Zika in Cozumel

[RyanT]

Quite simply, if you aren't pregnant or planning to conceive, Zika resides at the bottom of the list of diseases one can contract from mosquitos.

Yes. As I mentioned in another post, there are a lot of things that keep me up at night, but this is not one of them. I've spent my entire adult career working at night in both temperate and topical areas. I've been through all the concerns (and contracted some) of West Nile, Equine Encephalitis, Dengue, Chinkinyunga, and Dengue. Some people are susceptible and develop serious complications, but the vast majority of healthy adults can weather these with minimal issues. This year, I picked up one of these viruses and had about three days of headaches and mild fatigue. I would give some serious consideration to pregnancy right now with Zika, but otherwise, these viruses really do reside at the bottom of my list of concerns about infectious diseases.

 

[chillyinCanada]

RyanT, have you had malaria too? You've had Dengue twice? Have you had hemorrhagic Dengue?

 

[cvchief]

RyanT, while that is a very caviler and tough attitude, Zika worries me in that you can get it with minor symptoms and then give your neighbor's kid birth defects.

Also, when people blood counts were going to hell and they were dying in Cozumel, that worried me a little too.

Didn't stop me from going, just made me pay more attention to the repellent.

And yea, Gun swine flu was cool. it was a HECK of a deal. We stayed south back then and it was all but free!

 

[RyanT]

cvchief: I did quote deepsea21 about Zika and pregnancy...sorry if I sounded overly cavalier about that. The microcephaly issue is scary and it's pretty clear that Zika can be sexually transmitted. Indeed, if I were in a position where my partner could become pregnant, then I would give much stronger consideration to my travels and/or mosquito protection. This summer when I was feeling bad for a few days with one of these viruses, I elected not to go into the field with my crew, precisely to avoid the possibility of spreading it from me to them via mosquito.

Chilly: Whoops, not sure why I typed Dengue twice (apparently typing and beer don't mix). As far as I know, I have not had it twice and certainly haven't had the hemorrhagic form. The way that dengue hemorrhagic works is you contract it the first time and are then immune, but only to that particular strain. If you then get infected with a new strain, your immune system may enact a hyper-response and that helps to generate the hemorrhaging. The rate of hemorrhagic fever on the second infection is somewhere around 15%. I have not had malaria, fortunately, the areas where I work are pretty free of malaria. If I were to travel to an area where it is prevalent, I would certainly take the prophylaxis, although malaria is becoming resistant and the drugs are hard on your liver.

 

[cvchief]

That was my only point. Think about protecting the 'herd' too. The missus is immuno-compromised for SLE, so I worry more. Of course the cellcept is supposed to have prophylactic properties for dengue, so....

 

[RyanT]

That was my only point. Think about protecting the 'herd' too.

cvchief: It's an excellent point, thanks for mentioning it!

 

[El Graduado]

"This summer when I was feeling bad for a few days with one of these viruses, I elected not to go into the field with my crew, precisely to avoid the possibility of spreading it from me to them via mosquito."

Unfortunately, it looks like the virus stays in your system longer than the symptoms last. Even after the symptoms are gone, you can pass Zika on to others via sex, or on to another mosquito, which can then infect someone else. The virus stayed in the system for six months in one documented case.

 

[gopbroek]

As the Chief and pointed out the frightening fact is that 80% of those who are infected are non-symptomatic and in turn may spread it women who are pregnant, without knowledge that they are. The point is not to suspend travel but to use repellant and avoid becoming a new vector. This is not just advice for those on vacation but here in the states also. Texas to Florida has been very wet recently and the mosquitoes are thriving, so it’s not just a ‘Mexico / Caribbean’ thing.

The other thing I find puzzling is that as I understand it is that most areas in the states were / are not testing for the disease, except for those that reported that they have traveled recently. When they do test the recent traveler population they keep finding more cases but the countries the folks are traveling from do not seem to be reporting any significant numbers of cases.

The reporting seems to be economics driven, areas that depend on tourism lean towards not reporting (they learned the lessons from the Swine flu scare). Here in the states initially the tourism fear was winning but now that it looks like federal money may become available the tide is turning to test and report more since there is a financial incentive on the horizon.

 

[DjDiverDan]

Quite simply, if you aren't pregnant or planning to conceive, Zika resides at the bottom of the list of diseases one can contract from mosquitos. 80% of those infected with Zika experience no side effects at all and those who do present symptoms for 3 days that are on par or less offensive than the common cold. I'd take Zika any day over influenza assuming you are not pregnant or intending to conceive over the next 3 months.

It's really important to remember that Zika is NOT some newfangled, recently evolved disease. It has been around for decades, maybe centuries, and never got much publicity because it just wasn't that serious - more the vast majority of those who caught it, it was a non-event, resolved by the body's immune system without any noticeable symptoms, for most of the rest, nothing more than a mild cold.

This all changed with the claims that Zika could cause microencephaly and other devastating birth defects. But even those claims are highly questionable. The only support for the connection between Zika and birth defects comes out of Brazil, with 641 confirmed cases of microencephaly (as opposed to only 4-6 cases in other countries, at least 2 of which occurred with women who had been in Brazil at some time during the early part of the pregnancy). But in considering the determination by the WHO that these cases in Brazil were linked to the Zika virus, it bears remembering the limited scope of the WHO's review; it did NOT consider, much less eliminate, other potential environmental causes for the birth defects, such as pollution by toxic pesticides, fungicides, or other man-made agents, or even other diseases, like rubella and toxyplasmosis (sp.?), both of which have previously been tied to microencephaly. Given the ecological disaster that is Brazil, one can hardly be confident that the unusual occurences of microencephaly are in fact due to the Zika. That's not to say that a pregnant woman shouldn't take precautions; MAYBE the WHO is right. But it hardly supports the case for widespread panic.

 

[deepsea21]

It's really important to remember that Zika is NOT some newfangled, recently evolved disease. It has been around for decades, maybe centuries, and never got much publicity because it just wasn't that serious - more the vast majority of those who caught it, it was a non-event, resolved by the body's immune system without any noticeable symptoms, for most of the rest, nothing more than a mild cold.

You are correct, the Zika virus was discovered in 1940 and the vast, vast majority of documented cases of infant microsephaly linked to Zika come from Brazil. Brazil was the first major outbreak on large scale that can link a high rate of infant birth defects to mothers infected with Zika. However, there are several known exposures to chemicals, infections with other viruses and alcohol consumption that cause microsephaly.

At this stage there is continues to be ABSOLUTELY NO PROVEN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT THE ZIKA VIRUS ALONE CAUSES BIRTH DEFECTS... There are only theories as the studies that are taking place, unfortunately, take time. It is possible that the dangerous insecticides commonly used in populated areas of Brazil for decades and reside within the mothers of children who used to deliver perfectly normal babies are simply pushed over the edge with the introduction of the Zika virus on top of the chemicals and they deliver children with birth defects... Like layering a cake with one causal ingredient after another layer by layer until the cake falls over. It is completely reasonable to assume that Zika infected mothers in the states who have not been exposed to other viruses and chemicals will deliver perfectly healthy babies.

The above being said, when it comes to the health of an unborn child (and I used to be very staunch in my belief that Zika presents absolutely no threat), there is reason to play it safe and not travel to areas where the virus is known to be if one is pregnant, planning on conception, or willing to "take their chances" without using birth control.

Zika is going to keep working its way north into the southern US... Just like lionfish and fire ant infestations so 1/4 - 1/2 of the USA is going to have to deal with Zika in time. In time, we'll know far more about what is causing these birth defects and whether or not the Zika virus by itself presents any reason for concern.

The wife and I booked a 2-week Dive/stay package with Tres Pelicanos last night for this winter. We are not pregnant or planning on conception. We'll be bringing a few extra cans of bug spray, apply at regular intervals, and treat our trip to Coz no different than any other trip we've taken elsewhere where there has been one heck of alot worse diseases to be caught than Zika for us.