This Farage Immigrants with HIV Business

[vetran]

Why?
Are heterosexual people more important than homosexual ones?

no there are just more of them so there are more to get infected, that was highlighted in the second part of the sentence. Good to see your brain is open and unbiased as usual.

[Euler]

no there are just more of them so there are more to get infected, that was highlighted in the second part of the sentence. Good to see your brain is open and unbiased as usual.

You seem to have tied yourself in knots - we were originally debating whether health tourism was a valid issue for Nigel to have raised with regard to HIV in particular.
Clarkie pointed out that HIV was rising fastest among gay men in general rather than than men of black African origin, so are you suggesting the latter may be more heterosexual and therefore somehow more dangerous?

[pjclarke]

[QUOTE]well that was the only one graph that specified whether it was contracted abroad. You have a breakdown for MSM UK/Abroad ?[QUOTE]

Erm, Figure 4.

Eyeballing and combining the graphs, around 1/3 new infections seemed to have occurred overseas, but hey, a third, a half, easily confused.

I wish to coin a new term: A Farragian Number.

[vetran]

You seem to have tied yourself in knots - we were originally debating whether health tourism was a valid issue for Nigel to have raised with regard to HIV in particular.
Clarkie pointed out that HIV was rising fastest among gay men in general rather than than men of black African origin, so are you suggesting the latter may be more heterosexual and therefore somehow more dangerous?

I have not tied myself in knots, I may have confused you, but an 8 year old Dachshund named Colin would understand.

Half of new heterosexual infections and according to 'Clarkie' 25% of Homosexual infections are linked to immigration if we test prior to admission Heterosexual infection will halve and Homosexual will fall by a quarter. That is simple and easy to accept surely?

This method offers significant savings, even if we tested and still admitted them we would be able to get them on a treatment regime that saved money long term, antivirals are a lot cheaper than long term hospital care for AIDs. They can even work and pay tax to contribute to their care before falling ill.

We are also talking about many more diseases that can be passed without intimate contact such as drug resistant TB.

Now maybe we have a separate problem with Gay men and heterosexuals adopting safe sex but that has little no bearing on the comments from Farage.

[Euler]

I wish to coin a new term: A Farragian Number.

Fair enough, providing you also accept a Millibando as shown in the ZHC farrago
I'm perectly willing to be shown a Cameronian too.

[vetran]

[QUOTE=pjclarke;2077971][QUOTE]well that was the only one graph that specified whether it was contracted abroad. You have a breakdown for MSM UK/Abroad ?

Erm, Figure 4.

Eyeballing and combining the graphs, around 1/3 new infections seemed to have occurred overseas, but hey, a third, a half, easily confused.

I wish to coin a new term: A Farragian Number.

so we could cut infections by a third? Not sure where else we can get as good a result by a simple test, maybe TB & Hepatitis? Wow incredible!

Targeting tests to high risk groups rather than worrying whether we will offend someone what a novel medical approach.

Maybe we can extend this to crime fighting and social care?

[xoggoth]

Clarkie pointed out that HIV was rising fastest among gay men in general rather than than men of black African origin

As usual with that idiot Clarke, missing the main point. We are stuck with our own gays and we need to address the issue by better awareness of the risks. The incidence among our own gays is not an argument for taking in those with HIV from other nations when we have no duty to do so. If the UK had a big rise in murders by some particular group would that be a reason to allow in more people from the world's most violent nations?

[Euler]

As usual with that idiot Clarke, missing the main point. ?

Well you've missed the main point too. Which is that we need to change the way the NHS is funded and how people access the service. Doing that will have the side effect of removing health tourism - of the free sort anyway - we want to encourage the paid for sort.

[pjclarke]

so we could cut infections by a third? ?

I doubt we would cut a single infection, just prevent those with the disease from coming here and receiving treatment, not the most enlightened way to tackle a global epidemic.

And I am not sure you can infer that everyone who became infected abroad is a foreign migrant.

But most probably are, even so I think a simple 'ban HIV+ individuals and save millions' is a crude argument. What of families who wish to come here, one of whom has HIV? What of the other conditions? Apply a cost/benefit to cancer patients, smokers, obese people? What are the costs of policing the ban ? What of British nationals with chronic conditions wishing to emigrate?

[Euler]

Apply a cost/benefit to ...smokers, obese people?

Yes and heavy drinkers too.
Why these groups of people should expect to be treated for free is something I don't understand.