UK TB testing; justified or pointless nonsense?

[Thai at Heart]

They used the test to delay my wife's application. She was threatened with a 3 month delay to treat her. We got a second opinion and she passed with no issue.

They can use this test as a way to fudge the quarterly figures by delaying and discouraging.

[Basil B]

 International Organisation for Migration (IOM)

is an independent organisation that is not under the control of the UK government.

 

They conduct tests to international standards, I find it hard to believe that someone from UK immigration could ask them to falsify your wife's test. 

 

As far as I know it is up to the applicant to contact IOM for an appointment, attend hospital for xray and return hopefully to collect certificate, no UK Government involvement.

 

It does not surprise me  that in a number of tests there is cause to request a second opinion or returning a few weeks later for a retest.

 

But glade for you and your wife it was sorted out without three month delay, or even worse actually had TB.

 

I doubt they are subject to freedom of information, but would be interested know the % of:

• tests subject to retest at a later date
• Positive for TB detected

Edited July 27, 2014 by Basil B

[durhamboy]

Taking up 7by7's point that his sister in law has been vaccinated I tried to do some more research on this.

Firstly the vaccination (BCG) is not 100% effective and there seems to be conflicting evidence as to how effective it is. Some say 80% (as Basil B said) some say 50% only.

So I went on the IOM website to see what they say about it. I couldn't find one mention of vaccination! It seems to me that even if you have been vaccinated against it you will still require a test for a UK settlement visa.

Ok in this topic we've had all the comments about TB being a deadly and dangerous disease - I think everyone is agreed that it is. However, once again I ask - can anyone here show that the TB test in Thailand for UK settlement has any real positive effect and saved lives in the UK?

[7by7]

 

 

Shouldn't anyone returning to UK from Thailand have to have a TB test?  UK citizens included?  Either you test everyone or no-one.  A UK national, having spent time here has just as much chance as a Thai of having TB.

 

Valid point; but fraught with even more legal difficulties than testing EEA nationals.

 

British citizens have the unconditional right to enter the UK when and as often as they choose for as long as they choose.

 

 

If a Thai wife has TB, then her UK husband probably has it, so why bother ruling her out from coming to UK, when the most likely person she will infect is her husband who already has it?  Just more red tape & additional expense....

 

 

To add to Basil's very valid response above:

 

She wouldn't be ruled out from coming to the UK. Once she had been treated and was clear from TB then she would be able to do so.

 

As for her husband, as said before; placing any conditions on the entry to the UK of a British citizen would be fraught with legal difficulties.

[7by7]

They used the test to delay my wife's application. She was threatened with a 3 month delay to treat her. We got a second opinion and she passed with no issue.

Second opinion from whom? The only acceptable certificates are those issued by the IoM.
 

Are you saying the IoM made a mistake which they then rectified?

If an X-ray is abnormal the usual procedure is to conduct sputum or other laboratory tests; which can take up to 8 weeks according to their information sheet.

 

Like all diseases, the earlier TB is discovered, the easier it is to treat. If your wife was unfortunate enough to be suffering from TB, why would you not want to find out as soon as possible so she can obtain the requisite treatment?
 

They can use this test as a way to fudge the quarterly figures by delaying and discouraging.

 

Why would 'they' want to 'fudge' the quarterly figures?

 

Wouldn't work anyway, as anyone whose application was delayed to the next quarter would show up in that quarter's figures!

[7by7]

Durhamboy:
 
1)  All countries where TB is prevalent, including Thailand, have this requirement, I did ask you why Thailand should be exempt.
 
So, why do you think TB testing in Thailand is absurd, but perfectly acceptable in other countries; e.g. South Africa.
 
If you had married a South African rather than a Thai, would you be saying that testing in South Africa is absurd but acceptable in Thailand?
 
2) I do not have the figures for immigrants from Romania nor any information on what their housing conditions are once in the UK; do you?
 
I do know that, according to the latest (2012) WHO figures I could find (the same as those you quoted earlier), the incidence of TB in Thailand, at 119 per 1000, is higher than that of Romania, 94 per 1000 source.
 
I don't know what the cut off figure is for UK visa TB testing is; maybe 100 per 1000? If you want to search through the list of countries where a TB certificate is required and the WHO figures, I'd be interested in the results.
 
But, as previously said, EEA regulations preclude placing such a condition of entry on EEA nationals. Whether that is right or wrong is another argument; but at the moment the regulations are as they are and the UK cannot insist on the TB testing of EEA nationals as a requirement of entry.
 
3) I find it amazing that you would prefer a three hour plus wait at the airport medical centre after a 12 hour flight with the possibility of your wife being refused entry due to a positive result to be preferable to having the test done in Thailand before applying for the visa!
 
I remember asking the doctor why we had not been asked to have the tests done in Thailand; she agreed that would be far more sensible.
 
I suspect that had you actually had been in the same position you would agree with us.
 
4) Where did I say that you would?  I asked a question based on your remark "Did any of you when you started your relationship with your Thai beloved get them to have a TB test?" I also said that I hoped you would answer in the negative.
 
5) Exactly; and one of the resources available to prevent it is testing long term visa applicants from countries with a high incidence of TB!
 
6) Why would a visitor to the UK be more likely to be infected than a student, spouse etc.?
 
Why do you think that visitors are going to be staying in overcrowded accommodation. Surely most either stay with friends, relatives or in hotels rather than doss houses? Indeed, if they didn't have adequate accommodation for their stay in the UK they wouldn't get their visit visa!
 
No, I would not have made her take the test; unless it was a requirement in which case she would have taken it without complaint from her or me.
 
7) I can neither agree nor disagree with your conjecture: not analysis.
 
As no figures are available to show who TB sufferers in the UK caught the disease from, particularly if they caught it, like Mossfinn, from a stranger without realising it, then there is nothing to analyse!
 
However Tuberculosis in the UK: 2013 report.

 

From the synopsis

Similarly to 2011, 73% of TB cases were born outside the UK and mainly originated from South Asia (60%) and sub-Saharan Africa (22%). The rate of TB among the non UK-born population was almost 20 times the rate in the UK-born, at 80 per 100,000 but has continued to decline over the last seven years

Of course, the reason why these two groups have the highest incidence, certainly higher than immigrants from S.E. Asia, is because that is where most non EEA immigrants come from.

 

Unfortunately, as the figures group people by ethnicity, not nationality, and Thais come under 'Others' it is impossible to determine the number of Thais in the UK who may have had TB nor how many people in the UK may have been infected by a Thai sufferer.

 

8) Yes, even if you have been vaccinated you will, if applying in one of the countries on the list, require a TB certificate.

 

A scar on the arm may or may not be from a BCG vaccination.

 

A vaccination certificate may be authentic, may not.

 

Edited July 28, 2014 by 7by7

[bobrussell]

"Detected TB is treatable by a simple course of antibiotics so the cost to the NHS is minimal compared to treatment of other illnesses which are not tested for.

So the real point about the TB test is not whether the applicant has it but will they pass it on to someone else in the UK."

 

TB may be treatable with a course of antibiotics (http://www.londonhp.nhs.uk/services/tuberculosis/) at a cost of £2000 to the NHS (each patient!) but treatment is over many months and patient compliance can be very poor. As soon as people feel better there is a tendency for people to stop medication. This is where multidrug resistance becomes an even bigger risk and the bills can be £50K or more!

 

Not an insignificant bill especially as the same link suggests 12% of cases in London are complex or resistant. 

 

I suspect a lot of European immigrants are flagged up as high risk when they register with a UK GP then have to be treated at tax payers expense.

 

There should be more testing, not less! 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 28, 2014 by bobrussell

[durhamboy]

Durhamboy:
 
1)  All countries where TB is prevalent, including Thailand, have this requirement, I did ask you why Thailand should be exempt.
 
So, why do you think TB testing in Thailand is absurd, but perfectly acceptable in other countries; e.g. South Africa.
 
If you had married a South African rather than a Thai, would you be saying that testing in South Africa is absurd but acceptable in Thailand?
 
2) I do not have the figures for immigrants from Romania nor any information on what their housing conditions are once in the UK; do you?
 
I do know that, according to the latest (2012) WHO figures I could find (the same as those you quoted earlier), the incidence of TB in Thailand, at 119 per 1000, is higher than that of Romania, 94 per 1000 source.
 
I don't know what the cut off figure is for UK visa TB testing is; maybe 100 per 1000? If you want to search through the list of countries where a TB certificate is required and the WHO figures, I'd be interested in the results.
 
But, as previously said, EEA regulations preclude placing such a condition of entry on EEA nationals. Whether that is right or wrong is another argument; but at the moment the regulations are as they are and the UK cannot insist on the TB testing of EEA nationals as a requirement of entry.
 
3) I find it amazing that you would prefer a three hour plus wait at the airport medical centre after a 12 hour flight with the possibility of your wife being refused entry due to a positive result to be preferable to having the test done in Thailand before applying for the visa!
 
I remember asking the doctor why we had not been asked to have the tests done in Thailand; she agreed that would be far more sensible.
 
I suspect that had you actually had been in the same position you would agree with us.
 
4) Where did I say that you would?  I asked a question based on your remark "Did any of you when you started your relationship with your Thai beloved get them to have a TB test?" I also said that I hoped you would answer in the negative.
 
5) Exactly; and one of the resources available to prevent it is testing long term visa applicants from countries with a high incidence of TB!
 
6) Why would a visitor to the UK be more likely to be infected than a student, spouse etc.?
 
Why do you think that visitors are going to be staying in overcrowded accommodation. Surely most either stay with friends, relatives or in hotels rather than doss houses? Indeed, if they didn't have adequate accommodation for their stay in the UK they wouldn't get their visit visa!
 
No, I would not have made her take the test; unless it was a requirement in which case she would have taken it without complaint from her or me.
 
7) I can neither agree nor disagree with your conjecture: not analysis.
 
As no figures are available to show who TB sufferers in the UK caught the disease from, particularly if they caught it, like Mossfinn, from a stranger without realising it, then there is nothing to analyse!
 
However Tuberculosis in the UK: 2013 report.
 
From the synopsis

Similarly to 2011, 73% of TB cases were born outside the UK and mainly originated from South Asia (60%) and sub-Saharan Africa (22%). The rate of TB among the non UK-born population was almost 20 times the rate in the UK-born, at 80 per 100,000 but has continued to decline over the last seven years

Of course, the reason why these two groups have the highest incidence, certainly higher than immigrants from S.E. Asia, is because that is where most non EEA immigrants come from.
 
Unfortunately, as the figures group people by ethnicity, not nationality, and Thais come under 'Others' it is impossible to determine the number of Thais in the UK who may have had TB nor how many people in the UK may have been infected by a Thai sufferer.
 
8) Yes, even if you have been vaccinated you will, if applying in one of the countries on the list, require a TB certificate.
 
A scar on the arm may or may not be from a BCG vaccination.
 
A vaccination certificate may be authentic, may not.

7by7 :-

1. At the risk of repeating myself, as you well know, my comments were about Thailand settlement visa applicants. You can do a worldwide analysis of TB if you wish but it will not alter the fact that testing for TB from Thai settlement visa appicants is absurd - see my statistical analysis.

2. Ok - answer me this. Where do you think more TB cases in the UK come from Thailand or Romania? I think a hugely higher percentage from Romania. Yes Romanians are not tested. Therefore this shows what a shambles the whole thing is. We painstakingly test where it is not required and have no testing where it plainly is required.

3. I have actually experienced both systems - my ex-wife was tested at the airport. I prefer airport testing for a number of reasons. Firstly, I think you are wrong in that they would refuse entry for a positive test. I think the results were assessed after you left the airport. The wait was about 1 1/2 hours which was a bit of a hassle but far less hassle than having to attend the only office in the whole of Thailand and then going to the hospital. That was a whole day for us and for anyone living in, say Chaing Mai, about 3 days! Also there was no fee to pay at the airport.

4. You misunderstood the drift of my comment. I asked whether any of you had your beloveds tested for TB because I know that in most, if not all, of the cases no one did and for the reason that they do not perceive TB as a risk.

5. So by your rationale you must think that everyone should be tested. I think it is absurd. As said you have to balance risks and resources.

6. I did not say that a visitor would be more likely to infect than a student. I said more likely to infect than a spouse. That is because of likely living conditions in the UK. I didn't say visitors stay in doss houses but tourists do tend to stay in cheaper accommodation to save money and congregate where there are more people i.e. tourist attractions. Therefore more chance of spreading TB if they have it.

7. I suppose we are agreeing to disagree here.

8. The testing of people who have already been vaccinated makes the testing of Thai settlement visa applicants even more absurd.

[7by7]

1) You have not provided a statistical analysis, you have provided, as I said, pure conjecture.
 
You have also not said why you think Thailand should not be on the list but are happy to accept that other high risk countries are.
 
2) It all depend whether more long term immigrants come to the UK from Thailand or Romania. I don't know the answer to this; do you?

 

I do know that the incidence of TB in Thailand is higher than that in Romania. 

 

So, as you believe Romanians should be tested you must also accept that Thais should be as well!
 
But as said, The EEA freedom of movement regulations mean that it is impossible to require a TB test from Romanian nationals.

 

Whether that is right or not is another subject; we are talking about the immigration rules, not the EEA freedom of movement regulations.
 
3) You had to wait 1.5 hours, we had to wait around three; lucky you.
 
The relevant rules are no longer applicable so no longer available to check; but based upon what we were told at the time, if the test had been positive one of two things would have happened; depending on how far advanced the disease was.

• If the X-ray showed a slight risk then the person seeking entry would have been admitted but advised to see a doctor as soon as possible. There was, of course, absolutely no guarantee that they would do so!
• If far enough advanced, from what I was toild at the time, the person could have been refused entry.

The steady fall in TB cases among people born outside the UK since pre visa application testing was introduced shows that the current system is far more effective than the old (see 7)
 
4) I admit, it did not occur to me. Neither did it occur to me that we would need it at LHR; hence the shock.
 
One reason being that at the time is that I had no idea about the higher incidence of TB in Thailand; I suspect that I am not in the minority in that.
 
5) Indeed; which is why applicants in countries above a certain benchmark of risk are tested, those in lower risk countries aren't.
 
6) So you would be ok if visitors, students, all applicants except spouses in Thailand were tested?
 
Unless you keep you wife locked up indoors all the time, which I am sure you don't, she, were she to have TB, would be just as likely to infect someone as anyone else.
 
Does she never, for example, go to a crowded shopping centre?

 

Even if she never goes out, she could infect you and you could then infect other people.
 
I have already explained the rationale behind not testing visitors. You obviously don't accept that a short term visitor represents a lower risk than those staying in the UK for a longer term; whether the visitor stays with a friend, relative, in a youth hostel or a five star hotel.
 
Surely you must agree that the longer someone is in the UK, the more chance they have of not only developing the disease to the extent where they require treatment but, more importantly, the more likely they are to infect someone else.
 
7) The figures are what they are. As you were the first to quote them, I assume you accept them.
 
One of the things they show is that the decline in the number of TB cases among people born outside the UK was declining, and that decline has increased since pre visa application testing was introduced.
 
8) As I said:-

A scar on the arm may or may not be from a BCG vaccination.

A vaccination certificate may be authentic, may not.

 

You must accept that, unfortunately, Thailand is a country where an envelope slipped under the table will acquire a vaccination certificate.

 

It could also acquire a TB free certificate; which is why testing has to be done by an independent, reputable international organisation such as the IoM.

 

9) You seem to be objecting to Thai spouses being tested, but accept all applicants in other countries being tested and even other long term visa applicants, e.g. students, in Thailand being tested.

 

I'm sorry, but your whole argument seems to indicate that, like your objections to KOLL, your main objection is the inconvenience to which you were put in obtaining the certificate for your wife!

Edited July 29, 2014 by 7by7

[bobrussell]

The comments about higher risk EU migrants are irrelevant IMO. There is nothing to stop immigration within the EU and you can be sure that high risk immigrants will be screened by their GP's and treatment started. This is at the expense of the NHS!

 

Potential non-EU migrants have to pay for their own treatment. Not much wrong with that.

 

Yes it is only one out of many diseases but why should the UK tax payer be expected to foot the bill for treatment?  

 

Obviously more screening for more diseases could save the NHS more money but perhaps those with partners wishing to travel to the UK, should thank their lucky stars that a certificate is only required for TB!

[Donutz]

TB tests for high(er) risk countries (according to the WHO makes sense. Though I wonder how many cases of TB are found among short term visitors versus long term visitors (immigrants), both in actual figures and percentages. I could imagen that tourists may spread TB more often just by the numbers of them that visit the EU. But a mandatory TB test for all people who come to the EU from high risk nations wouldn't be very practical or econonimal. You'd need to test all UK/EU citizens returning home after a short or long stay abroad, all foreigners who come over for short and long stays (wouldn't exactly boost tourism...). So the drawbacks are probably not worth it unless TB became more widespread once more.

Yes, HIV/AIDS could be considered an even higher risk but that seems a lot harder to spread then TB. Common sense when it comes to sex, needles etc. makes chances of catching HIV rather slim so it would be silly to mandate a test for HIV/AIDs.

Luckily in the Netherlands, were TB tests are mandatory for long term stays from high risk countries are done after immigration (you will have to to the test within 3 months or so after arriving) and conducted free of charge. So for us it was hassle free: went to the clinic in the week after arrival, had the test done, the doctor filled in and signed the documents that stated she had done the test, we sent them to the IND (immigration department). If the test seems to be positive you'll ofcourse be asked to come back for a second test. I have heard, but could not confirm, that some people with spouses from Indonesia amongst others got a request for a voluntary and optional second check 6 months later. Not sure if that's actual policy or overly eager staff or for those who are rated as extra high risk cases?

Was it useless? In our case it was, my girlfriend just had a TB test done at work a few months before with all the rest of the staff. So there were no sympthones at all when she immigrated and no reason at all to suspect she would have TB. But hey, it didn't cost a dime and only took only 15 minutes of hour time for the test and a short drive back and to the clinic, no hassle at all.

Ofcourse they should update the list of those who have to to the TB test as soon as the WHO updates theirs. No clue how often the WHO updates their list. Aslong as they make sure it's not outdated I'm fine with that.

Edit: fun fact, we Dutchies call it TBC rather than TB. Edited July 29, 2014 by Donutz

[durhamboy]

Seconds out, ding! ding! Round 4 or is it Round 5 as I'm losing count.

I'm sorry that all you guys have to endure yet another round of me and 7by7 slugging it out. Before this topic was started by 7by7 I did offer to exchange our views by Private Messages rather than have it dragged into the forum. Nevertheless he just went ahead and opened the topic which is based on my remark in a previous topic that the testing of Thai settlement visa applicants for TB is a nonsense.

He wanted and, indeed, invited me to justify that remark. I think I have done so. However, 7by7 doesn't want to accept my justifications. Instead his modus operandi is to take my comments and apply them to other cases and situations that my original comment was never aimed at. Also he attributes opinions to me that I have never expressed. I therefore have to keep refuting what he says and I'm sorry if this is boring the pants off everyone as we go round and round in circles.

Right 7by7 to, once again, try to respond to your points :-

1. You say I have not provided a statistical analysis. I have see my post #18. It is not conjecture, they are real figures some of which are yours! You ask why I think Thailand should not be on the list. I have never said Thailand should not be on the list. I only said that Thai applicants for settlement visas should not be tested. I made no comment about students and long-term workers from Thailand. Maybe they should be tested maybe not. Please do not attribute my comments to other scenarios which I did not comment upon.

2. I think in one year about 100,000 came from Romania which I think is vastly more than from Thailand. But once again, you misquote me. I did not say that I think Romanians should be tested. What I said was :-

Now if you guys really believe that TB is such a danger to the UK then you must consider......Romania has an incidence level of TB nearly as high as Thailand - per the above table 94 cases per 100,000. The whole of Romania has the right to roll up at Dover and be allowed in indefinitely without any test. Is that right?

See my post #18.

3. Re : Airport Testing. You say If far enough advanced .the person could have been refused entry.
And so how many Thais arriving on settlement visas do you think were refused entry for this reason? We do not know but seeing as statistically a maximum of 2 may be infected per year then I would respectfully suggest that it is probably zero!

4. I think it is more likely that it didn't occur to you to test your wife because, in my opinion, most potential settlement visa applicants from Thailand do not come from the socio/economic sector of the population in which the most cases of TB are likely to be found. Therefore as you were unlikely to have been mixing with TB sufferers then you didn't think of it.

5. So sorry can you please clarify? Do you want everyone from a high risk country to be tested? I thought you said that was impractical. Do you mean all those coming long-term to the UK? So would you include Romanians? I'm just a bit confused about your exact position on this.

6. Thank you for painting a picture of my wife going round our local area infecting everyone with TB! I'm not sure she would appreciate that! Is that just another page from the 7by7 book of diplomacy? Yes I agree that the longer someone stays in the UK the higher the risk that they would infect someone. But that is looking at it too simply. There are other factors which carry a far greater weight in the transmission equation such as living conditions, income and the number of people they are mixing with. As stated, Thai settlement visa applicants fall into a category that is very low risk because their visa is issued on the basis of their having good housing and reasonably good income.

7. You said :-
One of the things they show is that the decline in the number of TB cases among people born outside the UK was declining, and that decline has increased since pre visa application testing was introduced.
I've read this sentence about 5 times and I can't make sense of it. Possibly because you haven't said what figures you are talking about. Please explain.
 
8. You could say that almost anything can be a forgery. Marriage certificates, educational qualifications, birth certs even passports themselves can, and sometimes are, forgeries. However I would suggest that someone who is really TB positive would be far more likely to be trying to get treatment in Thailand than go through the rigorous UK settlement visa process.

9. I don't think that anyone minds being inconvenienced if they can see the merits of the process. I do not see any merit in testing Thai settlement visa applicants so therefore I object to it. But it is no longer an inconvenience to me. My wife passed the test so it is behind us. What is an inconvenience is having to explain my views in the forum to you time and time again.

Finally, on a personal note I think that you started this topic because you thought that I couldn't substantiate my initial remark. I produced a statistical analysis showing the absurdity of testing this segment of visa applicants. No one has so far questioned the validity of that analysis. What have you produced to show otherwise? The only statistical data you produced was a report that in 2013 73% of UK TB cases came from people born outside of the UK. No argument from me there but it proves nothing about Thai settlement visa applicants. May I suggest that this be the end of this debate. Whatever you come back with will not change my view and I will just have to respond again. I think I've justified my original comment you think I haven't. Enough is enough now. I'm sure we both have better things to argue about.

[7by7]

Durhamboy,

 

As I said in the OP, I thought others may be interested in this topic and have views they would like to express. Those who are bored by it do not, of course, have to participate.

 

You are, again, merely repeating your earlier comments, which I have already addressed, and refusing to answer the inevitable questions those comments raise, such as why you think all long term visa applicants in Thailand should be tested except spouses.

 

Instead you have now resorted to childish remarks aimed at me personally.

 

I stand by everything I have posted in this topic, and see no reason to respond further to your latest post as it contains nothing new.

[Basil B]

I do not know why we are worrying about TB, HIV, Rabies, etc. 

 

Ebola is just round the corner and could just wipe out mankind from the face of the Earth.

 

It could be contained but there is always someone who thinks they are an exception to the rules so containment will never work.

[Mossfinn]

I thought ebola could only be passed on through the exchange of body fluids, I may be wrong, but I guess 'it's the end of the world as we know it', to paraphrase REM.

[Mossfinn]

OK Ok, you may get bitten by a fruit bat or get kissed by a pig, that could put you in harms way, but me, having had TB and knowing people who have died from it, I'll worry about people who cough and sneeze with no recourse to public hygiene. Catch it, wrap it and bin it, JFDOI!.

[7by7]

I thought ebola could only be passed on through the exchange of body fluids, I may be wrong, but I guess 'it's the end of the world as we know it', to paraphrase REM.

 
You are not wrong: Ebola discoverer says would sit next to victim on train

"I wouldn't be worried to sit next to someone with Ebola virus on the Tube as long as they don't vomit on you or something. This is an infection that requires very close contact."

[IMA_FARANG]

 Yes they are justified.

Especially if you are arriving from areas in the world where for a number of reasons TB testing is not common and TB is still commonly found.

That's usually Africa and the India-Pakistan-Bangladesh subcontinent area.

Also, though this is slightly off the topic, but for HIV positive individuals even with controlled HIV, TB is often the cause of death eventually.

Even in Europe or the Americas.

That's because the HIV lowers the body's immunity and TB is more easily contracted if you are HIV positive.

So yes, it is justified by public health rules of prevention of disease.

 

[Seekingasylum]

The real absurdity of TB testing is the idiotic notion that somehow the UK will be a safer place if those who intend a stay of more than 6 months are to be screened. So, by dint of what logic would one consider the self same people who may arrive as visitors for 6 months or less to be that much safer that they do not need screening?

[7by7]

As I said earlier

<snip>

There is an argument for testing tourists from high risk countries (not just Thailand!). But the practicalities of doing so are enormous. Also, as most visitors spend just a short time in the UK, at most 6 months, then the risk of their passing it onto someone whilst here is significantly lower than someone who comes to the UK for a longer period.

<snip>
As I said before, the practicalities of testing every visit visa applicant are enormous, perhaps insurmountable. As I also said, due to the short time most visitors spend in the UK the risk of their passing the disease on is a lot lower than that of a long term entrant.

<snip>
Surely you must agree that the longer someone is in the UK, the more chance they have of not only developing the disease to the extent where they require treatment but, more importantly, the more likely they are to infect someone else.

[Richard W]

So, by dint of what logic would one consider the self same people who may arrive as visitors for 6 months or less to be that much safer that they do not need screening?

Being screened for TB increases the risk of cancer - X-rays are used far more sparingly nowadays than they were 50 years ago.

[Mossfinn]

 

So, by dint of what logic would one consider the self same people who may arrive as visitors for 6 months or less to be that much safer that they do not need screening?

Being screened for TB increases the risk of cancer - X-rays are used far more sparingly nowadays than they were 50 years ago.

 

 

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/radiationexposureandcancer/xraysgammaraysandcancerrisk/x-rays-gamma-rays-and-cancer-risk-do-xrays-and-gamma-rays-cause-cancer

 

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/understandingyourdiagnosis/examsandtestdescriptions/imagingradiologytests/imaging-radiology-tests-rad-risk

 

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/understanding_x-rays/page3_em.htm

 

And then was Mr Yamaguchi http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7963581.stm

 

Tell me what you think after reading them?

[Richard W]

Professionals seem very cautious about X-rays, and that can account for the policy.  Persons performing X-rays regularly very noticeably protect themselves against stray emissions. Perhaps the risk is overrated, though most of the accounts you cited nevertheless caution against unnecessary X-rays.

[Basil B]

If you are so worried about risk of xray may be you can ask for the test that is done for pregnant women, but you will find this a lot more inconvenient as it is done over 3 consecutive days and the result will be available on the 4th day.

 

I get the impression that a number of posters see the TB test as troublesome and something that is not needed and they should be excluded, getting the government to rethink over this with current trends one may see it going the other way with a full medical examination and other test as well to exclude anyone who may be a burden on the NHS...  

 

going to give up flying too...

During a seven-hour flight from New York to London, travellers receive about the same dose of radiation as a chest X-ray;

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-planning/travel-news/flight-risk-how-much-radiation-do-planes-expose-you-to-20110126-1a54m.html#ixzz39PMBWZLR

 

 

Edited August 4, 2014 by Basil B

[bobrussell]

Professionals seem very cautious about X-rays, and that can account for the policy.  Persons performing X-rays regularly very noticeably protect themselves against stray emissions. Perhaps the risk is overrated, though most of the accounts you cited nevertheless caution against unnecessary X-rays.

I deal with X-rays on a daily basis and the risks from an odd Xray every few months or years is statistically insignificant compared to everyday radiation exposure. Modern systems are usually digital and require very low X-ray levels.

 

The risk of TB X-rays is nothing compared to the taxi drive to get there!