5 ms·

What's (not) shocking is how stigmatized the HIV-positive population is. Authorities are literally segregating the HIV-positive children into a different side o

What's (not) shocking is how stigmatized the HIV-positive population is. Authorities are literally segregating the HIV-positive children into a different side of the room from the rest. An obvious effect of this is that people will be terrified to get tested at all, as it's all downside with the possible upside of treatment being a distant dream. And that makes it both harder to evaluate the spread of the disease, and also harder to prevent further transmission of it. As a selfish aside, I will never get a shave from a barber who doesn't have an autoclave.

ars 7y ago
Quarantining infected people who have an incurable disease is not really that illogical when you have no medication capable of treating them. Can you imagine if the US had done mandatory testing and quarantine all those years ago? Obviously many people would have had their rights violated to do that, but it might have stopped the disease a long time ago. Voluntary self-quarantine clearly doesn't work. > will be terrified to get tested at all Or the opposite: Anyone not tested will be assumed to be infected. > And that makes it both harder to evaluate the spread of the disease, and also harder to prevent further transmission of it. Not if you have mandatory testing.
- dfasdfasd 7y ago
  Yikessss the 1980's US government quarantining a huge percentage of the gay community... That ain't it. HIV is not easy to communicate to other people. Education and PrEP have reduced the problem immensely.
  - ars 7y ago
    I agree, but PrEP isn't available to them. So what else do you expect them to do?
  - masonic 7y ago
    1980's US government quarantining a huge percentage of the gay community. The US government didn't quarantine anybody. If they had, as was done for every other fatal communicable disease for a century, hundreds of thousands of gay and other men could have been saved.
  - apta 7y ago
    HIV is much more prominent in homosexual men, not sure what your point is.
    - foldr 7y ago
      What is your point?
      - apta 7y ago
        That engaging in a known risky activity is dangerous, and people shouldn't be surprised if they get affected if they willingly put themselves in such a situation.
        foldr 7y ago
        Who are you talking about? It sounds as if you are saying that people with HIV deserve to be quarantined.
- hinfehuf 7y ago
  Stfu you stupid fascist shit. "Lets just throw the sick gays in a camp!" fuck you. > many people would have had their rights violated The worst part about you is that you fucking know this is wrong but you're making it out like a 'rational' decision. That's straight nazi shit.
  - foldr 7y ago
    I hope the parent doesn't get "tone policed". The message is spot on.
    - rghertgdvs 7y ago
      Are you fucking serious? Fighting putting gay people in 'quarantine' camps is not tone policing. My god. You people even know this is fascist but you're advocating it anyway.
      - foldr 7y ago
        I agree with you - I think you've misunderstood my comment. (I said parent, not grandparent.)
        hdhajd 7y ago
        (Account got deleted) Sorry for the misunderstanding. I just feel like I’m taking crazy pills reading these comments.
- pvaldes 7y ago
  > Quarantining infected people who have an incurable disease is not really that illogical This. We choose to do things different in the past and hide the disease. In retrospective it was a terrible mistake IMHO. The lets call it "human rights" way focused into preserving the rights of 10.000 or 100.000 people in the 80's. This proven to be a "genocide-level" idea for Africa (and other third world countries) that toke the lifes of 35 millions of people and helped to spread the disease from 100.000 to 75 millions. Currently there are 37 millions of people alive positive for the virus, and increasing. We could instead to have choosed the, I will call it, "fascist way". Being ruthless about forcing the diagnostised carriers to be transparent about the condition. Having zero tolerance specially to the people caught infecting deliberately other people again and again. This would made the life more difficult for many innocent people, but the new cases would had stopped suddenly overnight. The VIH would have been solved in a decade saving millions of lives past and future. The problem was that only the first way assured the future bussiness for the companies investing lots of money for developping the cure, so there was (more than probably) a strong marketing machine to teach us that any other option is taboo and evil. Is a huge price that we had paid for the goodism. Maybe we should start refusing to keep paying it and do something. AIDS was a "once in life" event, a disease jumping between species by mistake in 1940, and there is not any logic reason to not point all our weapons into removing it from humans once and for good.
  - rghertgdvs 7y ago
    > I will call it, "fascist way" Yes, it is. Not only that, you're conflating "people caught infecting deliberately other people" with the totality of the HIV-positive population. That is a tiny, tiny group of people. I can't believe this shit. It's not even worth arguing against it's so fucking depraved and immoral.
    - pvaldes 7y ago
      > you're conflating "people caught infecting deliberately other people" with the totality of the HIV-positive population Nope. I'm not saying that. Read my post again
- scarmig 7y ago
  This is, frankly, idiotic, on moral, legal, and logistical levels. Who is testing mandatory for? The entire population? And to be effective it'd have to be done on a quarterly basis (as that's the period of time where many tests won't detect the antibodies, and also when the virus is most communicable). Okay, so now you identify tens of thousands of HIV positive individuals every month. What do your quarantine camps look like? How expensive are they to maintain? Are death rates lower or higher in these HIV concentration camps than in the outside world? If this is a brilliant idea, why haven't other countries with few to no rights (e.g. Russia) implemented it to deal with their HIV crisis?
sizzle 7y ago
First time in hearing about a barber being able to spread HIV and my anxiety is now through the roof, having left haircuts with minor cuts from tapering my neckline etc. with no sanitization between customers whatsoever. What is the likelihood of a barber passing an transmissible disease? Any stats? Thanks.
- jbob2000 7y ago
  Unless you’re going to sketchy back alley barber shops where they’re regularly cutting you with infected blades, you’re probably fine. It’s not as easy to transmit as you may think. Did you know there’s only a 25% chance a pregnant woman with HIV will pass it on to her child? It’s less than 1% if she’s taking medication. Also, it’s really easy to get tested for it, you could go and get checked.
jbob2000 7y ago
The autoclave won’t protect you from prion disease. Have fun with that next time you’re at the dentist, optometrist, walk-in, and yes, the barber.

ars 7y ago

Quarantining infected people who have an incurable disease is not really that illogical when you have no medication capable of treating them. Can you imagine if the US had done mandatory testing and quarantine all those years ago? Obviously many people would have had their rights violated to do that, but it might have stopped the disease a long time ago. Voluntary self-quarantine clearly doesn't work. > will be terrified to get tested at all Or the opposite: Anyone not tested will be assumed to be infected. > And that makes it both harder to evaluate the spread of the disease, and also harder to prevent further transmission of it. Not if you have mandatory testing.

dfasdfasd 7y ago
Yikessss the 1980's US government quarantining a huge percentage of the gay community... That ain't it. HIV is not easy to communicate to other people. Education and PrEP have reduced the problem immensely.
- ars 7y ago
  I agree, but PrEP isn't available to them. So what else do you expect them to do?
- masonic 7y ago
  1980's US government quarantining a huge percentage of the gay community. The US government didn't quarantine anybody. If they had, as was done for every other fatal communicable disease for a century, hundreds of thousands of gay and other men could have been saved.
- apta 7y ago
  HIV is much more prominent in homosexual men, not sure what your point is.
  - foldr 7y ago
    What is your point?
    - apta 7y ago
      That engaging in a known risky activity is dangerous, and people shouldn't be surprised if they get affected if they willingly put themselves in such a situation.
      - foldr 7y ago
        Who are you talking about? It sounds as if you are saying that people with HIV deserve to be quarantined.
hinfehuf 7y ago
Stfu you stupid fascist shit. "Lets just throw the sick gays in a camp!" fuck you. > many people would have had their rights violated The worst part about you is that you fucking know this is wrong but you're making it out like a 'rational' decision. That's straight nazi shit.
- foldr 7y ago
  I hope the parent doesn't get "tone policed". The message is spot on.
  - rghertgdvs 7y ago
    Are you fucking serious? Fighting putting gay people in 'quarantine' camps is not tone policing. My god. You people even know this is fascist but you're advocating it anyway.
    - foldr 7y ago
      I agree with you - I think you've misunderstood my comment. (I said parent, not grandparent.)
      - hdhajd 7y ago
        (Account got deleted) Sorry for the misunderstanding. I just feel like I’m taking crazy pills reading these comments.
pvaldes 7y ago
> Quarantining infected people who have an incurable disease is not really that illogical This. We choose to do things different in the past and hide the disease. In retrospective it was a terrible mistake IMHO. The lets call it "human rights" way focused into preserving the rights of 10.000 or 100.000 people in the 80's. This proven to be a "genocide-level" idea for Africa (and other third world countries) that toke the lifes of 35 millions of people and helped to spread the disease from 100.000 to 75 millions. Currently there are 37 millions of people alive positive for the virus, and increasing. We could instead to have choosed the, I will call it, "fascist way". Being ruthless about forcing the diagnostised carriers to be transparent about the condition. Having zero tolerance specially to the people caught infecting deliberately other people again and again. This would made the life more difficult for many innocent people, but the new cases would had stopped suddenly overnight. The VIH would have been solved in a decade saving millions of lives past and future. The problem was that only the first way assured the future bussiness for the companies investing lots of money for developping the cure, so there was (more than probably) a strong marketing machine to teach us that any other option is taboo and evil. Is a huge price that we had paid for the goodism. Maybe we should start refusing to keep paying it and do something. AIDS was a "once in life" event, a disease jumping between species by mistake in 1940, and there is not any logic reason to not point all our weapons into removing it from humans once and for good.
- rghertgdvs 7y ago
  > I will call it, "fascist way" Yes, it is. Not only that, you're conflating "people caught infecting deliberately other people" with the totality of the HIV-positive population. That is a tiny, tiny group of people. I can't believe this shit. It's not even worth arguing against it's so fucking depraved and immoral.
  - pvaldes 7y ago
    > you're conflating "people caught infecting deliberately other people" with the totality of the HIV-positive population Nope. I'm not saying that. Read my post again
scarmig 7y ago
This is, frankly, idiotic, on moral, legal, and logistical levels. Who is testing mandatory for? The entire population? And to be effective it'd have to be done on a quarterly basis (as that's the period of time where many tests won't detect the antibodies, and also when the virus is most communicable). Okay, so now you identify tens of thousands of HIV positive individuals every month. What do your quarantine camps look like? How expensive are they to maintain? Are death rates lower or higher in these HIV concentration camps than in the outside world? If this is a brilliant idea, why haven't other countries with few to no rights (e.g. Russia) implemented it to deal with their HIV crisis?

sizzle 7y ago

First time in hearing about a barber being able to spread HIV and my anxiety is now through the roof, having left haircuts with minor cuts from tapering my neckline etc. with no sanitization between customers whatsoever. What is the likelihood of a barber passing an transmissible disease? Any stats? Thanks.

jbob2000 7y ago
Unless you’re going to sketchy back alley barber shops where they’re regularly cutting you with infected blades, you’re probably fine. It’s not as easy to transmit as you may think. Did you know there’s only a 25% chance a pregnant woman with HIV will pass it on to her child? It’s less than 1% if she’s taking medication. Also, it’s really easy to get tested for it, you could go and get checked.

jbob2000 7y ago

The autoclave won’t protect you from prion disease. Have fun with that next time you’re at the dentist, optometrist, walk-in, and yes, the barber.