Yeah but that's not vaccination. His cat's vet is upset he doesn't vaccinate the cat, so I think it's safe to say he's not avoiding the vet in general.
> A cat that no longer goes outside and occupants that don’t interact with other cats basically means the cat is under total isolation.
Which is not entirely true. Even indoor cats can get worms, and periodic deworming is part of preventative care as vaccinations. The fact that deworming vs vaccinations interact with the cat’s immune system differently is an implementation detail that is inconsequential to this discussion.
> so I think it's safe to say he's not avoiding the vet in general.
And I “can get” yellow fever if someone with it comes back to my neighbourhood, a mosquito bites them and then bites me. But it’s largely a waste of money for me to get vaccinated anyway.
Considering risk vs. cost of prevention seems to be lost when dealing with vets (whom also often lack strong evidence for their interventions).
If anything, it’s the humans in the household that could benefit from preventative de-worming, not the cat exclusively eating canned cat food.
> If anything, it’s the humans in the household that could benefit from preventative de-worming
If you have a habit of nibbling on the bugs and the flies that wander into your house like cats do, I think indeed you could benefit from deworming.
Besides, if yellow fever is carried as frequently as worms in your neighborhood, you should definitely get vaccinated.
Finally, your cost-benefit analysis is a strawman argument. OP thinks their cat is completely isolated, I posited that it is not. I am not saying they have to get treatment nor I am moralizing them not doing it. It is perfectly fine to take an educated risk, but that hinges on the education of what vectors are still available to your indoor cat.
To even take an educated risk, there would need to be a model of that risk. Fleas are an age-old problem. I simply reject that the risk is high enough if the best evidence for infection risk from vets is “it could happen” when the risk factors are so low.
I’ll consider anecdotes and case reports on a new unknown disease, but not for one that’s been around since antiquity. Or there was research indicating that the risk is low in these circumstances, but it’s suppressed because it’s not the narrative that the study sponsors want anyone to hear.
It happens in human research, I wouldn’t put it past vet research.