Well, i did, because it had never occurred to me it was a significant risk. And looking at the info from the state of New Hampshire, i don’t think rabies-from-bats was ever much of an issue there.
NH says that if you weren’t asleep or drunk in the room with the bat, and if it didn’t contact you, it’s not worth getting rabies shots. But if you woke up to find a bat in the room, you were passed out, or a child or mentally incompetent person was alone with a bat, the person should get the shots.
Treat enough ultra low risk people (which could result from everyone who’s been in a room with a bat coming in for treatment), and at some point the risk of death from treatment (extremely rare) could exceed the risk dying from rabies.
You’re suggesting the OP should use this in weighing whether he wants to risk dying of rabies when there’s a vaccine available???
And it’s a very unpleasant treatment. And takes a lot of time to complete.
It’s worth it for even a small risk of rabies, but it’s really not worth it for an infinitesimal risk of rabies.
I specifically mean @solost here.
Soloist was awake and sober throughout his interaction with the bat. If he’s certain he didn’t touch it, he probably doesn’t need treatment. If he’s even a little uncertain about that, he should get the vaccine.
I gotta say, i don’t understand why pets can get a single shot every five years, and it’s not a big deal, while people need a series unpleasant shots. But i observe that’s the standard.
He can’t be sure there was no contact. He didn’t see the bat enter the room. He didn’t have an eye on it the whole time.
(Bolding mine)
All he knows is that he didn’t notice any contact. There was opportunity. Remember that people who have died of rabies never felt any contact.
Yet you seem to be urging him to not get shots.
He can’t be certain the bat didn’t touch him.
No, health professionals and institutions like the CDC and other Public Health experts work together to decide risk vs. benefit when they’re considering treating or not treating hundreds of thousands of people over decades. What’s a reasonably necessary treatment for high, medium, low and very low probability of disease becomes an unnecessary treatment for the very very ultra low risk folks. Then they inform doctors, other health professionals, and folks in general just who they consider the people at risk enough to really need the treatment vs. those who aren’t truly at a significant risk.
@Qadgop_the_Mercotan , thank you very much for passing along the CDC guidelines, and for your personal bat stories. I’m surprised that treatment for rabies carries more status in your social circles than treatment for Lyme disease 
I noticed I posted a story in one of your bat posts about a time long ago when I did wake up to find a bat in our bedroom. And then a second bat in the house! Back then I didn’t have a message board like the SDMB to advise me. Fortunately we were fine.
@needscoffee , I truly appreciate your concern, but I was awake and sober when the bat appeared, and I’m confident I had no direct contact with it. I don’t think I will get rabies shots, and my decision is based on my personal judgement of my risk based on the CDC guidelines, not directly from any advice I’ve been given here.
Both the NH and the Canadian information i posted are untainted by the new CDC. And both say that by modern standards, i should have been vaccinated after spending a week sleeping in a cabin bats roost in. (NH is pretty clear on acknowledging that it was normal to ignore that kind of exposure when i was ignoring it, too. I think historically, there must not have been a lot of rabies among NH bats.)
Thank you for the info you posted and you personal anecdotes as well, puzzlegal.
Actually, the NH web page isn’t that interesting The attached pdf about bats and rabies is very good, though, and explains clearly why there is special concern for bats.
Thanks again to all who posted here for your advice, info and concern. It’s another reminder (not that I need one) why I love this place so much.