Notices by Jezza™ (jeremiah@noagendasocial.com), page 13

@strypey @moonman It's not "no evidence, no relevance" -- the news article that started this thread referenced an unpublished, but publicly presented study done at Johns Hopkins. That's a very well-regarded research hospital. The patients they refer to would likely be immuncompromised if involved in chemotherapy treatments.

This is not ideological smoke: it's a real concern raised by real doctors.

The study also includes recommendations to minimize risks.

https://www.americanveterinarian.com/news/reducing-mrsa-transmission-between-therapy-dogs-and-cancer-patients

@strypey can untag me, too. That's all i've got for the issue until my paycheck from the thinktank arrives.

The work that does pay requires me to find the cause of a profoundly annoying bug. :-)

@strypey @Kelly_NAproducR you and i fortunately do not make policy decisions, so we don't have to worry too much about it. :-)

@strypey @moonman The precautionary principle is very often the best basis for health policy.

Would you rather be wrong and fail to prevent deaths that weren't occurring, or would you rather be wrong and cause deaths to occur out of a lack of precaution?

@strypey @Kelly_NAproducR claims not backed by the citations given are pretty normal. As are studies that are easily debunked. "Scientific" studies in many fields have reached the same level of practical veracity as statistical reports as the editorial standards of "journals" have reached the level of Popular Science.

Sometimes one must admit no special standing to have a position, nor the authority to make that position matter to other people, no matter what studies one might dig up. :-)

@strypey @Kelly_NAproducR there's also the case that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. a news story that is backed by a verified claim of connection (CDC investigation, etc) is a data point. After a certain number of data points, we have a trend that suggests the precautionary principle be engaged.

People dig the precautionary principle when it applies to GMOs and nuclear power, but suddenly get skeptical when it involves carrion eaters that lick their assholes and eat vomit??

@strypey @Kelly_NAproducR It was a study that admitted work needed to be done, and it was a first go at it. It was what I found in a cursory search, yes.

I'm not that passionate the point, things are starting to turn back towards sanity with pet policies here.

As far as arguing, you haven't provided any evidence for your claims -- I'm not sure what your point is, but it's been fun. :-)

@strypey @Kelly_NAproducR also, here's one;
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195670105004184

@strypey @Kelly_NAproducR You have the same for your claims of dog therapy validity ready to go?

@strypey @Kelly_NAproducR

At a rate unprecedented in history (north america) people are bringing dogs with them into public spaces where they had previously been not allowed or not present by cultural standards.

This is introducing new problems (including increasing the spread of resistant infections like MRSA in hospitals) that are just now becoming substantial enough to be news.

Incidents related to dogs spreading things _from_ hospitals have also occurred.

@strypey @Kelly_NAproducR Because I was making a very specific point, not writing an encyclopedia. Of course, now that you mention it -- there are a great deal of limitations of visitors, depending on when and what ward they visit.

Therapy dogs, music therapy, aromatherapy may all have some measurable impact; like any other therapy, there's are appropriate places for it.

We don't conduct open heart surgeries in the dog park, perhaps dogs should be restricted to the outside gardens or similar.

@strypey @Kelly_NAproducR It's about harm reduction. Food, AC, medical staff, and all sorts of things are variously required in a hospital. "Therapy dogs" are not. This is about limiting an unnecessary vector of pathogens from a place full of infectious and immune-compromised people.

It's not a smoke-screen, any more than mentioning that the office is on fire is not intended to be a distraction from other workplace safety concerns.