Ugh, Fine, I'll Go to Hawaii (If You Think That's Okay)
January 20, 2016 8:26 AM Subscribe
Last week, I was thinking of doing a babymoon in Cancun. Then the CDC issued a warning discouraging pregnant women from traveling to Mexico and 13 other countries because of Zika virus. Now I'm thinking Hawaii. Am I making A Big Mistake?
As explained above the fold, I had more or less decided on flights to book to Cancun and my husband and I were discussing hotel rooms when the CDC warning came out. I know of pregnant ladies who are still planning to go on babymoons in the Danger Zone but I tend to take government warnings seriously. This one - telling a specific group of people (pregnant ladies) to basically avoid a region - seems particularly unprecedented.
I studied the list of countries and identified several places we could visit that are not on the list (Costa Rica, Belize, Jamaica, Aruba, the Bahamas). But I worry that I will spend the rest of my pregnancy in a trimester long panic attack if I get bitten by anything while visiting the area so I'm inclined to rule out travel to the area.
Unfortunately, there are not a whole lot of places that will have beach-weather in the next few weeks when I'd like to travel so I'm thinking Hawaii. Naturally, a woman who had traveled to South America during her pregnancy had a baby with Zika-related complications over the weekend but she did not acquire the virus in Hawaii. It sounds like the particular bug that spreads Zika is rarely seen in Hawaii. Some parts of the Big Island are experiencing a dengue fever outbreak which I think is spread by a similar bug but it seems like it's pretty isolated.
If we go, we'll probably spend most of our time on the beach and in urban areas (probably Honolulu and Waikiki Beach). I'd like to go to Diamond Head and possibly other places but if we're going someplace potentially buggy, I'll wear pants, socks and sneakers, and a shirt with long sleeves, and bug spray. We're looking at traveling when I'm 21-22 weeks. We'll get trip insurance just in case. I'm concerned about the long flight and that Hawaii will be more expensive than we were planning to spend in Mexico but I can deal with those things. I have a harder time dealing with seeing the pictures of the poor sad baby with microcephaly in Brazil.
I recognize that a beachy babymoon is not imperative, especially if it puts the fetus at risk, but it sounds really nice, especially with a blizzard on the way. I'm kicking myself for not doing a fun beach vacation before getting knocked up, hating myself for wanting to go to a place that could potentially put the fetus at risk, and feeling slightly weepy about the idea of not going to the beach again for a long time. If the answer is to shut up and get over it, I understand but it's all making me feel a little hormotional.
Admittedly, this is one of those questions where I'm seeking permission to do something that I'm inclined to do. If I were not pregnant and I saw this question, I think I'd tell the person to go and have a good time and stop asking dumb questions. That said, if this sounds like a horrible idea or if I'm forgetting or not thinking of something that I should be thinking of, please let me know. Thanks for your feedback and empathy.
As explained above the fold, I had more or less decided on flights to book to Cancun and my husband and I were discussing hotel rooms when the CDC warning came out. I know of pregnant ladies who are still planning to go on babymoons in the Danger Zone but I tend to take government warnings seriously. This one - telling a specific group of people (pregnant ladies) to basically avoid a region - seems particularly unprecedented.
I studied the list of countries and identified several places we could visit that are not on the list (Costa Rica, Belize, Jamaica, Aruba, the Bahamas). But I worry that I will spend the rest of my pregnancy in a trimester long panic attack if I get bitten by anything while visiting the area so I'm inclined to rule out travel to the area.
Unfortunately, there are not a whole lot of places that will have beach-weather in the next few weeks when I'd like to travel so I'm thinking Hawaii. Naturally, a woman who had traveled to South America during her pregnancy had a baby with Zika-related complications over the weekend but she did not acquire the virus in Hawaii. It sounds like the particular bug that spreads Zika is rarely seen in Hawaii. Some parts of the Big Island are experiencing a dengue fever outbreak which I think is spread by a similar bug but it seems like it's pretty isolated.
If we go, we'll probably spend most of our time on the beach and in urban areas (probably Honolulu and Waikiki Beach). I'd like to go to Diamond Head and possibly other places but if we're going someplace potentially buggy, I'll wear pants, socks and sneakers, and a shirt with long sleeves, and bug spray. We're looking at traveling when I'm 21-22 weeks. We'll get trip insurance just in case. I'm concerned about the long flight and that Hawaii will be more expensive than we were planning to spend in Mexico but I can deal with those things. I have a harder time dealing with seeing the pictures of the poor sad baby with microcephaly in Brazil.
I recognize that a beachy babymoon is not imperative, especially if it puts the fetus at risk, but it sounds really nice, especially with a blizzard on the way. I'm kicking myself for not doing a fun beach vacation before getting knocked up, hating myself for wanting to go to a place that could potentially put the fetus at risk, and feeling slightly weepy about the idea of not going to the beach again for a long time. If the answer is to shut up and get over it, I understand but it's all making me feel a little hormotional.
Admittedly, this is one of those questions where I'm seeking permission to do something that I'm inclined to do. If I were not pregnant and I saw this question, I think I'd tell the person to go and have a good time and stop asking dumb questions. That said, if this sounds like a horrible idea or if I'm forgetting or not thinking of something that I should be thinking of, please let me know. Thanks for your feedback and empathy.
Not to put the kibosh on Florida, but there have been three confirmed cases here. All three are believed to have contracted Zika in South America, FWIW. Also, it's kind of cold here right now - 66 was the high today in Palm Beach.
SoCal might still be in the running though....
posted by PorcineWithMe at 8:37 AM on January 20, 2016
SoCal might still be in the running though....
posted by PorcineWithMe at 8:37 AM on January 20, 2016
No! Not with Zika, take those warnings seriously.
Palm Springs or Scottsdale are in the sixties/seventies, they might fit your bill and won't be risky. Waikiki certainly fits your bill, but it can be expensive, so I'd look somewhere on the mainland if cost is a concern.
There's a lot to do in the Phoenix area, so if you decide to go there hit me up and I'll give the low down on all the cool haps there.
Mazel-Tov! I promise, you'll see the beach again!
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 8:39 AM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
Palm Springs or Scottsdale are in the sixties/seventies, they might fit your bill and won't be risky. Waikiki certainly fits your bill, but it can be expensive, so I'd look somewhere on the mainland if cost is a concern.
There's a lot to do in the Phoenix area, so if you decide to go there hit me up and I'll give the low down on all the cool haps there.
Mazel-Tov! I promise, you'll see the beach again!
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 8:39 AM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
A deciding factor for me would be, at what point in pregnancy does microcephaly generally develop? Could a baby showing no signs of microcephaly at 20 weeks develop it before birth? If the answer is generally no, I might consider taking the trip. Discuss with your doctor.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:40 AM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:40 AM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't know about the risks of diseases but on the cost side Hawaii is cheaper to fly to now through spring. It's most expensive at Christmas and in the summer. So if you go around April or so you will probably be able to find reasonable deals on flights. Once there shop at a farmers market for food or eat at local joints - they are actually pretty cheap. The most expensive part will be your hotel if you want to stay in Honolulu proper especially near Waikiki but you could look for a Homeaway rental or a hotel deal online. When I last visited Hawaii a couple years ago we had a blast and spent less than we thought we'd need to.
Also does it have to be Honolulu? I'd recommend Maui instead of Oahu as the island to visit.
posted by FireFountain at 8:40 AM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also does it have to be Honolulu? I'd recommend Maui instead of Oahu as the island to visit.
posted by FireFountain at 8:40 AM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Temperatures in Miami and Los Angeles both look like high 70s in February which I think is just a little too cool for the beach. I'm open to other ideas - yesterday, I was thinking maybe Vegas - but it won't be warm enough to hang out by a pool.
Also, I'm just speculating but realistically, the odds that someone with Zika virus will turn up in California in the near future seem pretty high (there were cases identified in Illinois today). I might be justifying the possible trip to myself but if that's the thing I'm trying to work around, I'm not sure that's realistic without never barricading myself in my house.
posted by kat518 at 8:40 AM on January 20, 2016
Also, I'm just speculating but realistically, the odds that someone with Zika virus will turn up in California in the near future seem pretty high (there were cases identified in Illinois today). I might be justifying the possible trip to myself but if that's the thing I'm trying to work around, I'm not sure that's realistic without never barricading myself in my house.
posted by kat518 at 8:40 AM on January 20, 2016
Dengue and Zika are both spread by the Aedes aegypti mosquito. So, if there are already dengue outbreaks, it's possible that there will Zika outbreaks. I'm not sure how likely it is that Zika will be present in Hawaii because I'm not an epidemiologist, but it looks like they've already had cases of Chikungunya, which is also spread by the same mosquito.
Personally, I wouldn't take the risk, but I'm fairly risk averse. I live in Honduras, where we're already seeing outbreaks of Zika and have had Dengue and Chikungunya for a while, and I think if you can avoid traveling to places that put you at risk, you should.
posted by Lingasol at 8:41 AM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Personally, I wouldn't take the risk, but I'm fairly risk averse. I live in Honduras, where we're already seeing outbreaks of Zika and have had Dengue and Chikungunya for a while, and I think if you can avoid traveling to places that put you at risk, you should.
posted by Lingasol at 8:41 AM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
I live in Hawaii and it's amazing and great for a babymoon. It's expensive here, but no more so than say NYC, and you can do it cheaper if you don't eat out for every meal. I live on Maui, which is where I'd recommend, though Oahu is great too. Kauai is a bit more rustic/outdoorsy, so probably not what you'd want for this trip. The Big Island, as you said, has a dengue fever outbreak, so I'd avoid it. We don't have the species of mosquito that's carrying it on Maui, so I haven't been worried about it here (I believe the same is true for Oahu, but you can check). I heard on the radio the other day that a baby was born on the Big Island w/ Zika virus effects (mother had recently arrived from Brazil), so I'm not sure what the implication is of that, but I'd at least look into it (HPR did not seem at all alarmist about it, so I don't think it's a big deal, but thought you should have all the information).
If you decide to come to Maui, West Maui is probably where you'll want to stay (Lahaina, Ka'anapali). There are so many beaches, and the weather is perfect almost always. I've never been bitten by a mosquito on the beach here (hikes? yes. beach? no). The trades are usually strong enough to keep bugs away. Feel free to memail me if you want more info on Maui.
posted by melissasaurus at 8:48 AM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
If you decide to come to Maui, West Maui is probably where you'll want to stay (Lahaina, Ka'anapali). There are so many beaches, and the weather is perfect almost always. I've never been bitten by a mosquito on the beach here (hikes? yes. beach? no). The trades are usually strong enough to keep bugs away. Feel free to memail me if you want more info on Maui.
posted by melissasaurus at 8:48 AM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Here is what I said in the previous Zika question, for comparison! Your situation is not the same and in your shoes, I might be more inclined to take the small risk after talking to my doctor.
Are you looking at going next week or are you looking at going in like...4 weeks? If it's on the further end and you want to practice an abundance of caution, you might want to have a contingency plan (trip insurance, whatever) in place if the virus did start spreading in Hawaii and the CDC revised their travel warning to include the region.
posted by superfluousm at 8:51 AM on January 20, 2016
Are you looking at going next week or are you looking at going in like...4 weeks? If it's on the further end and you want to practice an abundance of caution, you might want to have a contingency plan (trip insurance, whatever) in place if the virus did start spreading in Hawaii and the CDC revised their travel warning to include the region.
posted by superfluousm at 8:51 AM on January 20, 2016
Regarding LA/Southern California, the El Nino rains haven't done much down here this year (all up north so far), but the weather folks all say it will hit here sometime in February or March. Plus it's been a cold (for us) winter thus far. Definitely not beach weather. Even Palm Springs is not warm. At least if it rains in Hawaii, it'll still be warm!
posted by cecic at 8:53 AM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by cecic at 8:53 AM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
While I was a soft cheese and sushi eating kind of pregnant lady, I definitely would have heeded the CDC warnings and stayed away from the countries listed. However, I don't think there's anywhere near as big of a concern with Hawaii.
I had a fabulous babymoon in Oahu at 29-30 weeks. Sure, it can be pricey, but it will also be warm and lovely. The flights were really not that bad. My OB had me take baby asprin beforehand just to be safe. Talk to your doctor, but I think it would be great for you.
posted by galvanized unicorn at 8:59 AM on January 20, 2016
I had a fabulous babymoon in Oahu at 29-30 weeks. Sure, it can be pricey, but it will also be warm and lovely. The flights were really not that bad. My OB had me take baby asprin beforehand just to be safe. Talk to your doctor, but I think it would be great for you.
posted by galvanized unicorn at 8:59 AM on January 20, 2016
Here's some more info on the Hawaii case. Neither the mother nor baby were infectious; the mother was exposed last year while pregnant in Brazil. The Maui News says "Officials say there's no risk of transmission in Hawaii." So, there's that. For what it's worth, several of my friends here are pregnant right now and no one has expressed concern about it.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:07 AM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 9:07 AM on January 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
This is purely anecdotal, but I went on safari in South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Zaire when I was second trimester. My first doctor quit me when I said I was going, because you can't take anti-malarials and malaria in pregnancy is pretty awful. I wore long sleeves, long pants, high socks, a scarf and copious amounts of bug spray. I got bitten once, in Zim. I worried a bit, then took about five malaria tests when I got home, then once a week for five weeks. I didn't get malaria. I did, however, get meningitis four months later (unrelated). I'm glad I went on safari, although it was annoying to cover up like that, especially when I was so very hot, but worth it, I think. And things happen regardless if you stay home or not. I wouldn't advocate for a place where you've been specifically warned away, but I wouldn't think Hawaii would be a bad idea.
posted by mrfuga0 at 9:31 AM on January 20, 2016
posted by mrfuga0 at 9:31 AM on January 20, 2016
Key West fits your needs :)
posted by heathrowga at 9:37 AM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by heathrowga at 9:37 AM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
The charts say February 70 in Miami Beach but we were using the AC still through New Years. If you find a hotel with a heated pool ...
posted by tilde at 9:59 AM on January 20, 2016
posted by tilde at 9:59 AM on January 20, 2016
I'm a pregnant lady (currently 19 weeks) headed to Maui for a warm, indulgent babymoon in a couple of weeks with no concerns. Now, if I were waiting a couple more months, given how quickly Zika seems to be moving, I might be having second thoughts. But one person in Hawaii, who contracted the virus elsewhere and was non-contagious when she arrived, does not personally worry me. I'd be more concerned if there were 10+ individuals and if there were more time for the virus to spread through the mosquito population on the particular island I was headed to.
posted by Jaclyn at 10:45 AM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Jaclyn at 10:45 AM on January 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is not addressing the main question, but one that I see underneath - whether or not you go now, you WILL go to the beach again! It sounds like you're due in May/June, right? My daughter was born in late May 2014. Yeah, you may not make it to a beach this summer, but you say you live on the east coast, you could make it to your localish beach if you wanted to. We totally could've gone to a beach last summer when my kid was one and it would have been AWESOME (did a different trip instead). We are likely going this summer and I am super, super excited. Lying around on a nice beach sounds so super great right now while it's freezing....but I think introducing my tot to the ocean is going to be even more fun. YMMV, of course, but please don't feel like life and fun trips are over. It's a new and awesome kind of fun when you have your tot, and if you get a baby-free trip, you will appreciate the vacation more than you can possibly imagine right now.
posted by john_snow at 11:02 AM on January 20, 2016
posted by john_snow at 11:02 AM on January 20, 2016
I'll second john_snow - we did a week-long Mexico beach vacation with our 15-month-old and I have to say, beach vacations are actually one of the easiest/best vacations with older babies or young toddlers. I had a TON of regret and hormotional feelings in my second and third trimester about the last vacation we didn't quite squeeze in before I got pregnant (Africa) and my sense that I was losing my chance to do certain much-loved activities (snowshoeing, cross-country skiing) by having a kid. In retrospect I think those specific activities were just stand-ins for some larger anxieties about unknown changes that were coming by having a kid; as soon as he was born, those regrets about things not yet done pretty much disappeared. I hope the same happens for you.
posted by iminurmefi at 11:32 AM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by iminurmefi at 11:32 AM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
I would not travel anywhere, honestly, until after the baby is born. There's just no reason to risk it.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:51 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:51 PM on January 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
Most of the posters above have addressed the psychosocial aspects of pregnancy, especially failures to carry to term. I think they've done that extremely well, and those things should absolutely be part of how you evaluate vacation plans moving forward.
At the same time, some (geographically) Mexican perspective might help. I am in Mexico right now, and I have heard literally *nothing* about Zika virus here. This contrasts with, e.g., chikungunya, which we're constantly told is a big deal. It also behooves me to point out that (a) Mexico is enormous, and (b) the text of the CDC warning for Mexico is next to useless, because it does not specify a single location in Mexico where transmission is identified.
Why is that a big deal? Because in lots of parts of Mexico, the government is fucking ruthless about spraying for mosquitos (Sector Salud, particularly). For instance, I was in a town in Veracruz at one point where we *all*, as in everybody there on a Tuesday at 11 am, had to leave the house and hang out with the mango trees and stray dogs and coffee plants for an hour because Sector Salud was indiscriminately spraying the whole town and it was going to be toxic. (Or, another example: The building I was in literally yesterday in Guadalajara was fumigated at 6 pm, and we all had to go.)
So I strongly, strongly suspect that the actual risk of transmission/infection in a tourist-heavy area like Cancún is extremely low, as in you're more likely to get in a car accident on the way to the airport than get Zika likely.* But that may not speak to the psychological risk if the pregnancy fails for other reasons.
*I also suspect, from professional experience with health statistics, that many of those "ongoing transmissions" in non-US countries mean "a minimum of one case has been identified, along with a minimum of one mosquito that could be a vector." That standard―yes, I made it up (from experience), but again I can't find any methodology in a quick search for the geographical portion of the warning―would count Florida and Texas as well. Hawaii only gets left out because it was determined that the cases there are non-infectious.
Point is, failure to engage with Mexico as a big country is the same as telling a Brit not to come to the US because of Zika.
posted by migrantology at 1:17 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
At the same time, some (geographically) Mexican perspective might help. I am in Mexico right now, and I have heard literally *nothing* about Zika virus here. This contrasts with, e.g., chikungunya, which we're constantly told is a big deal. It also behooves me to point out that (a) Mexico is enormous, and (b) the text of the CDC warning for Mexico is next to useless, because it does not specify a single location in Mexico where transmission is identified.
Why is that a big deal? Because in lots of parts of Mexico, the government is fucking ruthless about spraying for mosquitos (Sector Salud, particularly). For instance, I was in a town in Veracruz at one point where we *all*, as in everybody there on a Tuesday at 11 am, had to leave the house and hang out with the mango trees and stray dogs and coffee plants for an hour because Sector Salud was indiscriminately spraying the whole town and it was going to be toxic. (Or, another example: The building I was in literally yesterday in Guadalajara was fumigated at 6 pm, and we all had to go.)
So I strongly, strongly suspect that the actual risk of transmission/infection in a tourist-heavy area like Cancún is extremely low, as in you're more likely to get in a car accident on the way to the airport than get Zika likely.* But that may not speak to the psychological risk if the pregnancy fails for other reasons.
*I also suspect, from professional experience with health statistics, that many of those "ongoing transmissions" in non-US countries mean "a minimum of one case has been identified, along with a minimum of one mosquito that could be a vector." That standard―yes, I made it up (from experience), but again I can't find any methodology in a quick search for the geographical portion of the warning―would count Florida and Texas as well. Hawaii only gets left out because it was determined that the cases there are non-infectious.
Point is, failure to engage with Mexico as a big country is the same as telling a Brit not to come to the US because of Zika.
posted by migrantology at 1:17 PM on January 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: I'm going to try my doctor tomorrow. If my doctor and/or the CDC say that I definitely should not go to Hawaii, I'll take that seriously. At this rate, if I did catch Zika virus in Hawaii, I would probably be one of the first people to do so. While the odds of that occurring are not zero, they seem vanishingly small and only slightly higher than the odds that I could acquire the virus going about my business in the major metropolitan area I call home. So I haven't bought a plane ticket yet but I also haven't ruled it out. Thanks for your thoughts!
posted by kat518 at 4:16 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by kat518 at 4:16 PM on January 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
IANYD, but the answer you'll get likely will depend on your doctor's risk tolerance since the only "scientific answer" is the one you've already seen alluded to on the CDC site. Remember that doctors are the ones promulgating non-evidence-based guidelines that "there is no safe amount of alcohol that can be consumed in pregnancy" - like zero, not one sip, despite the fact that pregnant women the world over are imbibing in moderation with no known ill effects. Because "we just don't know", and it's no skin off their backs if you spend the entirety of pregnancy in fear of everything you eat, breathe, and touch, but if by some infinitesimally small chance you did have a problem and blamed it on whatever they told you, they fear they're liable. The malpractice environment has really made recommendations for pregnant women into a minefield.
Anyway, most docs use the CDC travel recs to advise their patients. The CDC Zika site says under "Recommendations for Women Considering Travel to An Area of Zika Virus Transmission" says: "CDC recommends that all pregnant women consider postponing travel to areas where Zika virus transmission is ongoing" - by that measure, you should be fine to go to Hawaii because there is no Zika virus transmission ongoing there.
I am not the type of person who blows off health concerns during pregnancy, I personally would never be comfortable recommending that you go or going pregnant myself to a place where malaria is endemic, and I certainly agree with the CDC that all areas with outbreaks of Zika should be avoided. However, there are a lot of recommendations in pregnancy that just don't make sense or are based on some ridiculously small or theoretical risk (i.e. don't eat cold lunch meat due to Listeria risk, don't drink any caffeine, no sushi, etc) and I think avoiding all travel or avoiding travel to places where Zika virus might go someday is over the top, but that's based on my own risk assessment. Since there is no way to quantify the actual risk of contracting Zika virus from going to a place that currently has no Zika virus, one can only say "the risk is very very small, although not zero".
My experience (and the scientific literature) suggest that people are really not very good at evaluating risk for themselves, which is part of the reason why people think that it makes sense to avoid giving your child vaccines, judging the risk of a vaccine-related side effect to be greater than the risk of the disease that the vaccine protects against (a scientifically laughable idea). Quote from the linked article:
"Fear hits primitive brain areas to produce reflexive reactions before the situation is even consciously perceived. Because fear strengthens memory, catastrophes such as earthquakes, plane crashes, and terrorist incidents completely capture our attention. As a result, we overestimate the odds of dreadful but infrequent events and underestimate how risky ordinary events are. The drama and excitement of improbable events make them appear to be more common. The effect is amplified by the fact that media tend to cover what's dramatic and exciting, Slovic notes. The more we see something, the more common we think it is, even if we are watching the same footage over and over.
After 9/11, 1.4 million people changed their holiday travel plans to avoid flying. The vast majority chose to drive instead. But driving is far more dangerous than flying, and the decision to switch caused roughly 1,000 additional auto fatalities, according to two separate analyses comparing traffic patterns in late 2001 to those the year before. In other words, 1,000 people who chose to drive wouldn't have died had they flown instead."
I see this concept played out in pregnancy stuff all the time. People fear Zika virus, Ebola, listeria. But they don't fear home birth/GBS/hemorrhagic disease of the newborn, rather they are swayed by arguments like "women have been giving birth at home for thousands of years!" or "I don't want to theoretically alter my baby's exposure to vaginal flora during birth, therefore I will avoid getting antibiotics for GBS even though it is the most common cause of sepsis in newborns./I don't want to expose my baby to theoretical risk of 'toxins' in a vitamin K injection, therefore I am willing to risk a hemorrhage in my newborn baby because that seems really unlikely, it probably won't happen." etc etc. Anyway - I'm rambling. But just wanted to give you the sense that this is some of your first exposure to a lot of controversy in the mom-o-sphere about theoretical risk, with battles extending throughout childhood between 'attachment parents' and 'free range parents' and other silliness. I think what's called for in most cases is for us to say 'to each their own' and let caring parents choose amongst the multiple reasonable approaches towards being a parent. So in summary, if you're the type of person who worries and won't be able to sleep at night because of this - don't go. It's not worth it. Go to the beach with your baby. I took my two month old to Florida with me and had a blast (and that was with a 2 year old in tow as well), and it's easy to bring infants to the shore on the east coast as well as long as you have a shade-producing device. I'm actually packing my bags tonight to bring my 1 year old and almost 3 year old on a beach vacation to the southern hemisphere, and I couldn't be more excited about it. No need to cry - you'll be able to go if you want to! All it takes is a certain level of endurance to get through the transportation bit.
posted by treehorn+bunny at 6:39 PM on January 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
Anyway, most docs use the CDC travel recs to advise their patients. The CDC Zika site says under "Recommendations for Women Considering Travel to An Area of Zika Virus Transmission" says: "CDC recommends that all pregnant women consider postponing travel to areas where Zika virus transmission is ongoing" - by that measure, you should be fine to go to Hawaii because there is no Zika virus transmission ongoing there.
I am not the type of person who blows off health concerns during pregnancy, I personally would never be comfortable recommending that you go or going pregnant myself to a place where malaria is endemic, and I certainly agree with the CDC that all areas with outbreaks of Zika should be avoided. However, there are a lot of recommendations in pregnancy that just don't make sense or are based on some ridiculously small or theoretical risk (i.e. don't eat cold lunch meat due to Listeria risk, don't drink any caffeine, no sushi, etc) and I think avoiding all travel or avoiding travel to places where Zika virus might go someday is over the top, but that's based on my own risk assessment. Since there is no way to quantify the actual risk of contracting Zika virus from going to a place that currently has no Zika virus, one can only say "the risk is very very small, although not zero".
My experience (and the scientific literature) suggest that people are really not very good at evaluating risk for themselves, which is part of the reason why people think that it makes sense to avoid giving your child vaccines, judging the risk of a vaccine-related side effect to be greater than the risk of the disease that the vaccine protects against (a scientifically laughable idea). Quote from the linked article:
"Fear hits primitive brain areas to produce reflexive reactions before the situation is even consciously perceived. Because fear strengthens memory, catastrophes such as earthquakes, plane crashes, and terrorist incidents completely capture our attention. As a result, we overestimate the odds of dreadful but infrequent events and underestimate how risky ordinary events are. The drama and excitement of improbable events make them appear to be more common. The effect is amplified by the fact that media tend to cover what's dramatic and exciting, Slovic notes. The more we see something, the more common we think it is, even if we are watching the same footage over and over.
After 9/11, 1.4 million people changed their holiday travel plans to avoid flying. The vast majority chose to drive instead. But driving is far more dangerous than flying, and the decision to switch caused roughly 1,000 additional auto fatalities, according to two separate analyses comparing traffic patterns in late 2001 to those the year before. In other words, 1,000 people who chose to drive wouldn't have died had they flown instead."
I see this concept played out in pregnancy stuff all the time. People fear Zika virus, Ebola, listeria. But they don't fear home birth/GBS/hemorrhagic disease of the newborn, rather they are swayed by arguments like "women have been giving birth at home for thousands of years!" or "I don't want to theoretically alter my baby's exposure to vaginal flora during birth, therefore I will avoid getting antibiotics for GBS even though it is the most common cause of sepsis in newborns./I don't want to expose my baby to theoretical risk of 'toxins' in a vitamin K injection, therefore I am willing to risk a hemorrhage in my newborn baby because that seems really unlikely, it probably won't happen." etc etc. Anyway - I'm rambling. But just wanted to give you the sense that this is some of your first exposure to a lot of controversy in the mom-o-sphere about theoretical risk, with battles extending throughout childhood between 'attachment parents' and 'free range parents' and other silliness. I think what's called for in most cases is for us to say 'to each their own' and let caring parents choose amongst the multiple reasonable approaches towards being a parent. So in summary, if you're the type of person who worries and won't be able to sleep at night because of this - don't go. It's not worth it. Go to the beach with your baby. I took my two month old to Florida with me and had a blast (and that was with a 2 year old in tow as well), and it's easy to bring infants to the shore on the east coast as well as long as you have a shade-producing device. I'm actually packing my bags tonight to bring my 1 year old and almost 3 year old on a beach vacation to the southern hemisphere, and I couldn't be more excited about it. No need to cry - you'll be able to go if you want to! All it takes is a certain level of endurance to get through the transportation bit.
posted by treehorn+bunny at 6:39 PM on January 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
All my philosophizing about risk tolerance aside, I just looked through your question history where you refer to yourself as "anxiety prone" and "a hypochondriac". So I reiterate, don't go.
How about going someplace culturally awesome but a little chillier, like Barcelona, Vienna, Prague, Rome, or Paris?
posted by treehorn+bunny at 7:04 PM on January 20, 2016
How about going someplace culturally awesome but a little chillier, like Barcelona, Vienna, Prague, Rome, or Paris?
posted by treehorn+bunny at 7:04 PM on January 20, 2016
Not that Hawaii isn't lovely, but I went on my honeymoon hoping for a lovely beach vacation and it was....cold and wet. And I only had one pair of pants. I have been warmer at Lake Huron in June. All of which is to say, if you're pinning your hopes on one last, perfect beach vacation, be prepared for it not to quite work out that way. But if you do go to Hawaii, consider your flights carefully. It is a loooooooooong way away.
posted by Mrs. Rattery at 6:17 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Mrs. Rattery at 6:17 AM on January 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Might I recommend Aruba? Because of the constant wind, they have very few mosquitos or other flying bugs. You can do your own research, it might be as expensive for you as Hawaii but it would make a very good baby moon.
posted by ch1x0r at 10:55 AM on January 21, 2016
posted by ch1x0r at 10:55 AM on January 21, 2016
« Older How do you keep your ears clean in 2016? | Finding a digital animation job in the Twin Cities... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by notjustthefish at 8:30 AM on January 20, 2016 [4 favorites]