Join 3,427 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Norfolk Island
January 17, 2002 5:38 AM   Subscribe

Norfolk Island wants to ban anyone with HIV or hepatitis from visiting or living on the island. I can't see how they can get away with this.
posted by spinifex (14 comments total)

 
This is a double post.





...just kidding.
posted by Frasermoo at 5:55 AM on January 17, 2002


1987: U.S. adds HIV as a "dangerous contagious disease" to its immigration exclusion list.
posted by Carol Anne at 6:35 AM on January 17, 2002


What Carole Anne said. You can't cross the American border as a tourist if you have tested positive for HIV, and if you want to immigrate here, you have to be tested for HIV, and you will be denied if you test positive.
posted by kristin at 6:46 AM on January 17, 2002


Imaginary scenario: you are HIV-, you own property on Norfolk Island. All fine and good. You travel a lot. On your travels, somehow you contract HIV. Now what?

Do they demand regular testing of all citizens? If yes, how is that acceptable? If no, then they can't guarantee an HIV- status for the island.

If they find out about the change in your serostatus, do you lose your property?

The only people this will benefit will be lawyers.
posted by yesster at 6:56 AM on January 17, 2002


if you want to immigrate here, you have to be tested for HIV, and you will be denied if you test positive.

And they test often, before you come, at the time of arrival, most document checks, status changes. Ofcourse tests take time and money, a family of 4, $100 per person will cost $400, which is about what a poor family might make a week.

Hmm.. reading that article it doesn't really say much about the current population. It seems more like those that want to come to visit or live. Ofcourse I doubt they can even get everyone to take tests, yes it's a small area, but how will a testee be validated, have a stamp on their id or driver's license? Seems ridiculous, if nothing else but financially.
posted by tiaka at 7:04 AM on January 17, 2002


eek.

Seems ridiculous, if nothing else but financially.

Seems ridiculous, if in no other way than finacial.
posted by tiaka at 7:08 AM on January 17, 2002


Frasermoo....I neally had a heart attack ;)
posted by spinifex at 7:47 AM on January 17, 2002


sorry, couldn't resist. I had just been reading about double-posts on Meta-Talk.
posted by Frasermoo at 7:54 AM on January 17, 2002


If it's truly a public health issue, they should also be testing for influenza.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 7:54 AM on January 17, 2002


If it's truly a public health issue, they should also be testing for influenza.

The risk of dying as a result of an HIV/AIDS infection is likely far greater than the risk of dying as a result of the flu. Most people get over the flu in a week or two; HIV rarely -- if ever -- goes away.
posted by Danelope at 10:09 AM on January 17, 2002


Danelope -- many many more people die every year from the flu than from AIDS. Here's proof.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 10:35 AM on January 17, 2002


If its truly a public health issue, then they would outlaw fucking.
posted by yesster at 10:43 AM on January 17, 2002


Danelope:

> The risk of dying as a result of an HIV/AIDS infection is
> likely far greater than the risk of dying as a result of the
> flu.

BitterOldPunk:

> Danelope -- many many more people die every year from
> the flu than from AIDS.


The way I parse Danelope's assertion, it says "If you get an HIV infection you're much more likely to die that if you merely get a flu infection."
posted by jfuller at 11:21 AM on January 17, 2002


The way I parse Danelope's assertion, it says "If you get an HIV infection you're much more likely to die that if you merely get a flu infection

This is true, but irrelevant. It's not a matter of how deadly the disease is to any given individual, it's about how (and how quickly) the disease spreads. You're much less likely to spread HIV than influenza. The question is whether Norfolk Island's propsed legislation truly addresses a public health issue or is merely discriminatory, singling out people with HIV. I contend that it is the latter, because it flies in the face of sound science and established epidemiological evidence (as does the US policy, by the way).
Screening for hepatitis, however, is a good idea, IMHO.
If it were a matter of degree of deadliness, we'd be screening for Ebola. We're not.
HIV-positive people are the lepers of our time, and it's due to ignorance and fear.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 11:52 AM on January 17, 2002


« Older General Zod...  |  The DJ's on your local radio s... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments