> 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.

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.