Dr. said no Disney :(

[margot31]

I just heard here in Maryland we have 31 cases, in va there is 33 cases. As a pregnant women one too many cases for me. I'm glad to be better safe than sorry.

 

[tlmadden73]

The doctor is just erring on the side of caution.

I would argue that you have a higher chance of getting in a bad car accident driving around town then getting bit by a zika infected mosquito in Florida.

 

[robinb]

Exaggerate much?

I may be guilty of too many clichés, but I am not over exaggerating. I would not trust my care to a doctor who has an overprotective "better safe than sorry" mentality even when it comes to pregnancy. That is not who I am and I have to have a doctor that shares my own view point if I am to trust him or her. FWIW, I did change doctors twice when I was pregnant. I was deemed "high risk" and put on bed rest when I was about 13 weeks along. I had to leave the midwife practice I was with and see a high risk OB. There was a very good chance (see the difference, very good chance not tiny chance) that my cervix would open up and I would lose my baby. I liked the new doctor but due to his profession as a high risk OB he was very medically minded when it came to pregnancy, labor and delivery. He was a great doctor but that's not me. Once I was cleared of bed rest I went *back* to the midwife practice where I was more comfortable.

In many ways this discussion reminds me of the "boys in the bathroom" treads. Can something bad happen? Yes, a child can be molested in a WDW bathroom and yes, a mosquito could bite an international visitor with Zika and then bite a pregnant woman. But what are the real chances of either of those things happening? Infinitesimal. I think it's all about being fearful and people wanting to be in control of as much as they can.

 

[scrapquitler]

By any chance, have you seen the babies that have became infected with the Zika virus in-utero? The effects to the babies are devastating and are they really worth risking to go on vacation for. I wouldn't "laugh" at any doctor that is being precautious and trying to protect this unborn babies life. Zika is not something to "laugh" at. Just because it's a "new" virus, doesn't mean it's not real.

But to date, not a SINGLE known case that has been contracted in the continental USA. So far, you are more likely to contract Ebola in the US that you are to contract Zika.

 

[scrapquitler]

I just heard here in Maryland we have 31 cases, in va there is 33 cases. As a pregnant women one too many cases for me. I'm glad to be better safe than sorry.

That is true. However, they are all listed as "travel related" cases. There are ZERO "locally accquired" cases in the continental US. That means that every case of Zika in the continental US is the result of someone getting it outside of the United States. To me, that says that not going to Florida is a hyper sensitive reaction to something that is near zero risk (and I say near zero only because someone eventually will be the first case accquired in the US, but is has NOT happened yet). I wouldn't travel to Puerto Rico, but within the US, I would.

From the CDC:

• Zika virus disease and Zika virus congenital infection are nationally notifiable conditions.
• This update from the CDC Arboviral Disease Branch includes provisional data reported to ArboNET for January 01, 2015 – July 6, 2016.

US States

• Locally acquired mosquito-borne cases reported: 0
• Travel-associated cases reported: 1,132
• Laboratory acquired cases reported: 1
• Total: 1,133
  • Sexually transmitted: 14
  • Guillain-Barré syndrome: 5

US Territories

• Locally acquired cases reported: 2,526
• Travel-associated cases reported: 8
• Total: 2,534*
  • Guillain-Barré syndrome: 12

 

[JimmyV]

However, they are all listed as "travel related" cases. There are ZERO "locally accquired" cases in the continental US.

Yes. But the concern is that going to WDW is simply "travel related" in reverse. On a typical day in your home town, how many people are you exposed to who reside in South and Central America, and who just arrived in your town in the past week? I am guessing that the number is so small that it cannot be calculated. Instead of your hometown, substitute in New York City. The number goes up, but is still pretty small. Same with Los Angeles. But now substitute in WDW, and the number isn't as small any more, especially in the summer. Is it still small? Sure--in relation to you traveling to Costa Rica or Brazil. You going to Brazil raises your chances by a lot. But Brazil coming to you also raises your chances. Just not as much. "Hasn't happened yet" is not the same thing as "can't happen". And this is where personal decision making comes into play. Frankly, I'm not sure I see the point to a thread where some people say "I agree. I wouldn't go either", and other people say: "I disagree. I would go." We all make our own decisions and trying to influence others is neither wise nor warranted.

 

[Amanda Hall]

I am totally shocked at how many posters are using the words, 'low risks', just 'slight' risks, low odds, etc. etc.

Are 'you' (posters involved) actually willing to take that low risk (whatever word you used) on the health of your precious baby??

I am not saying she should go or ignore her OB's advice but by this logic she should not get in a vehicle. I mean, there is more of a chance of her being in a car crash and injuring herself and/or the baby than contracting this virus. Would is then be the responsible thing to stay inside and not drive / ride anywhere until she delivers because she is not willing to take the risk? Of course no one would advise that. I guess I am saying life is risky. One can not hide away from the world.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

I am totally shocked at how many posters are using the words, 'low risks', just 'slight' risks, low odds, etc. etc.

Are 'you' (posters involved) actually willing to take that low risk (whatever word you used) on the health of your precious baby??

Anyone who got behind the wheel of a car while pregnant took a much greater risk than those going to WDW. So, I would guess that every one did take risks - we all do. You just have to decide which ones you can live with, and which you cannot.

 

[ArwenMarie]

It's her body, her choice.

Her doctor just gave her his opinion. That's what doctors do. I don't see what the debate is here.

 

[MariMama]

By any chance, have you seen the babies that have became infected with the Zika virus in-utero? The effects to the babies are devastating and are they really worth risking to go on vacation for. I wouldn't "laugh" at any doctor that is being precautious and trying to protect this unborn babies life. Zika is not something to "laugh" at. Just because it's a "new" virus, doesn't mean it's not real.

Zika isn't new, it has been around since the 1940's.

 

[JimmyV]

I mean, there is more of a chance of her being in a car crash and injuring herself and/or the baby than contracting this virus.

We cannot look at this as a matter of "odds" or "chance". For example, the chances of any one person being impacted by a hurricane can probably be determined. Now, if a person is planning a vacation in August and is choosing between going to Kansas City or Cape Hatteras, then the overall odds of being impacted by a hurricane aren't very meaningful. One can reduce the odds to 0% by choosing KC. By choosing Cape Hatteras, the odds increase significantly. The same is true for Zika versus a car crash. Picture yourself at the Orlando airport, or outside at dusk waiting for a bus, surrounded by a 250 member tour group from Brazil, and at that very moment, ask yourself if you are more likely to be in a car crash than to contract a mosquito-borne virus that is widespread in Central and South America. Your "odds" or "chances" vary with each twist and turn of your day. When viewed from 50,000 feet over the course of an entire year with everywhere you go and everything you do, yes, a car crash is more likely than Zika. But during your week at WDW (assuming you don't rent a car), your chances of getting into a car crash are zero. Your chances of getting Zika are not. Are the chances high enough to worry about? That is a personal choice. But making generalized statements about odds and chances aren't worth very much. In general, I have a greater chance of being in a car crash than I do of getting hit by lightning. But I buck those odds by standing in the middle of a field holding a metal rod during a thunderstorm. At that very moment, the odds reverse.

 

[AngiTN]

I just heard here in Maryland we have 31 cases, in va there is 33 cases. As a pregnant women one too many cases for me. I'm glad to be better safe than sorry.

So then what now? Stay inside 24/7? Honestly wondering here. What can someone do?
Keeping in mind no cases of it contracted within the US, all were exposed elsewhere and returned with it here

It's her body, her choice.

Her doctor just gave her his opinion. That's what doctors do. I don't see what the debate is here.

I see the debate not that her doctor gave her the advice to not go to Disney.
It's why he gave that advice and what to do with it
If he sees Disney as a high risk to contract Zika what about just going outside? If he has a real understanding of the issue he should realize it's not limited to exposure at Disney and actually Disney (or Florida) doesn't carry with it a much higher risk of exposure than any other outdoor activity with multiple people.
Or as others pointed out, several other activities carry a higher risk than Zika does but people don't think twice about it.

 

[KrazeeK120]

We cannot look at this as a matter of "odds" or "chance". For example, the chances of any one person being impacted by a hurricane can probably be determined. Now, if a person is planning a vacation in August and is choosing between going to Kansas City or Cape Hatteras, then the overall odds of being impacted by a hurricane aren't very meaningful. One can reduce the odds to 0% by choosing KC. By choosing Cape Hatteras, the odds increase significantly. The same is true for Zika versus a car crash. Picture yourself at the Orlando airport, or outside at dusk waiting for a bus, surrounded by a 250 member tour group from Brazil, and at that very moment, ask yourself if you are more likely to be in a car crash than to contract a mosquito-borne virus that is widespread in Central and South America. Your "odds" or "chances" vary with each twist and turn of your day. When viewed from 50,000 feet over the course of an entire year with everywhere you go and everything you do, yes, a car crash is more likely than Zika. But during your week at WDW (assuming you don't rent a car), your chances of getting into a car crash are zero. Your chances of getting Zika are not. Are the chances high enough to worry about? That is a personal choice. But making generalized statements about odds and chances aren't worth very much. In general, I have a greater chance of being in a car crash than I do of getting hit by lightning. But I buck those odds by standing in the middle of a field holding a metal rod during a thunderstorm. At that very moment, the odds reverse.

Your chances of being in a car crash may be zero (if you only rely on Disney transportation), but your chances of being in a motor vehicle crash are not. Unless, of course, you're staying at the Contemporary and only visit MK or at an Epcot resort and only visit Epcot and the Studios, or have otherwise found a way to teleport to the parks. Buses get in accidents too, and those do have the possibility of being fatal. I'm not saying that the chance is good that any given person will be involved in a fatal bus accident at Disney, but the chance of contracting Zika at Disney isn't good either.

 

[JimmyV]

If he sees Disney as a high risk to contract Zika what about just going outside? If he has a real understanding of the issue he should realize it's not limited to exposure at Disney and actually Disney (or Florida) doesn't carry with it a much higher risk of exposure than any other outdoor activity with multiple people.

This is where it gets more complicated. Disney World is a higher risk area than "outdoors" generally, because of the concentration of foreign guests. Yes, you absolutely are more likely to contract Zika at WDW than you are at the Iowa State Fair. And if Brazil and Costa Rica were to play a "friendly" in Chicago and you knew that 70,000 people were going to fly up from Rio and San Jose for the match, then I would suspect tha the doctor would warn against that as well. It is not Florida that poses the risk. It is the influx of foreign visitors that poses the risk. For the same reason, airports are the single worst place for the transmission of communicable diseases. WDW is sort of like a giant international airport. "Going outside" is not.

 

[JimmyV]

Your chances of being in a car crash may be zero (if you only rely on Disney transportation), but your chances of being in a motor vehicle crash are not. Unless, of course, you're staying at the Contemporary and only visit MK or at an Epcot resort and only visit Epcot and the Studios, or have otherwise found a way to teleport to the parks. Buses get in accidents too, and those do have the possibility of being fatal. I'm not saying that the chance is good that any given person will be involved in a fatal bus accident at Disney, but the chance of contracting Zika at Disney isn't good either.

But this just proves the doctor's advice, (and what I posted above). Every move that you make shifts the odds. If you stay at the a Monorail Resort, you can get to three of the parks without ever getting on a bus. So you ride motor vehicles a lot less than someone who stays at an All Star Resort. When you go to WDW, you increase your chances of being exposed to a virus. It cannot be disputed that the risk increases. The question is, by how much, and what is your risk acceptance level. None of that can be answered here.

 

[MEFacct]

Rant Warning!


First, I completely respect the OP’s decision to not go to Disney in order to be cautious. Being presumably a first pregnancy, acute caution is expected. I am also a firm believer that YOU CANNOT LIVE IN FEAR. You can certainly exist there, but that is not living. Reasonable and practical caution is more, well, practical. It really sounds, to me, like the Dr. was instilling fear more than caution.

Second, I truly respect anyone and everyone in the medical field. It takes a special kind of person to be willing to deal with other people’s illnesses and other yucky stuff. However, they are people and people can make mistakes. Doctors, even great ones, can be outright wrong. As most people, they can give in to media frenzy as well. I read once that most doctors were only average students, many below average. The human body is even more complicated than the US Tax Code. I don’t know a single CPA or EA that knows the entire code. I imagine that is the same for doctors and their understanding of the human body and all things related.

It may be a good idea for expectant mothers to CONSIDER avoiding WDW… But for another reason.

CMV - Cytomegalovirus

National CMV Foundation

OP, has your doctor spoke to you concerning this or performed any tests? It is a real and serious virus for pregnant women. Very common in the US (1 in every 150 pregnancies) and the most common method of transmission – drippy little children (which are quite common at WDW). This virus causes serious complications similar to Zika (including the possibility of a lack of brain development, miscarriage or stillborn births) but is much more common in the US and the virus stays in your system FOR LIFE.

My rant is that the Dr. was so concerned about Zika when there are so many more, greater risks that need consideration in everyday life. It really sounds like they were just jumping on the bandwagon from the previous night’s evening news. As great of a doctor as they may be, I think this begs question and attention.

As I said, you cannot live in fear. It may sound like I am trying to instill the fear now. I am really just trying to put it in perspective. Doctors have been known to advise women to avoid small children as a precaution against CMV. What if you have other small children at home already – lock yourself away and let the little ones fend for themselves?

Reasonable and practical caution.

Okay, I’m done.


PS: I really like the drippy little children. Watching their joy at WDW is one of my favorite activities there.

 

[AngiTN]

This is where it gets more complicated. Disney World is a higher risk area than "outdoors" generally, because of the concentration of foreign guests. Yes, you absolutely are more likely to contract Zika at WDW than you are at the Iowa State Fair. And if Brazil and Costa Rica were to play a "friendly" in Chicago and you knew that 70,000 people were going to fly up from Rio and San Jose for the match, then I would suspect tha the doctor would warn against that as well. It is not Florida that poses the risk. It is the influx of foreign visitors that poses the risk. For the same reason, airports are the single worst place for the transmission of communicable diseases. WDW is sort of like a giant international airport. "Going outside" is not.

And how many cases are reported from this type of transmission?

 

[JimmyV]

And how many cases are reported from this type of transmission?

It will takes months and perhaps years to know. Remember that only one in five people who is exposed to Zika actually contracts it, and the vast majority of people who contract it remain asymptomatic or have symptoms that can easily pass as some other non-threatening illness like a common cold. Without serious complications, there is no need to get tested and thus no way to know if one actually contracted it. Months or years from now, the CDC might be able to look back and piece the puzzle together to determine where and when this became an issue. But for an expecting mother, that is cold comfort.

 

[BuckeyeBama]

We cannot look at this as a matter of "odds" or "chance".

This is how we apply judgement when weighing risk. There is no other way. There are things that one can do to mitigate risk, but eliminating risk is impossible. So we have to learn to examine the "odds" and decide where we are willing to take "chances". That's life. We do it all day long, every day. Some decisions are more critical than others, but the same reasoning process is used.

 

[Accident]

I am totally shocked at how many posters are using the words, 'low risks', just 'slight' risks, low odds, etc. etc.

Are 'you' (posters involved) actually willing to take that low risk (whatever word you used) on the health of your precious baby??

I live here and I honestly feel much safer than back in nyc. I just don't see mosquitoes here, they are handled by pest control techniques in this area and nyc I was getting bitten every day.. here, not once since I moved... I haven't' run into any at Disney this year.... gnats at one point were out of control but never the mosquitoes.

everyone needs to decide what is best for their family (or future family plans) and I think OP did right in getting a medical recommendation to make an informed choice.. Would I travel to Disney if my wife was pregnant? Yes but it would be Disneyland and not Florida. Is that safer? I have no clue I would need to research the situation in anaheim. Am I looking to move out of the area because I live in Florida? no, it was much worse with mosquitoes back in NYC that has much more cases of zika. Anywhere touristy unless your going someone very remote (which probably has more mosquitoes than anywhere else) your going to run into cases of it.. That doesn't mean it's safe to travel, again you need to decide for yourself.