View Single Post
Old 06-19-2010, 11:46 AM   #29
HaroldMY

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
512
Senior Member
Default
If you basically had a list that made it obligatory to test anyone from a country's whose HIV/AIDS prevalence rate is say, more than 1.5% or whatever figure you feel might accurately screen for AIDS whole still remaining cost effective, wouldnt that be a wiser decision than condemning ALL of Sub Saharan Africa, where some countries do have alarming rates, while others have prevalence rates equivalent to Asian and LatinAmerican rates, and others to European and North American rates...don't you think you're being a tad inefficient?
Inefficient? This benefits the UK and it benefits the individual, because they get to know if they have the disease or not and will be given appropriate information as well. The problem of AIDS/HIV in Sub-sahara Africa (and I use that term in accordance with how the data is recorded), is immense and not comparable with anywhere else in the world. To repeat, the figures are approx. 70% of cases in the world and that's just those ones that are discovered, not the people killed in civil war or of through lack of medical care.
HaroldMY is offline


 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:47 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity