Anonymous Conservative writes about the appalling fact that refugees aren’t screened for tuberculosis, and this, in an age when tuberculosis has made a comeback in the First World, after a long period of absence.
From what I recall, the incidence of tuberculosis had dropped dramatically by the 1970s or so, thanks to improvements in medicine and hygiene, but according to this government website, it began to reappear by the 1980s. I wonder what mysterious cause there could have been for its reappearance?
From 1953 to 1984, tuberculosis disease incidence dropped steadily at an average rate of 5.8% per year to 9.4 cases per 100,000.
In 1985, however, the United States saw a reversal in this long-standing downward trend, and tuberculosis reemerged as a public health threat. From 1985 to 1992, not only did the number of cases increase from 22,201 to 26,673, but also large outbreaks were reported. Many of these, especially in hospitals and other health-care settings in large cities (5), were caused by multidrug-resistant M. tuberculosis. Several factors contributed to this increase, including the emergence of the HIV epidemic and large influxes of immigrants from countries in which tuberculosis was common.”
Yes, I remember reading in local newspapers back in the late 7os, and hearing from people in health care professions that the influx of Southeast Asian ‘refugees’ and immigrants was the source of the resurgence.
Now we are reading of yet new strains of drug-resistant TB.
From the above-linked website:
The proportion of cases in persons born in other countries will probably continue to rise, unless domestic programs providing tuberculosis services for immigrants are strengthened and international programs are expanded. Another risk, in the current climate of bioterrorism, is the possible intentional spread of multidrug-resistant M. tuberculosis.”
Oh, of course, the answer is not to limit immigration but to ‘provide tuberculosis services for immigrants.’ The obvious and sensible answer, to limit immigration and to screen would-be immigrants and ‘refugees’, is off the table; unthinkable.
The even more troubling fact is that not only do we not screen for tuberculosis, neither do we screen for other communicable diseases. During the recent ebola outbreak “we” deliberately brought ebola cases here for treatment. It’s as though they are courting an epidemic or a plague. Our government officials are ‘bug-chasers’, in the ‘gay’ parlance.
We, the people, are not given any say. We must be the guinea pigs, as “our” government is apparently experimenting with introducing various new (or once-extinct) diseases into our population.
Anonymous Conservative is right; screening for TB and all other communicable (and non-communicable) diseases should be re-introduced. It was once standard procedure, but that was in the days when our government actually seemed to have our well-being at heart.
Screening for diseases would be a good way to put the brakes on out-of-control immigration; it would be hard for any sane person to argue against it, but then of course the left are obviously not sane people.
The administration would be acting wisely and sensibly to start screening again.