Vaccinations

Culley - if you can't afford the vaccines, you can't afford to travel.

Minimum:

Tetanus / Diphtheria / Pertussis

Typhoid

Hep A

Hep B

Polio if you don't have lifetime cover

Influenza


To think about: Rabies

Depending: Cholera; Japanese Encephalitis; anti-malarials

I can see why one might think that. It might still be cheaper to provide immunization than to treat the disease.

I don't recall ever getting anti-malarials free from UK, but my experience only goes back about 16 or 17 years. I've never been to a yellow-fever area.

In this sort of conversation, one should bear in mind the actual meaning of "given," "free," etc. So far as anything that I may have got, or may yet get (including a pension) from the British welfare state is concerned, I suspect has all been paid for . We have become so used to blatant lies, like, "this cell-phone plan includes 200 free calls." Free bollocks: 200 calls are included in the cost. But it wasn't the phone marketing people who first thought of this, it was the politicians, who can take what we have paid for, and say, "why should you get this free?" Free bollocks!

It is kind of like Nick says.

I often feel a little uncomfortable advising people to just stop whining and get their jabs, since in the Netherlands where I live much of it is "free," i.e., covered by our national health insurance. I think down to anti-malarials, indeed, or these perhaps partly covered; although some jabs wouldn't be, but the essential ones are. So maybe it's easy for me to say.

Surely one hears of these many places where it is very costly, and then where some vaccinations appear to be almost pushed on you that have me wonder if they are all that essential, so making it even costlier. So it's easy to see how this would entice people to start playing around with it; not a welcome situation, you'd think.

Now regarding the "free"-ness over here, this national health package isn't even optional, it's mandatory. (I guess the logic being indeed that not having it you'll be a liable burden on society. Makes sense if you think about it, doesn't it. It was also originally introduced to relieve the poor and including the working classes of course who were dying in the streets and in their festering and overcrowded homes -- hence y'r social housing plans. The rents for which were originally intended to be never more than I think 1/10th of one's income, btw. Ha! -- of cholera and tuberculosis and what have you, perhaps say a century ago. Much of this stuff was developed in the earlier decades of the 1900's, and you don't wanna know how much of Western Europe lived before it, and until well after WWII. Our current affluence, fickle though it may be,* is really relatively quite new. And I'm sure e.g. NYCank knows this stuff, I'm not addressing you personally. It was of course also not very handy to have your newly required industrial workforce dying like flies.)

* There's much talk here of what is now termed "hidden poverty." Well, sorry, I don't find it so hidden.

This national insurance scheme applies to people below a certain income level, let's say up to and including what the average John or Jane Doe here would make. Above that, you have to cover your own ass, of course (though probably still mandatory). I am somehow even forced to have the "full" package, lest I miss some other things. (This then again gets sponsored by the state, but you're still paying more than if you had the minimum package. You still following?) It includes world travel health insurance, so that's handy, though I'm not sure but think even the minimum package would, these days. Could be that covers only Europe or something. (Not to mention how below a certain income you're not gonna be doing much world or even European travel, in the first place.) Also, an "own risk" has been introduced and keeps increasing, so the first few hundred Euros a year you're gonna be paying for yourself, making it a lot less "free" if you don't generally have to see a doctor too often. I mean if like the average person you don't, these days you are in fact paying for your own medical costs (perhaps somewhat subsidized), expensive insurance or not. (Then dental care comes under its own bracket, making anything more than a cavity practically impossible to have if you can't afford to. Sure, let's have a nation of people having their teeth rotting away.)

The costs of it have been going through the roof over the past decade or so, and they keep doing so on a yearly basis. (Opened up to healthy free market workings and you know the drill.) It is really a substantial percentage of your income nowadays. You don't notice it so much, since of course it gets detracted before you ever get to see it. But it is in fact absurd. So much for that "welfare" state. Still, it beats some other "developed" nations one hears of no doubt where even good working people go through life uninsured by default, now waiting for that bus to hit them. I ain't complaining, or not in that respect, anyway.

And of course Nick is also right in saying that if you don't combat costs at the one end, you're gonna end up paying for them at the other. You don't think that welfare state is all socialist hoochie-coochieness, do you; any original notions of solidarity aside, it makes economic sense (at least from that particular economic perspective). Force people to a life of poverty and crime and mental and physical suffering, and society will pay for it. (What does the US penitentiary system, privatized and all as it is, alone cost?) It just makes sense to have people not walking around carrying hepatitis and stuff, which btw has become a real health concern in the West over the past decade or two or so, you don't need to go abroad for it.

It struck me btw how all I said above might precisely fuel the fire of those who e.g. in the USA oppose the long-awaited introduction of something like a national health package. (Help! It's this evil wannabe socialist federal regime trying to rule my affairs!)

May I make it very clear here that is not what I am opposing; rather, I'm all for it, what gets to me is the way these provisions and over here are being eradicated as we speak. Like Nick said, we paid for it in the first place, all of us and each according to their own means, or what is that splendid phrase; and indeed, under a social contract of mutual solidarity. Now the one party, i.e., the powers that be, unilaterally breaks off that contract. You'd be dragging anyone to court over it, wouldn't you.

You know, I really am not complaining about myself and I've made my own life decisions and try to follow up on them; but think of all those many perfectly decent citizens who did nothing but slave away for the common good for all their lives, now being told their pension isn't worth half of what it ought to be. (And that of course and indeed they paid for for all of that working life, and were obliged to, and under a very strict mutual contract.) Because society is "graying," no less (as if it's their fault for getting freaking old, as indeed current medicine allows us to, and not having like two dozens of kids we found ever-so modern and progressive, too, and it arguably might help combat the world-wide and unmanageable population explosion, don't you think?) Would you accept this of any bank or insurance company? I mean #$%. I'm looking for burning barricades manned by the elderly, certainly. Word has it it's already happening in some parts. Think again about y'r Greek and Spanish "rioters" and stuff. Grrr.

Then of course modern "flex" workers and, oh, please, dont even get me started.

--> The Guardian, Berlin's oldest squatters in town defend threatened community centre.

We've come a long way since one guy asked what vaccinations he needed

Shall we blame him for the political right wing and the destruction of the welfare state? Heck, I guess we have to blame somebody!



Mach, is there any subject that you and I can't turn into a political rant given half a chance? Probably not!

(and I demand BA flight tickets on the National Health )

Nick, I'll put in a good word with the Queen next time I am in London. Last time I dropped into Buckingham Palace she was unexpectedly travelling..

Well, at least we weren't talking cows

Hey, it was a nice vent. Did me some good

Besides and don't mind me and with all due respect, but what's a question like "What vaccinations will I need? [period]" supposed to garner for answers, anyway? Mandatory none of them are for India, except against yellow fever if coming from such an area, and the rest is essentially up to you. The poster themselves moreover made it clear that apparently they are not ignorant about it; so what does one want to hear? You'll be fine without the polio shot, my son? I know X-Y-Z who neeever died of malaria? (It would be harder to still know someone who did, one imagines. I do know people who had friends dying of it, albeit not in India. So what does that tell you?)

Well, I know I'm not a talking cow...



Me too. See you next time

Pfff... it really is time I came around again to give you a slap over the cuddly head, isn't it?

Cheers, I think I'll go check how me Surinamese local is doing --> If I get back online at 4AM and being very adamant, you'll know where... Oh, let's not even go there.

actually you don't NEED any for India. but there are those that are RECOMMENDED. it's your choice to get all or none. I know people who go without any shots and without malaria meds.

the World Health Organization and US Center for Disease Control have all the information about recommended shots for India.

Google is your friend.

This is again, a decision between your primary health care provider and you, the traveler. If for some reason your doctor decides that you have little or no risk, many of the vaccines mentioned here on IM, might not be applicable to you.

Might as well add - Goa, Pattaya, Kuta, Tobago, Jamaica, Barbados, Cambodia <did I miss any ? > for annual vacation & checkup for those over 50 paid for by the gummint

I'm lobbying for the over-60s now!

I could have said, none are required, they are recommended. I believe cholera vaccine was required years ago, but not now, for a long time.

I have found that a regular physician, i.e. not a travel medicine specialist, really doesn't know too much about shots for India. at least my doctor didn't.

I did my own research the first time I went and when I went to the doctor and told him what I needed/wanted, he left the room and came back with the pages he had printed off from the same sites I had read. uh, thanks, doc, yeah I know...and how much does your "consult" cost my insurance company?

then again, not sure about the advice given at travel clinics...
a woman I know went to a travel medicine clinic and the Indian nurse who gave her a shot told her the best thing to do was give American dollars to beggar children!

That I agree is a strong possibility, and might happen to many. However, in many cases the patient does not know what vaccine might have an adverse reaction given their medical condition, and presumably your regular doc has your medical history and what drugs and active ingredients to be avoided.

Currently what CDC has as this for India Not all apply to many, and in some cases none, and rarely all of the above.

yes, true, your dr. knows your med. history and has your records. which speaks to, "don't ask medical questions on an India travel forum."