FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > HIV hits a 15 year high
HIV hits a 15 year high
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *ACOLCouple 13 weeks ago
limerick |
"The country basically has open borders. What else do you expect? This is basically self destruction in the name of compassion."
What do you propose? For them to close the borders?
Lina 🤔 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The country basically has open borders. What else do you expect? This is basically self destruction in the name of compassion.
What do you propose? For them to close the
Lina 🤔 "
how about close until we get a grip or come up with a plan asylum queue streches back 17 years what else can we do |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I mean we spent 1/2 a Trillion quid on a so called pandemic.
This is a much more real threat to the UK, but because it involves sexual health they do absolutely zilch, de nada. Nihil, zero. It's quite Bizarre really how these human being things in charge prioritise and triage existential threats to our very existence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The country basically has open borders. What else do you expect? This is basically self destruction in the name of compassion.
What do you propose? For them to close the borders?
Lina 🤔 "
stopping picking people up out of the english channel might be a start |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A mate had to jump through so many health hoops before being allowed into New Zealand. Not the uk, everyone is just waved through."
I had to take a TB test before moving here. I think these rules apply depending on which country you are coming from. But anyway, none of these rules are enforced if you are showing up in a boat. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The country basically has open borders. What else do you expect? This is basically self destruction in the name of compassion."
Yep everthing that is going wrong in our country is caused by immigration! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The country basically has open borders. What else do you expect? This is basically self destruction in the name of compassion.
Yep everthing that is going wrong in our country is caused by immigration! "
The topic here is an issue caused by immigration. Do you feel otherwise? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wonder how bad it as to get before ppl wake up and see it’s a problem that won’t go away "
The problem never goes away. They used to blame everything on black people and gay people. Now it's foreigners, Muslims and trans people. When that becomes unacceptable, then it'll move on to the next minority groups.
As long as divide and conquer is a successful tactic, they'll keep using it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wonder how bad it as to get before ppl wake up and see it’s a problem that won’t go away
The problem never goes away. They used to blame everything on black people and gay people. Now it's foreigners, Muslims and trans people. When that becomes unacceptable, then it'll move on to the next minority groups.
As long as divide and conquer is a successful tactic, they'll keep using it. "
Have you got anything to say about the topic in hand, instead of these useless irrational copy paste messages that you post in every thread? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The country basically has open borders. What else do you expect? This is basically self destruction in the name of compassion.
Yep everthing that is going wrong in our country is caused by immigration!
The topic here is an issue caused by immigration. Do you feel otherwise? "
OK HIV is the biggest cause of death in african 3rd world countries. So say we've had an influx of people arriving from such countires how does that increase the number of cases in the UK? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The country basically has open borders. What else do you expect? This is basically self destruction in the name of compassion.
Yep everthing that is going wrong in our country is caused by immigration!
The topic here is an issue caused by immigration. Do you feel otherwise?
OK HIV is the biggest cause of death in african 3rd world countries. So say we've had an influx of people arriving from such countires how does that increase the number of cases in the UK?"
For one thing, treatment of HIV is expensive. NHS is already reeling under pressure.
For another thing, the disease does spread. How exactly are you going to stop that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Would people who complained about Boris not closing the borders earlier for COVID and having strict protocol, be happy with following the same protocol for HIV?"
He didn't close the borders though did he? The aiports were still open for "essential travel" unlike other countires that closed the airports so nobody came in or out |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The country basically has open borders. What else do you expect? This is basically self destruction in the name of compassion.
Yep everthing that is going wrong in our country is caused by immigration!
The topic here is an issue caused by immigration. Do you feel otherwise?
OK HIV is the biggest cause of death in african 3rd world countries. So say we've had an influx of people arriving from such countires how does that increase the number of cases in the UK?
For one thing, treatment of HIV is expensive. NHS is already reeling under pressure.
For another thing, the disease does spread. How exactly are you going to stop that? "
Well wearing a condom greating reduces risk! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Would people who complained about Boris not closing the borders earlier for COVID and having strict protocol, be happy with following the same protocol for HIV?
He didn't close the borders though did he? The aiports were still open for "essential travel" unlike other countires that closed the airports so nobody came in or out"
But people wanted him to close the borders. I am asking if the same people who wanted him to close the borders then would want him to close the borders now |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The country basically has open borders. What else do you expect? This is basically self destruction in the name of compassion.
Yep everthing that is going wrong in our country is caused by immigration!
The topic here is an issue caused by immigration. Do you feel otherwise?
OK HIV is the biggest cause of death in african 3rd world countries. So say we've had an influx of people arriving from such countires how does that increase the number of cases in the UK?
For one thing, treatment of HIV is expensive. NHS is already reeling under pressure.
For another thing, the disease does spread. How exactly are you going to stop that?
Well wearing a condom greating reduces risk!"
"Greatly reduces" isn't good enough. The first challenge is identifying who has HIV in the first place. Do you think we should do HIV tests on the people arriving on boats. The progressive lunatics went mad when age test was proposed. A HIV test would be considered too racist. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The country basically has open borders. What else do you expect? This is basically self destruction in the name of compassion.
Yep everthing that is going wrong in our country is caused by immigration!
The topic here is an issue caused by immigration. Do you feel otherwise?
OK HIV is the biggest cause of death in african 3rd world countries. So say we've had an influx of people arriving from such countires how does that increase the number of cases in the UK?
For one thing, treatment of HIV is expensive. NHS is already reeling under pressure.
For another thing, the disease does spread. How exactly are you going to stop that?
Well wearing a condom greating reduces risk!
"Greatly reduces" isn't good enough. The first challenge is identifying who has HIV in the first place. Do you think we should do HIV tests on the people arriving on boats. The progressive lunatics went mad when age test was proposed. A HIV test would be considered too racist."
Well nothing is 100% a condom doesn't always prevent pregnacy either but its the resposibility of both parties to practice safe sex. When you hook up with a random girl on a night out, you use a condom right? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The country basically has open borders. What else do you expect? This is basically self destruction in the name of compassion.
Yep everthing that is going wrong in our country is caused by immigration!
The topic here is an issue caused by immigration. Do you feel otherwise?
OK HIV is the biggest cause of death in african 3rd world countries. So say we've had an influx of people arriving from such countires how does that increase the number of cases in the UK?
For one thing, treatment of HIV is expensive. NHS is already reeling under pressure.
For another thing, the disease does spread. How exactly are you going to stop that?
Well wearing a condom greating reduces risk!
"Greatly reduces" isn't good enough. The first challenge is identifying who has HIV in the first place. Do you think we should do HIV tests on the people arriving on boats. The progressive lunatics went mad when age test was proposed. A HIV test would be considered too racist.
Well nothing is 100% a condom doesn't always prevent pregnacy either but its the resposibility of both parties to practice safe sex. When you hook up with a random girl on a night out, you use a condom right?"
Yes. But I don't use condoms for oral sex. HIV can spread through oral sex too. Not to mention the fact that even people who receive education on these matters don't use protection all the time.
You haven't even touched on the topic of the expensive treatment for each of them. Who is going to foot the bill? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Would people who complained about Boris not closing the borders earlier for COVID and having strict protocol, be happy with following the same protocol for HIV?
He didn't close the borders though did he? The aiports were still open for "essential travel" unlike other countires that closed the airports so nobody came in or out
But people wanted him to close the borders. I am asking if the same people who wanted him to close the borders then would want him to close the borders now"
Guess it doesn't really matter now, Boris is a Charltan and a liar that got exposed. He is now a journalist for the daily mail that writes articles on how brexit is failing but yet he was the one who delivered it???? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Would people who complained about Boris not closing the borders earlier for COVID and having strict protocol, be happy with following the same protocol for HIV?
He didn't close the borders though did he? The aiports were still open for "essential travel" unlike other countires that closed the airports so nobody came in or out
But people wanted him to close the borders. I am asking if the same people who wanted him to close the borders then would want him to close the borders now
Guess it doesn't really matter now, Boris is a Charltan and a liar that got exposed. He is now a journalist for the daily mail that writes articles on how brexit is failing but yet he was the one who delivered it???? "
I am not sure what you are blabbering. Boris is not the topic here. There were people who were supportive of closing the borders immediately during Covid. Would the same people be happy doing this now for HIV? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A 15 year high in HIV. after a surge in cases from migrants wtf are we doing in the U.K. it’s mental
Where do you get this information "
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/01/hiv-diagnoses-migrants-cases-contracted-abroad/ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The country basically has open borders. What else do you expect? This is basically self destruction in the name of compassion.
Yep everthing that is going wrong in our country is caused by immigration!
The topic here is an issue caused by immigration. Do you feel otherwise?
OK HIV is the biggest cause of death in african 3rd world countries. So say we've had an influx of people arriving from such countires how does that increase the number of cases in the UK?
For one thing, treatment of HIV is expensive. NHS is already reeling under pressure.
For another thing, the disease does spread. How exactly are you going to stop that?
Well wearing a condom greating reduces risk!
"Greatly reduces" isn't good enough. The first challenge is identifying who has HIV in the first place. Do you think we should do HIV tests on the people arriving on boats. The progressive lunatics went mad when age test was proposed. A HIV test would be considered too racist.
Well nothing is 100% a condom doesn't always prevent pregnacy either but its the resposibility of both parties to practice safe sex. When you hook up with a random girl on a night out, you use a condom right?
Yes. But I don't use condoms for oral sex. HIV can spread through oral sex too. Not to mention the fact that even people who receive education on these matters don't use protection all the time.
You haven't even touched on the topic of the expensive treatment for each of them. Who is going to foot the bill?"
What? the risk of catching HIV through Oral is 0.04% However I'm glad youre responsible and carry a condom in case you hookup on a night out. But remember they expire after 5 years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The country basically has open borders. What else do you expect? This is basically self destruction in the name of compassion.
Yep everthing that is going wrong in our country is caused by immigration!
The topic here is an issue caused by immigration. Do you feel otherwise?
OK HIV is the biggest cause of death in african 3rd world countries. So say we've had an influx of people arriving from such countires how does that increase the number of cases in the UK?
For one thing, treatment of HIV is expensive. NHS is already reeling under pressure.
For another thing, the disease does spread. How exactly are you going to stop that?
Well wearing a condom greating reduces risk!
"Greatly reduces" isn't good enough. The first challenge is identifying who has HIV in the first place. Do you think we should do HIV tests on the people arriving on boats. The progressive lunatics went mad when age test was proposed. A HIV test would be considered too racist.
Well nothing is 100% a condom doesn't always prevent pregnacy either but its the resposibility of both parties to practice safe sex. When you hook up with a random girl on a night out, you use a condom right?
Yes. But I don't use condoms for oral sex. HIV can spread through oral sex too. Not to mention the fact that even people who receive education on these matters don't use protection all the time.
You haven't even touched on the topic of the expensive treatment for each of them. Who is going to foot the bill?
What? the risk of catching HIV through Oral is 0.04% However I'm glad youre responsible and carry a condom in case you hookup on a night out. But remember they expire after 5 years."
Yes. If more infected people are having unprotected oral sex, then the risk is increased. As I said, unprotected anal/vaginal sex is much more rampant than you believe.
Also, asking you again as you seem to be intentionally ignoring this question. Who should foot the bill for the expensive treatments? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The country basically has open borders. What else do you expect? This is basically self destruction in the name of compassion.
Yep everthing that is going wrong in our country is caused by immigration!
The topic here is an issue caused by immigration. Do you feel otherwise?
OK HIV is the biggest cause of death in african 3rd world countries. So say we've had an influx of people arriving from such countires how does that increase the number of cases in the UK?
For one thing, treatment of HIV is expensive. NHS is already reeling under pressure.
For another thing, the disease does spread. How exactly are you going to stop that?
Well wearing a condom greating reduces risk!
"Greatly reduces" isn't good enough. The first challenge is identifying who has HIV in the first place. Do you think we should do HIV tests on the people arriving on boats. The progressive lunatics went mad when age test was proposed. A HIV test would be considered too racist.
Well nothing is 100% a condom doesn't always prevent pregnacy either but its the resposibility of both parties to practice safe sex. When you hook up with a random girl on a night out, you use a condom right?
Yes. But I don't use condoms for oral sex. HIV can spread through oral sex too. Not to mention the fact that even people who receive education on these matters don't use protection all the time.
You haven't even touched on the topic of the expensive treatment for each of them. Who is going to foot the bill?
What? the risk of catching HIV through Oral is 0.04% However I'm glad youre responsible and carry a condom in case you hookup on a night out. But remember they expire after 5 years.
Yes. If more infected people are having unprotected oral sex, then the risk is increased. As I said, unprotected anal/vaginal sex is much more rampant than you believe.
Also, asking you again as you seem to be intentionally ignoring this question. Who should foot the bill for the expensive treatments?"
Well a lot of HIV treatment is paid for by charities but obviously the tax payer will be paying for it. I paid about 20K in tax last year and don't really have any say in what its spent on. So why get wound up about it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Would people who complained about Boris not closing the borders earlier for COVID and having strict protocol, be happy with following the same protocol for HIV?
He didn't close the borders though did he? The aiports were still open for "essential travel" unlike other countires that closed the airports so nobody came in or out
But people wanted him to close the borders. I am asking if the same people who wanted him to close the borders then would want him to close the borders now
Guess it doesn't really matter now, Boris is a Charltan and a liar that got exposed. He is now a journalist for the daily mail that writes articles on how brexit is failing but yet he was the one who delivered it????
I am not sure what you are blabbering. Boris is not the topic here. There were people who were supportive of closing the borders immediately during Covid. Would the same people be happy doing this now for HIV?"
I didn't bring Boris up you did |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Would people who complained about Boris not closing the borders earlier for COVID and having strict protocol, be happy with following the same protocol for HIV?
He didn't close the borders though did he? The aiports were still open for "essential travel" unlike other countires that closed the airports so nobody came in or out
But people wanted him to close the borders. I am asking if the same people who wanted him to close the borders then would want him to close the borders now
Guess it doesn't really matter now, Boris is a Charltan and a liar that got exposed. He is now a journalist for the daily mail that writes articles on how brexit is failing but yet he was the one who delivered it????
I am not sure what you are blabbering. Boris is not the topic here. There were people who were supportive of closing the borders immediately during Covid. Would the same people be happy doing this now for HIV?
I didn't bring Boris up you did"
My point was about the people who wanted to close the borders then. Is it that hard to read? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The country basically has open borders. What else do you expect? This is basically self destruction in the name of compassion.
Yep everthing that is going wrong in our country is caused by immigration!
The topic here is an issue caused by immigration. Do you feel otherwise?
OK HIV is the biggest cause of death in african 3rd world countries. So say we've had an influx of people arriving from such countires how does that increase the number of cases in the UK?
For one thing, treatment of HIV is expensive. NHS is already reeling under pressure.
For another thing, the disease does spread. How exactly are you going to stop that?
Well wearing a condom greating reduces risk!
"Greatly reduces" isn't good enough. The first challenge is identifying who has HIV in the first place. Do you think we should do HIV tests on the people arriving on boats. The progressive lunatics went mad when age test was proposed. A HIV test would be considered too racist.
Well nothing is 100% a condom doesn't always prevent pregnacy either but its the resposibility of both parties to practice safe sex. When you hook up with a random girl on a night out, you use a condom right?
Yes. But I don't use condoms for oral sex. HIV can spread through oral sex too. Not to mention the fact that even people who receive education on these matters don't use protection all the time.
You haven't even touched on the topic of the expensive treatment for each of them. Who is going to foot the bill?
What? the risk of catching HIV through Oral is 0.04% However I'm glad youre responsible and carry a condom in case you hookup on a night out. But remember they expire after 5 years.
Yes. If more infected people are having unprotected oral sex, then the risk is increased. As I said, unprotected anal/vaginal sex is much more rampant than you believe.
Also, asking you again as you seem to be intentionally ignoring this question. Who should foot the bill for the expensive treatments?
Well a lot of HIV treatment is paid for by charities but obviously the tax payer will be paying for it. I paid about 20K in tax last year and don't really have any say in what its spent on. So why get wound up about it?"
The NHS has limited capacity. It's already stretched beyond capacity. Do you think throwing more HIV patients at them is a good idea? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The country basically has open borders. What else do you expect? This is basically self destruction in the name of compassion.
Yep everthing that is going wrong in our country is caused by immigration!
The topic here is an issue caused by immigration. Do you feel otherwise?
OK HIV is the biggest cause of death in african 3rd world countries. So say we've had an influx of people arriving from such countires how does that increase the number of cases in the UK?
For one thing, treatment of HIV is expensive. NHS is already reeling under pressure.
For another thing, the disease does spread. How exactly are you going to stop that?
Well wearing a condom greating reduces risk!
"Greatly reduces" isn't good enough. The first challenge is identifying who has HIV in the first place. Do you think we should do HIV tests on the people arriving on boats. The progressive lunatics went mad when age test was proposed. A HIV test would be considered too racist.
Well nothing is 100% a condom doesn't always prevent pregnacy either but its the resposibility of both parties to practice safe sex. When you hook up with a random girl on a night out, you use a condom right?
Yes. But I don't use condoms for oral sex. HIV can spread through oral sex too. Not to mention the fact that even people who receive education on these matters don't use protection all the time.
You haven't even touched on the topic of the expensive treatment for each of them. Who is going to foot the bill?
What? the risk of catching HIV through Oral is 0.04% However I'm glad youre responsible and carry a condom in case you hookup on a night out. But remember they expire after 5 years.
Yes. If more infected people are having unprotected oral sex, then the risk is increased. As I said, unprotected anal/vaginal sex is much more rampant than you believe.
Also, asking you again as you seem to be intentionally ignoring this question. Who should foot the bill for the expensive treatments?
Well a lot of HIV treatment is paid for by charities but obviously the tax payer will be paying for it. I paid about 20K in tax last year and don't really have any say in what its spent on. So why get wound up about it?
The NHS has limited capacity. It's already stretched beyond capacity. Do you think throwing more HIV patients at them is a good idea?"
The bigest strain to the NHS are
Staff Wages
Cost of drugs
Cost of medical supplies
Emergency Services
Maintaince of buildings
payout of negelence claims
A&E cases
Aftercare treatment
Obiesity related illness
Heart disease
Mental Heath Issues
and around 10 billon a year is wasted on uneessesary xrays because someone has gone to A&E with a sprained ankle or something.
Oh an around 8 billon for PPE to a tory donor that was usless
HIV treatment isn't even ranked for impact on the NHS. What if someone who is British Born and bred and needs HIV treatment, should they get better treatment that somone who has immigrated?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 13 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"The country basically has open borders. What else do you expect? This is basically self destruction in the name of compassion.
Yep everthing that is going wrong in our country is caused by immigration!
The topic here is an issue caused by immigration. Do you feel otherwise?
OK HIV is the biggest cause of death in african 3rd world countries. So say we've had an influx of people arriving from such countires how does that increase the number of cases in the UK?
For one thing, treatment of HIV is expensive. NHS is already reeling under pressure.
For another thing, the disease does spread. How exactly are you going to stop that?
Well wearing a condom greating reduces risk!
"Greatly reduces" isn't good enough. The first challenge is identifying who has HIV in the first place. Do you think we should do HIV tests on the people arriving on boats. The progressive lunatics went mad when age test was proposed. A HIV test would be considered too racist.
Well nothing is 100% a condom doesn't always prevent pregnacy either but its the resposibility of both parties to practice safe sex. When you hook up with a random girl on a night out, you use a condom right?
Yes. But I don't use condoms for oral sex. HIV can spread through oral sex too. Not to mention the fact that even people who receive education on these matters don't use protection all the time.
You haven't even touched on the topic of the expensive treatment for each of them. Who is going to foot the bill?
What? the risk of catching HIV through Oral is 0.04% However I'm glad youre responsible and carry a condom in case you hookup on a night out. But remember they expire after 5 years.
Yes. If more infected people are having unprotected oral sex, then the risk is increased. As I said, unprotected anal/vaginal sex is much more rampant than you believe.
Also, asking you again as you seem to be intentionally ignoring this question. Who should foot the bill for the expensive treatments?
Well a lot of HIV treatment is paid for by charities but obviously the tax payer will be paying for it. I paid about 20K in tax last year and don't really have any say in what its spent on. So why get wound up about it?"
Are you in favour of letting people into the country with transferable diseases that can cause death or enormous costs to control, or are you not in favour?
If you are why do you think that is okay?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The country basically has open borders. What else do you expect? This is basically self destruction in the name of compassion.
Yep everthing that is going wrong in our country is caused by immigration!
The topic here is an issue caused by immigration. Do you feel otherwise?
OK HIV is the biggest cause of death in african 3rd world countries. So say we've had an influx of people arriving from such countires how does that increase the number of cases in the UK?
For one thing, treatment of HIV is expensive. NHS is already reeling under pressure.
For another thing, the disease does spread. How exactly are you going to stop that?
Well wearing a condom greating reduces risk!
"Greatly reduces" isn't good enough. The first challenge is identifying who has HIV in the first place. Do you think we should do HIV tests on the people arriving on boats. The progressive lunatics went mad when age test was proposed. A HIV test would be considered too racist.
Well nothing is 100% a condom doesn't always prevent pregnacy either but its the resposibility of both parties to practice safe sex. When you hook up with a random girl on a night out, you use a condom right?
Yes. But I don't use condoms for oral sex. HIV can spread through oral sex too. Not to mention the fact that even people who receive education on these matters don't use protection all the time.
You haven't even touched on the topic of the expensive treatment for each of them. Who is going to foot the bill?
What? the risk of catching HIV through Oral is 0.04% However I'm glad youre responsible and carry a condom in case you hookup on a night out. But remember they expire after 5 years.
Yes. If more infected people are having unprotected oral sex, then the risk is increased. As I said, unprotected anal/vaginal sex is much more rampant than you believe.
Also, asking you again as you seem to be intentionally ignoring this question. Who should foot the bill for the expensive treatments?
Well a lot of HIV treatment is paid for by charities but obviously the tax payer will be paying for it. I paid about 20K in tax last year and don't really have any say in what its spent on. So why get wound up about it?
The NHS has limited capacity. It's already stretched beyond capacity. Do you think throwing more HIV patients at them is a good idea?
The bigest strain to the NHS are
Staff Wages
Cost of drugs
Cost of medical supplies
Emergency Services
Maintaince of buildings
payout of negelence claims
A&E cases
Aftercare treatment
Obiesity related illness
Heart disease
Mental Heath Issues
and around 10 billon a year is wasted on uneessesary xrays because someone has gone to A&E with a sprained ankle or something.
Oh an around 8 billon for PPE to a tory donor that was usless
HIV treatment isn't even ranked for impact on the NHS. What if someone who is British Born and bred and needs HIV treatment, should they get better treatment that somone who has immigrated?
"
Lifetime cost for managing HIV ranges from 70K to 400K per person. Are you willing to pay that money from your pocket? I don't.
Why should this country waste money treating patients from other countries?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The country basically has open borders. What else do you expect? This is basically self destruction in the name of compassion.
Yep everthing that is going wrong in our country is caused by immigration!
The topic here is an issue caused by immigration. Do you feel otherwise?
OK HIV is the biggest cause of death in african 3rd world countries. So say we've had an influx of people arriving from such countires how does that increase the number of cases in the UK?
For one thing, treatment of HIV is expensive. NHS is already reeling under pressure.
For another thing, the disease does spread. How exactly are you going to stop that?
Well wearing a condom greating reduces risk!
"Greatly reduces" isn't good enough. The first challenge is identifying who has HIV in the first place. Do you think we should do HIV tests on the people arriving on boats. The progressive lunatics went mad when age test was proposed. A HIV test would be considered too racist.
Well nothing is 100% a condom doesn't always prevent pregnacy either but its the resposibility of both parties to practice safe sex. When you hook up with a random girl on a night out, you use a condom right?
Yes. But I don't use condoms for oral sex. HIV can spread through oral sex too. Not to mention the fact that even people who receive education on these matters don't use protection all the time.
You haven't even touched on the topic of the expensive treatment for each of them. Who is going to foot the bill?
What? the risk of catching HIV through Oral is 0.04% However I'm glad youre responsible and carry a condom in case you hookup on a night out. But remember they expire after 5 years.
Yes. If more infected people are having unprotected oral sex, then the risk is increased. As I said, unprotected anal/vaginal sex is much more rampant than you believe.
Also, asking you again as you seem to be intentionally ignoring this question. Who should foot the bill for the expensive treatments?
Well a lot of HIV treatment is paid for by charities but obviously the tax payer will be paying for it. I paid about 20K in tax last year and don't really have any say in what its spent on. So why get wound up about it?
Are you in favour of letting people into the country with transferable diseases that can cause death or enormous costs to control, or are you not in favour?
If you are why do you think that is okay?
"
Not really no, but the biggest reason for the rise in HIV cases is that people aren't using condoms as much. As I said above as Gen X we had a had a fear and we had it drummed into us that sex without a condom was a no no. To throw the blame at immigration is just xenophobic.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The country basically has open borders. What else do you expect? This is basically self destruction in the name of compassion.
Yep everthing that is going wrong in our country is caused by immigration!
The topic here is an issue caused by immigration. Do you feel otherwise?
OK HIV is the biggest cause of death in african 3rd world countries. So say we've had an influx of people arriving from such countires how does that increase the number of cases in the UK?
For one thing, treatment of HIV is expensive. NHS is already reeling under pressure.
For another thing, the disease does spread. How exactly are you going to stop that?
Well wearing a condom greating reduces risk!
"Greatly reduces" isn't good enough. The first challenge is identifying who has HIV in the first place. Do you think we should do HIV tests on the people arriving on boats. The progressive lunatics went mad when age test was proposed. A HIV test would be considered too racist.
Well nothing is 100% a condom doesn't always prevent pregnacy either but its the resposibility of both parties to practice safe sex. When you hook up with a random girl on a night out, you use a condom right?
Yes. But I don't use condoms for oral sex. HIV can spread through oral sex too. Not to mention the fact that even people who receive education on these matters don't use protection all the time.
You haven't even touched on the topic of the expensive treatment for each of them. Who is going to foot the bill?
What? the risk of catching HIV through Oral is 0.04% However I'm glad youre responsible and carry a condom in case you hookup on a night out. But remember they expire after 5 years.
Yes. If more infected people are having unprotected oral sex, then the risk is increased. As I said, unprotected anal/vaginal sex is much more rampant than you believe.
Also, asking you again as you seem to be intentionally ignoring this question. Who should foot the bill for the expensive treatments?
Well a lot of HIV treatment is paid for by charities but obviously the tax payer will be paying for it. I paid about 20K in tax last year and don't really have any say in what its spent on. So why get wound up about it?
Are you in favour of letting people into the country with transferable diseases that can cause death or enormous costs to control, or are you not in favour?
If you are why do you think that is okay?
Not really no, but the biggest reason for the rise in HIV cases is that people aren't using condoms as much. As I said above as Gen X we had a had a fear and we had it drummed into us that sex without a condom was a no no. To throw the blame at immigration is just xenophobic.
"
Would you suggesting that when there was a similar spike in cases in 2016, that wasn't blamed on foreigners in the usual media outlets, that these same people weren't as outraged? 
Surely not! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I would have thought that basic health checks and checks for things like HIV etc for those arriving by small boats would be done as a matter of course. It helps them by identifying health issues they may not have been aware of and helps the NHS in the long term. There is a cost to this but overall it could end up being a money saver and insignificant compared to the money spent on the whole process |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Be sensible. We've been having the greatest possible sex for decades and haven't caught anything yet (didn't even catch covid) so it makes one wonder! Also HIV is easily transferred from gay/bi guys who misbehave (look up the way it is passed before fuming on here), are statistically very high risk and pass it on to the straight ones. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
What? the risk of catching HIV through Oral is 0.04% However I'm glad youre responsible and carry a condom in case you hookup on a night out. But remember they expire after 5 years.
Yes. If more infected people are having unprotected oral sex, then the risk is increased. As I said, unprotected anal/vaginal sex is much more rampant than you believe.
Also, asking you again as you seem to be intentionally ignoring this question. Who should foot the bill for the expensive treatments?
Well a lot of HIV treatment is paid for by charities but obviously the tax payer will be paying for it. I paid about 20K in tax last year and don't really have any say in what its spent on. So why get wound up about it?
Are you in favour of letting people into the country with transferable diseases that can cause death or enormous costs to control, or are you not in favour?
If you are why do you think that is okay?
Not really no, but the biggest reason for the rise in HIV cases is that people aren't using condoms as much. As I said above as Gen X we had a had a fear and we had it drummed into us that sex without a condom was a no no. To throw the blame at immigration is just xenophobic.
"
The statistics clearly show that immigrants from some countries are responsible for the rise of HIV cases in the country. Xenophobia? Maybe take a look at hard data instead of using fancy words thrown around by the far left on the internet? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The country basically has open borders. What else do you expect? This is basically self destruction in the name of compassion.
Yep everthing that is going wrong in our country is caused by immigration!
The topic here is an issue caused by immigration. Do you feel otherwise?
OK HIV is the biggest cause of death in african 3rd world countries. So say we've had an influx of people arriving from such countires how does that increase the number of cases in the UK?
For one thing, treatment of HIV is expensive. NHS is already reeling under pressure.
For another thing, the disease does spread. How exactly are you going to stop that?
Well wearing a condom greating reduces risk!
"Greatly reduces" isn't good enough. The first challenge is identifying who has HIV in the first place. Do you think we should do HIV tests on the people arriving on boats. The progressive lunatics went mad when age test was proposed. A HIV test would be considered too racist.
Well nothing is 100% a condom doesn't always prevent pregnacy either but its the resposibility of both parties to practice safe sex. When you hook up with a random girl on a night out, you use a condom right?
Yes. But I don't use condoms for oral sex. HIV can spread through oral sex too. Not to mention the fact that even people who receive education on these matters don't use protection all the time.
You haven't even touched on the topic of the expensive treatment for each of them. Who is going to foot the bill?
What? the risk of catching HIV through Oral is 0.04% However I'm glad youre responsible and carry a condom in case you hookup on a night out. But remember they expire after 5 years.
Yes. If more infected people are having unprotected oral sex, then the risk is increased. As I said, unprotected anal/vaginal sex is much more rampant than you believe.
Also, asking you again as you seem to be intentionally ignoring this question. Who should foot the bill for the expensive treatments?
Well a lot of HIV treatment is paid for by charities but obviously the tax payer will be paying for it. I paid about 20K in tax last year and don't really have any say in what its spent on. So why get wound up about it?
Are you in favour of letting people into the country with transferable diseases that can cause death or enormous costs to control, or are you not in favour?
If you are why do you think that is okay?
Not really no, but the biggest reason for the rise in HIV cases is that people aren't using condoms as much. As I said above as Gen X we had a had a fear and we had it drummed into us that sex without a condom was a no no. To throw the blame at immigration is just xenophobic.
Would you suggesting that when there was a similar spike in cases in 2016, that wasn't blamed on foreigners in the usual media outlets, that these same people weren't as outraged?
Surely not!"
As someone who claims to be pro-science and doesn't follow stuff blindly, your aversion to hard data is mind-blowing  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 12 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"The country basically has open borders. What else do you expect? This is basically self destruction in the name of compassion.
Yep everthing that is going wrong in our country is caused by immigration!
The topic here is an issue caused by immigration. Do you feel otherwise?
OK HIV is the biggest cause of death in african 3rd world countries. So say we've had an influx of people arriving from such countires how does that increase the number of cases in the UK?
For one thing, treatment of HIV is expensive. NHS is already reeling under pressure.
For another thing, the disease does spread. How exactly are you going to stop that?
Well wearing a condom greating reduces risk!
"Greatly reduces" isn't good enough. The first challenge is identifying who has HIV in the first place. Do you think we should do HIV tests on the people arriving on boats. The progressive lunatics went mad when age test was proposed. A HIV test would be considered too racist.
Well nothing is 100% a condom doesn't always prevent pregnacy either but its the resposibility of both parties to practice safe sex. When you hook up with a random girl on a night out, you use a condom right?
Yes. But I don't use condoms for oral sex. HIV can spread through oral sex too. Not to mention the fact that even people who receive education on these matters don't use protection all the time.
You haven't even touched on the topic of the expensive treatment for each of them. Who is going to foot the bill?
What? the risk of catching HIV through Oral is 0.04% However I'm glad youre responsible and carry a condom in case you hookup on a night out. But remember they expire after 5 years.
Yes. If more infected people are having unprotected oral sex, then the risk is increased. As I said, unprotected anal/vaginal sex is much more rampant than you believe.
Also, asking you again as you seem to be intentionally ignoring this question. Who should foot the bill for the expensive treatments?
Well a lot of HIV treatment is paid for by charities but obviously the tax payer will be paying for it. I paid about 20K in tax last year and don't really have any say in what its spent on. So why get wound up about it?
Are you in favour of letting people into the country with transferable diseases that can cause death or enormous costs to control, or are you not in favour?
If you are why do you think that is okay?
Not really no, but the biggest reason for the rise in HIV cases is that people aren't using condoms as much. As I said above as Gen X we had a had a fear and we had it drummed into us that sex without a condom was a no no. To throw the blame at immigration is just xenophobic.
"
If people are not using sexual protection and there is an increased risk of HIV, what should we do as a matter of public health security? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Plenty of racism on this thread. Block button at the ready."
I think you are confused a what racism is.
What's the block button going to do?
Stop people messaging you that was never going to message you anyway?
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 12 weeks ago
Brighton |
"I would have thought that basic health checks and checks for things like HIV etc for those arriving by small boats would be done as a matter of course. It helps them by identifying health issues they may not have been aware of and helps the NHS in the long term. There is a cost to this but overall it could end up being a money saver and insignificant compared to the money spent on the whole process"
Why restrict that to those arriving in small boats? What about a wealthy [fill in nationality] business man who is HIV+ or a well paid software developer but wants to move to the UK to set up shop/work as contractor. Surely if we are going down the route of health screening immigrants, then it should apply to all? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 12 weeks ago
Brighton |
"
What? the risk of catching HIV through Oral is 0.04% However I'm glad youre responsible and carry a condom in case you hookup on a night out. But remember they expire after 5 years.
Yes. If more infected people are having unprotected oral sex, then the risk is increased. As I said, unprotected anal/vaginal sex is much more rampant than you believe.
Also, asking you again as you seem to be intentionally ignoring this question. Who should foot the bill for the expensive treatments?
Well a lot of HIV treatment is paid for by charities but obviously the tax payer will be paying for it. I paid about 20K in tax last year and don't really have any say in what its spent on. So why get wound up about it?
Are you in favour of letting people into the country with transferable diseases that can cause death or enormous costs to control, or are you not in favour?
If you are why do you think that is okay?
Not really no, but the biggest reason for the rise in HIV cases is that people aren't using condoms as much. As I said above as Gen X we had a had a fear and we had it drummed into us that sex without a condom was a no no. To throw the blame at immigration is just xenophobic.
The statistics clearly show that immigrants from some countries are responsible for the rise of HIV cases in the country. Xenophobia? Maybe take a look at hard data instead of using fancy words thrown around by the far left on the internet?"
“In 2023, the National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO) estimated that 3.14 million people in India were living with HIV/AIDS. This makes India home to the third-largest population of people with HIV/AIDS in the world, after South Africa and Nigeria.“ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
What? the risk of catching HIV through Oral is 0.04% However I'm glad youre responsible and carry a condom in case you hookup on a night out. But remember they expire after 5 years.
Yes. If more infected people are having unprotected oral sex, then the risk is increased. As I said, unprotected anal/vaginal sex is much more rampant than you believe.
Also, asking you again as you seem to be intentionally ignoring this question. Who should foot the bill for the expensive treatments?
Well a lot of HIV treatment is paid for by charities but obviously the tax payer will be paying for it. I paid about 20K in tax last year and don't really have any say in what its spent on. So why get wound up about it?
Are you in favour of letting people into the country with transferable diseases that can cause death or enormous costs to control, or are you not in favour?
If you are why do you think that is okay?
Not really no, but the biggest reason for the rise in HIV cases is that people aren't using condoms as much. As I said above as Gen X we had a had a fear and we had it drummed into us that sex without a condom was a no no. To throw the blame at immigration is just xenophobic.
The statistics clearly show that immigrants from some countries are responsible for the rise of HIV cases in the country. Xenophobia? Maybe take a look at hard data instead of using fancy words thrown around by the far left on the internet?
“In 2023, the National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO) estimated that 3.14 million people in India were living with HIV/AIDS. This makes India home to the third-largest population of people with HIV/AIDS in the world, after South Africa and Nigeria.“"
Your point being? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would have thought that basic health checks and checks for things like HIV etc for those arriving by small boats would be done as a matter of course. It helps them by identifying health issues they may not have been aware of and helps the NHS in the long term. There is a cost to this but overall it could end up being a money saver and insignificant compared to the money spent on the whole process
Why restrict that to those arriving in small boats? What about a wealthy [fill in nationality] business man who is HIV+ or a well paid software developer but wants to move to the UK to set up shop/work as contractor. Surely if we are going down the route of health screening immigrants, then it should apply to all? "
It already applies with legal immigration. For example, people coming from India must go through TB test in order to apply for work visa. If the government wants, they can easily add more diseases to the list. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would have thought that basic health checks and checks for things like HIV etc for those arriving by small boats would be done as a matter of course. It helps them by identifying health issues they may not have been aware of and helps the NHS in the long term. There is a cost to this but overall it could end up being a money saver and insignificant compared to the money spent on the whole process
Why restrict that to those arriving in small boats? What about a wealthy [fill in nationality] business man who is HIV+ or a well paid software developer but wants to move to the UK to set up shop/work as contractor. Surely if we are going down the route of health screening immigrants, then it should apply to all? "
I expected such things to already be in place but it's a good point. Those coming legally should have to have these health checks carried out before leaving for the UK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 12 weeks ago
Brighton |
"I would have thought that basic health checks and checks for things like HIV etc for those arriving by small boats would be done as a matter of course. It helps them by identifying health issues they may not have been aware of and helps the NHS in the long term. There is a cost to this but overall it could end up being a money saver and insignificant compared to the money spent on the whole process
Why restrict that to those arriving in small boats? What about a wealthy [fill in nationality] business man who is HIV+ or a well paid software developer but wants to move to the UK to set up shop/work as contractor. Surely if we are going down the route of health screening immigrants, then it should apply to all?
It already applies with legal immigration. For example, people coming from India must go through TB test in order to apply for work visa. If the government wants, they can easily add more diseases to the list."
As long as it applies to all immigrants regardless of social standing and wealth then seems like a good idea. What is the next step after that. Do we not allow them in if they are HIV+ ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 12 weeks ago
Brighton |
"
What? the risk of catching HIV through Oral is 0.04% However I'm glad youre responsible and carry a condom in case you hookup on a night out. But remember they expire after 5 years.
Yes. If more infected people are having unprotected oral sex, then the risk is increased. As I said, unprotected anal/vaginal sex is much more rampant than you believe.
Also, asking you again as you seem to be intentionally ignoring this question. Who should foot the bill for the expensive treatments?
Well a lot of HIV treatment is paid for by charities but obviously the tax payer will be paying for it. I paid about 20K in tax last year and don't really have any say in what its spent on. So why get wound up about it?
Are you in favour of letting people into the country with transferable diseases that can cause death or enormous costs to control, or are you not in favour?
If you are why do you think that is okay?
Not really no, but the biggest reason for the rise in HIV cases is that people aren't using condoms as much. As I said above as Gen X we had a had a fear and we had it drummed into us that sex without a condom was a no no. To throw the blame at immigration is just xenophobic.
The statistics clearly show that immigrants from some countries are responsible for the rise of HIV cases in the country. Xenophobia? Maybe take a look at hard data instead of using fancy words thrown around by the far left on the internet?
“In 2023, the National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO) estimated that 3.14 million people in India were living with HIV/AIDS. This makes India home to the third-largest population of people with HIV/AIDS in the world, after South Africa and Nigeria.“
Your point being?"
I found that interesting because “we” normally associate HIV with African countries. And as the thrust of this thread is focused on small boat crossers, it helps to see a wider context.
When you say:
" The statistics clearly show that immigrants from some countries are responsible for the rise of HIV cases in the country."
Do you have a source for that as it sounds interesting. Immigrants from which countries are responsible? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
https://www.gov.uk/tb-test-visa/countries-where-you-need-a-tb-test-to-enter-the-uk
These are the list of countries where you need to take TB tests for UK visas. Ideally, this list should be updated to cover more diseases, based on prevalence.
But what's the point if none of these rules apply when you show up in a boat? If you apply legally for work, you have to go through a huge process and will be kicked out if you lose the job, you will be asked to leave the country within 3 months. On the other hand, if you show up in a boat, you will be provided free accommodation and money.
Still people don't see the ridiculousness of the system? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would have thought that basic health checks and checks for things like HIV etc for those arriving by small boats would be done as a matter of course. It helps them by identifying health issues they may not have been aware of and helps the NHS in the long term. There is a cost to this but overall it could end up being a money saver and insignificant compared to the money spent on the whole process
Why restrict that to those arriving in small boats? What about a wealthy [fill in nationality] business man who is HIV+ or a well paid software developer but wants to move to the UK to set up shop/work as contractor. Surely if we are going down the route of health screening immigrants, then it should apply to all?
It already applies with legal immigration. For example, people coming from India must go through TB test in order to apply for work visa. If the government wants, they can easily add more diseases to the list.
As long as it applies to all immigrants regardless of social standing and wealth then seems like a good idea. What is the next step after that. Do we not allow them in if they are HIV+ ?"
It already applies to all immigrants, based on which country they are from. TB is still present in some countries and the people from these countries have to take TB test in order to apply for visa. If you can stop people with TB, why not people with HIV? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
“In 2023, the National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO) estimated that 3.14 million people in India were living with HIV/AIDS. This makes India home to the third-largest population of people with HIV/AIDS in the world, after South Africa and Nigeria.“
Your point being?
I found that interesting because “we” normally associate HIV with African countries. And as the thrust of this thread is focused on small boat crossers, it helps to see a wider context.
"
You aren't really widening the context because you sharing some lazy statistics. Do I really have to tell you what "per capita" means? If you look at HIV prevalence rate. India stands at about the 100th rank doing better than plenty of European countries.
"
Do you have a source for that as it sounds interesting. Immigrants from which countries are responsible?"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/01/hiv-diagnoses-migrants-cases-contracted-abroad/ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 12 weeks ago
Brighton |
"https://www.gov.uk/tb-test-visa/countries-where-you-need-a-tb-test-to-enter-the-uk
These are the list of countries where you need to take TB tests for UK visas. Ideally, this list should be updated to cover more diseases, based on prevalence.
But what's the point if none of these rules apply when you show up in a boat? If you apply legally for work, you have to go through a huge process and will be kicked out if you lose the job, you will be asked to leave the country within 3 months. On the other hand, if you show up in a boat, you will be provided free accommodation and money.
Still people don't see the ridiculousness of the system?"
My initial reaction is that everyone should be tested to come and live in the UK. I also think anyone coming to the UK on a work Visa MUST have fully comprehensive health insurance paid for by their employer or themselves (I know you do which is good right and proper).
Who pays for the TB testing? Presumably it happens before coming to the UK (ie before Visa granted)? With the small boaters the tab for health checks will be funded by taxpayers so yet more outcry about cost. However, it would be sensible from a long teem cost and health prevention pov. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 12 weeks ago
Brighton |
"
“In 2023, the National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO) estimated that 3.14 million people in India were living with HIV/AIDS. This makes India home to the third-largest population of people with HIV/AIDS in the world, after South Africa and Nigeria.“
Your point being?
I found that interesting because “we” normally associate HIV with African countries. And as the thrust of this thread is focused on small boat crossers, it helps to see a wider context.
You aren't really widening the context because you sharing some lazy statistics. Do I really have to tell you what "per capita" means? If you look at HIV prevalence rate. India stands at about the 100th rank doing better than plenty of European countries.
Do you have a source for that as it sounds interesting. Immigrants from which countries are responsible?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/01/hiv-diagnoses-migrants-cases-contracted-abroad/"
If I had wanted to post per capita I would have. It was absolute numbers that was interesting and how India is top three after SA and Nigeria which I had not realised.
Thanks for link. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"https://www.gov.uk/tb-test-visa/countries-where-you-need-a-tb-test-to-enter-the-uk
These are the list of countries where you need to take TB tests for UK visas. Ideally, this list should be updated to cover more diseases, based on prevalence.
But what's the point if none of these rules apply when you show up in a boat? If you apply legally for work, you have to go through a huge process and will be kicked out if you lose the job, you will be asked to leave the country within 3 months. On the other hand, if you show up in a boat, you will be provided free accommodation and money.
Still people don't see the ridiculousness of the system?
My initial reaction is that everyone should be tested to come and live in the UK. I also think anyone coming to the UK on a work Visa MUST have fully comprehensive health insurance paid for by their employer or themselves (I know you do which is good right and proper).
Who pays for the TB testing? Presumably it happens before coming to the UK (ie before Visa granted)? With the small boaters the tab for health checks will be funded by taxpayers so yet more outcry about cost. However, it would be sensible from a long teem cost and health prevention pov."
It is paid for by the person applying for the Visa. The countries are chosen based on prevalence of the disease. TB has been mostly eradicated in other countries. So there is no point getting people from the other countries to do the test. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
“In 2023, the National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO) estimated that 3.14 million people in India were living with HIV/AIDS. This makes India home to the third-largest population of people with HIV/AIDS in the world, after South Africa and Nigeria.“
Your point being?
I found that interesting because “we” normally associate HIV with African countries. And as the thrust of this thread is focused on small boat crossers, it helps to see a wider context.
You aren't really widening the context because you sharing some lazy statistics. Do I really have to tell you what "per capita" means? If you look at HIV prevalence rate. India stands at about the 100th rank doing better than plenty of European countries.
Do you have a source for that as it sounds interesting. Immigrants from which countries are responsible?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/01/hiv-diagnoses-migrants-cases-contracted-abroad/
If I had wanted to post per capita I would have. It was absolute numbers that was interesting and how India is top three after SA and Nigeria which I had not realised.
Thanks for link."
How is absolute numbers more interesting compared to per capita when it comes to measuring disease prevalence?
I don't have a telegraph subscription and I am able to read it. Weird that it's paywalled for you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wonder how bad it as to get before ppl wake up and see it’s a problem that won’t go away "
Because it's political correctness disease. It's infected the whole political class, career politicians are indoctrinated to be as PC as possible, same goes for the likes of the BBC. You hear this "oh my word, oh my days" pish instead of "oh my god" .. all that kind of thing.
The climate nonsense and the way wev tackled COVID is also directly due to political correctness, a very left wing kind of mindset. It's responsible for just about all the stupid decisions that gov of any colour have made in the British Isles. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 12 weeks ago
Brighton |
"
“In 2023, the National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO) estimated that 3.14 million people in India were living with HIV/AIDS. This makes India home to the third-largest population of people with HIV/AIDS in the world, after South Africa and Nigeria.“
Your point being?
I found that interesting because “we” normally associate HIV with African countries. And as the thrust of this thread is focused on small boat crossers, it helps to see a wider context.
You aren't really widening the context because you sharing some lazy statistics. Do I really have to tell you what "per capita" means? If you look at HIV prevalence rate. India stands at about the 100th rank doing better than plenty of European countries.
Do you have a source for that as it sounds interesting. Immigrants from which countries are responsible?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/01/hiv-diagnoses-migrants-cases-contracted-abroad/
If I had wanted to post per capita I would have. It was absolute numbers that was interesting and how India is top three after SA and Nigeria which I had not realised.
Thanks for link.
How is absolute numbers more interesting compared to per capita when it comes to measuring disease prevalence?
I don't have a telegraph subscription and I am able to read it. Weird that it's paywalled for you "
🤷🏻♂️ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 12 weeks ago
Brighton |
"https://www.gov.uk/tb-test-visa/countries-where-you-need-a-tb-test-to-enter-the-uk
These are the list of countries where you need to take TB tests for UK visas. Ideally, this list should be updated to cover more diseases, based on prevalence.
But what's the point if none of these rules apply when you show up in a boat? If you apply legally for work, you have to go through a huge process and will be kicked out if you lose the job, you will be asked to leave the country within 3 months. On the other hand, if you show up in a boat, you will be provided free accommodation and money.
Still people don't see the ridiculousness of the system?
My initial reaction is that everyone should be tested to come and live in the UK. I also think anyone coming to the UK on a work Visa MUST have fully comprehensive health insurance paid for by their employer or themselves (I know you do which is good right and proper).
Who pays for the TB testing? Presumably it happens before coming to the UK (ie before Visa granted)? With the small boaters the tab for health checks will be funded by taxpayers so yet more outcry about cost. However, it would be sensible from a long teem cost and health prevention pov.
It is paid for by the person applying for the Visa. The countries are chosen based on prevalence of the disease. TB has been mostly eradicated in other countries. So there is no point getting people from the other countries to do the test."
Makes sense. So how would we determine the threshold for insisting on HIV testing to get a Visa? And would you go down a per capita route of absolute numbers?
I need to check but in the UK I believe we cannot discriminate against people who are HIV+ in relation to jobs. Would that become a legal minefield for bringing foreign workers into the UK? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 12 weeks ago
Brighton |
"https://www.gov.uk/tb-test-visa/countries-where-you-need-a-tb-test-to-enter-the-uk
These are the list of countries where you need to take TB tests for UK visas. Ideally, this list should be updated to cover more diseases, based on prevalence.
But what's the point if none of these rules apply when you show up in a boat? If you apply legally for work, you have to go through a huge process and will be kicked out if you lose the job, you will be asked to leave the country within 3 months. On the other hand, if you show up in a boat, you will be provided free accommodation and money.
Still people don't see the ridiculousness of the system?
My initial reaction is that everyone should be tested to come and live in the UK. I also think anyone coming to the UK on a work Visa MUST have fully comprehensive health insurance paid for by their employer or themselves (I know you do which is good right and proper).
Who pays for the TB testing? Presumably it happens before coming to the UK (ie before Visa granted)? With the small boaters the tab for health checks will be funded by taxpayers so yet more outcry about cost. However, it would be sensible from a long teem cost and health prevention pov.
It is paid for by the person applying for the Visa. The countries are chosen based on prevalence of the disease. TB has been mostly eradicated in other countries. So there is no point getting people from the other countries to do the test.
Makes sense. So how would we determine the threshold for insisting on HIV testing to get a Visa? And would you go down a per capita route of absolute numbers?
I need to check but in the UK I believe we cannot discriminate against people who are HIV+ in relation to jobs. Would that become a legal minefield for bringing foreign workers into the UK?"
As I thought…
“The Equality Act 2010 protects people living with HIV from discrimination in the UK. This act applies to employment, education, access to goods and services, and buying or renting property. People with HIV are protected in the same way as other disabled people.” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 12 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"https://www.gov.uk/tb-test-visa/countries-where-you-need-a-tb-test-to-enter-the-uk
These are the list of countries where you need to take TB tests for UK visas. Ideally, this list should be updated to cover more diseases, based on prevalence.
But what's the point if none of these rules apply when you show up in a boat? If you apply legally for work, you have to go through a huge process and will be kicked out if you lose the job, you will be asked to leave the country within 3 months. On the other hand, if you show up in a boat, you will be provided free accommodation and money.
Still people don't see the ridiculousness of the system?
My initial reaction is that everyone should be tested to come and live in the UK. I also think anyone coming to the UK on a work Visa MUST have fully comprehensive health insurance paid for by their employer or themselves (I know you do which is good right and proper).
Who pays for the TB testing? Presumably it happens before coming to the UK (ie before Visa granted)? With the small boaters the tab for health checks will be funded by taxpayers so yet more outcry about cost. However, it would be sensible from a long teem cost and health prevention pov.
It is paid for by the person applying for the Visa. The countries are chosen based on prevalence of the disease. TB has been mostly eradicated in other countries. So there is no point getting people from the other countries to do the test.
Makes sense. So how would we determine the threshold for insisting on HIV testing to get a Visa? And would you go down a per capita route of absolute numbers?
I need to check but in the UK I believe we cannot discriminate against people who are HIV+ in relation to jobs. Would that become a legal minefield for bringing foreign workers into the UK?
As I thought…
“The Equality Act 2010 protects people living with HIV from discrimination in the UK. This act applies to employment, education, access to goods and services, and buying or renting property. People with HIV are protected in the same way as other disabled people.”"
That is for people living in the UK |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"https://www.gov.uk/tb-test-visa/countries-where-you-need-a-tb-test-to-enter-the-uk
These are the list of countries where you need to take TB tests for UK visas. Ideally, this list should be updated to cover more diseases, based on prevalence.
But what's the point if none of these rules apply when you show up in a boat? If you apply legally for work, you have to go through a huge process and will be kicked out if you lose the job, you will be asked to leave the country within 3 months. On the other hand, if you show up in a boat, you will be provided free accommodation and money.
Still people don't see the ridiculousness of the system?
My initial reaction is that everyone should be tested to come and live in the UK. I also think anyone coming to the UK on a work Visa MUST have fully comprehensive health insurance paid for by their employer or themselves (I know you do which is good right and proper).
Who pays for the TB testing? Presumably it happens before coming to the UK (ie before Visa granted)? With the small boaters the tab for health checks will be funded by taxpayers so yet more outcry about cost. However, it would be sensible from a long teem cost and health prevention pov.
It is paid for by the person applying for the Visa. The countries are chosen based on prevalence of the disease. TB has been mostly eradicated in other countries. So there is no point getting people from the other countries to do the test.
Makes sense. So how would we determine the threshold for insisting on HIV testing to get a Visa? And would you go down a per capita route of absolute numbers?
I need to check but in the UK I believe we cannot discriminate against people who are HIV+ in relation to jobs. Would that become a legal minefield for bringing foreign workers into the UK?
As I thought…
“The Equality Act 2010 protects people living with HIV from discrimination in the UK. This act applies to employment, education, access to goods and services, and buying or renting property. People with HIV are protected in the same way as other disabled people.”"
If we are setting thresholds, per capita is more meaningful. If a town has a population of 100 people, 50 out of whom are infected with a disease. Immigration from that town has to be more seriously monitored compared to a city with 10,000 people are with 100 people being infected. I don't know what the actual threshold should be. I would leave that to medical experts.
As for people with HIV being protected by the equality act, why is it a bad thing to block immigration by HIV status but totally fine thing to do it by TB? The equality act seems to be just another lame ass law passed by Labour. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 12 weeks ago
Brighton |
"https://www.gov.uk/tb-test-visa/countries-where-you-need-a-tb-test-to-enter-the-uk
These are the list of countries where you need to take TB tests for UK visas. Ideally, this list should be updated to cover more diseases, based on prevalence.
But what's the point if none of these rules apply when you show up in a boat? If you apply legally for work, you have to go through a huge process and will be kicked out if you lose the job, you will be asked to leave the country within 3 months. On the other hand, if you show up in a boat, you will be provided free accommodation and money.
Still people don't see the ridiculousness of the system?
My initial reaction is that everyone should be tested to come and live in the UK. I also think anyone coming to the UK on a work Visa MUST have fully comprehensive health insurance paid for by their employer or themselves (I know you do which is good right and proper).
Who pays for the TB testing? Presumably it happens before coming to the UK (ie before Visa granted)? With the small boaters the tab for health checks will be funded by taxpayers so yet more outcry about cost. However, it would be sensible from a long teem cost and health prevention pov.
It is paid for by the person applying for the Visa. The countries are chosen based on prevalence of the disease. TB has been mostly eradicated in other countries. So there is no point getting people from the other countries to do the test.
Makes sense. So how would we determine the threshold for insisting on HIV testing to get a Visa? And would you go down a per capita route of absolute numbers?
I need to check but in the UK I believe we cannot discriminate against people who are HIV+ in relation to jobs. Would that become a legal minefield for bringing foreign workers into the UK?
As I thought…
“The Equality Act 2010 protects people living with HIV from discrimination in the UK. This act applies to employment, education, access to goods and services, and buying or renting property. People with HIV are protected in the same way as other disabled people.”
If we are setting thresholds, per capita is more meaningful. If a town has a population of 100 people, 50 out of whom are infected with a disease. Immigration from that town has to be more seriously monitored compared to a city with 10,000 people are with 100 people being infected. I don't know what the actual threshold should be. I would leave that to medical experts.
As for people with HIV being protected by the equality act, why is it a bad thing to block immigration by HIV status but totally fine thing to do it by TB? The equality act seems to be just another lame ass law passed by Labour."
I’m not saying it is fine, I made no comment either way. I am playing Devil’s Advocate which is why I asked if this could be a legal minefield.
On the surface a full health screening to come and live in the UK seems sensible, but it needs to apply to all (with perhaps risk indicators by country).
Just thinking about India. Are there regions where prevalence is higher? Can we make assumptions on social demographics? What if someone moves to a different region, would there risk indicator be based on place of origin or location at the time of visa application? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 12 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"https://www.gov.uk/tb-test-visa/countries-where-you-need-a-tb-test-to-enter-the-uk
These are the list of countries where you need to take TB tests for UK visas. Ideally, this list should be updated to cover more diseases, based on prevalence.
But what's the point if none of these rules apply when you show up in a boat? If you apply legally for work, you have to go through a huge process and will be kicked out if you lose the job, you will be asked to leave the country within 3 months. On the other hand, if you show up in a boat, you will be provided free accommodation and money.
Still people don't see the ridiculousness of the system?
My initial reaction is that everyone should be tested to come and live in the UK. I also think anyone coming to the UK on a work Visa MUST have fully comprehensive health insurance paid for by their employer or themselves (I know you do which is good right and proper).
Who pays for the TB testing? Presumably it happens before coming to the UK (ie before Visa granted)? With the small boaters the tab for health checks will be funded by taxpayers so yet more outcry about cost. However, it would be sensible from a long teem cost and health prevention pov.
It is paid for by the person applying for the Visa. The countries are chosen based on prevalence of the disease. TB has been mostly eradicated in other countries. So there is no point getting people from the other countries to do the test.
Makes sense. So how would we determine the threshold for insisting on HIV testing to get a Visa? And would you go down a per capita route of absolute numbers?
I need to check but in the UK I believe we cannot discriminate against people who are HIV+ in relation to jobs. Would that become a legal minefield for bringing foreign workers into the UK?
As I thought…
“The Equality Act 2010 protects people living with HIV from discrimination in the UK. This act applies to employment, education, access to goods and services, and buying or renting property. People with HIV are protected in the same way as other disabled people.”
If we are setting thresholds, per capita is more meaningful. If a town has a population of 100 people, 50 out of whom are infected with a disease. Immigration from that town has to be more seriously monitored compared to a city with 10,000 people are with 100 people being infected. I don't know what the actual threshold should be. I would leave that to medical experts.
As for people with HIV being protected by the equality act, why is it a bad thing to block immigration by HIV status but totally fine thing to do it by TB? The equality act seems to be just another lame ass law passed by Labour.
I’m not saying it is fine, I made no comment either way. I am playing Devil’s Advocate which is why I asked if this could be a legal minefield.
On the surface a full health screening to come and live in the UK seems sensible, but it needs to apply to all (with perhaps risk indicators by country).
Just thinking about India. Are there regions where prevalence is higher? Can we make assumptions on social demographics? What if someone moves to a different region, would there risk indicator be based on place of origin or location at the time of visa application?"
Health screening applies to specific roles such as healthcare, people need to be tested for infectious diseases and there is an influence on screening from the country they arrive from.
The issue being reported as I can see it is the rise from people entering the country illegally who I don't believe are screened for HIV.
A person coming to the UK on a work visa or to live for more than 6 months, will also be required to pay the immigration health surcharge.
I find it crazy that we apply such stringent rules on those coming here legally and are needed, and throw the rule book out the window if they arrive illegally. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 12 weeks ago
Brighton |
"https://www.gov.uk/tb-test-visa/countries-where-you-need-a-tb-test-to-enter-the-uk
These are the list of countries where you need to take TB tests for UK visas. Ideally, this list should be updated to cover more diseases, based on prevalence.
But what's the point if none of these rules apply when you show up in a boat? If you apply legally for work, you have to go through a huge process and will be kicked out if you lose the job, you will be asked to leave the country within 3 months. On the other hand, if you show up in a boat, you will be provided free accommodation and money.
Still people don't see the ridiculousness of the system?
My initial reaction is that everyone should be tested to come and live in the UK. I also think anyone coming to the UK on a work Visa MUST have fully comprehensive health insurance paid for by their employer or themselves (I know you do which is good right and proper).
Who pays for the TB testing? Presumably it happens before coming to the UK (ie before Visa granted)? With the small boaters the tab for health checks will be funded by taxpayers so yet more outcry about cost. However, it would be sensible from a long teem cost and health prevention pov.
It is paid for by the person applying for the Visa. The countries are chosen based on prevalence of the disease. TB has been mostly eradicated in other countries. So there is no point getting people from the other countries to do the test.
Makes sense. So how would we determine the threshold for insisting on HIV testing to get a Visa? And would you go down a per capita route of absolute numbers?
I need to check but in the UK I believe we cannot discriminate against people who are HIV+ in relation to jobs. Would that become a legal minefield for bringing foreign workers into the UK?
As I thought…
“The Equality Act 2010 protects people living with HIV from discrimination in the UK. This act applies to employment, education, access to goods and services, and buying or renting property. People with HIV are protected in the same way as other disabled people.”
If we are setting thresholds, per capita is more meaningful. If a town has a population of 100 people, 50 out of whom are infected with a disease. Immigration from that town has to be more seriously monitored compared to a city with 10,000 people are with 100 people being infected. I don't know what the actual threshold should be. I would leave that to medical experts.
As for people with HIV being protected by the equality act, why is it a bad thing to block immigration by HIV status but totally fine thing to do it by TB? The equality act seems to be just another lame ass law passed by Labour.
I’m not saying it is fine, I made no comment either way. I am playing Devil’s Advocate which is why I asked if this could be a legal minefield.
On the surface a full health screening to come and live in the UK seems sensible, but it needs to apply to all (with perhaps risk indicators by country).
Just thinking about India. Are there regions where prevalence is higher? Can we make assumptions on social demographics? What if someone moves to a different region, would there risk indicator be based on place of origin or location at the time of visa application?
Health screening applies to specific roles such as healthcare, people need to be tested for infectious diseases and there is an influence on screening from the country they arrive from.
The issue being reported as I can see it is the rise from people entering the country illegally who I don't believe are screened for HIV.
A person coming to the UK on a work visa or to live for more than 6 months, will also be required to pay the immigration health surcharge.
I find it crazy that we apply such stringent rules on those coming here legally and are needed, and throw the rule book out the window if they arrive illegally. "
I agree. It should apply to all. As the focus of the thread is HIV then all immigrants coming here in work visas should be required to be tested for HIV before granting the a visa.
The people coming in and claiming asylum will not have had to go through that process so it means testing them would fall on UK taxpayers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 12 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"https://www.gov.uk/tb-test-visa/countries-where-you-need-a-tb-test-to-enter-the-uk
These are the list of countries where you need to take TB tests for UK visas. Ideally, this list should be updated to cover more diseases, based on prevalence.
But what's the point if none of these rules apply when you show up in a boat? If you apply legally for work, you have to go through a huge process and will be kicked out if you lose the job, you will be asked to leave the country within 3 months. On the other hand, if you show up in a boat, you will be provided free accommodation and money.
Still people don't see the ridiculousness of the system?
My initial reaction is that everyone should be tested to come and live in the UK. I also think anyone coming to the UK on a work Visa MUST have fully comprehensive health insurance paid for by their employer or themselves (I know you do which is good right and proper).
Who pays for the TB testing? Presumably it happens before coming to the UK (ie before Visa granted)? With the small boaters the tab for health checks will be funded by taxpayers so yet more outcry about cost. However, it would be sensible from a long teem cost and health prevention pov.
It is paid for by the person applying for the Visa. The countries are chosen based on prevalence of the disease. TB has been mostly eradicated in other countries. So there is no point getting people from the other countries to do the test.
Makes sense. So how would we determine the threshold for insisting on HIV testing to get a Visa? And would you go down a per capita route of absolute numbers?
I need to check but in the UK I believe we cannot discriminate against people who are HIV+ in relation to jobs. Would that become a legal minefield for bringing foreign workers into the UK?
As I thought…
“The Equality Act 2010 protects people living with HIV from discrimination in the UK. This act applies to employment, education, access to goods and services, and buying or renting property. People with HIV are protected in the same way as other disabled people.”
If we are setting thresholds, per capita is more meaningful. If a town has a population of 100 people, 50 out of whom are infected with a disease. Immigration from that town has to be more seriously monitored compared to a city with 10,000 people are with 100 people being infected. I don't know what the actual threshold should be. I would leave that to medical experts.
As for people with HIV being protected by the equality act, why is it a bad thing to block immigration by HIV status but totally fine thing to do it by TB? The equality act seems to be just another lame ass law passed by Labour.
I’m not saying it is fine, I made no comment either way. I am playing Devil’s Advocate which is why I asked if this could be a legal minefield.
On the surface a full health screening to come and live in the UK seems sensible, but it needs to apply to all (with perhaps risk indicators by country).
Just thinking about India. Are there regions where prevalence is higher? Can we make assumptions on social demographics? What if someone moves to a different region, would there risk indicator be based on place of origin or location at the time of visa application?
Health screening applies to specific roles such as healthcare, people need to be tested for infectious diseases and there is an influence on screening from the country they arrive from.
The issue being reported as I can see it is the rise from people entering the country illegally who I don't believe are screened for HIV.
A person coming to the UK on a work visa or to live for more than 6 months, will also be required to pay the immigration health surcharge.
I find it crazy that we apply such stringent rules on those coming here legally and are needed, and throw the rule book out the window if they arrive illegally.
I agree. It should apply to all. As the focus of the thread is HIV then all immigrants coming here in work visas should be required to be tested for HIV before granting the a visa.
The people coming in and claiming asylum will not have had to go through that process so it means testing them would fall on UK taxpayers."
You think the price of health screening is going to be an issue for uk tax payers?
That fact they are not is the issue and the problems that creates outweighs the cost of full and proper health screening. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 12 weeks ago
Brighton |
"https://www.gov.uk/tb-test-visa/countries-where-you-need-a-tb-test-to-enter-the-uk
These are the list of countries where you need to take TB tests for UK visas. Ideally, this list should be updated to cover more diseases, based on prevalence.
But what's the point if none of these rules apply when you show up in a boat? If you apply legally for work, you have to go through a huge process and will be kicked out if you lose the job, you will be asked to leave the country within 3 months. On the other hand, if you show up in a boat, you will be provided free accommodation and money.
Still people don't see the ridiculousness of the system?
My initial reaction is that everyone should be tested to come and live in the UK. I also think anyone coming to the UK on a work Visa MUST have fully comprehensive health insurance paid for by their employer or themselves (I know you do which is good right and proper).
Who pays for the TB testing? Presumably it happens before coming to the UK (ie before Visa granted)? With the small boaters the tab for health checks will be funded by taxpayers so yet more outcry about cost. However, it would be sensible from a long teem cost and health prevention pov.
It is paid for by the person applying for the Visa. The countries are chosen based on prevalence of the disease. TB has been mostly eradicated in other countries. So there is no point getting people from the other countries to do the test.
Makes sense. So how would we determine the threshold for insisting on HIV testing to get a Visa? And would you go down a per capita route of absolute numbers?
I need to check but in the UK I believe we cannot discriminate against people who are HIV+ in relation to jobs. Would that become a legal minefield for bringing foreign workers into the UK?
As I thought…
“The Equality Act 2010 protects people living with HIV from discrimination in the UK. This act applies to employment, education, access to goods and services, and buying or renting property. People with HIV are protected in the same way as other disabled people.”
If we are setting thresholds, per capita is more meaningful. If a town has a population of 100 people, 50 out of whom are infected with a disease. Immigration from that town has to be more seriously monitored compared to a city with 10,000 people are with 100 people being infected. I don't know what the actual threshold should be. I would leave that to medical experts.
As for people with HIV being protected by the equality act, why is it a bad thing to block immigration by HIV status but totally fine thing to do it by TB? The equality act seems to be just another lame ass law passed by Labour.
I’m not saying it is fine, I made no comment either way. I am playing Devil’s Advocate which is why I asked if this could be a legal minefield.
On the surface a full health screening to come and live in the UK seems sensible, but it needs to apply to all (with perhaps risk indicators by country).
Just thinking about India. Are there regions where prevalence is higher? Can we make assumptions on social demographics? What if someone moves to a different region, would there risk indicator be based on place of origin or location at the time of visa application?
Health screening applies to specific roles such as healthcare, people need to be tested for infectious diseases and there is an influence on screening from the country they arrive from.
The issue being reported as I can see it is the rise from people entering the country illegally who I don't believe are screened for HIV.
A person coming to the UK on a work visa or to live for more than 6 months, will also be required to pay the immigration health surcharge.
I find it crazy that we apply such stringent rules on those coming here legally and are needed, and throw the rule book out the window if they arrive illegally.
I agree. It should apply to all. As the focus of the thread is HIV then all immigrants coming here in work visas should be required to be tested for HIV before granting the a visa.
The people coming in and claiming asylum will not have had to go through that process so it means testing them would fall on UK taxpayers.
You think the price of health screening is going to be an issue for uk tax payers?
That fact they are not is the issue and the problems that creates outweighs the cost of full and proper health screening. "
I can’t second guess but suspect yet more outrage headlines “not only do we have to house and feed these boat people but now also pay for their health checks!”
Of course they should be checked. If they turn out to be HIV+ What then? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 12 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"https://www.gov.uk/tb-test-visa/countries-where-you-need-a-tb-test-to-enter-the-uk
These are the list of countries where you need to take TB tests for UK visas. Ideally, this list should be updated to cover more diseases, based on prevalence.
But what's the point if none of these rules apply when you show up in a boat? If you apply legally for work, you have to go through a huge process and will be kicked out if you lose the job, you will be asked to leave the country within 3 months. On the other hand, if you show up in a boat, you will be provided free accommodation and money.
Still people don't see the ridiculousness of the system?
My initial reaction is that everyone should be tested to come and live in the UK. I also think anyone coming to the UK on a work Visa MUST have fully comprehensive health insurance paid for by their employer or themselves (I know you do which is good right and proper).
Who pays for the TB testing? Presumably it happens before coming to the UK (ie before Visa granted)? With the small boaters the tab for health checks will be funded by taxpayers so yet more outcry about cost. However, it would be sensible from a long teem cost and health prevention pov.
It is paid for by the person applying for the Visa. The countries are chosen based on prevalence of the disease. TB has been mostly eradicated in other countries. So there is no point getting people from the other countries to do the test.
Makes sense. So how would we determine the threshold for insisting on HIV testing to get a Visa? And would you go down a per capita route of absolute numbers?
I need to check but in the UK I believe we cannot discriminate against people who are HIV+ in relation to jobs. Would that become a legal minefield for bringing foreign workers into the UK?
As I thought…
“The Equality Act 2010 protects people living with HIV from discrimination in the UK. This act applies to employment, education, access to goods and services, and buying or renting property. People with HIV are protected in the same way as other disabled people.”
If we are setting thresholds, per capita is more meaningful. If a town has a population of 100 people, 50 out of whom are infected with a disease. Immigration from that town has to be more seriously monitored compared to a city with 10,000 people are with 100 people being infected. I don't know what the actual threshold should be. I would leave that to medical experts.
As for people with HIV being protected by the equality act, why is it a bad thing to block immigration by HIV status but totally fine thing to do it by TB? The equality act seems to be just another lame ass law passed by Labour.
I’m not saying it is fine, I made no comment either way. I am playing Devil’s Advocate which is why I asked if this could be a legal minefield.
On the surface a full health screening to come and live in the UK seems sensible, but it needs to apply to all (with perhaps risk indicators by country).
Just thinking about India. Are there regions where prevalence is higher? Can we make assumptions on social demographics? What if someone moves to a different region, would there risk indicator be based on place of origin or location at the time of visa application?
Health screening applies to specific roles such as healthcare, people need to be tested for infectious diseases and there is an influence on screening from the country they arrive from.
The issue being reported as I can see it is the rise from people entering the country illegally who I don't believe are screened for HIV.
A person coming to the UK on a work visa or to live for more than 6 months, will also be required to pay the immigration health surcharge.
I find it crazy that we apply such stringent rules on those coming here legally and are needed, and throw the rule book out the window if they arrive illegally.
I agree. It should apply to all. As the focus of the thread is HIV then all immigrants coming here in work visas should be required to be tested for HIV before granting the a visa.
The people coming in and claiming asylum will not have had to go through that process so it means testing them would fall on UK taxpayers.
You think the price of health screening is going to be an issue for uk tax payers?
That fact they are not is the issue and the problems that creates outweighs the cost of full and proper health screening.
I can’t second guess but suspect yet more outrage headlines “not only do we have to house and feed these boat people but now also pay for their health checks!”
Of course they should be checked. If they turn out to be HIV+ What then?"
If they are accepted into the UK which is highly likely we will need to pick up the treatment as tax payers.
That is how it works, is it the right thing to do is the question. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 12 weeks ago
Brighton |
"https://www.gov.uk/tb-test-visa/countries-where-you-need-a-tb-test-to-enter-the-uk
These are the list of countries where you need to take TB tests for UK visas. Ideally, this list should be updated to cover more diseases, based on prevalence.
But what's the point if none of these rules apply when you show up in a boat? If you apply legally for work, you have to go through a huge process and will be kicked out if you lose the job, you will be asked to leave the country within 3 months. On the other hand, if you show up in a boat, you will be provided free accommodation and money.
Still people don't see the ridiculousness of the system?
My initial reaction is that everyone should be tested to come and live in the UK. I also think anyone coming to the UK on a work Visa MUST have fully comprehensive health insurance paid for by their employer or themselves (I know you do which is good right and proper).
Who pays for the TB testing? Presumably it happens before coming to the UK (ie before Visa granted)? With the small boaters the tab for health checks will be funded by taxpayers so yet more outcry about cost. However, it would be sensible from a long teem cost and health prevention pov.
It is paid for by the person applying for the Visa. The countries are chosen based on prevalence of the disease. TB has been mostly eradicated in other countries. So there is no point getting people from the other countries to do the test.
Makes sense. So how would we determine the threshold for insisting on HIV testing to get a Visa? And would you go down a per capita route of absolute numbers?
I need to check but in the UK I believe we cannot discriminate against people who are HIV+ in relation to jobs. Would that become a legal minefield for bringing foreign workers into the UK?
As I thought…
“The Equality Act 2010 protects people living with HIV from discrimination in the UK. This act applies to employment, education, access to goods and services, and buying or renting property. People with HIV are protected in the same way as other disabled people.”
If we are setting thresholds, per capita is more meaningful. If a town has a population of 100 people, 50 out of whom are infected with a disease. Immigration from that town has to be more seriously monitored compared to a city with 10,000 people are with 100 people being infected. I don't know what the actual threshold should be. I would leave that to medical experts.
As for people with HIV being protected by the equality act, why is it a bad thing to block immigration by HIV status but totally fine thing to do it by TB? The equality act seems to be just another lame ass law passed by Labour.
I’m not saying it is fine, I made no comment either way. I am playing Devil’s Advocate which is why I asked if this could be a legal minefield.
On the surface a full health screening to come and live in the UK seems sensible, but it needs to apply to all (with perhaps risk indicators by country).
Just thinking about India. Are there regions where prevalence is higher? Can we make assumptions on social demographics? What if someone moves to a different region, would there risk indicator be based on place of origin or location at the time of visa application?
Health screening applies to specific roles such as healthcare, people need to be tested for infectious diseases and there is an influence on screening from the country they arrive from.
The issue being reported as I can see it is the rise from people entering the country illegally who I don't believe are screened for HIV.
A person coming to the UK on a work visa or to live for more than 6 months, will also be required to pay the immigration health surcharge.
I find it crazy that we apply such stringent rules on those coming here legally and are needed, and throw the rule book out the window if they arrive illegally.
I agree. It should apply to all. As the focus of the thread is HIV then all immigrants coming here in work visas should be required to be tested for HIV before granting the a visa.
The people coming in and claiming asylum will not have had to go through that process so it means testing them would fall on UK taxpayers.
You think the price of health screening is going to be an issue for uk tax payers?
That fact they are not is the issue and the problems that creates outweighs the cost of full and proper health screening.
I can’t second guess but suspect yet more outrage headlines “not only do we have to house and feed these boat people but now also pay for their health checks!”
Of course they should be checked. If they turn out to be HIV+ What then?
If they are accepted into the UK which is highly likely we will need to pick up the treatment as tax payers.
That is how it works, is it the right thing to do is the question. "
Then this whole thread is meaningless and just appears to be another attempt at demonising immigrants arriving by small boats?
We either insist on ALL people wanting to come and stay in the UK having to be HIV- or we stop talking about it right? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 12 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"https://www.gov.uk/tb-test-visa/countries-where-you-need-a-tb-test-to-enter-the-uk
These are the list of countries where you need to take TB tests for UK visas. Ideally, this list should be updated to cover more diseases, based on prevalence.
But what's the point if none of these rules apply when you show up in a boat? If you apply legally for work, you have to go through a huge process and will be kicked out if you lose the job, you will be asked to leave the country within 3 months. On the other hand, if you show up in a boat, you will be provided free accommodation and money.
Still people don't see the ridiculousness of the system?
My initial reaction is that everyone should be tested to come and live in the UK. I also think anyone coming to the UK on a work Visa MUST have fully comprehensive health insurance paid for by their employer or themselves (I know you do which is good right and proper).
Who pays for the TB testing? Presumably it happens before coming to the UK (ie before Visa granted)? With the small boaters the tab for health checks will be funded by taxpayers so yet more outcry about cost. However, it would be sensible from a long teem cost and health prevention pov.
It is paid for by the person applying for the Visa. The countries are chosen based on prevalence of the disease. TB has been mostly eradicated in other countries. So there is no point getting people from the other countries to do the test.
Makes sense. So how would we determine the threshold for insisting on HIV testing to get a Visa? And would you go down a per capita route of absolute numbers?
I need to check but in the UK I believe we cannot discriminate against people who are HIV+ in relation to jobs. Would that become a legal minefield for bringing foreign workers into the UK?
As I thought…
“The Equality Act 2010 protects people living with HIV from discrimination in the UK. This act applies to employment, education, access to goods and services, and buying or renting property. People with HIV are protected in the same way as other disabled people.”
If we are setting thresholds, per capita is more meaningful. If a town has a population of 100 people, 50 out of whom are infected with a disease. Immigration from that town has to be more seriously monitored compared to a city with 10,000 people are with 100 people being infected. I don't know what the actual threshold should be. I would leave that to medical experts.
As for people with HIV being protected by the equality act, why is it a bad thing to block immigration by HIV status but totally fine thing to do it by TB? The equality act seems to be just another lame ass law passed by Labour.
I’m not saying it is fine, I made no comment either way. I am playing Devil’s Advocate which is why I asked if this could be a legal minefield.
On the surface a full health screening to come and live in the UK seems sensible, but it needs to apply to all (with perhaps risk indicators by country).
Just thinking about India. Are there regions where prevalence is higher? Can we make assumptions on social demographics? What if someone moves to a different region, would there risk indicator be based on place of origin or location at the time of visa application?
Health screening applies to specific roles such as healthcare, people need to be tested for infectious diseases and there is an influence on screening from the country they arrive from.
The issue being reported as I can see it is the rise from people entering the country illegally who I don't believe are screened for HIV.
A person coming to the UK on a work visa or to live for more than 6 months, will also be required to pay the immigration health surcharge.
I find it crazy that we apply such stringent rules on those coming here legally and are needed, and throw the rule book out the window if they arrive illegally.
I agree. It should apply to all. As the focus of the thread is HIV then all immigrants coming here in work visas should be required to be tested for HIV before granting the a visa.
The people coming in and claiming asylum will not have had to go through that process so it means testing them would fall on UK taxpayers.
You think the price of health screening is going to be an issue for uk tax payers?
That fact they are not is the issue and the problems that creates outweighs the cost of full and proper health screening.
I can’t second guess but suspect yet more outrage headlines “not only do we have to house and feed these boat people but now also pay for their health checks!”
Of course they should be checked. If they turn out to be HIV+ What then?
If they are accepted into the UK which is highly likely we will need to pick up the treatment as tax payers.
That is how it works, is it the right thing to do is the question.
Then this whole thread is meaningless and just appears to be another attempt at demonising immigrants arriving by small boats?
We either insist on ALL people wanting to come and stay in the UK having to be HIV- or we stop talking about it right?"
It shows we are not doing enough to understand the full implications of letting 1000’s of people into the country with no meaningful health screening, another nail in the coffin of the NHS I guess, forward planning never was a strong point of this country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
As for people with HIV being protected by the equality act, why is it a bad thing to block immigration by HIV status but totally fine thing to do it by TB? The equality act seems to be just another lame ass law passed by Labour.
I’m not saying it is fine, I made no comment either way. I am playing Devil’s Advocate which is why I asked if this could be a legal minefield.
On the surface a full health screening to come and live in the UK seems sensible, but it needs to apply to all (with perhaps risk indicators by country).
Just thinking about India. Are there regions where prevalence is higher? Can we make assumptions on social demographics? What if someone moves to a different region, would there risk indicator be based on place of origin or location at the time of visa application?"
There are some regions where prevalence is higher. But as you said, there aren't borders within the country. So it's hard to reduce enforcement to regions within a country. National borders are a great way to group people and find the health risk.
You find the prevalence of a disease in the country and compare it to the prevalence within UK. If UK has completely eradicated a disease or has much lower numbers and the other country has higher prevalence, there must be strict health checks for the disease. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm thinking that everyone coming to the UK needs to be screened for a variety of health issues. If they come legally then it should be at their expense. If the come illegally then initially it should be provided for them. However once accepted, they should repay the cost once they have money coming in through wages or benefits. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *deepdiveMan 12 weeks ago
France / Birmingham |
"I'm thinking that everyone coming to the UK needs to be screened for a variety of health issues. If they come legally then it should be at their expense. If the come illegally then initially it should be provided for them. However once accepted, they should repay the cost once they have money coming in through wages or benefits. "
I tend to agree with that - the same should obviously apply to people entering the EU who are not part of the EU as you simply don't know what infections they carry. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm thinking that everyone coming to the UK needs to be screened for a variety of health issues. If they come legally then it should be at their expense. If the come illegally then initially it should be provided for them. However once accepted, they should repay the cost once they have money coming in through wages or benefits. "
That's the problem with illegal migration in general. Legal migration has lots of checks and balances. They verify both your health and criminal background before allowing you to come inside the country. These checks are there for a reason.
But thanks to the age-old refugee conventions, you have a loophole. If someone shows up in a boat and says the magic words "I want to claim asylum", they don't just get around these checks but the rest of the taxpayers have to pay for their accommodation and food, at a time when the government is rolling back benefits for old people already living here.
There is something ridiculous about the whole situation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm thinking that everyone coming to the UK needs to be screened for a variety of health issues. If they come legally then it should be at their expense. If the come illegally then initially it should be provided for them. However once accepted, they should repay the cost once they have money coming in through wages or benefits.
That's the problem with illegal migration in general. Legal migration has lots of checks and balances. They verify both your health and criminal background before allowing you to come inside the country. These checks are there for a reason.
But thanks to the age-old refugee conventions, you have a loophole. If someone shows up in a boat and says the magic words "I want to claim asylum", they don't just get around these checks but the rest of the taxpayers have to pay for their accommodation and food, at a time when the government is rolling back benefits for old people already living here.
There is something ridiculous about the whole situation. "
agree 100% but it’s only going to get worse 4 and half yrs of this ffs god knows how bad it will be then |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"https://www.gov.uk/tb-test-visa/countries-where-you-need-a-tb-test-to-enter-the-uk
These are the list of countries where you need to take TB tests for UK visas. Ideally, this list should be updated to cover more diseases, based on prevalence.
But what's the point if none of these rules apply when you show up in a boat? If you apply legally for work, you have to go through a huge process and will be kicked out if you lose the job, you will be asked to leave the country within 3 months. On the other hand, if you show up in a boat, you will be provided free accommodation and money.
Still people don't see the ridiculousness of the system?
My initial reaction is that everyone should be tested to come and live in the UK. I also think anyone coming to the UK on a work Visa MUST have fully comprehensive health insurance paid for by their employer or themselves (I know you do which is good right and proper).
Who pays for the TB testing? Presumably it happens before coming to the UK (ie before Visa granted)? With the small boaters the tab for health checks will be funded by taxpayers so yet more outcry about cost. However, it would be sensible from a long teem cost and health prevention pov.
It is paid for by the person applying for the Visa. The countries are chosen based on prevalence of the disease. TB has been mostly eradicated in other countries. So there is no point getting people from the other countries to do the test.
Makes sense. So how would we determine the threshold for insisting on HIV testing to get a Visa? And would you go down a per capita route of absolute numbers?
I need to check but in the UK I believe we cannot discriminate against people who are HIV+ in relation to jobs. Would that become a legal minefield for bringing foreign workers into the UK?
As I thought…
“The Equality Act 2010 protects people living with HIV from discrimination in the UK. This act applies to employment, education, access to goods and services, and buying or renting property. People with HIV are protected in the same way as other disabled people.”"
‘Other disabled people’? Since when was being disabled sexually transmitted? Sounds to me like some people are more equal than others. Let’s not take away their rights to spread the disease as and when they like. Cause that has always worked in the past. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A 15 year high in HIV. after a surge in cases from migrants wtf are we doing in the U.K. it’s mental "
Of course when population increases due to immigration, you will have an increase in things that naturally exist amongst people. Immigration has also brought about an increase in intelligence in the country... so an increase in HIV cases is to be expected.
Either (a) the immigrants with HIV are having sex only with other immigrants, restricting the HIV to the immigrant population, or (b) the native Brits are choosing to have unprotected sex with immigrants, who are then having unprotected sex with other Brits, spreading it throughout the country.
Option (a) is what happens most of the time, but people erroneously think option (b) is what happens as some sort of a colonial agenda of wiping out the indigenous peoples... Even in the very few cases where (b) occurs, no one is responsible for someone's decision to have unprotected sex with a stranger, can't blame that on immigration. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Would people who complained about Boris not closing the borders earlier for COVID and having strict protocol, be happy with following the same protocol for HIV?
He didn't close the borders though did he? The aiports were still open for "essential travel" unlike other countires that closed the airports so nobody came in or out
But people wanted him to close the borders. I am asking if the same people who wanted him to close the borders then would want him to close the borders now"
yep shut it down completely big brick wall and snipers shooting on site |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
People who live in countries with little to no health care will flock to countries where they know they will get free treatment.
Ireland has seen a huge number of HIV and Aids cases the past few year. Primarily from refugees presenting as HIV positive or having Aids when they get here |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Would people who complained about Boris not closing the borders earlier for COVID and having strict protocol, be happy with following the same protocol for HIV?
He didn't close the borders though did he? The aiports were still open for "essential travel" unlike other countires that closed the airports so nobody came in or out
But people wanted him to close the borders. I am asking if the same people who wanted him to close the borders then would want him to close the borders nowyep shut it down completely big brick wall and snipers shooting on site "
With a wall that length we’d have to let a lot of east European brickies in first to get it built. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Labour Party manifesto has a plan to end HIV transmission.
Gave 27 million to NHS to support testing blood for every blood test in the UK and 37 million to support stopping it abroad.
That will be the plan till next summer when they will publish a plan to eliminate it in the UK completely . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
