Letters | Why Hong Kong’s hamster cull isn’t the best choice from a veterinary perspective
- Readers discuss veterinary opposition to the government’s decision to cull hamsters, the cruelty of killing healthy pets, and what policies must be in place before Hong Kong can conduct mass testing
In the two years of the pandemic, there is one proven case series on the transmission of Sars-CoV-2 from animals to humans on mink farms in the Netherlands. According to the World Organisation for Animal Health: “Evidence from risk assessments, epidemiological investigations and experimental studies indicate that animals do not play a significant role in the spread of Sars-CoV-2, which is sustained by human-to-human transmission.”
Exotic companion mammals, especially hamsters, already suffer from a public perception of being merely children’s pets or pets that are cared for less than other companion animals such as dogs and cats. This could not be further from the truth, especially in Hong Kong where hamsters are a common and beloved household pet given their small size and often playful nature.
Based on current scientific evidence, hamsters might test positive for about two weeks but only shed the virus to other hamsters for around one week. For hamsters already in homes, the risk is significantly reduced if they have been home and are healthy for more than one week. Could quarantine for a minimum of two weeks and repeated testing be considered for these cases?
03:39
Thousands volunteer to adopt unwanted hamsters in Hong Kong’s cull order
There are precedents in this regard as previous cases of positive animals in Hong Kong were kept in quarantine with the AFCD and not immediately euthanised. The information gained from quarantine, testing and monitoring also offers the possibility to study the route of transmission and guide further policies related to Sars-CoV-2 cases in animals.