Interesting, yet sad, article on US HIV policies

US HIV/AIDS immigration policy article

I found this interesting, sad, intriguing and thought provoking...and thought you might too.

I wonder why the author stays. If I were he, I would simply refuse to participate in any way in such a country.

As it happens, it adds another point to my long list of reasons why I am strongly considering moving to Spain, Australia, or even England.

YAY! Come to Aus Doc!!

This is the first I've heard of it, and I'm thinking that if I or anyone else was going to visit the US.. are there signs? Does it say on a customs form?

Does anyone ask you? because if not, and it's not policed, then I don't see the point of having it.

I'd say travelers who are in a country (lets say backpackers) are more likely to have sex than someone who is immigrating. In a time period of course...

Lets say X was single and going on a 3 month trip of the US... on average they'd have sex with... (got my room mates opinions.. ranged from 15-80) if they were a virile, sexually active, no holds barred tourist.

Thats pretty high and risky (and they might not know, they might have come straight from Thailand/somewhere).
And blood tests wouldn't show up anyway.

So, IMHO, this law can't be policed, so I don't really see the point of having it.

I understand the 'you'll cost too much to our health system' but I thought it was user pays in the US...



I've always thought the 'nice' countries to live in would be Australia, New Zealand and Canada... (Canada is on a tight leash currently as I monitor the seal clubbing)
I'm glad you think Aus is a nice country Doc!

Especially the part where Doc should move to Aus

Off topic but I was told HIV has made it into our aboriginal communities. This is going to be devastating to a race of people suffering with alcoholsim and sexual abuse.
The effect on the aboriginals and the medical system here is going to be huge.

Yeah Gnor

They used to think the incidence was the same.. but they've found its 18 times higher in Indigenous population.
And seeing as the rate of syphilis is 242x, gonorrhoea 77x and chlamydia 16x... there's a huge problem thats about to become huger!!

Makes me, a healthcare worker who is more at risk, very wary...

Natasqi, where do you get those stats from? I checked the world aids day site and it says a few years ago the prevalence was about the same (http://www.worldaidsday.org.au/internet/wad/publishing.nsf/Content/stats). So unless the incidence in the indigenous population has... ummmm... increased by 20-fold within a few years, do you maybe mean 18% higher?

What do the US plan on doing then? Add a little "I have not slept with anyone with HIV recently" to the "I'm not a drug dealer or a terrorist" questionnaire? (Just wondering, since I plan to travel next year, and I'm annoyed enough at the fingerprints, there's no way anyone will get my blood).

Incidentally, does anyone know what the policy is on fingerprints that are unclear because of repeated (prescribed) needle-stabbing? Will I have to do a toeprint instead?

Doc, seriously, move to Vancouver.

Birgit I get the feeling the stats on the HIV situaition in native population is fairly new.

Nat it is really scary and should make you wary.

Wow...reminds me of a Mitch Hedberg bit.....

"Alcoholism is the only disease people can get mad at you for...Dammit Poje, you're an alcoholic. Dammit Poje, you have Lupus. One of those just doesn't sound right."

Now we can add HIV to the list i suppose.

The thing that struck me was the mention of the Haitian refugees. Throw that in with the Cuban ones as well and the thing is, they are illegal.

So, our governmental idiot..er...leaders enacted an immigration and tourism policy based on illegal immigrants/refugees.
Brilliant.

Mike, his life is here. His spouse, his kids, his career. He obviously has strong ties.

I've thought and wanted so many times to leave the US but Noah and his stability keeps me here. It's a good place to be a kid but a sucky place to be an adult, me thinks.

I also completely agree with you natasqi. I've known many a wanderer who did not have high levels of discretion.
It's so outdated and slanted.

Birgit, all I can say is good luck. I have no idea.

Well, I AM going to Mardi Gras and the gay ball and to see Molly and NYC and the Keys and maybe revisit San Francisco. If they don't like my fingerprints I can always use these.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=49758&sectionid=351020604

Natasqi, do you have a reference? I'd be interested in looking it up I mean, I'm not saying you're talking out of your bum or anything, just surprised how the stats would change so quickly in so little time! As a half-medic (pharmacologist/toxicologist) that kind of stuff intrigues me

Sorry you had to ask twice :P But I do need to sleep sometimes! :P

"Until now, the prevalence of HIV in the Indigenous community has been considered similar to that in the non-Indigenous community.1 In this issue of the Journal (page 124), Wright et al present evidence of a higher rate of HIV among Indigenous people in Western Australia than in the non-Indigenous population.2 They report that, while the rate of HIV notifications in the non-Indigenous population declined between 1985 and 2002, it increased in the Indigenous population. The difference in risk for Indigenous women was striking — 39% of all female HIV notifications in WA since 1994 have been for Indigenous women, giving an Indigenous : non-Indigenous age-standardised rate ratio of 18. In contrast, the rate ratio for Indigenous males was 2. Wright et al also confirmed the marked differentials in risk of other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the Indigenous population — with Indigenous : non-Indigenous age-standardised rate ratios of 242 for syphilis, 77 for gonorrhoea and 16 for chlamydia. The data in this study are likely to predominantly reflect the situation in rural and remote regions of WA, and the authors acknowledge the difficulties of interpreting surveillance data. Nevertheless, the findings demand attention."

<b>giving an Indigenous : non-Indigenous age-standardised rate ratio of 18.</b>
rate RATIO means 18x right, not 18% higher... I'm PRETTY sure.. but then again I wagged all my statistics lectures...

From an eMJ article, Controlling HIV in Indigenous Australians http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/183_03_010805/bow10590_fm.html

and this one..

"The annual number of HIV diagnoses among Indigenous people was relatively stable, but among non-Indigenous people it declined steadily over time."

HIV and AIDS in aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians: 1992-1998. The National HIV Surveillance Committee.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10860091

Aaah, just read the article properly... 18x for females, 2 times for males.. Sorry for mucking up that :P

So basically same for guys, 18 times for females.

Still worrying.

Sorry, I thought since you'd written something in between you might've overlooked it

It's worrying indeed, and I wonder if the stats I read about 2005 were wrong then. Also indicates that there are different mechanisms of transmission, like higher rate of heterosexual transmission.

Semi-ignorant question - could it be so different because they were looking at WA, or is the percentage of Indigeneous Australians similar in every state?

diabetes is also really harsh on aboriginals and islanders, mainly because of the high sugar diet of western society that their bodies aren't used to.