Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
national

Ratio of rabies vaccinations for pet dogs in Japan falls to 70%

32 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

32 Comments
Login to comment

I havent vaccinated my little mutt....I think the vaccine amount is the same for big dogs as small.

Rabies isnt fatal....you have 30 days to get treatment...still...not a nice experience I suppose.

Maybe the vaccine requirement is another "broad brush " approach so beloved by Japan.

I think I will have to vaccinate me little mate this year...getting the nasty letters from Council.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

 a dog that attacked a dozen people, including children, in February in Gunma Prefecture had not been vaccinated against rabies.

Adding this is fearmongering! If there have been no reported cases in humans or animals since 1956 or 1957 respectively, adding this here makes it sound otherwise!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The post by Gurumick is so unbelievably wrong on every level.

Once a dog presents symptoms, there is no treatment. That also applies to humans.

The reason we don't have rabies is because of vaccination.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Rabies isnt fatal....

You are literally "dead" wrong! Rabies is nearly always 100% fatal once symptoms occur. Also it is highly likely that Japanese hospitals would not have the vaccinations available to treat it either.

you have 30 days to get treatment...still...not a nice experience I suppose.

Incubation period could be as short as ONE week, up to 1 year, before symptoms occur, there are no "set in concrete" guidelines!

7 ( +7 / -0 )

I think I will have to vaccinate me little mate this year...getting the nasty letters from Council.

You should be paying the 200,000 for not getting it done!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Rabies isnt fatal....you have 30 days to get treatment...still...not a nice experience I suppose.

As mentioned Rabies is 99.9% fatal once you have any symptoms, and post exposure vaccination (the only effective treatment) does not guarantee survival, for people who got bitten close to the brain (neck, face) you may only have a few days after exposure before the symptoms begin and the person is beyond any effective treatment.

Maybe the vaccine requirement is another "broad brush " approach so beloved by Japan.

Broad brush is what works for infectious diseases, because the whole purpose is to avoid having cases that will multiply and cause fatalities before anything can be done.

Adding this is fearmongering!

No, it is not, rabies is not a disease that has been eliminated from the world, and it is perfectly possible that infected animals can enter the country from neighbors, multiply on the wild and enter human society in general by infecting dogs, the whole point of dogs vaccination is to make this scenario practically impossible, so if rabies is found it can be controlled without human fatalities. Taiwan had a resurgence of rabies in wild animals recently, but thanks to opportune vaccination this has not been translated in human deaths, waiting until people die to do something is not a productive approach.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

No, it is not, rabies is not a disease that has been eliminated from the world,

I am not talking about the world. I was referring to here in Japan.

Japan is usually very strict about the vaccinations, and checks on incoming animals are VERY strict.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I am not talking about the world. I was referring to here in Japan.

The argument is that as long as neighboring countries have rabies cases in the wild (and even on domestic animals) there is always the risk of the disease re-entering the country.

Japan is usually very strict about the vaccinations, and checks on incoming animals are VERY strict.

Are you under the impression that the Japanese government checks wild animals entering the country? because that is the most common way for diseases like rabies to spread between countries. Japan does not even have a systematic approach to detect possible cases of rabies on wild animals right now, so if an infected animal drifts or flies to the country from Russia, Taiwan, China, Korea, etc. it would not be likely an outbreak would be caught until a domestic animal shows symptoms.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

A significant sticking point (pun intended) is that the annual inoculation is excessive. The antibodies remain for several years (according to veterinary science), so an annual test would determine whether a booster is advised.

Senior dogs, or those with certain health conditions as autoimmune issues, can be negatively affected by some vaccinations.

Consult with your vet.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

A significant sticking point (pun intended) is that the annual inoculation is excessive. The antibodies remain for several years (according to veterinary science), so an annual test would determine whether a booster is advised.

Antibodies being present and them being enough for effective neutralization are two very different things, neutralization to safe levels (as defined by the WHO as 0.5 IU or higher in a RFFIT) is not something that remains for "several years”. The RFFIT is also a test that can't be done everywhere (requires live rabies virus) and therefore can expensive to do, not likely that people will choose to spend more money every year, specially when the results will likely mean they will need to vaccinate their dogs anyway.

Senior dogs, or those with certain health conditions as autoimmune issues, can be negatively affected by some vaccinations.

Consult with your vet.

Since vaccinations are done by veterinarians anyway this comes as the default situation, the veterinarian would be already aware of the case of a dog for whom the vaccine is not recommended (a tiny minority).

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I find it archaic thinking!

Yes "mad dog" disease!

But dogs are one of the least affected!

Bats are known carriers if rabies as are rodents, Mustelidae, etc...

But unlike many developed countries, only dogs are required to be vaccinated.

But not cats!

Now look around, when was the last time you saw a dog in Japan roaming the streets without its owner?

Now think about all the stray cats or house cats let out to roam the streets fight with feral cats, chase mice,rats bats etc...

Which of these dog or cat is more likely to come into contact with a wild animal that may have rabies?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I find it archaic thinking!

Yes "mad dog" disease!

But dogs are one of the least affected!

Dogs are vaccinated not because they are the animals more affected, but because they are the domestic animals more likely to be affected and the ones responsible for most of the human cases.

Now look around, when was the last time you saw a dog in Japan roaming the streets without its owner?

Dogs can get rabies even with owners or being raised indoors.

Now think about all the stray cats or house cats let out to roam the streets fight with feral cats, chase mice,rats bats etc...

Which would be an argument to vaccinate those stray cats if your interest is to protect them, but so would it be to do the same for the diseases that currently kill them.

Which of these dog or cat is more likely to come into contact with a wild animal that may have rabies?

The rationale of demanding more strongly the vaccine for dogs is not that the dogs are at a higher risk, but that dogs are a much higher risk for humans, in countries where rabies is endemic dogs are the ones that mediate 99% of the human cases. Any owner that want to protect their cats have the option to vaccinate them as well but if the purpose is to avoid human cases then vaccinating dogs is the most efficient way to do it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Since vaccinations are done by veterinarians anyway this comes as the default situation, the veterinarian would be already aware of the case of a dog for whom the vaccine is not recommended (a tiny minority).

This is a very poor assumption. Here in Japan, as an owner of a dog here speaking, you have options when it comes to getting the yearly vaccination.

They are NOT always done by veterinarians who are familiar with the dog in question.

It is up to the choice of the owner, and since the municipal office offers the service, on a set day, there is an obvious need, as literally hundreds of dogs get vaccinated that way yearly in the community I live in.

It is also offered similarly throughout Japan

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

virusrex

Today 11:07 am JST

The rationale of demanding more strongly the vaccine for dogs is not that the dogs are at a higher risk, but that dogs are a much higher risk for humans, in countries where rabies is endemic dogs are the ones that mediate 99% of the human cases.

Japan isn't a country where rabies in endemic!

Now do your research properly!

In Asia this includes eastern Russia, bats are the number one source of rabies!

Bats roost in whatever crawlspace and crevice they can once the sun comes up.

Hypothetically one could roost in the roof of any ship, fishing boat making port is Japan or even passing near the coast then head for land at night!

Now ask yourself all of you, how many of you have been bitten by a dog and how many have been bitten or scratched by a cat?

Odds are that far more have been scratched or bitten by cats than dogs, your family fur ball that goes outside, hunts for fun and catches that rabies bat, or fights with the feral cat that had contact with that rabies bat.

If rabies is ever discovered again in Japan, it isn't going to have entered with an imported dog or cat, it will come from the number one source in Asia bats, and in Asia cats are high on the list to transmit rabies.

The problem is always the North American and Eurocentric thinking and available research available in English and wester languages!

Search "which wild animals have the most rabies" and the English results will be Racoons, fox, Mustelidae, and bats usually in that order.

But in Asia only one is prominently listed, that is bats!

And again I point out the odds of your pet dog coming into contact is very very low, but the odds of a free roaming cat are far higher, the odds Fido will bite someone are low and if he did the odds are it would be reported as it seems to be a legal requirement.

But if you get bit or scratched by a cat, odds are you will ignore it and no reporting is required!

I am saying vaccinate your dogs all 100%, but I am also saying if rabies really worries people then clean up the feral cat problem and get all 100% of domestic cats vaccinated!

Note that cats and ferrets are required to be vaccinated in the EU and UK.

In north America (USA, Canada) all cat all dogs and depending on the state/province ferrets.

Again you use selective data when you want to make your point!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Now look around, when was the last time you saw a dog in Japan roaming the streets without its owner?

Now think about all the stray cats or house cats let out to roam the streets fight with feral cats, chase mice,rats bats etc...

Which of these dog or cat is more likely to come into contact with a wild animal that may have rabies?

You dont see dogs, because the local authorities will catch them and take them to the shelter. Sadly they will not capture cats, BUT if you trap one, they will come and collect it, and depending upon the location, some even provide the traps.

You are 100% correct on the odds of coming in contact with wild animals, cats, feral one's all over the place!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

OK...you have 1 week to a month after contact to seek treatment...which in a modern country, makes fatalities rare.

And when was the last case of rabies in humans in Japan ?

1956...thats 67 or more years ago.

Posters here can live lives in fear of a 4.5 kilo mutt biting them but little Daisy will remain pure !!!

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

And again I point out the odds of your pet dog coming into contact is very very low, but the odds of a free roaming cat are far higher.

By vaccinating dogs, and to all intents and purposes exclusively dogs, Japan effectively eliminated human rabies cases. If transmission by cats was an appreciable vector, why have we not seen human rabies cases in 70 years?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Tei Uka

Today 12:40 pm JST

And again I point out the odds of your pet dog coming into contact is very very low, but the odds of a free roaming cat are far higher.

> By vaccinating dogs, and to all intents and purposes exclusively dogs, Japan effectively eliminated human rabies cases. If transmission by cats was an appreciable vector, why have we not seen human rabies cases in 70 years

Cat are in Asia!

The reason there hasn't been rabies in Japan is it is an island county which made it easier to eliminate here!

The world has changed, contact with other countries especially via shipping is far more today, the fact that Australian redback spider was able to enter Japan via cargo ships is just one example!

Going by what WAS instead of what is today are very different things!

Feral cats have been pointed out by the various government agencies as a problem, and with strict controls on dogs (licensing leash laws vaccine etc..) the risk is far lower that rabies if it again reaches Japan dogs will be the vector into the human population.

Bats to Feral cats to domestic cats to human is a higher probability!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

GuruMick

Today 12:30 pm JST

OK...you have 1 week to a month after contact to seek treatment...which in a modern country, makes fatalities rare.

> And I wont be getting my pooch done JUST to spite the negative nellies on this item.

> And when was the last case of rabies in humans in Japan ?

> 1956...thats 67 or more years ago.

> Posters here can live lives in fear of a 4.5 kilo mutt biting them but little Daisy will remain pure !!!

Ok odds are low! But again we are not living in the old days.

Today ships arrive every few minutes from other places in the world.

Bats are the main source in Asia!

Now in the summer take a walk into your nearest park at dusk.

Find a street lamp and look up!

Notice all the fast flying things? Those are bats!

Now look around that park and notice the feral cats!

Any ship arriving from another Asian port could be carrying infected bats, those feral cats try and sometimes succeed in catching bats.

Now that cat has rabies and unlucky you you little dog goes after the cat or what is more likely the cat mad from rabies decides to attack your dog as you are walking it!

Now what are you going to do? You dismissed the idea of rabies again showing up here so?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

This is a very poor assumption. Here in Japan, as an owner of a dog here speaking, you have options when it comes to getting the yearly vaccination.

They are NOT always done by veterinarians who are familiar with the dog in question.

Which would be a responsibility of the owner, if they are actually worried about the vaccine, why would they choose someone not familiar to the dog? why would not they discuss vaccination with the veterinarian they choose? it makes no sense to think they would be at the same time worried about their dogs without doing anything about it.

Japan isn't a country where rabies in endemic!

Which is why the 99% of human cases statistic do not apply, the vaccination is part of the effort made to prevent human deaths in the completely possible case the disease re-enters the country.

In Asia this includes eastern Russia, bats are the number one source of rabies!

Is this rabies as a public health problem? because the number one case for human rabies in the world are dogs, they do represent the most likely source for human cases in general.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/rabies

In up to 99% of cases, domestic dogs are responsible for rabies virus transmission to humans. 

Is your argument now that bats should also be vaccinated? because if not this argument makes no sense. You are not trying to argue about the natural reservoir, but which animal is the actual vector that mediates human cases, and specifically which animal can be targeted with vaccination to break this chain before it reaches humans.

f rabies is ever discovered again in Japan, it isn't going to have entered with an imported dog or cat, it will come from the number one source in Asia bats, and in Asia cats are high on the list to transmit rabies.

And that would still make it extremely unlikely to produce human deaths unless it becomes endemic and involves dogs, which is the real danger.

Now ask yourself all of you, how many of you have been bitten by a dog and how many have been bitten or scratched by a cat?

Again, in countries where rabies is present dogs are the primary (by much) source of human cases, trying to ignore this fact only means you now understand your position is mistaken. There is no place where cats are the predominant source of human rabies.

And again I point out the odds of your pet dog coming into contact is very very low, but the odds of a free roaming cat are far higher

Which is still irrelevant unless your purpose is to protect the cat, for the purpose of protecting humans vaccination of dogs is the actual measure that is efficient.

Again you use selective data when you want to make your point!

Worldwide data as selective? which other planets do you think would be relevant to be included?

And I wont be getting my pooch done JUST to spite the negative nellies on this item

Since this is an enforceable responsibility as an owner your argument is that you are aware this is obligatory, useful and justified but that you consider your personal preference above the commitment you make as an owner even when you are unable to refute the validity of the measure.

1956...thats 67 or more years ago.

So close and yet the last step of the logical process is not there. Unless you can argue about 67 or more years free of rabies deaths without any vaccination done to reach and maintain that goal this is as rational as saying that people don't need any seat belts since hundreds of drivers survive crashes... while wearing them.

Cat are in Asia!

And yet they are not the main vector for human cases in Asia! which is the whole point. The main vector are dogs.

The reason there hasn't been rabies in Japan is it is an island county which made it easier to eliminate here!

By vaccinating dogs, not bats or cats.

Bats to Feral cats to domestic cats to human is a higher probability!

Of course not, there is no reference that says cats represent more risk to humans than dogs.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

virusrex

Today 01:01 pm JST

And again you pick Data selectively!

The same report you use to point out dogs being the main source to humans says the following;

Rabies is present on all continents except Antarctica, with over 95% of human deaths occurring in Asia and Africa. However, rabies cases are rarely reported and registered numbers differ greatly from the estimated burden.

So as you pointed out 99% reported are from dogs and 90% of those reported are from western countries but 95% of rabies cases are in developing or underdeveloped countries.

China with implemented strict laws on dog ownership has seen a huge reduction in dog to human rabies expecting it to be zero by 2030 but and this is the point!

Cases of rabies are still high despite the cases involving dogs being low!

So if cases involving dogs in China are low but cases of rabies remain high where are all the cases of rabies coming from in China it isn't from Dogs!

Remember the WHO isn't infallible as we have seen recently and their reports are only as good as the information given them and seeing 95% of all cases of rabies go unreported, that makes the information invalid!

Using the WHO report would saying dogs are responsible for 99% of the human cases would be like saying "rabies has been eliminated worldwide" only using data from Japan and the UK.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

And again you pick Data selectively!

Maybe you don't understand what selectively is, the data comes from a global perspective, unless your argument is that other planets should be included that does not mean it can be called selective, on the contrary is as generlized as it can be.

Cases of rabies are still high despite the cases involving dogs being low!

Cases are lower, they are still high compared with no cases at all, and specially no importance whatsoever to cats as the vector, so this still completely contradicts your argument.

So if cases involving dogs in China are low but cases of rabies remain high where are all the cases of rabies coming from in China it isn't from Dogs!

Still from dogs, because the efforts have not been homogeneous and there are still locations with poor vaccination rates

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10077633/

There remain however, significant gaps in rabies elimination outcomes across the different regions of China. To date the target of achieving a canine rabies vaccination rate of  75% has not been met. 

Very importantly, cats are never described as important for rabies in Asia in general and China in particular either, the domestic animal (that can be vaccinated) of importance is still the dog.

Remember the WHO isn't infallible

And you could prove this by showing a source that says cats are a more important source for human cases, else it is still a much better source than none, at least they can show the numbers used for their recommendations and they are supported by countless other organizations that say the same thing.

Using the WHO report would saying dogs are responsible for 99% of the human cases would be like saying "rabies has been eliminated worldwide" only using data from Japan and the UK.

The data says that UP to 99% of the cases come from dogs according to location, that means the claim is valid and easy to confirm, your example on the other hand is easily debunked. A real simile would be the claim that "Worldwide there are places where rabies has been eliminated". If this is done with dog vaccinations that would be still evidence against your claim.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

virusrex

Today 01:32 pm JST

And again you pick Data selectively!

> Maybe you don't understand what selectively is, the data comes from a global perspective, unless your argument is that other planets

What " global perspective"?

95% of human deaths occurring in Asia and Africa. However, rabies cases are rarely reported

So how can you and the WHO claim "global perspective" is 95% of cases are in Asia and Africa and rarely reported?

You are the one claiming to be the scientist!

If you do not have 95% of the information, how can you come to a conclusion or results?

The WHO makes one claim then says it doesn't have 95% of the information.

So your "global perspective" is based on 5% of the information and as we know by simple facts, 90% of that 5% comes from western countries AKA developed countries where a totally different dynamic exists.

Racoons, fox and Mustelidae are the main transmission points to domestic animals.

Not Asia where bats are the primary source.

If you consider 5% of the data as being enough to come to a conclusion then I fear any research done from that.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

What " global perspective"?

The one the WHO uses to describe the situation of rabies. Something that is not refuted in any way by selecting one location as you did. Dogs are the most common animal involved in human cases in the globe, and also in the particular location you used as an example.

So how can you and the WHO claim "global perspective" is 95% of cases are in Asia and Africa and rarely reported?

That is NOT what the text you quote is saying, there is a huge difference between:

"95% of the cases come from these locations"

and

"95% of the cases on these locations are not reported"

Why misrepresent something you are quoting? that only makes it obvious this invalid way to read the text.

Rare reports are still much better than no reports, if the situation being reported is congruent with what happens in other locations that is still evidence that proves a point. Specially when the rarety of reports do not apply only to one region but in general.

So your "global perspective" is based on 5% of the information

Again, this is not what the text you quote is saying, "rarely reported" may mean 20%, or 50%, and very importantly they can still be compared with estimates of burden that are more indicative to see how they variate. Not to mention this is still the global situation and coincides with the specific location you tried to use as a reference.

Racoons, fox and Mustelidae are the main transmission points to domestic animals.

Not Asia where bats are the primary source

Which is still irrelevant unless you are trying to argue on the need to vaccinate either racoons, foxes and weasels or vaccinate bats. Is this your argument?

If not what you need is a source that says cats are a more likely source of human infections than dogs, something that runs contrary to the current consensus that clearly and explicitly says dogs are the primary source of human infections.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, and South Korea eliminated canine rabies decades ago. However, no Asian country has been declared rabies-free during the past three decades. Taiwan, which was rabies-free for six decades, reported recurrence of wildlife rabies among badgers in 2013. How it came to Taiwan is still a mystery.

This is why dogs and cats should be vaccinated!

Note the 6 decades no rabies and note where it came from is a mystery!

It didn't come from dogs because it has only been found (for now) in wildlife not domestic!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

This is why dogs and cats should be vaccinated!

Again, dogs are justified, cats not, because they do not represent a significant source of human infections. You have been unable to support this claim you made with any source, so vaccination of cats are nowhere near a priority as vaccinating dogs.

Note the 6 decades no rabies and note where it came from is a mystery!

How does this prove that cats need to be vaccinated as much as dogs? that is a non sequitur.

It didn't come from dogs because it has only been found (for now) in wildlife not domestic!

Again, unless you are trying to argue that humans should vaccinate all wild mammals this is not supporting your claim, that no human cases happen with vaccination of dogs (irrelevant where the infection came from nature) means this is an argument that disproves your claim.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

virusrex

Today 02:10 pm JST

95% of the cases come from these locations"

> and

> "95% of the cases on these locations are not reported"

> Why misrepresent something you are quoting?

Not misquoting, you are again taking selective things out if context.

95% case in Asia and Africa and the WHO clearly say most are rarely reported.

Now if we look at the numbers.

Reported cases are around 14,000 a year.

But even the WHO says at least 59,000 cases a year and that is based on pure speculation of anywhere from 25,000 to 159,000.

The top rabies researches put the number of probable cases closer to the 100,000 mark.

But again the data used to arrive at the 99% being transmitted by dogs is based on not having even close to the full data and only a fraction.

If Asia and Africa account for 95% of human cases and they are "rarely reported" then the only conclusion is that the vast majority of the information is missing in order to come to a conclusion.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

virusrex

Today 02:13 pm JST

This is why dogs and cats should be vaccinated!

> Again, dogs are justified, cats not, because they do not represent a significant source of human infections

Show me the data cats are not a significant source!

And I mean show me the full worldwide data!

Don't show me the data from the small percentage of reported cases!

Even using the WHO numbers, reported cases 14,000 estimated cases over 59,000.

So the WHO by its own admission is basing it's conclusion on 23% of the data seeing it doesn't have 77% of the information!

So where is the 77% of the information?

You claim not cats but mostly dogs we'll get the data, show us the transmission vector of the 77% that the WHO admits it doesn't have!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

95% case in Asia and Africa and the WHO clearly say most are rarely reported.

Still not what is says in your quote

Again:

95% of human deaths occurring in Asia and Africa. However, rabies cases are rarely reported

Asia and Africa are described as the regions where there are more human deaths.

That rabies cases are rarely reported do NOT refer to these regions.

95% do NOT refer to the number of cases that are not reported.

That is still a clear misrepresentation of this single line of text with two different sentences, this completely invalidates your claim.

But even the WHO says at least 59,000 cases a year and that is based on pure speculation of anywhere from 25,000 to 159,000.

Epidemiological projections are not "pure especulation", they are made using validated scientific methods, and very importantly in concordance with whatever evidence is actually available.

The most important part is that all available information clearly, unequivocally says dogs are the domestic (able to be vaccinated) animal that most frequently transmit the infection to humans.

References that say cats are even a comparable source and therefore should be prioritized for vaccination as well? zero.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Show me the data cats are not a significant source!

You are the one making this claim (that they are a significant source) so you are the one that needs to support that claim. My claim is that there is no data to support this, so it can be ignored. Unless you consider equally important to vaccinate unicorns (since you will not be able to show the data unicorns are not a significant source!).

So the WHO by its own admission is basing it's conclusion on 23% of the data seeing it doesn't have 77% of the information!

23% of the cases (a worst case scenario) still congruent with the projections of burden and with the data of locations that report much more closely is infinitely better than no data at all supporting another claim.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

virusrex and Antiquesaving, please do not become obsessed with this topic. You're just going around in circles. Please take a break.

A significant sticking point (pun intended) is that the annual inoculation is excessive. The antibodies remain for several years (according to veterinary science), so an annual test would determine whether a booster is advised.

Annual inoculation does seem quite excessive, especially considering the absence of infection cases.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites