I looked at the CDC website before posting Aunt. It says the only indication for treatment is a bite or a scratch from species known to carry rabies. It doesn’t say anything about testing for mere exposure.
I guess I see the counterpoints.
It’s a kid. The duration of the exposure is unknown. Whether there was any contact is unknown. Bat. Bites or scratches can be invisible. Bires or scratches could be mistaken.
What’s the scuttlebutt here, your saying in this situation to test the kid or administer a vaccine?
I’m certain the medical staff 's determination of The credibility of a fact attested to by a child is not a factor.
We’re also assuming this kid isn’t a straight up victim of healthcare inequality. The article is light on details. Perhaps the parents considered this, searched the web, searched for bites or scratches, and the cost of seeking care felt too great for this family? I didn’t catch if this happened in a civilized nation with universal health.
Fuck, this story is terrifying. Reminds me in some ways of when a kid dies in a hot car.
"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes: Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are “clearly” excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of: (a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury; (b) the anticipated military advantage; © and whether (a) was “clearly excessive” in relation to (b)."
— Luis Moreno-Ocampo.
Emphasis my own.
The pagers were
Aside, a strike aimed directly at the means by which attacks are carried out, upon a military target, meant to disrupt the enemy’s ability to carry out further attacks is the gold standard of proportionate, so scratch that box.
Edit: sorry I leaped over your question into a different answer. It’s kind of because the concept of discrimination is built into distinction and proportionality, which are codified, as cited above in the Chief Prosecutor’s letter. At the link is like a restatement definition or like common law definition of indiscriminate though it doesn’t have any kind of force of law itself, but see the section labeled Interpretation, toward the bottom, and it explains how ICRC arrived at a definition and it’s relation to these other concepts.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12