Wente and Harper on AIDS

[Abeja de Almirante]

Regardless, it's interesting to see how small the numbers are per 10,000 exposures which highlights the fact that HIV is not a particularly virulent virus.

I've often wondered why other far more dangerous viruses do not get more attention than HIV/AIDS. Malaria killed an estimated 2-3 million people in 2005, and unlike HIV's almost sure-safe prevention methods (no or strictly monagamous sex with no infected folks and no drugs) there's almost nothing you can do to prevent infection beyond vaccinating/medicating entire populations, of course the victims are mostly in Africa and Asia, so we don't care as much. I suppose it is that AIDS strikes people in the west, if it was only folks in China or Africa, we'd likely not care. Tuberculosis kills an estimated 2 million every year, and without vaccination, there is little one can do to prevent infection.

I am not wanting to downplay the seriousness of HIV/AIDS. Instead, I want to add that there are several diseases that are more dangerous and less preventable than HIV/AIDS, that would benefit from the attention the west gives HIV.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Abeja:

For several reasons - 1. Malaria is already a well established disease, with limited "growth potential". HIV/AIDS isn't, and had been shown to spread like wildfire over the years. 2. The prevelance of HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa (which bore the brunt of the epidemic) is so severe that it distorts the economy of entire countries, and practically wiped out an entire generation, with repurcussions for decades to come. I don't think one can say that's the case for Malaria or TB.

The sure-safe prevention methods you mentioned is about as effective operationally as asking the populace not to breathe.

AoD

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

The sure-safe prevention methods you mentioned is about as effective operationally as asking the populace not to breathe.

If that was true, hundreds of millions of us would have HIV today, with trends moving towards one billion infections.

Practicing safe sex and avoiding drugs are both perfectly effective operationally. Simply, without the blood/fluid exposure, HIV can't get you. What could be more effective than that? If you choose to operate outside of these hardly inconvenient limitations, you're life is in your own hands.

Instead of modifying their behaviour to meet the new threat, what the world is looking for now is a miracle drug so that they can continue their high-risk behaviour.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Abeja:

If you look at some of the countries in Africa, the prevalance rate is at what 15, 20+%, and the life expectancy is dropping to the 40s. And that's not because the population is necessarily more or less promscious than others. Spread of epidemics takes time and a lot of it also depended on the size of the initial pool. Don't forget, the rate of condom use is also fairly high in the developed world vs. other areas.

Practicing safe sex and avoiding drugs are both perfectly effective operationally. Simply, without the blood/fluid exposure, HIV can't get you. What could be more effective than that? If you choose to operate outside of these hardly inconvenient limitations, you're life is in your own hands.

No one is arguing against that, but like I've said, condom usage is not universal; needle exchange programs, safe-injection sites are not the norm. Are we more interested in preventing infection as an outcome, or are we more interested in using it as a method of social control? Individuals always engage in high-risk behaviour, sexual or otherwise - the focus should be upon mitigating that risk, not pep talk that elevates one to sainthood while doing nothing to prevent transmission.

Instead of modifying their behaviour to meet the new threat, what the world is looking for now is a miracle drug so that they can continue their high-risk behaviour.

Where are the facts to support that thesis? The world should be looking for a cure regardless of how one contracted HIV, not to use HIV as a judgement against personal behaviour.

AoD

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

Where are the facts to support that thesis? The world should be looking for a cure regardless of how one contracted HIV, not to use HIV as a judgement against personal behaviour.

Just look at the gay community. When AIDS first hit, there was huge talk and news about prevention, but now that we've got some drugs to manage the illness, people are going back to their original unsafe sexual behaviour.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Just look at the gay community. When AIDS first hit, there was huge talk and news about prevention, but now that we've got some drugs to manage the illness, people are going back to their original unsafe sexual behaviour.

What percentage of people are going back to their original unsafe sexual behaviour? Certainly not the majority. And are you sure those individuals are going back to it because of the availablity of drugs, or is it other factors? I have suggested quite a few earlier in this thread that has nothing to do with the drugs.

Going back to your orginal statement - the intent of finding a cure is just that - a cure for a disease. It carries no behaviourial intent. Like finding a cure for lung cancer is not to encourage others to smoke. To suggest otherwise is just plain misguided.

AoD

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

Of course we want to find a cure, as is the case with most diseases.

 

[ganjavih]

Malaria and TB and curable, HIV infection is not.

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

Malaria and TB and curable, HIV infection is not.

At one time they weren't. The time will come when we've either cured HIV and it's seen as Malaria, TB, Polio, etc.

Or the population of injected drug users and those involved in high risk sexual activity that are naturally non-resistant to HIV will be culled. We're already seeing this in Africa, where those resistant to HIV are left standing in villages of dead and dying. That's called Darwinism, and applies equally to humans as it does to plants and other animals. If you think this applies to HIV, just wait until Avian Flu hits the world - that'll make HIV seem tiny in comparision. We saw a similar cull of non-resistant populations during the Bubonic Plague in Europe - in fact the descendants of the Bubonic resistant populations are now showing resistance to HIV.

Not that I wish anyone a Darwinistic fate, and hope for a HIV cure asap. I also wish that folks would simply stop engaging in the high risk behaviours that are spreading HIV. Particularly in the west, we've never had a disease that's so deadly that is equally so preventable. However, as most here have said, stopping the behaviour is impossible, so let's get the cure.

 

[bizorky]

That's called Darwinism, and applies equally to humans as it does to plants and other animals. If you think this applies to HIV, just wait until Avian Flu hits the world - that'll make HIV seem tiny in comparision. We saw a similar cull of non-resistant populations during the Bubonic Plague in Europe - in fact the descendants of the Bubonic resistant populations are now showing resistance to HIV.

The capacity to act against threats, perceived or otherwise, to adapt and change are also evolutionary. The capacity to do this is a product of natural selection.

As for Avian flu, you miss ganja's greater point here. Once identified, any human pandemic of Avian influenza would eventually be preventable. Processes, technologies and public health strategies could spead up the production of vaccines, and solid public health measures could reduce mortality. However, the main point is that Avian flu is not a pandemic; HIV is.

 

[ganjavih]

If you're expecting the inferiors among us to be "culled" by HIV, you're mistaken. HIV infection is no longer a death sentence, it's become more of a chronic disease. It is however a large burden on those affected and on the health care system as a whole. Calling it "so deadly" is probably not accurate.

Secondly, who says behaviour can't be changed? The number of smokers in this country continues to drop and people are using safer sex methods, although not as many as we'd like.

Waiting for a cure or a cull is not the right strategy. While we're waiting for a cure, which may never come, everything possible needs to be done to prevent the spread of this virus.

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

HIV infection is no longer a death sentence, it's become more of a chronic disease.

Easily applied to the West, but tell that to Africa, China and SEA.

As for behaviour, IIRC, in Africa and SEA they're having great difficulty getting the behavioural changes needed to stop HIV in its tracks.