Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Frontiers in Public Health · November 4, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Rabies demonstrates both the value and the limitations of the One Health approach as a public-health framework. Although mass dog vaccination and timely post-exposure prophylaxis can prevent human deaths, surveillance frequently underestimates disease burden, while control programs may treat dogs primarily as reservoirs or population denominators. Drawing together natural science, history, and anthropology, and narrating a remembered encounter with a rabid community dog named Lucky, this commentary examines what that framing overlooks. Epidemiology identifies transmission pathways and surveillance gaps; history reveals how ownership and administrative categories allocate responsibility; and anthropology shows how care, fear, and contested belonging influence reporting and cooperation. We argue that effective rabies control requires more than vaccination targets. Success should include zero human deaths, reduced canine rabies, equitable access to post-exposure prophylaxis, stronger surveillance, humane animal management, and public trust.