Alarming health stats.. - Page 2

lettie · 09-03-2004, 09:33

I hate how Universities set questions. You should have seen the last one I did. It was about research and statistics and I never understood the question, I swear it wasn't even in English, but in this made up academic mumbo-jumbo. I passed the assignment, but still don't understand which question I actually answered, it will forever be a mystery.

lettie · 10-03-2004, 14:14

Done some digging on the pre immigration testing, and yes it has definately been discussed. At least 70 other countries do this, for people who are going to be there for any length of time. These countries include USA, Australia, Russia, China and most of the Arab States. At the discussion stage the WHO jumped in there, and said it was discriminatory, some British experts commented that it was a useless practice, as the rates in Russia and China are still rising rapidly despite the pre immigration testing. To cap it all the Institute for Public Policy Research said that screening immigrants would drive the problem underground and increase risk by stigmatising victims. The IPPR instead called for 'Welcome Health Checks' for immigrants instead of compulsory screening. These health checks would hopefully also be screening for Hepatitis B, and TB, as both of these diseases are rife in the Middle and Far East.

Also stumbled upon some information regarding Africa and our lovely President, Mr. Bush. Last year, the US promised $15billion to Africa to try and ease their HIV situation, and enable the purchase of Antiretrovirals, amongst other things. This money has never been paid, only about $3-4 million of it, and no more has been forthcoming. The Africans claim that Mr. Bush is personally biased. The only bias that springs to my mind is that, many of the clinics which offer care to HIV sufferers, also offer contraception, condoms, health advice and terminations of pregnancies (bearing in mind that these clinics are in regions where rape is a common problem) Mr. Bush is anti-abortion, and therefore won't fund these clinics. The US have been very selective about where the funding they have already sent has gone. It has only been sent to specified areas apparently.

Tealeaf · 10-03-2004, 14:46

A couple of points Lettie:

1)Immigration - I don't think there are many people who wish to emigrate to China or Russia...their HIV problem is essentially an internal one

2) As for the IPP, their argument is crap.It is not inconcievable for a blood test to be taken when a visa application is made. Naturally, the applicant pays for the cost. If the test is neg, fine - they get the visa; if not, they don't.

3) I don't know where you get the figure of $15bill.....I thought that was the overall aid budget for Africa, not AIDS budget...surely the main change was to license the generic manufacture of retroviral medication and to sell at cost, so that the overall medication bill becomes more affordable.

4) In any case, I would'nt worry to much about Africa; the place is a basket case whose rotten & corrupt leaders blame everything on the West rather than themselves. The more aid that place gets, the worse it becomes.

lettie · 10-03-2004, 15:10

Agree about the rises in China and Russia, as all the literature supports that their problems are internal ones. Also the document I have read about the so called British experts saying that the testing is useless, doesn't say who these experts are, or what they are experts in. They could be experts at building or joinery for all I know, the IPPR are a labour think tank. Lets face it, how many immigrants are going to volunteer for a 'welcome health check' I think it's the usual large British institutional way of saving money by false economy quite frankly.

Tealeaf · 10-03-2004, 15:38

the main problem, again, is the civil liberties mob. The idea that you can come into the UK, have a friendly health check, be found HIV pos and then say to them "sorry, you can't stay" is absurd. The trendy do-gooders would be up in arms Here's one statistical question for you...How many HIV pos immigrants have been returned to their own country? Answer - None. Not one. Not in the last 20 years.

It is going to be interesting to see what the politico's are going to say about this when the General Election comes up next year.

Roy · 10-03-2004, 20:11

Quote:

1)Immigration - I don't think there are many people who wish to emigrate to China or Russia

How wrong you are tealeaf in that statement. Take a look around the world and just realise which countries are really doing well these days. Europe and the USA have totally lost it... Russia is on it's way back up and China is just amazing! China right now has more investment going on than anywhere else in the world. People from all over the world are moving there to be in on it. You really would not believe what is happening there! Foreigners are literaly queuing to get themselves visa's/work permits/immigrated to these countrys... trust me, i know!

Tealeaf · 11-03-2004, 09:47

Well, there is no doubt of China's phenominal growth rate over the last 20 years...however, when I hear of 20 lancastrians drowning off Kowloon Island while out Cockle Picking for 50p a day, then I'll accept your case.

lettie · 27-03-2004, 16:50

Well, I've just read this evenings Telegraph with dismay. MP Nigel Evans (amongst others) is opposing the mobile sexual health bus aimed at young people. This will take advice out to rural communities regarding relationships, contraception and sexual health. He states that they only have 20 per 1000 teenage pregnancies in the Ribble Valley. Well I'm sorry Mr Evans, but that is 20 per 1000 too many!!!

This facility will be provided by LCC, The teenage Pregnancy unit and Brook. The argument against the service is that it will encourage teens to be sexually active (which they already are) Agengies such as Brook put emphasis on counselling young people (under 25's) about relationships, self esteem, how to say no etc. It is also part of the Governments Sexual Health Strategy to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies in this country this means the under 20's.

When contraception is given to teenagers, they are first counselled regarding safer sex, sti's etc. When the client is under 16 years old, they have to meet a certain criteria, and be what we consider to be Gillick competent. These Criteria are officially called the Fraser guidelines (after Lord Fraser House of Lords) and require the young person to understand the advice given, that they cannot be persuaded to involve their parents, that they are likely to begin or continue to have sexual relationships with or without contraception and that the young persons best interests require them to receive treatment with or without parental consent to prevent damage to physical or mental health. The Telegraph article makes it sound like we go giving condoms to kids willy nilly. The Fraser guidelines were brought about by the case of Gillick vs Norfolk and Wisbech AHA & DHSS in 1985, I'm sure some of you will remember seeing this case on the news at the time.

On a lighter note, I have come across a campaign in Liverpool and Sefton, aimed at street workers to reduce the incidence of Gonococcal infection amongst them. It's called the "Whip Clap Away" campaign. I don't think I'll ever be able to watch Calamity Jane again without laughing.

Just as an extra point, teenagers in the North West are referring to sti's as the "greeblies" these days, so if you hear it, you'll know what they're on about..

janet · 27-03-2004, 17:49

Anything that help's to put a stop to teenage pregnancies and std's has to be a good thing in my book, no matter what the cost.

Tealeaf · 29-03-2004, 15:51

The Yanks have managed to cut their teenage pregnancy & STD rate by 14% in the last 3 years by promoting the vitues of celebacy, abstinence and Christian virtue. It seems to work.

lettie · 29-03-2004, 19:17

During his term in office George Bush has increased funding for the US sexual abstinence movement. Results of research into STI rates amongst 'virgin' teens are being presented at the National STD Conference in Philadelphia. Data was gathered from 12000 adolescents, ages 12-18. They were questioned again 6 years later.

According to the study STI rates were.

Whites who pledged virginity 2.8% - did not 3.5%
Blacks: pledgers 18.1% - non pledgers 20.3%
Asians: pledgers 10.5% - non pledgers 5.6%
Hispanics: pledgers 6.7% - non pledgers 8.6%

Doesn't seem to be much difference really, but the authors say that the teenagers who pledge abstinence have fewer partners and get married earlier, but they are much less likely to use condoms.
These results and extra comments can be viewed on BBC news website.

Tealeaf · 30-03-2004, 08:55

Lettie - who has taught you statistics? The above is meaningless....it's like saying 99% of all men between the ages of 18 and 65 in Accrington have more than than the average number of legs.
How do you explain the Asian/Hispanic discreprancy on pledgers/non-pledgers?
How do you explain the overall ethnic discreprency?
Pledging is one thing - it's what people actually do that matters - and those stats indicate nothing.

Jo · 30-03-2004, 09:40

Basically 93.7% of whites, 61.6% of blacks, 83.9% of Asians and 84,7% of hispanics didn't pledge either way. What's that supposed to mean then?
Quite useless info Lettie I think, unless I've misunderstood!

Tealeaf · 30-03-2004, 12:50

Well, info such as this is not always usless.........the use of accurate and reliable statistics are the foundation to the science of epidemiology. Unfortunatly, those stats (above) are such that it is impossible to derive any indicative data.

My original case was that in the last few years the US has taken a different road to the problem of teenage pregnancy than in the UK where policy has been to accept sexual activity without responsibility (in fact, to actually reward pregnant teenagers through welfare). US policy has been to invoke moral obligation and the outcome has been a substancial fall in teenage pregnancy rates. So something is working over there - but not here, where despite free contraception on demand, teenage pregnancy rates are continuing to rise. So the question is - do we continue to condone kids having nooky, giving them contraceptives which they may or may not use, so getting pregers & then getting the obligatory council house or do we stand back and remind them of their consequential responsibilities and the burdens they will have to bear.

However, this is what we get instead - Evening Telegraph Website at 2pm today:

Lottery grant helps family groups

ASIAN families will be offered help after a family support group was awarded a £300,000 grant to start a new base in Hyndburn.

The voluntary organisation Home Start helps to promote the welfare of families which have at least one child under five years old.

Home Start offers support and help to families under stress, and each branch of the group is locally run.

Now a grant of £299,752 has been awarded to the registered charity from Community Fund, a branch of the lottery.

The cash will be used to start a new Home Start base, and to recruit volunteers. The project will focus on Asian families in the area, and will be organised over three years.

Now a grant of £299,752 has been awarded to the registered charity from Community Fund, a branch of the lottery.

New part-time posts will be created including bilingual staff, teenage pregnancy coordinator and a training officer.................................

Can someone please explain to me what the hell is going on here? What does a teenage pregnancy co-ordinator do? Co-ordinate with other teenage pregnancy co-ordinators?

This is money spent in the madhouse.

lettie · 30-03-2004, 15:52

I posted those stats because they are useless and the difference between the two groups for sti's in not significant (which I did mention) the point being that people do not always do what they say they are doing. The way to reduce teen pregnancies would be to bring the stigma back and not to give teens benefits. Although in this country under 16's are not entitled to claim directly, their parents can claim on their behalf. This needs to stop. I believe in Holland and Sweden, even though they have far better sex education, they have such a stigma around teen pregnancies that their rates are much lower than ours.
I remember how sad I felt when I went out to a 14 year old a couple of years back, to be met at the front door by her mother who was overjoyed at being a grandma, then the first thing she asked me was how to claim.....