How Many Of You Get Vaccinations For Travel To Thailand?...

[isawasnake]

I am fully up to date with all my shots. I guess it's better to be safe than sorry.

or dead (rabies; liver cancer as a sequel to Hep

or chronically ill (Hep

or brain damaged (JE).........

Reverting to the "I didn't get any shots and have lived here for years and am just fine" posters, these vaccinations aren't recommended because everyone who doesn't get them -- or even a large proportion of people who don't get them -- are bound to get the disease.

They are recommended because even though only a minority of unvaccinated people will get the disease, the consequences of those diseases are very dire and statistically speaking, the risks of being unvaccinated far outweigh the risks associated with the vaccines. at least for most people. (People with special conditions affecting the immune system need to seek individualized advice).

It's the same principle as using a seat belt. The fact that people can get in their cars and drive and be just fine doesn't mean seat belts don't work or are unnecessary, it only means that most of the time one is not in an accident. When you are, the seat belt can be life saving. And since it entails very little inconvenience or cost, why take the unnecessary risk, especially given the potential downsides of not using one (death, paralysis, brain damage..)?

I seriously feel like puking when I read stuff like this; obviously intelligent people just not getting it and spreading deleterious philosophies. You call it "very little inconvenience", others would call that freedom. VERY VERY costly and inconvenient doesn't even begin to describe what losing freedoms means. I wonder how much "inconvenience" it would cost if you stopped people from climbing dangerous mountains, or scuba diving into deep caves. Not much right? Only a few people do that, or at least some would say. Why on earth do you get to decide what "very little inconvenience" is for other people? Answer that in some way, and perhaps you have a nascent and half valid argument at that point.

Edited March 13, 2013 by isawasnake

[Sheryl]

I am not deciding for other people. I am presenting a viewpoint and information for other people to consider.

We all take calculated risks based on weighing them against benefits.

But sometimes (and this thread seems to include examples) people miscalculate the risks or do not understand them.

[cooked]

I am fully up to date with all my shots. I guess it's better to be safe than sorry.

or dead (rabies; liver cancer as a sequel to Hep

or chronically ill (Hep

or brain damaged (JE).........

Reverting to the "I didn't get any shots and have lived here for years and am just fine" posters, these vaccinations aren't recommended because everyone who doesn't get them -- or even a large proportion of people who don't get them -- are bound to get the disease.

They are recommended because even though only a minority of unvaccinated people will get the disease, the consequences of those diseases are very dire and statistically speaking, the risks of being unvaccinated far outweigh the risks associated with the vaccines. at least for most people. (People with special conditions affecting the immune system need to seek individualized advice).

It's the same principle as using a seat belt. The fact that people can get in their cars and drive and be just fine doesn't mean seat belts don't work or are unnecessary, it only means that most of the time one is not in an accident. When you are, the seat belt can be life saving. And since it entails very little inconvenience or cost, why take the unnecessary risk, especially given the potential downsides of not using one (death, paralysis, brain damage..)?

I seriously feel like puking when I read stuff like this; obviously intelligent people just not getting it and spreading deleterious philosophies. You call it "very little inconvenience", others would call that freedom. VERY VERY costly and inconvenient doesn't even begin to describe what losing freedoms means. I wonder how much "inconvenience" it would cost if you stopped people from climbing dangerous mountains, or scuba diving into deep caves. Not much right? Only a few people do that, or at least some would say. Why on earth do you get to decide what "very little inconvenience" is for other people? Answer that in some way, and perhaps you have a nascent and half valid argument at that point.

well, you make me feel like puking also. Your freedom costs lives and money. A religious sect in Switzerland decided that it was unethical to take shots and we had the first outbreak (measles) for many years. One little girl died. Climbing mountains only endangers yourself (you ever done that? I don't think so..Yes? Teamwork, remember?). Refusing to reduce the chances of you yourself catching a disease is indeed your affair. Having caught something because you believe in freedom of infection with filthy diseases increases the risk of other people around you catching something disgusting also.

I think that you are afraid of needles.

[krisb]

Good girl, seems us guys are quite complacent.

[bangkokburning]

Would be good to have both hep a and b, tetnus, polio booster. Cheap insurance for zerious diseases.