Do you like my use of Spanish in the title which some may have thought was a typo? No, I have decided to learn Spanish to possibly migrate to South America, when Australia collapses, and have learnt one word today. I know nothing about the place, but I like the southernmost area, Tierra del Fuego (“Land of Fire”), which I imagine will be at least warmer than Melbourne, and less windy. But, that raises a problem about what to do with my private zoo of pet tigers, especially now that the poor kitties could get AIDS, sorry, wrong pandemic, coronavirus:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/bronx-zoo-tiger-tests-positive-covid-19
“Last month, Dr. Fauci insisted at a White House task force press briefing that there was no evidence that pets were vulnerable to the novel coronavirus. Then scientists in Belgium and Hong Kong confirmed that they had found pet cats owned by people infected with the virus that had somehow caught it, as evidence was detected in their urine. At least pet dog has also been infected. As CNN so aptly points out, the "weak positives" produced in tests of these animals haven't offered any reason for scientists to suspect that these animals could infect humans - only that these pets could be infected by humans, as humans were once, in turn, infected by animals. No article that we've seen in the mainstream US press has offered a detailed explanation for the scientific community's reasoning in thinking that these tests suggest that pets can't infect humans. But while CNN and others have reveled in mocking alarmists who believed in this Internet 'conspiracy theory', they neglected to explain that there are two critical reasons for this: the first being that dogs and cats infected in past coronavirus outbreaks (namely, the SARS outbreak in 2002-2003) have shown that the strains they typically pick up don't cause respiratory problems. Have we confirmed the same is true for the novel coronavirus? No.
