GUWonder

Prioritizing discretionary travel over having some health insurance coverage? FlyerTalk, where it’s hard to be surprised.

A Little Cow

I definitely care that they are vaccinated, since every person who doesn't get vaccinated and gets infected is another possibility for more mutations as the virus multiplies that are more likely to affect me! I am very selfish in that way...

GUWonder

Discretionary travel being postponed would provide more bang for the buck than postponing locking in some insurance coverage now.

The US health insurance costs will be higher in 2022 — as the healthcare sector pricing is set up such that its inflationary hit is lagging that of the economy as a whole. So better to lock in health insurance sooner than later.

The travel picture is such that value for money spent on travel nowadays seems to be more about “pay more, get less” than was usual before the pandemic. So waiting for bargains — and delaying immediate gratification until better value for the travel money is to be found — has its rewards.

hakata

Aloha! I don't mean to upset anyone with this question but I am genuinely curious why vaccinated people make comments like this. "Nobody else wants/deserves to be infected due to your selfish behavior and ignorance of science."

I know this is an issue that triggers people but I ask without any agenda. If you are vaccinated why are you concerned with somebody else? From the information I have read, vaccinated people are protected to a degree but can also spread it. So I am genuinely curious why people take this kind of stance and tone. These are other human beings you are talking about like they are outcasts. I imagine each person has their own reason for not getting vaccinated. I feel like politics is too heavily involved but I could be wrong.

I am no expert so I can't really speak about this with any authority. I am just curious that if the vaccine works why people that got it are so worried about those that haven't. Also, it is pretty common knowledge that vaccinated people can spread it. Some studies say more than the unvaccinated. I don't know what to believe but I see some pretty harsh treatment of others and it's sad to see.

bpe

Herd immunity is why (wikipedia). In simple terms, once the vaccinated percentage approaches 80-85% the transmission rate drops dramatically for everyone, including breakthrough infections among vaccinated people as well as those who legitimately cannot get vaccinated such as immunocompromised people.

And if vaccination doesn't offer complete protection, this only increases the importance of achieving herd immunity through higher vaccination rates. Vaccinated people don't want to get a breakthrough infection from someone who chooses not to get vaccinated.

Please provide a reputable citation for this.

If don't have one, then you're just spreading misinformation. It's fine to not know what to believe, but educate yourself and do your own research rather than speculate.

corporate-wage-slave

The current evidence is that vaccines can reduce the chance of someone getting infected - and thus not give the virus to someone else - by between 60% and 85%. This is based on mass data rather than small scale studies which tend to grab the limelight. Furthermore those with vaccines are less likely to have a severe infection - which puts others more at risk due to coughing and such like - and less like to end up in hospital. And regretably using healthcare is one way this disease spreads, people do catch COVID in healthcare settings. But that 60 to 85% is way short of 100%, hence "breakthrough" infections, entirely the wrong word, still happen.

Now I don't favour harsh treatment to those who are hesitant (but I am quite happy to tell someone unvaccinated that they are being selfish), because actually vaccines isn't just about COVID, it's about a long list of other diseases. Some communities have 90% plus takeup of vaccines without any mandates, people turn up thanks to education, not wanting bad things to happen to them, it's cheaper for everyone, and yes, a bit of peer pressure. Many men need a bit of nagging from the wife to sort out health care issues, and that's good and normal. But that halcyon approach is being undermined by people putting out completely false information. Even worse, is having an anti vax narrative and then picking and choosing the science and pseudo-science to underscore the narative, rather than the other way around. Some of my opinions have had to change because the science evidence has changed. I wasn't terribly keen on Boosters but we can see from the UK death rate it clearly works, so that data changes my narrative. But some people are determined not to let the evidence drive behaviour.

shorthauldad

Yet Christian Drosten (virologist and professor at the Charité in Berlin) said in an interview in early September that there may well be a point where the healthy and vaccinated should indeed prepare for their first actual infection, it shouldn't necessarily be something to be scared of. Covid is going to become endemic, and we should accept that to a first-order approximation we're all going to catch it, and most likely keep on catching it.

Of course catching it if you're vulnerable is bad news. Catching it when your local hospitals are overwhelmed is bad news. Catching it next summer, if you're vaccinated, not elderly, and otherwise healthy? You might not even notice.

8420PR

I think the Germans (starting with Christian Drosten last year) have been a bit better at spelling out what endemic means: you will get antibodies against covid either from the vaccine, the virus, or in the long term both.

It's all pretty much guesswork at the moment, but this struck me as a reasonable guesstimate
- without vaccination immunization lasts 550 days so you can expect to get covid once every 825 days (~2.5 years) - as you don't catch it as soon as your immunity wanes.
- with high vaccination uptake (inc boosters) the transmissibility is reduced ~75% and disease by ~50% so you can expect to get covid every 3300 days (~9 years).

Source:

WillTravel4Food

The other factor in the pro-vax discussion is virus mutation. The larger the pool of unvaccinated people, the larger the petri dish where mutation can occur. Anti-vaxxers are perceived as accepting the petri dish can remain large, thus enabling mutations and threatening the population as a whole. This battle against the virus needs to be on two fronts, (1) Protection people against severe illness, and (2) Reduce the probability of new mutations. Both can be achieved with vaccination. If you think beyond yourself, the responsible thing is to vaccinate.

All that said, the real subject of this thread is about where can an un-vaccinated person travel for holiday. Avoiding the discussion about possible infection and transmission, the logistics of taking such a trip are onerous and come with substantial risk of disruption. The current situation with the world addressing the arrival of Omicron demonstrates just how disruptive the virus can be. We've all (well, me anyway) have seen the stories where people were stranded in some unexpected places. Imagine that happening to you and you don't have the travel experience to handle such disruptions, or worse you don't have the economic means to cover expenses due to extending your stay. Bad news all around. The OP on this thread can't figure out on their own where they can go, which leads me to believe they may not have extensive travel experience that would help them navigate travel disruption. The OP also states they don't have economic means to afford health insurance, which leads me to think they may not have sufficient liquid assets (i.e., cash and/or cash equivalents) to fund extended stays attributed to travel disruption. Just one of these two is enough to recommend a person not attempt travel at this time. This has nothing to do with whether the person could get ill while on the trip. My recommendation here is purely from a practical standpoint. This is a bad idea.

jebr

Fully agreed. If traveling at all is a smart idea, the best way to do so would be to road trip with a personal vehicle within the US. If they happen to test positive on the trip (or get sick) one can still safely go back home and not have to worry about getting stranded somewhere unless the case is so bad as to require hospitalization. It's always an option to drive home, buy gas at the pump with a credit/debit card (ideally using disposable gloves just in case of surface transmission,) and (if there's not enough food in the car to make it home) work with local restaurants along the way to deliver food curbside where the restaurant drops it off outside your car, and OP picks up the food left outside the car once the restaurant staff is back inside/a safe distance away. Not ideal, but at least they could get home without causing undue risk to others. Anything beyond that leaves a huge risk of being stranded somewhere for weeks, even if the illness itself is only minor (or it's completely asymptomatic) for them.

shorthauldad

Right now, I'd suggest that all trips appear to come with degree of extra logistics and substantial risk of disruption. Even being up-to-date with vaccination doesn't exempt you from that. Not being vaccinated definitely makes everything a whole lot harder, though.

I have an international trip coming up next week, and the requirements for it have changed since last week (thanks to our new friend B.1.1.529). Looking back, they have in fact changed multiple times over the last six months. As things stand, nothing is predictable, and for many of us, that basically sucks.

To the OP: I'd take a road trip, avoiding international travel completely.

NWIFlyer

If you take the closest thing to a domestic itinerary we have in the UK with a tiny amount of added risk, it's to travel within the Common Travel Area. So, I've had a trip into Belfast, out of Dublin planned for a few weeks now. I'll be crossing the border between north and south either in a coach or a train - I've not decided which yet and I need to be as fluid as possible because if the south closes down further I'll likely just go straight to the airport and fly out.

The longest amount of time I'm going to be in Dublin is about 8 hours, perhaps as little as 90 minutes at the airport, yet now I technically need a LFT test 48 hours before to do that because although I'm coming from Belfast I'll also have been in the UK in the previous 14 days. That is bordering on the ludicrous, frankly, yet in the unlikely event I was approached by a member of the Gardai I'd be in a spot of bother.

So things change, and they rarely get cheaper or less hassle! If what is a near domestic itinerary can create a degree of inconvenience and cost, this really isn't the moment to go gallivanting to more exotic climbs ...

CzeSEN

My dear FT'ers: this has been an incredibly entertaining read but I am pretty sure the OP was pulling your proverbial legs.

The idea that someone wants to travel internationally now without being vaccinated, and is not taking the vaccine b/c of lacking health insurance (b/c he would rather spend money on international travel than health insurance) which could deal with nearly statistically insignificant side effects, is just hysterical. I had a good laugh, at least.

WorkerBee74

When hospitals and ICUs up with unvaccinated COVID patients (it's obvious that there are many more of those than there are vaccinated), it DOES affect everyone. That's a very simple answer.

jerry90210

What is the website to find up to date information on countries that allow unvaccinated US Citizens? I checked Costa Rica was an option but that is going to end very soon?


Again this whole thread has people talking about getting vaccinated etc. This is not the question I"m asking here. Also, if there are places where you need to quarantine for a few days... I"m okay with this... as long as it isn't more than a week. The other issue here is some countries which I check online that accept US Citizens unvaccinated... to get there there isn't many direct flights so layovers wouldn't work if say you had to stop in Russia or something like that.