I think you need to go out to different restaurants, or stop eating out. Alternative: buy your food to-go and eat at home, where you can enforce your own hygiene standards.
People in the US spend more money on dogs (some 4 billion $) than 100 countries have a yearly budget. (Consider that there are only about 190 countries total on this world).
Consider also that the pet industry has come up with plastic testicles for dogs who’ve been sterilized. Really, it’s a weird world, but somebody is making money, so all is well, right?
Are you guys seriously arguing that a random sample of baby shit is statistically more dangerous to another human than a random sample of dog shit? (within the reasonable scope of finding it smeared on a restaurant table in North America)
I mean, there HAVE been cites–as I read it the baby’s shit is more likely to have viable parasites that are in a state where they can actually be transmitted to other humans.
There have been cites aplenty, but I’m struggling to see the relevant ones - for example (of hookworm) “up to 30% of all children become infected at one point in their lives” - yes, but what proportion of children will be infected while they are still in diapers?
Seems to me who’s more likely to give parasites is missing the point. Unless for babies its like 1 in 10 and for dogs its like 1 in million (or visa versa). If there is some small but not absurdly small chance of transmitting something nasty then it shouldn’t be on the table IMO regardless of what it is.
I agree, however, the claim that baby shit is a bigger risk than dig shit (within the scope of restaurant tables, etc) is an interesting one that a)doesn’t sound right and b)appears so far dubiously supported.
Don’t know why this is so baffling to you. Same species infection is simply generally more likely than cross species. As said upthread, that’s Epidemiology 101. No one is saying you should go chow down on a dogshit sandwich because it’s good for you.
Nothing is baffling me save for the absurd behaviour in this thread. Yes. Same species infection is easier, but how likely is it that a babe in arms is carrying something that can infect you, compared to a dog?
Considering the dog is one of those little pampered purse dogs in a sweater, and probably gets top of the line medical care, regular worming, and frequent baths, and that the baby being changed on a table is presumably owned by the dumbest, rudest human examples around… I’m going to say the human baby is worse. But the chances of either making you sick are pretty fucking low.
People- keep all animal asses off eating surfaces. It is yucky.
Of course not. It’s a fraction of a percent. But if you compare it to the likelihood of a dog carrying it, which is well, zero, you might start to get the concept.
Im going to assume you can’t, but for other diseases, you can. You can only compare the relative risks if you take into account all the factors. Yes, humans catch diseases more readily from other humans, in general, than they do from dogs. But how many babies have hepatitis, compared to.the proportion of dogs that have some other disease.that they can transfer to.humans?
You’re making dishonest comparisons. My question.is not whether you are more or less likely to catch the same diseases from dogs or human babies, but rather, is the overall risk of transferable diseases greater in dog or human baby shit.