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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Injections for Kenya? | Bobby | Africa | 12 | November 4th, 2004 05:11 PM |