this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
548 points (97.4% liked)

World News

39082 readers
3486 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

A baby red panda named Roxie at the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland died from “stress caused by fireworks” after choking on her vomit, just days after her mother’s sudden death.

The incident, occurring around the U.K.’s Bonfire Night celebrations, has led to renewed calls for stricter fireworks regulations.

A petition with over a million signatures urging restrictions on public fireworks sales was submitted to the U.K. government.

Edinburgh recently implemented limited fireworks control zones, but animal welfare advocates argue for broader measures to prevent similar tragedies.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Modern_medicine_isnt 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

And no medical professional has ever been found to be biased in their opinion. And no reporter ever misrepresented what someone said to make a more sensational article. Stress is not a well understood thing. There is no test for confirming the source of stress. And the vets aren't saying their is. Did the fireworks contribute, sure I would trust a vet who says that, and it was probably what they actually said. But a babies Mom dieing, and not being there to comfort the baby from the stress of fireworks is probably a bigger contributor. Also read a little further down where the expert says we can't rule out fireworks as the cause. That is totally different. Seems like the vets don't agree.

[–] iAvicenna 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

right and random strangers on the internet are completely unbiased and generally reasonable? It does not give one enough reason to completely disregard experts'opinions. vets are saying that it probably is a contributing factor whereas people in this thread are claiming that it is the zoo who is trying to cover up for bad conditions and negligence in the zoo. tell me which one sounds more reasonable?

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Neither one has to be correct. One experts opinion is that they couldn't rule it out. That sounds reasonable. I do think that the zoo bares some responsibility for bringing such a fragile species into a city. Zoo's do a lot of good too. But they knew there would be fireworks. Where were they? Why wasn't someone there to take the baby to it's enclosure. Or sedate it during the fireworks. People do more for their adult dogs than the zoo did for this baby. I don’t think it's a cover up or anything. They have lot's of experts. They quoted the one that said the most sensational thing. I am not saying disregard the experts, I am saying a hand picked (by people with an agenda) sample size of one is not evidence of anything. I am willing to bet if you took a poll of all of the experts at that zoo, you would get a much less confident opinion, more like the "can't rule it out" than the "fireworks killed the baby" person.

[–] iAvicenna 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

People do more for their adult dogs than the zoo did for this baby

The fact of the matter is that you or I don't really have any information what the zoo did for this baby or did not. Most everything in this topic is pure speculation and has to do with more how people see the world through their eyes than any evidence or fact. The only piece of evidence we have is what the vet experts have said. Anything else is a huge "maybe".

One experts opinion is that they couldn’t rule it out

That is a much stronger statement that, "fireworks was probably not the cause of this". They could also have just gone with "stress due to loss of the mother" easily and no one would really think twice about it. But they did choose to make this statement. Experienced vet surgeons/nurses etc who have had the opportunity to experience how animals behave under these conditions many many times. Also mind you this one way the news has been reported, I have seen multiple instance where the wording is more stronger such as:

"Very sadly, she choked on her vomit on Bonfire Night and our vets believe this was probably a reaction to fireworks,” said Ben Supple, RZSS’s deputy chief executive. Roxie had access to her den but the frightening noises seem to have been too much for her. We are also concerned that fireworks cause stress to other animals in the zoo.”

I have seen remarks in this topic ranging from "their vets are just the zookepers" to "animals don't vomit because of fireworks". It is just ridiculous. Even these vet experts have not made their statements in such certainty as the people in this topic.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt 1 points 4 days ago

"But they did choose to make this statement" they answered a question honestly. They didn't choose the question. And I agree we don't know what the vets are actually saying. We know only what the media reports. Which is my point. People are putting words into the vets mouths that maybe one vet might say, but others clearly disagree with. The article doesn't represent the vets (collective) point of view. So anyone saying the vets are wrong is mistaken because they don't even know what the vets really think. And similar for saying the vets are right.