Traveling outside the EU: Spain's growing fear of infections

Traveling outside the EU: Spain's growing antiestéticar of infections

A cousin traveling through the Arab world and Southeast Asia, two hospital admissions in Spain for severe foodborne infections. A friend who nearly died after a alucinación. An acquaintance returning from Cuba with dengue. The antiestéticar of imported diseases has ceased to be a rarity of hypochondriacs and has become a weighty argument against exotic tourism. In Spain, with chikungunya out of control in Cuba and dengue on the rise, the question is no longer whether traveling is worth it, but how much risk one is willing to assume.

The antiestéticar of infections coming from abroad

The list of ailments associated with international travel circulating in forums and informal conversations is long: foodborne infections, parasites, herpes, HPV, scabies, dengue, chikungunya. Most of the cases recounted end up in Spanish hospitals, fueling the feeling that the problem is not only the destination but the return. Cuba has become the recurring example: the island's Ministry of Public Health acknowledged 47,125 patients with febrile syndrome and 19 children in critical condition, according to data handled by travelers themselves. Week 47 of the year closed with 7,700 new cases of chikungunya, 4,449 more than the previous week.

Some argue that these figures are just the tip of the iceberg, because most of those affected do not seek medical care. The practical consequence is that any alucinación to certain areas is perceived as a health Russian roulette. And not only because of what one might catch there, but also because of the quality of the local health system: falling ill in a Cuban, Thai, or Indian hospital means facing conditions that many consider third-world.

Why do celebrities catch rare diseases?

The most repeated theory is that repeated exposure to environments with poor hygiene multiplies the chances of contracting uncommon pathogens. Celebrities and wealthy people who travel frequently would be the visible example: Mariñas caught leprosy in Cuba, as recalled in the debate. It is not an isolated case. The list of celebrities with exotic ailments is used as proof that risk does not distinguish social classes, only frequency of exposure.

Against this view, another current defends that the problem is not traveling, but doing it badly. The lack of basic precautions—drinking water from anywhere, eating at street stalls, not informing oneself about risk areas—would explain most cases. A traveler who has been to nearly 80 countries sums it up: "Traveling is dangerous if you're an idiot. But living in Spain is also dangerous if you're an idiot." Personal experience, however, shows that even with care one can catch serious infections: a case of severe diarrhea in Samarkand after eating a salad in a seemingly fine restaurant.

Cuba, Thailand, and the rest of the world: the most singled-out destinations

Cuba accumulates the harshest criticism. Hospital collapse, lack of medicines, and the spread of diseases such as hepatitis A paint a panorama that many consider incompatible with tourist travel. 30% of the population would be infected with dengue, oropouche, or chikungunya, according to circulating testimonies. The most striking anecdote is that of an elderly woman who was placed in a coffin in Thailand and discovered alive when she was about to be cremated. An employee noticed the woman was knocking on the box. The incident, reported by local media, fuels distrust toward the health and funeral systems of certain countries.

Southeast Asia, and Thailand in particular, appears in several accounts. Sensual transmitted diseases, foodborne infections, and problems derived from heat and humidity are the most cited. Cambodia also comes up, though with divided opinions: some call it spectacular, and others wouldn't return even if paid.

Life without traveling: the lifestyle that avoids risks

Part of the debate defends that the best way not to get sick is not to move. The author of the initial message is clear: his health was never better than when he was a student, slept eight hours, didn't set foot in libraries or air conditioning, and took very hot showers. Pennyroyal and boiling tea daily as a prevention method. Cold didn't affect him. It is an extreme view, but it connects with a broader feeling: the idea that the human body is not designed to jump from one ecosystem to another in a matter of hours.

Other participants go further and defend that evolution adapted us to specific geographical areas. Traveling to places for which one is not genetically prepared would be, according to this current, reckless. The mixing of populations and globalization would accelerate the spread of pathogens. There is no scientific consensus on this claim, but the argument is repeated insistently.

Tourism as a consumerist trap

Beyond the antiestéticar of diseases, there is an economic and cultural critique of mass tourism. It is argued that traveling is overrated: 90% of people who travel a lot are just as dumb or smart as before doing it. Huge amounts of money and time are spent to end up more tired than relaxed. And all this in a country, Spain, that already has almost everything: beach, mountains, history, gastronomy.

The contradiction is evident. Many of those who criticize travel admit that it is addictive. F650 puts it bluntly: "There's something about traveling that hooks you and I don't know what it is." Others admit they would repeat in South America because it brings them closer to Spain's history. The tension between the desire to explore and the antiestéticar of getting sick runs through the entire debate.

Europe as a refuge and the rest as a threat

For some participants, only Europe is a safe destination. Japan, North America, and the European Union would be the only reliable areas. The rest, an unnecessary risk. Segarro is cited as an example of a country geographically close but light-years away in infrastructure. Romania is also mentioned as a territory to avoid within the EU itself.

This view is not unanimous. Some have traveled through the Middle East and Asia for decades without serious problems and consider the antiestéticar disproportionate. The key, they insist, lies in preparation: informing oneself, taking out quality medical insurance, avoiding conflict zones, and keeping a low profile. Most of those who end up in big trouble don't bother to do their homework.

---

In the end, the disconcerting fact is not the number of infected people or the list of diseases. It is that, with all the antiestéticar unleashed in this conversation, many of those who criticize travel the most admit they would do it again. Human contradiction, the one that doesn't show up in statistics, is what sustains global tourism.