I hope Magic Johnson doesn't want to come visit Australia. He's a black man with HIV. Scary to whitey I'm sure.
O_o
Christ, mate, we're not South Africa. Despite the poor way the aboriginals have been treated and some lingering suspicion of muslims, racial problems aren't that prominent here. There's certainly a great deal less racial violence than in the US.
I hope Magic Johnson doesn't want to come visit Australia. He's a black man with HIV. Scary to whitey I'm sure.
O_o
Christ, mate, we're not South Africa. Despite the poor way the aboriginals have been treated and some lingering suspicion of muslims, racial problems aren't that prominent here. There's certainly a great deal less racial violence than in the US.
I hope Magic Johnson doesn't want to come visit Australia. He's a black man with HIV. Scary to whitey I'm sure.
O_o
Christ, mate, we're not South Africa. Despite the poor way the aboriginals have been treated and some lingering suspicion of muslims, racial problems aren't that prominent here. There's certainly a great deal less racial violence than in the US.
What about racial prejudice in general?
No worse than anywhere else, and significantly better than most, which is why I get slightly irritated at 16-year-old exurb dwellers acting like my country is the freakin' wild west.
No worse than anywhere else, and significantly better than most, which is why I get slightly irritated at 16-year-old exurb dwellers acting like my country is the freakin' wild west.
I blame it on the white people taking the land from the stone-age aboriginal peoples via disease and firearms.
No worse than anywhere else, and significantly better than most, which is why I get slightly irritated at 16-year-old exurb dwellers acting like my country is the freakin' wild west.
I blame it on the white people taking the land from the stone-age aboriginal peoples via disease and firearms.
This of course has nothing to do with pragmatic issues of disease prevention or management, and everything to do with the upcoming federal election. The liberal party were looking dead in the water coming up to the 2001 election, then the Tampa incident gave Howard a pretext on which to appeal to racist bigotry in the populace and he won in a landslide. They look like they're in big trouble coming in to this next election; clearly Howard is hoping for a repeat performance, this time on the basis of racist *and* homophobic bigotry. I don't know what disgusts me more; that for a prime minister we have the kind of vile shit who would resort to such tactics, or that the Australian people respond to them.
For the last time, while we did have the White Australia Policy you don't win on the White Australia Policy any more. You win by appealing to the fear of Asian supermen coming to take our jobs.
The HIV thing is not a "black people" thing because the Aboriginies treatment is more like the treatment of American Indians. Neither of these two population groups are particularly renound for being hot beds of HIV positivity.
What it is an immigration policy just sensible enough to require some serious consideration in whether or not it's a good idea or in fact should be implemented through other measures. No one is doing it because "oh lol black people haev teh AIDS"
It's more of a problem in the gay community as I understand it just because of the way it was treated in prior years. According to one gay friend though there are a certain class of gay guys though who deliberately go out and catch HIV in order to get on the PBS for the anti-retrovirals and disability support, then spend the next 5-10 years taking all the fucked up shit they can get their hands on and partying non-stop.
But no, the spread of HIV as I understand it is only more significant in the gay community because they on average have more partners. Sample a comparable group of straight people and it's about the same.
I think this also has to do with how you view the role of a state.
Is it purely there to protect and serve the population which constituted it? Or does it have a wider moral obligation?
If it has a wider moral obligation, where does this obligation start and end? Obviously there are some distinctions going on here- eg Tuberculosis is considered a resonable excuse to exclude a potential applicant, but HIV might not be... I guess its all a matter of degree... just how much needs to be wrong with someone before they are barred entry.
In a moral sense I think it is fairly suspect barring people with HIV coming into Australia (as has been mentioned, Aids is not airborne and considering the calibre of people Australia would allow into its borders, they are also much less likely to be reckless bastards with no thought but for themselves), but from an overall strategic, nation-building sense... well that might be a different story. Which view deserves to have primacy?
I don't know if it's been mentioned, since I don't feel like wading through all the stupid, but here it goes:
The people that spread HIV don't know that they have it, you dipshits.
What the hell is wrong with you people? Do you think that people are spreading HIV for kicks and jollies? Grow the fuck up. Especially you, J and random.
I don't know if it's been mentioned, since I don't feel like wading through all the stupid, but here it goes:
The people that spread HIV don't know that they have it, you dipshits.
What the hell is wrong with you people? Do you think that people are spreading HIV for kicks and jollies? Grow the fuck up. Especially you, J and random.
Uh, if they didn't know they have HIV then how would it be possible to prevent them from immigrating?
I don't know if it's been mentioned, since I don't feel like wading through all the stupid, but here it goes:
The people that spread HIV don't know that they have it, you dipshits.
What the hell is wrong with you people? Do you think that people are spreading HIV for kicks and jollies? Grow the fuck up. Especially you, J and random.
Uh, if they didn't know they have HIV then how would it be possible to prevent them from immigrating?
Oh, I don't know? Maybe making testing a requirement for immigration? Hmmmmmmmmmm....
I don't know if it's been mentioned, since I don't feel like wading through all the stupid, but here it goes:
The people that spread HIV don't know that they have it, you dipshits.
What the hell is wrong with you people? Do you think that people are spreading HIV for kicks and jollies? Grow the fuck up. Especially you, J and random.
Uh, if they didn't know they have HIV then how would it be possible to prevent them from immigrating?
Oh, I don't know? Maybe making testing a requirement for immigration? Hmmmmmmmmmm....
But then they would fucking know they have it so it wouldn't matter.
I don't know if it's been mentioned, since I don't feel like wading through all the stupid, but here it goes:
The people that spread HIV don't know that they have it, you dipshits.
What the hell is wrong with you people? Do you think that people are spreading HIV for kicks and jollies? Grow the fuck up. Especially you, J and random.
Uh, if they didn't know they have HIV then how would it be possible to prevent them from immigrating?
Oh, I don't know? Maybe making testing a requirement for immigration? Hmmmmmmmmmm....
But then they would fucking know they have it so it wouldn't matter.
And then they wouldn't infect others. What the fuck's your point?
I don't know if it's been mentioned, since I don't feel like wading through all the stupid, but here it goes:
The people that spread HIV don't know that they have it, you dipshits.
What the hell is wrong with you people? Do you think that people are spreading HIV for kicks and jollies? Grow the fuck up. Especially you, J and random.
Uh, if they didn't know they have HIV then how would it be possible to prevent them from immigrating?
Oh, I don't know? Maybe making testing a requirement for immigration? Hmmmmmmmmmm....
But then they would fucking know they have it so it wouldn't matter.
And then they wouldn't infect others. What the fuck's your point?
I don't know if it's been mentioned, since I don't feel like wading through all the stupid, but here it goes:
The people that spread HIV don't know that they have it, you dipshits.
What the hell is wrong with you people? Do you think that people are spreading HIV for kicks and jollies? Grow the fuck up. Especially you, J and random.
Uh, if they didn't know they have HIV then how would it be possible to prevent them from immigrating?
Oh, I don't know? Maybe making testing a requirement for immigration? Hmmmmmmmmmm....
But then they would fucking know they have it so it wouldn't matter.
And then they wouldn't infect others. What the fuck's your point?
The way I understand it is that Australia's healthcare system is public, so when a person with HIV comes in, he starts costing the country money.
Just like those damnded dirty diabetics. Why can't they get banned too? Those sick fucks and their sugarless cookies.
Well, I'm not the one who made the policy, so don't ask me. I was just explaining.
To play the devil's advocate though, I think treating HIV costs far more than treating most other diseases/disorders.
I've not caught diabetes from anyone I know either, and to get back to emigrating to Australia - I'm pretty sure you can't do it if you've got an infectious illness full stop, there is a medical portion to the process.
Here we go, from the Department of Immigration
Temporary visa applicants
Health examinations will depend on your circumstances, your intended activities in Australia, and your country of origin or residence. You will need to undertake a health examination if:
you are likely to enter a hospital or other health care environment, including nursing homes as either a patient, visitor, trainee or employee
you are likely to enter a classroom environment, including preschool, crèche and child care situations
you are known or suspected of having a medical condition, regardless of your length of stay
you are aged 70 years or older
there are indications that you may not meet the health requirement.
More information is available to assist you.
See: Information Form 1163i Health requirement for temporary entry to Australia (57KB PDF file)
Permanent visa applicants
All members of your immediate family, including dependant family members who do not intend to migrate, must meet the health requirement. This includes all children under the age of 18 years as well as other dependants, regardless of whether they live with you and whether they intend to migrate.
More information is available to assist you.
See: Information Form 1071i Health requirement for permanent entry to Australia (63KB PDF file)
So yeah - you can't come in with diabetes, HIV, flu or anything more than a cold really. Its nothing new other than that the HIV sufferers don't have a chance to get better nor be likely to be able to manage their disease independantly in the way a diabetic might.
Well as a sidepoint, it's also generally accepted that someone with HIV is likely to die within 10-15 years no matter how well we treat them. Someone with diabetes is likely to live well into retirement. I do imagine a doctor trying to immigrate who has diabetes would probably be let in.
A doctor with HIV is a disaster waiting to happen.
The vast, vast, majority of HIV transmission occurs between either parties knowledgable of the risk and ignoring it, parties knowledgable of the risk and taking insufficient steps to prevent transmission, or between 'parties' who have been lambasted incessantly with the fact they likely have HIV but have opted not to get tested.
It is exceedingly difficult to transmit HIV through sexual intercourse if you do not also have a medley of other localized infections on both parties. It requires the amount of sexual contact you will only find in a committed relationship, and a large amount of time.
This is, at least, the state of the epidemic in developed nations. In developing and elsewise, which is to say in Africa and elsewise less-wise off, the epidemic is widespread enough that without firm regimentation of reproduction and remarkable progression in not education, but indoctrination, your point about 'not knowing they have it' still falls apart because most parties understand that they might have it, but do not get tested-- or at least, not tested frequently enough, or at least, testing is not widely-enough available and convenient enough that it is practical to stay abreast of one's own condition.
Add to this the fact that HIV cannot be detected for a period of approximately three weeks of contracting it, a period during which it is still ostensibly transmissible,
people at risk should be aware of the risk and abstain until they test. Instead, most people opt to not test, and not abstain, and just hope they are okay--
self-imposed ignorance should never absolve one of blame in situations like this.
Well as a sidepoint, it's also generally accepted that someone with HIV is likely to die within 10-15 years no matter how well we treat them. Someone with diabetes is likely to live well into retirement. I do imagine a doctor trying to immigrate who has diabetes would probably be let in.
A doctor with HIV is a disaster waiting to happen.
No thats incorrect. The latest round of anti-viral cocktails have been proven to keep HIV levels below detectable levels indefinately.
At this point, HIV is fast on the way to becoming (an extremely expensive) chronic condition, but not a fatal one.
Secondly, I highly doubt someone with type I diabetes (type II is less severe and can sometimes be eliminated with proper diet/exercise), would stand a good chance getting into Australia. The health check encompasses more than just infectious diseases and counts for a massive amount, so ultimately fatal diseases like Diabetes would likely sabot any chance of you getting in unless you were highly needed (in the opinion of the Dept of Immigration) in the Australian workforce and/or supremely rich and could pay for your condition.
The way I understand it is that Australia's healthcare system is public, so when a person with HIV comes in, he starts costing the country money.
I may be wrong, though.
People with HIV can still be productive members of society, and are not tax exempt.
Being a tax-payer isn't enough to get Australian residency or citizenship - I could easily get a job in Australia if Visas weren't an issue. Australia is probably turning away hundreds of people who would be even more profitable to the government than the HIV infected worker for far more minor things.
Well as a sidepoint, it's also generally accepted that someone with HIV is likely to die within 10-15 years no matter how well we treat them. Someone with diabetes is likely to live well into retirement. I do imagine a doctor trying to immigrate who has diabetes would probably be let in.
A doctor with HIV is a disaster waiting to happen.
No thats incorrect. The latest round of anti-viral cocktails have been proven to keep HIV levels below detectable levels indefinately.
At this point, HIV is fast on the way to becoming (an extremely expensive) chronic condition, but not a fatal one.
Secondly, I highly doubt someone with type I diabetes (type II is less severe and can sometimes be eliminated with proper diet/exercise), would stand a good chance getting into Australia. The health check encompasses more than just infectious diseases and counts for a massive amount, so ultimately fatal diseases like Diabetes would likely sabot any chance of you getting in unless you were highly needed (in the opinion of the Dept of Immigration) in the Australian workforce and/or supremely rich and could pay for your condition.
Diabetes is ultimately fatal in the same way that old age is though. AIDs is ultimately fatal in the same way that you die of Ebola.
Well as a sidepoint, it's also generally accepted that someone with HIV is likely to die within 10-15 years no matter how well we treat them. Someone with diabetes is likely to live well into retirement. I do imagine a doctor trying to immigrate who has diabetes would probably be let in.
A doctor with HIV is a disaster waiting to happen.
No thats incorrect. The latest round of anti-viral cocktails have been proven to keep HIV levels below detectable levels indefinately.
At this point, HIV is fast on the way to becoming (an extremely expensive) chronic condition, but not a fatal one.
Secondly, I highly doubt someone with type I diabetes (type II is less severe and can sometimes be eliminated with proper diet/exercise), would stand a good chance getting into Australia. The health check encompasses more than just infectious diseases and counts for a massive amount, so ultimately fatal diseases like Diabetes would likely sabot any chance of you getting in unless you were highly needed (in the opinion of the Dept of Immigration) in the Australian workforce and/or supremely rich and could pay for your condition.
Diabetes is ultimately fatal in the same way that old age is though. AIDs is ultimately fatal in the same way that you die of Ebola.
Actually no diabetes is not the same as old age. The median survival age for Type I diabetes is something like 55-60 years of age... with many people with type I diabetes ending up dying a horrible death after spending years blind on dialysis having had one or more of their limbs amputated... getting Type I diabetes is a horrible death sentence...
HIV is not like Ebola because the median survival rate for Ebola is ~30% with the disease only lasting a week or so... you either make it or your body liquifies... plus there is no way to suppress Ebola, unlike with AIDS
Well as a sidepoint, it's also generally accepted that someone with HIV is likely to die within 10-15 years no matter how well we treat them. Someone with diabetes is likely to live well into retirement. I do imagine a doctor trying to immigrate who has diabetes would probably be let in.
A doctor with HIV is a disaster waiting to happen.
No thats incorrect. The latest round of anti-viral cocktails have been proven to keep HIV levels below detectable levels indefinately.
At this point, HIV is fast on the way to becoming (an extremely expensive) chronic condition, but not a fatal one.
Secondly, I highly doubt someone with type I diabetes (type II is less severe and can sometimes be eliminated with proper diet/exercise), would stand a good chance getting into Australia. The health check encompasses more than just infectious diseases and counts for a massive amount, so ultimately fatal diseases like Diabetes would likely sabot any chance of you getting in unless you were highly needed (in the opinion of the Dept of Immigration) in the Australian workforce and/or supremely rich and could pay for your condition.
Diabetes is ultimately fatal in the same way that old age is though. AIDs is ultimately fatal in the same way that you die of Ebola.
Actually no diabetes is not the same as old age. The median survival age for Type I diabetes is something like 55-60 years of age... with many people with type I diabetes ending up dying a horrible death after spending years blind on dialysis having had one or more of their limbs amputated... getting Type I diabetes is a horrible death sentence...
HIV is not like Ebola because the median survival rate for Ebola is ~30% with the disease only lasting a week or so... you either make it or your body liquifies... plus there is no way to suppress Ebola, unlike with AIDS
The point was with HIV you basically die of the common cold, which is in actuality a hemorrhagic fever like Ebola.
Like hell it was, the point was a diabetic is going to be living much closer to natural lifespan and remain largely productive throughout that period, Organ failure is the same ultimate cause of death whether its AIDS, Ebola, Diabetes or a Truck. Its a valid point, but lets not pretend you were being technical here - does it really matter how you die in this case compared to when and how much it costs to hold off doing so?
The type II diabetes patient is going to be working more days than the AIDS one, and going to cost less to the tax payers.
Like hell it was, the point was a diabetic is going to be living much closer to natural lifespan and remain largely productive throughout that period, Organ failure is the same ultimate cause of death whether its AIDS, Ebola, Diabetes or a Truck. Its a valid point, but lets not pretend you were being technical here - does it really matter how you die in this case compared to when and how much it costs to hold off doing so?
The type II diabetes patient is going to be working more days than the AIDS one, and going to cost less to the tax payers.
Whatever the costs (economic and other) that HIV-afflicted people put on the economy, there's a big difference between instituting some kind of informed immigration policy (and when it comes to refugees, should we be considering which ones are cheaper?) and getting up in front of a crowd/mike/camera and proclaiming 'HIV-types! Not welcome here!
And for refugees? You should be deciding who needs the help most, not who is cheapest, shouldn't you?
Posts
O_o
Christ, mate, we're not South Africa. Despite the poor way the aboriginals have been treated and some lingering suspicion of muslims, racial problems aren't that prominent here. There's certainly a great deal less racial violence than in the US.
Canada's is similar, I remember looking it over once.
What about racial prejudice in general?
No worse than anywhere else, and significantly better than most, which is why I get slightly irritated at 16-year-old exurb dwellers acting like my country is the freakin' wild west.
I blame it on the white people taking the land from the stone-age aboriginal peoples via disease and firearms.
That does make us unique, I'll grant you that
oh wait
Most other aboriginal peoples were wiped out with like swords and stuff.
you guys were pussies, what with the small-pox soaked blankets.
We were cold, dammit.
Do you know how chilly it is running around in loin cloths?
The HIV thing is not a "black people" thing because the Aboriginies treatment is more like the treatment of American Indians. Neither of these two population groups are particularly renound for being hot beds of HIV positivity.
What it is an immigration policy just sensible enough to require some serious consideration in whether or not it's a good idea or in fact should be implemented through other measures. No one is doing it because "oh lol black people haev teh AIDS"
In the US, whether it's true or no, the common assumption is that homosexuality is the primary source of HIV.
Is it the same in Central California Jr I mean Australia?
But no, the spread of HIV as I understand it is only more significant in the gay community because they on average have more partners. Sample a comparable group of straight people and it's about the same.
Is it purely there to protect and serve the population which constituted it? Or does it have a wider moral obligation?
If it has a wider moral obligation, where does this obligation start and end? Obviously there are some distinctions going on here- eg Tuberculosis is considered a resonable excuse to exclude a potential applicant, but HIV might not be... I guess its all a matter of degree... just how much needs to be wrong with someone before they are barred entry.
In a moral sense I think it is fairly suspect barring people with HIV coming into Australia (as has been mentioned, Aids is not airborne and considering the calibre of people Australia would allow into its borders, they are also much less likely to be reckless bastards with no thought but for themselves), but from an overall strategic, nation-building sense... well that might be a different story. Which view deserves to have primacy?
The people that spread HIV don't know that they have it, you dipshits.
What the hell is wrong with you people? Do you think that people are spreading HIV for kicks and jollies? Grow the fuck up. Especially you, J and random.
Steam: pazython
Modulo the particular point values and for what, yeah, it's pretty much the same.
Oh, I don't know? Maybe making testing a requirement for immigration? Hmmmmmmmmmm....
Since you put it that way, it's kinda hard to tell the difference.
Ba-ZING!
Steam: pazython
But then they would fucking know they have it so it wouldn't matter.
And then they wouldn't infect others. What the fuck's your point?
Steam: pazython
...I see we're on the same page here, carry on.
Steam: pazython
The way I understand it is that Australia's healthcare system is public, so when a person with HIV comes in, he starts costing the country money.
I may be wrong, though.
Just like those damnded dirty diabetics. Why can't they get banned too? Those sick fucks and their sugarless cookies.
Well, I'm not the one who made the policy, so don't ask me. I was just explaining.
To play the devil's advocate though, I think treating HIV costs far more than treating most other diseases/disorders.
I've not caught diabetes from anyone I know either, and to get back to emigrating to Australia - I'm pretty sure you can't do it if you've got an infectious illness full stop, there is a medical portion to the process.
Here we go, from the Department of Immigration So yeah - you can't come in with diabetes, HIV, flu or anything more than a cold really. Its nothing new other than that the HIV sufferers don't have a chance to get better nor be likely to be able to manage their disease independantly in the way a diabetic might.
A doctor with HIV is a disaster waiting to happen.
The vast, vast, majority of HIV transmission occurs between either parties knowledgable of the risk and ignoring it, parties knowledgable of the risk and taking insufficient steps to prevent transmission, or between 'parties' who have been lambasted incessantly with the fact they likely have HIV but have opted not to get tested.
It is exceedingly difficult to transmit HIV through sexual intercourse if you do not also have a medley of other localized infections on both parties. It requires the amount of sexual contact you will only find in a committed relationship, and a large amount of time.
This is, at least, the state of the epidemic in developed nations. In developing and elsewise, which is to say in Africa and elsewise less-wise off, the epidemic is widespread enough that without firm regimentation of reproduction and remarkable progression in not education, but indoctrination, your point about 'not knowing they have it' still falls apart because most parties understand that they might have it, but do not get tested-- or at least, not tested frequently enough, or at least, testing is not widely-enough available and convenient enough that it is practical to stay abreast of one's own condition.
Add to this the fact that HIV cannot be detected for a period of approximately three weeks of contracting it, a period during which it is still ostensibly transmissible,
people at risk should be aware of the risk and abstain until they test. Instead, most people opt to not test, and not abstain, and just hope they are okay--
self-imposed ignorance should never absolve one of blame in situations like this.
No thats incorrect. The latest round of anti-viral cocktails have been proven to keep HIV levels below detectable levels indefinately.
At this point, HIV is fast on the way to becoming (an extremely expensive) chronic condition, but not a fatal one.
Secondly, I highly doubt someone with type I diabetes (type II is less severe and can sometimes be eliminated with proper diet/exercise), would stand a good chance getting into Australia. The health check encompasses more than just infectious diseases and counts for a massive amount, so ultimately fatal diseases like Diabetes would likely sabot any chance of you getting in unless you were highly needed (in the opinion of the Dept of Immigration) in the Australian workforce and/or supremely rich and could pay for your condition.
Being a tax-payer isn't enough to get Australian residency or citizenship - I could easily get a job in Australia if Visas weren't an issue. Australia is probably turning away hundreds of people who would be even more profitable to the government than the HIV infected worker for far more minor things.
Diabetes is ultimately fatal in the same way that old age is though. AIDs is ultimately fatal in the same way that you die of Ebola.
Actually no diabetes is not the same as old age. The median survival age for Type I diabetes is something like 55-60 years of age... with many people with type I diabetes ending up dying a horrible death after spending years blind on dialysis having had one or more of their limbs amputated... getting Type I diabetes is a horrible death sentence...
HIV is not like Ebola because the median survival rate for Ebola is ~30% with the disease only lasting a week or so... you either make it or your body liquifies... plus there is no way to suppress Ebola, unlike with AIDS
The type II diabetes patient is going to be working more days than the AIDS one, and going to cost less to the tax payers.
That's OK, Britain can always send them more criminal deportees!
(Hey, I'm just kidding! Put down those ban torches!)
Same old site, great new look! Check out The Gameroom Blitz at:
http://www.lakupo.com/grblitz
And for refugees? You should be deciding who needs the help most, not who is cheapest, shouldn't you?