[finasteridonline]

I believe they should be. And they should not be allowed to enter the country until tested and then refused entry if they have it. My reasons for this are obvious - to prevent the spread of it. But also, the cost to the NHS to care for immigrants with it and who spread it is catastrophic. I don't think it should be mandatory for all immigrants, because that's not cost-effective and the data supports screening of black Africans is the most necessary.

The high rate of HIV amongst Africans in the UK reflects the severity of the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa. In total, black Africans represented 36% of newly diagnosed infections in 2008. Thoughts?

[GECEDEANY]

Well would you require AIDS tests for Somali immigrants to Britain, bt not Russians? Even though Russian AIDS rates are much higher than Somalis'? See the problem here is trying to paint Black Africa as being a monolithic identity with monolithic issues.

[spiveker]

I think it's a great idea. It would definitely help much more than it could cause trouble.

[XzBZB2UV]

I believe they should be. And they should not be allowed to enter the country until tested and then refused entry if they have it. My reasons for this are obvious - to prevent the spread of it. But also, the cost to the NHS to care for immigrants with it and who spread it is catastrophic. I don't think it should be mandatory for all immigrants, because that's not cost-effective and the data supports screening of black Africans is the most necessary.

Thoughts?

Excellent idea.

[emorbimefed]

I think it's a great idea. It would definitely help much more than it could cause trouble.

hey friend!

[aaafluochugh]

It's condescending. I believe every immigrant into the United Kingdom should be tested for all sorts of illnessess but not a particular, singled out race. I support your idea but not for a single race.

[Trebbinsa]

It's condescending. I believe every immigrant into the United Kingdom should be tested for all sorts of illnessess but not a particular, singled out race. I support your idea but not for a single race.

300,000 immigrants entering each year. Who would pay for all those tests?

[ljq0AYOV]

Instead of concentrating on certain continents, wouldn't it make more cost-effective sense to base AIDS screening on a Prevalence rate %? Like a cut off rate, and all immigrants who have prevalance rates higher than that cut off rate, whether Sub saharan African, Italian, Russian, etc. earns them a screening test.

[largonioulurI]

300,000 immigrants entering each year. Who would pay for all those tests?

Singling out a people because of their nation seems unfair. You do have a point however I am against policies aimed at a single people, it is condescending and unfair. Yes AIDS may be more common in Africa but I feel it is unfair to make people feel they are less than others, and imo, that is what such a policy would do.

[ChuttyAmult]

300,000 immigrants entering each year. Who would pay for all those tests?

The immigrants, of course.

[Sarah Armstrong]

Well would you require AIDS tests for Somali immigrants to Britain, bt not Russians? Even though Russian AIDS rates are much higher than Somalis'? See the problem here is trying to paint Black Africa as being a monolithic identity with monolithic issues.

This has to be put in context; Russians may have more cases, given the fact that Russia is a larger population anyway.The fact is Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for 70% of global incidence of AIDS/HIV, that's hugely significant, that almost 3/4 quarters of the world's AIDS/HIV cases originates in Africa and the AIDS rate is just over 5%; for eastern Europe and central Asia, which obviously includes Russia, the rate is still below 1% (0.7).

So it's financially more cost effective to screen Sub-Saharan Africans, because doing it for every immigrant, whilst would be more effective against the disease, is financially impractical, I'm sure. The figures speak for themselves.

[BruceQW]

Yes AIDS may be more common in Africa but I feel it is unfair to make people feel they are less than others, and imo, that is what such a policy would do.

Again, AIDS is not universally more common in Africa.

Again, Russia, ukraine and several East European nations have HIV/AIDS rates more than twice as much as that of Somalia's and the rest of "Islamic" Black Africa.

---------- Post added 2010-06-18 at 23:17 ----------

This has to be put in context; Russians may have more cases, given the fact that Russia is a larger population anyway. The fact is Sub-Saharan Africa has almost 70% of global incidence of AIDS/HIV, that's hugely significant and the AIDS rate is just over 5%, for eastern Europe and central Asia, which obviously accounts from Russia, the rate is still below 1% (0.7).

So it's financially more cost effective to screen Sub-Saharan Africans, because doing it for every immigrant, whilst would be more effective against the disease, is financially impractical, I'm sure. The figures speak for themselves.

Prevalence rate:

Somalia: 0.5%
Russia: 1.01%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...revalence_rate
(both are 2001 estimates)

So Russians are twice as likely to be HIV positive compared to Somalis. Screening Somalis and not screening Russians goes against your desire to be cost effective.

[Gazeboss]

The immigrants, of course.

they usually arrive starving to death, like when you immigrated to Canada

[freflellalafe]

Again, AIDS is not universally more common in Africa.

Again, Russia, ukraine and several East European nations have HIV/AIDS rates more than twice as much as that of Somalia's and the rest of "Islamic" Black Africa.

Don't be ridiculous. Africa is the HIV world's capital by far.

http://www.ukhvc.org/wp-content/uplo...lence-2003.png

[estheticianI]

Singling out a people because of their nation seems unfair. You do have a point however I am against policies aimed at a single people, it is condescending and unfair. Yes AIDS may be more common in Africa but I feel it is unfair to make people feel they are less than others, and imo, that is what such a policy would do.

Hold on a minute here; yes it's not nice to make people feel bad, but here's the deal; the people get FREE AIDS tests and given the information and permitted entry to the UK. Those who have the disease, well, I'm sorry, but our charities do try and provide amenities in Africa which they can use. This is too important to not want to hurt feelings, if it's in the national interests of the receiving population.

[Bvghbopz]

Don't be ridiculous. Africa is the HIV world's capital by far.

http://www.ukhvc.org/wp-content/uplo...lence-2003.png

Not all of Sub Saharan Africa. Are you being purposefully obtuse?

Somalia has the same prevalence rate as Italy and half of Russia's, ukraine's Burma's, etc.

Screening Somalis for AIDS tests is not cost effective, unless you are also screening Italians, Russians, Spaniards, Americans,Venezuelans, Hondurans, Cambodians, ukrainians, Burmese and so on...these are just sample nations to make a point, but they all have higher AIDS prevalence RATES than Somalia, a Sub Saharan African country.

[Gymnfacymoota]

Again, AIDS is not universally more common in Africa.

Again, Russia, ukraine and several East European nations have HIV/AIDS rates more than twice as much as that of Somalia's and the rest of "Islamic" Black Africa.

I'm not trying to patronise any nation I'm just acting on the info that has been shared here and sharing my opinion. Even if tests were on a national level I believe it is unfair, I don't think any nation should be singled out. I do understand the reality that funds do not support the possibility of testing every person but I do believe a more equalitive way can be found to detect carriers.

[bQXHsKzS]

Again, AIDS is not universally more common in Africa.

Again, Russia, ukraine and several East European nations have HIV/AIDS rates more than twice as much as that of Somalia's and the rest of "Islamic" Black Africa.


Prevalence rate:

Somalia: 0.5%
Russia: 1.01%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...revalence_rate
(both are 2001 estimates)

So Russians are twice as likely to be HIV positive compared to Somalis. Screening Somalis and not screening Russians goes against your desire to be cost effective.

Sub-sahara Africa is responsible for almost 70% of the worlds Aids/HIV cases, so that is significant, enough to say that yes, it is more common in Africa, more so that the rest of the world put together. And this is just for the cases that are reported; a lot of Africans will not have access to healthcare facilities where it can be recorded and monitored, so I'm quite sure those figures will be much higher.

The Russian rates do indicate that they too should be screened, yes. But we don't get many Russians to the UK. We do get a lot of African immigrants, however. So screening black Africans is essential.

[Jasonstawnosaa]

Trog, why are you using the term "Sub Saharan Africa" as a catch all descriptor for this epidemic? Lesotho's prevalence rate is 28% Somalia's is 0.5% Do you think it's fair to the NHS that you use the term "SSA" when Lesotho's prevalence rates is 60 times greater than Somalia's?

Screening a Somali as much as a citizen of Lesotho? Don't you think you're not going to be getting a clear, cost effective picture while using SSA as your screening criteria when basically a quarter of people from Lesotho are HIV positive, while the same amount of Somalis as Italians are HIV positive?

[iodillalm]

they usually arrive starving to death, like when you immigrated to Canada

I didn't starve, you lier. So stop saying BS.

If they can't pay an HIV test, they should be deported.

Europe doesn't need refugees. The fact is that no countries need refugees anymore. The manufacturing is done in Asia now, not in Europe.