Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Mandatory AIDS and other STD testing watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    True, but the vast reduction, and perhaps periodic testing would ensure that we had possibly the lowest infection rate in the world...
    Guh okay then, though I'm not sure I like the idea of every citizen being forced to give these blood samples every few months. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, i'm just a little cool to the whole thing.

    Regardless, one question here was not just for the UK, but the global benefits of it - to implement it in all countries.
    Nice idea, it's a little bit impossible though. And where on earth are all these poor people who are rejected from our borders going to go for treatment?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think in principal it would be a good idea, in the sense that it would detect cases faster, and reduce the spread of such diseases, but I don't think people would enjoy regular mandatory tests, so there would be much public objection to the notion, and I think the costs would be prohibative.

    I don't know how much a test costs, but for the sake of argument let us say it costs £10 a head, that's £600,000,000 per round of tests, and the one test would not be sufficient, as I could go on holiday, sleep around, pick up a disease, and bring it back with me, sleep around here, and start the whole process off again, so it would have to be regular testing, for my money, to be effective, it would have to be 4 times a year, and therefore we're talking (if the cost of one test was £10) £2,400,000,000

    Count those noughts.

    If each prevention saves us £1,000,000 we'd have to prevent 2,400 cases a year to make it cost effective.

    Would we?

    You said there were 12,000 cases detected between 2000 and 2004, so around 6,000 a year, would we really prevent that 40% of cases with this method?

    I know it sounds heartless bringing money into it like this, but such is life in the modern world, if anyone was to introduce this scheme they would have to justify it's expenditure.

    I also believe it can take several weeks for some of these viruses to become detectable, after infection, and with travel, holidays, tourism, there would be plenty of places where the disease could slip in.

    I think madatory is perhaps to far, as it means spending money on testing people with very, very little chance of contracting any such viruses, and it wouldn't prevent the spread of such diseases, only limit them, and therefore I question the cost effectiveness of such a venture, but I don't think it would harm to encourage more people to take voluntary tests, or to bring mandatory tests in for certain high risk catagories.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    Guh okay then, though I'm not sure I like the idea of every citizen being forced to give these blood samples every few months. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, i'm just a little cool to the whole thing.
    I agree that its hard to square with what I consider are our shared libertarian slants... but it is a hard one to say no to given the minor damage done to those giving a sample.

    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    Nice idea, it's a little bit impossible though. And where on earth are all these poor people who are rejected from our borders going to go for treatment?
    To their country of origin? Where rates should be falling too with better education and knwoledge about who has what.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    I don't know how much a test costs, but for the sake of argument let us say it costs £10 a head, that's £600,000,000 per round of tests, and the one test would not be sufficient, as I could go on holiday, sleep around, pick up a disease, and bring it back with me, sleep around here, and start the whole process off again, so it would have to be regular testing, for my money, to be effective, it would have to be 4 times a year, and therefore we're talking (if the cost of one test was £10) £2,400,000,000
    I wouldnt have thought we would need to do ANYTHIGN like that many tests! - We would be looking at once a year at the very most ... along with your annual check-up.

    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    If each prevention saves us £1,000,000 we'd have to prevent 2,400 cases a year to make it cost effective.

    Would we?

    You said there were 12,000 cases detected between 2000 and 2004, so around 6,000 a year, would we really prevent that 40% of cases with this method?
    I think we could actually reduce the number of new cases by more than that actually.

    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    I think madatory is perhaps to far, as it means spending money on testing people with very, very little chance of contracting any such viruses, and it wouldn't prevent the spread of such diseases, only limit them, and therefore I question the cost effectiveness of such a venture, but I don't think it would harm to encourage more people to take voluntary tests, or to bring mandatory tests in for certain high risk catagories.
    keep in mind that we could actually test for other things t the same time, and dont forget the benefit to the economy of early detection and prevention of a large number of diseases.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    I know it sounds heartless bringing money into it like this, but such is life in the modern world, if anyone was to introduce this scheme they would have to justify it's expenditure.
    Not heartless at all, the NHS is hardly figting fit right now, and HIV isn't the only disease out there.

    I also believe it can take several weeks for some of these viruses to become detectable, after infection, and with travel, holidays, tourism, there would be plenty of places where the disease could slip in.
    :ditto:

    In fact I would go as far as to say the threat posed by tourists and businessmen et al is equally as strong as that posed by immigrants. Isn't sex tourism one of the fastest growing industries out there atm?

    I think that because we have such huge constraints as this, we should be looking instead towards advertising and raising awareness.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    I wouldnt have thought we would need to do ANYTHIGN like that many tests! - We would be looking at once a year at the very most ... along with your annual check-up.
    That would greatly reduce the detection rate then, although it would also reduce the costs.

    I think we could actually reduce the number of new cases by more than that actually.
    Don't forget your earlier figures, over 60% of cases were brought into the country, therefore there is less than 40% to prevent to begin with, and it was 40% that I came to, so really we'd have to be preventing 100% (or more, albeit an impossability) of domestic cases.

    keep in mind that we could actually test for other things t the same time, and dont forget the benefit to the economy of early detection and prevention of a large number of diseases.
    I included that in my previous figures.

    Don't forget also that being given a clean bill of health is going to encourage some people to be more reckless about sex, so as well as the downturn created by detections and preventions, there will also more than likely be a small up turn created by over confidence in certain individuals.

    We also have to remember the missing community.

    How are you going to administer mandatory tests to people who don't want them, or to those outside of society, eg. the homeless, amongst whom I would suspect the rate is relatively high.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    I think that because we have such huge constraints as this, we should be looking instead towards advertising and raising awareness.
    I tend to agree.

    I think that mandatory testing is a better idea than reality, and that education and targeted testing might be more effective.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    That would greatly reduce the detection rate then, although it would also reduce the costs.
    Clearly there has to be a cost benefit balance. I doubt that an extra 3 times a year would bring a benefit sufficent to justify tripple the cost.

    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    Don't forget your earlier figures, over 60% of cases were brought into the country, therefore there is less than 40% to prevent to begin with, and it was 40% that I came to, so really we'd have to be preventing 100% (or more, albeit an impossability) of domestic cases.
    No - because if you prevented entry into the country for the purposes of habitation of those with AIDS you would factor that in.

    Plus, the study said that 60% werent born here. That is NOT to say they didnt contract it here.

    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    Don't forget also that being given a clean bill of health is going to encourage some people to be more reckless about sex, so as well as the downturn created by detections and preventions, there will also more than likely be a small up turn created by over confidence in certain individuals.
    That's a possibility, though I would like to see proof that indicates this is a significant concern.

    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    How are you going to administer mandatory tests to people who don't want them, or to those outside of society, eg. the homeless, amongst whom I would suspect the rate is relatively high.
    Yes - I Was going to bring up one issue similar to that - namely illegal immigrants who aren’t about to present themselves.

    Solutions are needed I suppose.

    Anyway - as to the administration - they would be done in the same way that the police take DNA samples if you are arrested - by force if necessary. Regrettable, but no other way.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    That's a possibility, though I would like to see proof that indicates this is a significant concern.
    Well until we put it to the test I don't know how we would find proof, although I do recall something about similar upturns in the past, due to certain factors (possibly related to early information it was more prevelant in homosexuals, at the time, or something?), but I can't recall details, so I don't know how relevent, how how big such upturns were.

    Yes - I Was going to bring up one issue similar to that - namely illegal immigrants who aren’t about to present themselves.
    I did consider that too, but in light of some recent threads I decided to use homeless etc. as an example, because I didn't want to drag things off topic when people started jumping in with comments about us being racist, or oppressing people.

    :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why would I want someone testing me for aids?

    And what good would it do? Testing for AIDS doesn't stop it spreading, it just tells the person they have have or they don't. Not only does that mean we'll know of more people with it = higher NHS bills, but unless we brand it on their forehead with a tatoo, there's no way of anyone else knowing, so how will it stop the spread?

    (i'm refering to comulsory testing for everyone)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    unless we brand it on their forehead with a tatoo, there's no way of anyone else knowing, so how will it stop the spread?

    (i'm refering to comulsory testing for everyone)
    Becuase I'd imagine most infected people would either:

    a) Not want to infect others or
    b) Not want to go to prison for doing so.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Becuase I'd imagine most infected people would either:

    a) Not want to infect others or
    b) Not want to go to prison for doing so.
    There's far too many people who don't care enough to think it would do much good for the immense cost, not to mention the Libertarian issues.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    There's far too many people who don't care enough to think it would do much good for the immense cost, not to mention the Libertarian issues.
    They would go to jail, and it would be very easy to send them there given that the main obstacle to prosecution is showing that a person knew they had AIDS in the first place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    They would go to jail, and it would be very easy to send them there given that the main obstacle to prosecution is showing that a person knew they had AIDS in the first place.
    That doesn't mean you can prove that they ever had sex, or that it was that sexual encounter that gave the other person aids, or that the other person didn't already have AIDS (afterall, the tests won't occur everyday).

    And I don't want the government running any tests on me against my will.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    That doesn't mean you can prove that they ever had sex,
    You can prove it to the satisfaction of the court. It happens all the time.

    (Original post by DanGrover)
    or that it was that sexual encounter that gave the other person aids,
    That too. It has happened.

    (Original post by DanGrover)
    or that the other person didn't already have AIDS (afterall, the tests won't occur everyday).
    Actually given the time frames, it is pretty easy to date contraction with an aproximate degree of certainty.

    (Original post by DanGrover)
    And I don't want the government running any tests on me against my will.
    Well that's a different point.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Well that's a different point.
    Yes but it's one of the most important points made so far.

    You could end up creating a LOT of criminals by making this mandatory, getting tested for HIV is an experience many will try to avoid.

    I feel that it would be creating even more criminals out of innocent individuals when it's not really neccessary and were still at a stage where not all other alternatives have been exhausted.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    You can prove it to the satisfaction of the court. It happens all the time.

    That too. It has happened.

    Actually given the time frames, it is pretty easy to date contraction with an aproximate degree of certainty.
    Yup yup yup, and I daresay these tests will make it easier, but it'll hardly be a simple case of arresting people who have unprotected sex with AIDS. There will still be a huge legal process to go through with each person. I doubt very much whether "it would be very easy to send them there [prison]."

    Well that's a different point.
    Yup, though one I raised in my second post above.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    Yes but it's one of the most important points made so far.
    yes I wanted to deal with each in turn. Especially because I think this one is incapable of resolution given that it comes down to first principles.

    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    You could end up creating a LOT of criminals by making this mandatory, getting tested for HIV is an experience many will try to avoid.
    I don think many... but still - you would take it by force. You wouldnt have to lock people up.

    I would like to also point out that this is not pie in the sky, but is seriously being considered in some African countries.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    Yup yup yup, and I daresay these tests will make it easier, but it'll hardly be a simple case of arresting people who have unprotected sex with AIDS. There will still be a huge legal process to go through with each person. I doubt very much whether "it would be very easy to send them there [prison]."
    Alot easier. If you KNOW you have AIDS, and have unprotected sex, you are, if an infection ensues, almost certainly guilty of a serious crime.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    I would like to also point out that this is not pie in the sky, but is seriously being considered in some African countries.
    It may aswell be pie in the sky. Our situation with regard to STIs is not comparable in the slightest to that of most African countries, their problem is on a much bigger scale than ours, and many of them have drastically different views to Britain when it comes to safeguarding individual freedoms, so i feel this approach is not suited to our needs and we need to come up with our own solution.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.