A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » Africa
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Injections for Kenya?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 1st, 2004, 11:57 AM
Hans-Georg Michna
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:30:08 GMT,
(claudel) wrote:

http://www.cdc.gov/travel/

Claude,

good web site, but of course it issues blanket recommendations.

A tourist spending only a few weeks in selected areas doesn't
need most of them. They are also not required.

The big exception is malaria.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.
  #12  
Old December 1st, 2004, 11:57 AM
Hans-Georg Michna
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:14:00 +0200, "Justin Miles"
wrote:

Definetely you require a valid yellow fever certifcate


Justin,

you definitely do not need any yellow fever certificate when you
visit Kenya.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.
  #13  
Old December 1st, 2004, 06:42 PM
claudel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:30:08 GMT,
(claudel) wrote:

http://www.cdc.gov/travel/

Claude,

good web site, but of course it issues blanket recommendations.

A tourist spending only a few weeks in selected areas doesn't
need most of them. They are also not required.

The big exception is malaria.


Perhaps some of the immunizations are not required, but
personally I'd rather get an extra shot or two and not
be one of those on the sad end of the statistics...


Claude
  #14  
Old December 2nd, 2004, 03:36 PM
Hans-Georg Michna
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 17:42:40 GMT,
(claudel) wrote:

In article ,
Hans-Georg Michna wrote:


On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:30:08 GMT,

(claudel) wrote:


http://www.cdc.gov/travel/

good web site, but of course it issues blanket recommendations.

A tourist spending only a few weeks in selected areas doesn't
need most of them. They are also not required.

The big exception is malaria.


Perhaps some of the immunizations are not required, but
personally I'd rather get an extra shot or two and not
be one of those on the sad end of the statistics...


Claude,

if only it were that simple. The problem is that the injection
has its own side effects. A few people die from inoculations.
Taking a few extra shots doesn't necessarily put you on the safe
side. Also, they cost money that you could spend on other things
that increase your likely lifespan.

Another problem is a mathematical one. It is always difficult to
treat very small risks properly, and people tend to be unable to
deal with them (so they play the lottery, for example).

To give an example, you pay money for a shot that decreases your
one-in-a-billion chance to die from yellow fever during your
two-week vacation. Then you cross the street in Nairobi and
incur a one-in-a-million (a thousand times higher) risk to get
run over by a car (particularly because the cars come from the
wrong side, but that's another matter). If you spent that same
money on a local guide, it might be vastly more effective in
decreasing your total small risk of premature death.

Even spending the same amount of money on reducing the residual
malaria risk further may be more efficient, for example by
selecting and buying the most efficient insect repellant (which
would reduce your yellow fever risk at the same time, by the
way).

In short, the yellow fever shot may not be the most
cost-efficient way to prolong your life.

I will only mention on the side that you could probably save the
live of a sick African child by spending that same money on him,
rather than on yourself.

Hans-Georg

--
No mail, please.
  #15  
Old December 2nd, 2004, 06:11 PM
Marc Lurie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hans-Georg,

That's an intersting angle to look at the situation, and I can
certainly see where you are comming from.

Because I work in those areas, and the chances of being bitten by a
dog, rat, mongoose, bat etc. are pretty high, I have made sure that I
was vaccinated against rabies because I know that rabies is incurable
once the symptoms present, and I also know that I won't trust my life
to a potentially dodgy east African doctor with potentially dodgy
generic Indiam medicines.

The shots were (are) expensive, but I weighed it up and figured they
were well worth it.

You're quite right about a good insect repellant - worth much more
than all the tablets.

You're also right about getting run over in Nairobi :-)

Marc

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:36:25 +0100, Hans-Georg Michna
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 17:42:40 GMT,
(claudel) wrote:

In article ,
Hans-Georg Michna wrote:


On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:30:08 GMT,

(claudel) wrote:


http://www.cdc.gov/travel/

good web site, but of course it issues blanket recommendations.

A tourist spending only a few weeks in selected areas doesn't
need most of them. They are also not required.

The big exception is malaria.


Perhaps some of the immunizations are not required, but
personally I'd rather get an extra shot or two and not
be one of those on the sad end of the statistics...


Claude,

if only it were that simple. The problem is that the injection
has its own side effects. A few people die from inoculations.
Taking a few extra shots doesn't necessarily put you on the safe
side. Also, they cost money that you could spend on other things
that increase your likely lifespan.

Another problem is a mathematical one. It is always difficult to
treat very small risks properly, and people tend to be unable to
deal with them (so they play the lottery, for example).

To give an example, you pay money for a shot that decreases your
one-in-a-billion chance to die from yellow fever during your
two-week vacation. Then you cross the street in Nairobi and
incur a one-in-a-million (a thousand times higher) risk to get
run over by a car (particularly because the cars come from the
wrong side, but that's another matter). If you spent that same
money on a local guide, it might be vastly more effective in
decreasing your total small risk of premature death.

Even spending the same amount of money on reducing the residual
malaria risk further may be more efficient, for example by
selecting and buying the most efficient insect repellant (which
would reduce your yellow fever risk at the same time, by the
way).

In short, the yellow fever shot may not be the most
cost-efficient way to prolong your life.

I will only mention on the side that you could probably save the
live of a sick African child by spending that same money on him,
rather than on yourself.

Hans-Georg


  #16  
Old December 2nd, 2004, 06:11 PM
Marc Lurie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hans-Georg,

That's an intersting angle to look at the situation, and I can
certainly see where you are comming from.

Because I work in those areas, and the chances of being bitten by a
dog, rat, mongoose, bat etc. are pretty high, I have made sure that I
was vaccinated against rabies because I know that rabies is incurable
once the symptoms present, and I also know that I won't trust my life
to a potentially dodgy east African doctor with potentially dodgy
generic Indiam medicines.

The shots were (are) expensive, but I weighed it up and figured they
were well worth it.

You're quite right about a good insect repellant - worth much more
than all the tablets.

You're also right about getting run over in Nairobi :-)

Marc

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:36:25 +0100, Hans-Georg Michna
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 17:42:40 GMT,
(claudel) wrote:

In article ,
Hans-Georg Michna wrote:


On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:30:08 GMT,

(claudel) wrote:


http://www.cdc.gov/travel/

good web site, but of course it issues blanket recommendations.

A tourist spending only a few weeks in selected areas doesn't
need most of them. They are also not required.

The big exception is malaria.


Perhaps some of the immunizations are not required, but
personally I'd rather get an extra shot or two and not
be one of those on the sad end of the statistics...


Claude,

if only it were that simple. The problem is that the injection
has its own side effects. A few people die from inoculations.
Taking a few extra shots doesn't necessarily put you on the safe
side. Also, they cost money that you could spend on other things
that increase your likely lifespan.

Another problem is a mathematical one. It is always difficult to
treat very small risks properly, and people tend to be unable to
deal with them (so they play the lottery, for example).

To give an example, you pay money for a shot that decreases your
one-in-a-billion chance to die from yellow fever during your
two-week vacation. Then you cross the street in Nairobi and
incur a one-in-a-million (a thousand times higher) risk to get
run over by a car (particularly because the cars come from the
wrong side, but that's another matter). If you spent that same
money on a local guide, it might be vastly more effective in
decreasing your total small risk of premature death.

Even spending the same amount of money on reducing the residual
malaria risk further may be more efficient, for example by
selecting and buying the most efficient insect repellant (which
would reduce your yellow fever risk at the same time, by the
way).

In short, the yellow fever shot may not be the most
cost-efficient way to prolong your life.

I will only mention on the side that you could probably save the
live of a sick African child by spending that same money on him,
rather than on yourself.

Hans-Georg


  #17  
Old December 2nd, 2004, 06:55 PM
claudel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 17:42:40 GMT,
(claudel) wrote:

In article ,
Hans-Georg Michna wrote:


On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:30:08 GMT,

(claudel) wrote:


http://www.cdc.gov/travel/

good web site, but of course it issues blanket recommendations.

A tourist spending only a few weeks in selected areas doesn't
need most of them. They are also not required.

The big exception is malaria.


Perhaps some of the immunizations are not required, but
personally I'd rather get an extra shot or two and not
be one of those on the sad end of the statistics...


Claude,

if only it were that simple. The problem is that the injection
has its own side effects. A few people die from inoculations.
Taking a few extra shots doesn't necessarily put you on the safe
side. Also, they cost money that you could spend on other things
that increase your likely lifespan.


Everything in life is a risk. One runs a higher risk of being
killed in traffic in almost any village/town/city in the world
than having an adverse reaction to most modern vaccines. A competent
physician can help inassessing any specific risks to an individual.
In many cases, such as mine, existing medical insurance covers
prophlyactic vaccinations at no additional charge. YMMV


Another problem is a mathematical one. It is always difficult to
treat very small risks properly, and people tend to be unable to
deal with them (so they play the lottery, for example).

To give an example, you pay money for a shot that decreases your
one-in-a-billion chance to die from yellow fever during your
two-week vacation. Then you cross the street in Nairobi and
incur a one-in-a-million (a thousand times higher) risk to get
run over by a car (particularly because the cars come from the
wrong side, but that's another matter). If you spent that same
money on a local guide, it might be vastly more effective in
decreasing your total small risk of premature death.


The two possibilities you mention have no connection.
Having a complete set of vaccinations does not preclude hiring
a competent guide. If one's finances are so dodgy that this type
of tradeoff is necessary than somebody should stay home until
their finances improve.


Even spending the same amount of money on reducing the residual
malaria risk further may be more efficient, for example by
selecting and buying the most efficient insect repellant (which
would reduce your yellow fever risk at the same time, by the
way).

In short, the yellow fever shot may not be the most
cost-efficient way to prolong your life.


Maybe not, but having that shot should not impede other sensible
precautions, especially involving more likely possibilities
such as contracting malaria.


I will only mention on the side that you could probably save the
live of a sick African child by spending that same money on him,
rather than on yourself.


Well, of course. That statement would possibly be true regarding a
large percentage of the activities of Westerners. I'm not sure how
it is relevant in the bounds of this discussion of appropriate
vaccinations for tourists.


Claude


  #18  
Old December 2nd, 2004, 06:55 PM
claudel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Hans-Georg Michna wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 17:42:40 GMT,
(claudel) wrote:

In article ,
Hans-Georg Michna wrote:


On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 01:30:08 GMT,

(claudel) wrote:


http://www.cdc.gov/travel/

good web site, but of course it issues blanket recommendations.

A tourist spending only a few weeks in selected areas doesn't
need most of them. They are also not required.

The big exception is malaria.


Perhaps some of the immunizations are not required, but
personally I'd rather get an extra shot or two and not
be one of those on the sad end of the statistics...


Claude,

if only it were that simple. The problem is that the injection
has its own side effects. A few people die from inoculations.
Taking a few extra shots doesn't necessarily put you on the safe
side. Also, they cost money that you could spend on other things
that increase your likely lifespan.


Everything in life is a risk. One runs a higher risk of being
killed in traffic in almost any village/town/city in the world
than having an adverse reaction to most modern vaccines. A competent
physician can help inassessing any specific risks to an individual.
In many cases, such as mine, existing medical insurance covers
prophlyactic vaccinations at no additional charge. YMMV


Another problem is a mathematical one. It is always difficult to
treat very small risks properly, and people tend to be unable to
deal with them (so they play the lottery, for example).

To give an example, you pay money for a shot that decreases your
one-in-a-billion chance to die from yellow fever during your
two-week vacation. Then you cross the street in Nairobi and
incur a one-in-a-million (a thousand times higher) risk to get
run over by a car (particularly because the cars come from the
wrong side, but that's another matter). If you spent that same
money on a local guide, it might be vastly more effective in
decreasing your total small risk of premature death.


The two possibilities you mention have no connection.
Having a complete set of vaccinations does not preclude hiring
a competent guide. If one's finances are so dodgy that this type
of tradeoff is necessary than somebody should stay home until
their finances improve.


Even spending the same amount of money on reducing the residual
malaria risk further may be more efficient, for example by
selecting and buying the most efficient insect repellant (which
would reduce your yellow fever risk at the same time, by the
way).

In short, the yellow fever shot may not be the most
cost-efficient way to prolong your life.


Maybe not, but having that shot should not impede other sensible
precautions, especially involving more likely possibilities
such as contracting malaria.


I will only mention on the side that you could probably save the
live of a sick African child by spending that same money on him,
rather than on yourself.


Well, of course. That statement would possibly be true regarding a
large percentage of the activities of Westerners. I'm not sure how
it is relevant in the bounds of this discussion of appropriate
vaccinations for tourists.


Claude


  #19  
Old December 2nd, 2004, 07:04 PM
claudel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Marc Lurie wrote:
Hans-Georg,

That's an intersting angle to look at the situation, and I can
certainly see where you are comming from.

Because I work in those areas, and the chances of being bitten by a
dog, rat, mongoose, bat etc. are pretty high, I have made sure that I
was vaccinated against rabies because I know that rabies is incurable
once the symptoms present, and I also know that I won't trust my life
to a potentially dodgy east African doctor with potentially dodgy
generic Indiam medicines.


Even in "civilized" areas the treatment for rabies after exposure
in no fun. A friend of mine and her children had to undergo it
after their dog got into a disagreement with a rabid raccoon.
The low competence of the local health authorities didn't help.

1st bureaucrat: It's dead? Put it in a plastic bag and freeze it.

2nd bureaucrat: You touched it? You weren't supposed to do that.

At least the current series of shots is fewer than it used to be
and no one got sick.

My doc recommended that I skip the rabies vaccination because
of the low possibility of contact since I don't work with animals.


The shots were (are) expensive, but I weighed it up and figured they
were well worth it.


I'd do/pay just about anything to avoid post-exposure rabies
treatment.


You're quite right about a good insect repellant - worth much more
than all the tablets.


Yep. Relatively inexpensive as well.


Claude

snip
  #20  
Old December 2nd, 2004, 07:04 PM
claudel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Marc Lurie wrote:
Hans-Georg,

That's an intersting angle to look at the situation, and I can
certainly see where you are comming from.

Because I work in those areas, and the chances of being bitten by a
dog, rat, mongoose, bat etc. are pretty high, I have made sure that I
was vaccinated against rabies because I know that rabies is incurable
once the symptoms present, and I also know that I won't trust my life
to a potentially dodgy east African doctor with potentially dodgy
generic Indiam medicines.


Even in "civilized" areas the treatment for rabies after exposure
in no fun. A friend of mine and her children had to undergo it
after their dog got into a disagreement with a rabid raccoon.
The low competence of the local health authorities didn't help.

1st bureaucrat: It's dead? Put it in a plastic bag and freeze it.

2nd bureaucrat: You touched it? You weren't supposed to do that.

At least the current series of shots is fewer than it used to be
and no one got sick.

My doc recommended that I skip the rabies vaccination because
of the low possibility of contact since I don't work with animals.


The shots were (are) expensive, but I weighed it up and figured they
were well worth it.


I'd do/pay just about anything to avoid post-exposure rabies
treatment.


You're quite right about a good insect repellant - worth much more
than all the tablets.


Yep. Relatively inexpensive as well.


Claude

snip
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Injections for Kenya? Bobby Africa 12 November 4th, 2004 06:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.