long term ?

These are questions worth considering, and not dismissing on initial inspection.

RE: BVA response is inappropriately restrictive and will harm pet welfare

Iain Richards — Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:45:21 GMT

Further thoughts from a bored.

If this cahp is getting all twitchy over a potential police state, how would he have responded if the UK Governement did what they should have done and traced all visitors from China entering the UK sice Mid December. It's possible, all the data is there in the airlines, why else do we enter passport details for each ticket? It wouldn't have got everyone, the virus woul dstill be here, but potential hotspots could be targetted

Tracing of dangerous contacts is routine for vet disease control.

RE: BVA response is inappropriately restrictive and will harm pet welfare

Iain Richards — Mon, 30 Mar 2020 19:45:51 GMT

A view that isn't from someone who understands disease. I take the point re freedoms, but he's way off

RE: BVA response is inappropriately restrictive and will harm pet welfare

Gillian Mostyn — Mon, 30 Mar 2020 18:14:28 GMT

From video above "only 12% of people die from coronavirus alone.' ONLY???!!!! These people were previously healthy!!!

Then his waffling about how people should be free to visit beauty spots to take their exercise. I wonder, has he seen Cumbria on a sunny day....let alone when almost the entire country is off work!

RE: BVA response is inappropriately restrictive and will harm pet welfare

easy307 — Mon, 30 Mar 2020 17:37:23 GMT

www.youtube.com/watch

Lord Sumption explains national overreaction to coronavirus

RE: BVA response is inappropriately restrictive and will harm pet welfare

Dinu Catilina — Mon, 30 Mar 2020 16:50:42 GMT

Well, I agree (partially) with the OP. Nobody asked for normal contact or things to stay unchanged. But reducing work to urgent and emergency only in my opinion will have a marked effect on animal welfare.

RE: BVA response is inappropriately restrictive and will harm pet welfare

Iain Richards — Mon, 30 Mar 2020 14:38:22 GMT

I've been thikning about this post for a bit. My answer no is as it was then, the BVA response is not inappropriate. The more "normal" contact is allowed, the more viral spread there will be because, moslty, people do not understand hygiene let alone biosecurity.

RE: BVA response is inappropriately restrictive and will harm pet welfare

Anthony Dennison — Mon, 30 Mar 2020 10:50:29 GMT

[quote userid="6104" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28990/bva-response-is-inappropriately-restrictive-and-will-harm-pet-welfare"]e BVA should be protecting pet and vet welfare by insisting that all medical treatment is important for pet welfare but that veterinary practices should be operating in a fashion which eliminates face to face contact with clients (or between clients).[/quote]

Yet you still want to do routine vaccinations. Even with proper procedures in place and use of PPE, these things may fail. The easiest way to prevent the spread of Covid-19 is to minimise movement of people. This includes people coming to the vets.

RE: BVA response is inappropriately restrictive and will harm pet welfare

Edward Jones — Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:45:42 GMT

Is it appropriate for vets to be using single-use PPE to vaccinate rabbits when NHS staff are already going without?

The fact that vets can conduct business with very good biosecurity is only part of the story. Vets are key opinion leaders with regards biosecurity - if we're refusing all but emergencies it sends a clear message to the public about the severity of the situation, and further, vets can only control the biosecurity whilst on the premises but what clients do on the rest of their journey is entirely uncontrolled and likely to be compromised.

Just because mistakes are being made elsewhere (off licences, construction) doesn't mean we should be making the same mistakes.

I, as much as anyone, realises that we've all got to die somehow and none of us will get out of this game alive, but I can think of better ways to go than alone in a hospital corridor or army tent of respiratory failure.