Again, the research provided is relative to obese people, not to muscular people...simply being overweight is not an AUTOMATIC assumption of ill health. A persons metabolic health is not always determined by their BMI.
Get out fatty!
- Thread starter Arazi
- Start date
Again, the research provided is relative to obese people, not to muscular people...simply being overweight is not an AUTOMATIC assumption of ill health. A persons metabolic health is not always determined by their BMI.
Once again I did not say this, neither did the research provided. I said that you cannot assume an individual fits a broad criteria simply because they appear to conform to ascertain demographic. Please stop trying to reword my argument to suit your own, it is disingenuous.
Obviously not so expensive if the information sources you provided are true (still waiting for the links), as that is precisely what they are doing.
You will have to reword that more clearly as it appears you are stating pretty much what I have been arguing for all along...that the individual should be assessed if they fit the criteria deeming it necessary...not that the criteria are simply applied arbitrarily.
We have no evidence that he was flexible with the truth, that would be an assumption. You yourself said that the article could have bias, and we can only go on what information we do know, not what we assume we might know.
Anyway this is getting more about interpretation of what is being posted rather than the actual discussion about the immigration policy in NZ....I think my position is clear enough, the research is available for those who want to read it and it seems that if your sources are correct then other than the retrospective nature of the changes, the INZ are not arbitrarily applying broad criteria to deportation or refusing visa applications..they are doing what I said they should and assessing the individual if they have certain risk factors before making a decision so I have no need to argue further.
I would like to read the article you got your information from though.
Last edited:
I am pointing out that you don't seem to understand the application of probability of disease from population groups.
They are not excluding risk factors from him. Again they are examining more closely which groups he is in.
A quick search would have resulted in this: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/8970736/Too-fat-to-live-here
However, that was not the articles I read it in.
I've reread it - it is clear you can't see the difference because you can't see what you are asking for has a different threshold of proof. From inclusive to exclusive evidence.
You are asking for an assessment of an individuals specific risk - something no one does because it is too expensive.
To demonstrate someone is "safe" you would have to demonstrate absence of risk factors,
What everyone does is to profile people based upon the risk of the groups they present with. That is what a doctors letter will do, that is what a private health provider will do, that is what will happen if you get ill.
There is no research to show that drastically obese people are a "safe" risk.
There is plenty of research to show drastically obese people are a "risk".
Once again they are doing what I am saying. They are not individually assessing him by excluding factors. They are examining what groups he is in that would predispose him.
The medical people aren't say this bloke will need $20000 of knee surgery. They are saying that of the people they see then the expectation is that a significant percentage of all people who have this problem would then require $20000.
This is where you are misunderstanding this. The application of populations statistics. What you are asking for is a burden of proof that is very different from what happens. Whether they examine the associated risk factors carefully or not the fact remains they are using and excluding people based upon statistics about populations.
You don't think this is fair. Well then they'd have to pony up every god damn test known to demonstrate he personally had no risk factors. The way they do it is cheaper, quicker, less elegant sure but far more practical. It is not his right to live in NZ he is SA.
Last edited:
I'm not sure if anyone has pulled you on this yet but BMI is bull and not a measure of weight or obesity.
Yes, it is a measure of obesity and it's a good one in some situations and a bad one in others. It's a tool - you use the right tool for the job.
Last edited:
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,769
- Location
- Auckland
Calm down Doogie Howser. It can be.
You are wrong. I understand the application of such demographics statistics, and at no time have I suggested they should not be applied...but objectively and as a mechanism to target risk factors that require further investigation as regards the individual...not that they are applied arbitraily and broadly for everyone whilst ignoring their personal circumstances.
This latter doesn't now appear to be the case in this instance so you are arguing against it for no reason.
This is not what I said anyway, so it is moot.
Thankyou...the Doctors comments are interesting, particularly in the context of why he is being refused.
You are misinterpreting what I am saying, I have clarified more than once now...I do not see how I can make it any clearer. It appears from your links that the INZ is doing what I argued for, so clearly it is not too expensive, or you are misinterpreting what I argued for.
It is about minimising risk and ensuring the individual follows conditions set upon them to minimise that risk...no one is suggesting that there is an absence of risk, only that the risk is acceptable and that any changes in that risk application is not arbitrarily applied retrospectively without fair consideration of the individuals ability to reduce those risks to acceptable levels.
Considering you are arguing against something I did not say, the point you are making is moot.
Last edited:
I don't know really what you are arguing about to be honest Castiel. At the start you seemed to want them to say something like this.
Bob goes into the doctors the doctors says Bob you've got Bloaty Head.
Bob says doc will I live.
You initially seemed to want:
"Well Bob you've got a 25% chance"
Where now you seem to be happy with the correct answer:
"Well Bob we know that people with Bloaty Head will not make it 25% of the time"
There is a massive difference between the two. They've broadly applied a useful assessment criteria BMI, which although having its problems at certain upper and lower limits would be sensitive enough to target who would fall into a problem group. They've used this to make a decision. Seems totally fair all along.
Also I would say if this were anything else you wouldn't have attacked it - you would have asked for more information. Instead rather than look for the information (which was there) you went straight in with some justification which did not substantiate your point but pointed out the problems with BMI. However, you completely overlooked the fact they are using the BMI as an exclusive tool - they can safely say who is not dangerously overweight with it. It is sensitive enough to do that.
You don't react and think the way you normally do in threads about this subject. In any other thread you would have a) immediately acknowledged all was a bit sketchy b) gone and googled your heart out.
Bob goes into the doctors the doctors says Bob you've got Bloaty Head.
Bob says doc will I live.
You initially seemed to want:
"Well Bob you've got a 25% chance"
Where now you seem to be happy with the correct answer:
"Well Bob we know that people with Bloaty Head will not make it 25% of the time"
There is a massive difference between the two. They've broadly applied a useful assessment criteria BMI, which although having its problems at certain upper and lower limits would be sensitive enough to target who would fall into a problem group. They've used this to make a decision. Seems totally fair all along.
Also I would say if this were anything else you wouldn't have attacked it - you would have asked for more information. Instead rather than look for the information (which was there) you went straight in with some justification which did not substantiate your point but pointed out the problems with BMI. However, you completely overlooked the fact they are using the BMI as an exclusive tool - they can safely say who is not dangerously overweight with it. It is sensitive enough to do that.
You don't react and think the way you normally do in threads about this subject. In any other thread you would have a) immediately acknowledged all was a bit sketchy b) gone and googled your heart out.
For a majority of the population it's a reasonable estimation.
The percentage of the population who are muscular enough to discard BMI isn't big enough to justify removing a good indicative tool for estimating population obesity.
Not that I think people should be denied citizenship due to poor heath, it's a pretty sad state of affairs for society if it blacklists the vulnerable on shaky economic grounds.
Last edited:
That is not what I did at all...I argued against the use of fixed BMI to determining the health of an individual for purposes of immigration and applying that fixed BMI retrospectively and in isolation...which is what the original article suggested, as did another article relating to a another applicant.
I did not, as you seem to think, argue that they should not use BMI in order to judge whether an individual requires further assessment...which it is now clear, thanks to sources clarifying their position, is what the INZ is doing, yet you argued was too expensive and are still apparently under that impression even though your own sources demonstrate that BMI is not used exclusively, but as a trigger for further investigation. Your source even stated as much.
I have treated this thread as I have any other...found and given articles to support my argument and accepted other articles that have been supplied by others in developing my opinion throughout this discussion. At one point I gave extensive evidence that showed, if the OP and the other article relating to a woman refused for BMI was correct, that the INZ were not following their own procedures, and also showed that over 20% of INZ officials decisions were erroneous under their own guidelines..so my approach is not as you portray it to be.
So while I now agree with the way they are using the BMI indicators to trigger further investigations as it is not being used simply as a bar to immigration...I still do not agree with applying new rules retrospectively to current and already accepted immigrants without giving the immigrant sufficient time to conform to the new criteria if they are able, particularly if there is evidence to support that the individual is already moving toward compliance...as is the case with this South African. As the case is under review I would at least expect a temporary order to allow him to return to work until that review is completed...again this is not what is happening. I feel those two points, the retroactive application and the removal of his ability to continue to work until a review has been completed as being unnecessarily unfair.
I did not, as you seem to think, argue that they should not use BMI in order to judge whether an individual requires further assessment...which it is now clear, thanks to sources clarifying their position, is what the INZ is doing, yet you argued was too expensive and are still apparently under that impression even though your own sources demonstrate that BMI is not used exclusively, but as a trigger for further investigation. Your source even stated as much.
I have treated this thread as I have any other...found and given articles to support my argument and accepted other articles that have been supplied by others in developing my opinion throughout this discussion. At one point I gave extensive evidence that showed, if the OP and the other article relating to a woman refused for BMI was correct, that the INZ were not following their own procedures, and also showed that over 20% of INZ officials decisions were erroneous under their own guidelines..so my approach is not as you portray it to be.
So while I now agree with the way they are using the BMI indicators to trigger further investigations as it is not being used simply as a bar to immigration...I still do not agree with applying new rules retrospectively to current and already accepted immigrants without giving the immigrant sufficient time to conform to the new criteria if they are able, particularly if there is evidence to support that the individual is already moving toward compliance...as is the case with this South African. As the case is under review I would at least expect a temporary order to allow him to return to work until that review is completed...again this is not what is happening. I feel those two points, the retroactive application and the removal of his ability to continue to work until a review has been completed as being unnecessarily unfair.
Actually I dont think NZ's immigration rules go far enough (Or ours either!)
I propose that forign work permits should only be granted under the following conditions.
1) A medical certificate showing that the applicant is free from any Physical or Mental disease/infirmity.
2) The applicant MUST have a prior fixed term contract in place before making the application.
3) There shall be no right to residency once the contract is over
4) The Employer shall be responsible for all medical expenses that might be incurred by the applicant and his family (if any) during the contract term.
Now, before anybody kicks off about how unreasonable this might be. These are the terms under which my Father got his first Job on a copper smelter in Africa in the 1950's!
The main one was the disease issue. The colonial authorities did not want people from the UK carrying nasty first world diseases such as TB to Africa.
It is a shame our current governments do not show the same concern for our people today!
I propose that forign work permits should only be granted under the following conditions.
1) A medical certificate showing that the applicant is free from any Physical or Mental disease/infirmity.
2) The applicant MUST have a prior fixed term contract in place before making the application.
3) There shall be no right to residency once the contract is over
4) The Employer shall be responsible for all medical expenses that might be incurred by the applicant and his family (if any) during the contract term.
Now, before anybody kicks off about how unreasonable this might be. These are the terms under which my Father got his first Job on a copper smelter in Africa in the 1950's!
The main one was the disease issue. The colonial authorities did not want people from the UK carrying nasty first world diseases such as TB to Africa.
It is a shame our current governments do not show the same concern for our people today!
So, they easily gained a visa (even after a medical) while he weighed 160kg (~25st) and managed to renew it a number of times without issue. However, all of a sudden they won't based on his weight, even though he now weighs 130kg (~20st).
Clearly the man is overweight, even if he's a 7 ft giant, pushing 18st would be about right, and I suspect he isn't. What does have to be questioned however is why this doesn't make sense. So one of three things is happening.
1) They have been refused a visa for other reasons and have managed to twist the story to be about his weight to the point even the BBC have bought it.
2) Government policy has changed for the health guidelines in giving out a visa.
3) The department giving out their visas has done something incredibly unfair! (you can't say something is OK one year but not the next even when the situation has improved if the same guidelines apply).
As usual however, we get less than a third of the needed facts for the story to be anything other than emotional diatribe. Typical UK press.
Clearly the man is overweight, even if he's a 7 ft giant, pushing 18st would be about right, and I suspect he isn't. What does have to be questioned however is why this doesn't make sense. So one of three things is happening.
1) They have been refused a visa for other reasons and have managed to twist the story to be about his weight to the point even the BBC have bought it.
2) Government policy has changed for the health guidelines in giving out a visa.
3) The department giving out their visas has done something incredibly unfair! (you can't say something is OK one year but not the next even when the situation has improved if the same guidelines apply).
As usual however, we get less than a third of the needed facts for the story to be anything other than emotional diatribe. Typical UK press.
A bit off topic...
You sure it wasn't the 1850's.....TB was well established across Africa long before the 1950s.
Mining companies in the 18th, 19th and early 20th Centuries used to employ people with TB as they were being sent over because they had TB...Cecil Rhodes was one of them. Added to silicosis, TB had spread through Africa like wildfire and into the native populations long before the mid 20th Century...so its a bit like shutting the door after the horse has bolted and taken all the furniture with him.