| ▲ | timschmidt 2 days ago |
| > low-impact As one of the 10% of humanity who has a severe allergy to cats which causes me to be unable to breathe, break out in hives, and weep incredible amounts from every exposed mucus membrane, I had to laugh at this. And cry a little. Y'all have no idea how high impact cats are. Fel D proteins seem to trigger immune responses across a broad range of mammals. They are homologs of slow loris venom which also causes intense immune responses. Hypothesis is that they evolved in part by inducing an intense allergic response when the cat is eaten. Which obviously helps the survival of the next cat that predator encounters. It seems to be sheer accident that 90% of humanity isn't bothered by it. Even so, cat allergies are the single most common allergy among humans. Cats shed Fel D 1 everywhere. Being in the same room with one is enough to wreck me for hours to a week. Some folks can control it with medication, but I can't take enough to be in the same room with one. Rat traps are less expensive, more effective, less prone to killing things other than rats, sanitary, don't have to be fed, don't need a litter box, don't cause allergies, don't need shots, medications, or vet visits, and don't have kittens. Far lower impact and much less work than a cat. Killing rats is just an excuse people use to keep an emotional support critter around. And is unfortunately inconsiderate of 1 in every 10 people in public spaces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allergy_to_cats |
|
| ▲ | ikurei 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > 1 in every 10 people in public spaces. 1 in every 10 people may have a cat alergy, but the % of folks with an allergy as severe as yours has to be much lower. I know plenty of people with cat allergies who can spend entire evenings in my cat-inhabited with only very minor discomfort. The person with the most serious allergy to them I know is miles away from your symptoms. I think you are exaggerating the severity of the issue, but I'm sorry you have this terrible allergy to something as common as cats, that sucks. |
| |
| ▲ | timschmidt 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > I think you are exaggerating the severity of the issue You and everyone else who doesn't suffer. But I was conservative by stating 10%. Medical literature says 10 - 20% and even qualifies that as a potential underestimate. I have looked for stats on severe sufferers, and they are unfortunately very difficult to find. It does suck. But I would caution you not to discount the discomfort of others so easily. People tend to understand that exposing someone with a peanut allergy to peanuts is dangerous and can even be considered assault or attempted murder. No one thinks that about cats. But the severity of the allergic response occupies the same spectrum (same immune system, misbehaving in the same way). Peanuts just aren't as cute or fluffy as cats. No one is offended if you don't want to pet their peanut. No one makes you eat peanuts in order to visit them at home. No matter how mild the peanut allergy. No one rubs peanuts into every surface of a place like cats spread Fel D 1. But immune systems don't know the difference. An allergen is an allergen. To folks who have the allergy, the differences in the way it's treated compared to others affect our every day. | | |
| ▲ | zdp7 a day ago | parent [-] | | Less than 0.5% of people are at risk of anaphylaxis from cat allergies. Since you brought up peanut allergies, it's relevant to point out that we haven't banned peanuts. It sucks that you and others suffer, but getting rid of cats doesn't make sense when you can ask if there are cats around, much like people with peanut allergies ask about the presence of peanuts. | | |
| ▲ | timschmidt a day ago | parent [-] | | So that's 1 in 200 at mortal risk. Roughly 1,744,000 people in the US. 1 in 5 to 10 in discomfort. Roughly 69,760,000 people in the US. Good to know. Given Dunbar's number it's likely that most people in the US know someone with a severe cat allergy. | | |
| ▲ | zdp7 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Cat owners have significantly lower cardiovascular deaths. Children growing up with a cat have an almost 50% lower development of asthma and allergies. They reduce stress and depression. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3317329/ | | |
| ▲ | timschmidt 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think you'll find that's as true for animals who don't shed proteins evolved to elicit severe allergic reactions as it is for those that do. Your reference begins with: "The presence of pets has been associated with reduction of stress and blood pressure and therefore may reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | yallpendantools 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Y'all have no idea how high impact cats are. > inconsiderate of 1 in every 10 people in public spaces. It's high-impact for you but low-impact for humanity in general or even just for businesses with a rat problem. 1 in 10 is exactly the definition of "low impact". I get that it's a ginormous inconvenience to the dozens of you out there---and as a person with his own allergies, albeit not to cats, you have my sympathy---but that doesn't change the fact that 10% falls pretty squarely under the definition of low-impact. |
| |
| ▲ | defrost 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | In a city with a population of 8.5 million 10% is easily under nine hundred thousand people, such a low impact indeed ... 'dozens' might be overstating this /s | |
| ▲ | timschmidt 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You're claiming that the single most common allergy suffered by humans is low impact compared to a $2 rat trap which doesn't bother anyone. The cope... You can just say you like cats. You don't have to invent fallacious reasons for it. |
|
|
| ▲ | kulahan 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Right but cats are awesome |
| |
| ▲ | timschmidt 2 days ago | parent [-] | | What a privilege it must be to think so. Sadly, I cannot relate. To me they're poison or a visit to the ER. Like if most of the people in the world thought diamondback rattlesnakes or boomslangs made adorable pets to let roam free. If you can imagine drowning in your own fluids, unable to breathe, while your whole body swells painfully and itches, your nose runs uncontrollably and eyes swell shut, you've got the picture. Y'all don't have to ask ahead of time before you go anywhere new if there will be a cat there. And you don't have to cancel if they say yes. | | |
| ▲ | kulahan 2 days ago | parent [-] | | This is an incredible amount of drama over one of the most common animals on the planet. | | |
| ▲ | timschmidt 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It's an incredible amount of privilege thinking that about the most common allergen affecting humans. Only someone who's not affected could think it. For those of us who are, it's literally the foundation bedrock of every choice I make during the day. My work is cat-free. My family don't own cats. My persistent friends are the folks who don't own cats that I can visit regularly. My world is a lot smaller than yours. Less opportunity. People with severe food allergies have to plan and limit themselves similarly. Because people who don't understand can't be trusted to help limit exposure. Sensible precautions are seen as unnecessary drama by those who don't need them. Anyone with a severe allergy can share a dozen stories about the times someone who didn't understand almost got them killed. Standing up for ourselves in the face of folks trying to downplay our conditions is the reason any of us are still alive. | | |
| ▲ | kulahan a day ago | parent [-] | | No, you’re just being really dramatic over an allergy. My brother literally will actually DIE if he gets too close to peanuts and he’s not this insufferable. | | |
| ▲ | timschmidt a day ago | parent | next [-] | | If you can't suffer some words, then your brother and I have a much higher pain tolerance than you do. lol Will you DIE from words like your brother and I from our allergens? If not you can calm down about it. Unlike us you can just walk away from this. If it causes you suffering you're choosing to suffer by engaging in the conversation. That's not good for you. Take care of yourself. | | |
| ▲ | kulahan 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, which is why I’m not being insufferable, lmao. As a side note, I get the chide about labeling. You might accidentally eat cat and die! It slips in all the time! Granted, the labeling is not enough to protect him due to the severity of his allergy. Don’t try to bring him down to your level. It’ll take months anyways. | | |
| ▲ | timschmidt 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > No, which is why I’m not being insufferable At this point you're interpreting genuine care and empathy for your brother's condition and appreciation for a hard-fought safety measure as chide. I remember when it was enacted. And a win for any of us is a win for all of us. Re-evaluate that assumption of yours. You're right that a respiratory and contact allergy wouldn't benefit from food labels. Safety labels for folks like me would go on buildings, especially public spaces. And they would absolutely be helpful. The ADA does have some protections for folks with respiratory allergies in public spaces, but they're somewhat severely limited to a 6mo period after which filing an enforcement action is not possible. If you miss it, tough luck. You are demonstrating to others the sort of attitude folks like your brother and I encounter constantly. So thanks for that. It's good for folks to see that just talking about the things that I and others like me experience and expressing care for others with similar conditions is enough to elicit hate. Because that's not uncommon. Most folks like me have dealt with that behavior, and nothing you say about me or my allergy will have any effect other than reflecting on yourself. | | |
| ▲ | kulahan 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, you’re just insanely annoying. Imagine writing such a tirade over people owning pets lol. Man, you are SUCH a victim. Can you honestly not see how melodramatic you’re being? Like this has to be an act, yeah? | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | timschmidt 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | BTW, it's cool that your brother at least gets safety labeling on commercial food items. I hope that helps him stay safe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | something765478 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Rat traps are less expensive, more effective, less prone to killing things other than rats, sanitary, don't have to be fed, don't need a litter box, don't cause allergies, don't need shots, medications, or vet visits, and don't have kittens. Far lower impact and much less work than a cat. Are they? If the cats are eating rats, then they don't really need to be fed. If they're allowed to go outside, then you might not even need to clean the cat's litter box. Rat traps have to be reset, and the corpses disposed of; cats do all that automatically. |
| |
| ▲ | timschmidt 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, they are, objectively. The minimal amount of labor involved in setting and clearing a trap (literally 30 seconds) is significantly less than the time spent tending to a cat. Even if you only pet it occasionally. I own traps I don't even have to touch with my hands. And they were inexpensive. Rat traps work 24/7, unlike a cat which sleeps up to 16 hours a day. Cats must be spade or neutered, an additional cost and effort lest they contribute to the epidemic of semi-feral cats. Outdoor domestic cats kill an estimated 7 - 26 billion wild animals yearly, most birds, 3/4 of which weren't eaten when studied. Outdoor cats especially need flea treatment, else they'll bring them into the building. Having dealt with a flea infestation, trust me you don't want to. Involves poisoning your whole dwelling for a few days at significant expense. |
|
