4 ms·

The problem with epidemiology is that it's complex, and I mean that in a technical sense. For instance, there's evidence that slowing the speed of an epidemic

by araneae 15y ago

The problem with epidemiology is that it's complex, and I mean that in a technical sense. For instance, there's evidence that slowing the speed of an epidemic can result in a higher number of total infected. I'm not at all saying this is bad. Cheap tests are good. However, we already know that test and treat- no matter how cheap it is- will not stop the current epidemic in the U.S. This is an advance in the cheapness of technology but it can't stop an epidemic, only (possibly) slow it. And even that could ultimately result in more people being ultimately infected, but that's not known for sure. The only technology that can stop the epidemic currently are condoms. The only behaviors that can stop the epidemic are monogamy and using condoms. And it's possible technology such as this could reduce condom usage, and that's the disaster. From a public health standpoint we need to watch out for anything that can alter behavior on a positive or negative scale. From the comments on engadget I would predict it would impact human behavior in a negative way, and that's what frightens me.

pbhjpbhj 15y ago
>And it's possible technology such as this could reduce condom usage, and that's the disaster. // It's also possible that it could prevent promiscuous sexual activity between people that wouldn't have used condoms and are infected. I wonder if parking sensors increased the number of parking crashes because people stopped looking out of their windows when parking??? Anyone got stats on that?
- araneae 15y ago
  Well that guy from Wired that test drove the self- driving car with the sensors actually did crash the car the first time he tried to use it to parallel park... At any rate, the analogy is weak. Testing partners for HIV only makes sense if you're planning to be in a monogamous relationship with them, and ideally should be done 6 months after the start of a monogamous relationship. You should use a condom with a girl you meet at a bar no matter what. An HIV test doesn't help you at all.
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    Thanks for the data point. Interestingly when I first got a cycle helmet was the first time I banged my head whilst cycling, though it was a direct factor (didn't account for the helmet when ducking under a tree). Seatbelts apparently cause some to take more risks.

by araneae 15y ago

pbhjpbhj 15y ago

>And it's possible technology such as this could reduce condom usage, and that's the disaster. // It's also possible that it could prevent promiscuous sexual activity between people that wouldn't have used condoms and are infected. I wonder if parking sensors increased the number of parking crashes because people stopped looking out of their windows when parking??? Anyone got stats on that?

araneae 15y ago
Well that guy from Wired that test drove the self- driving car with the sensors actually did crash the car the first time he tried to use it to parallel park... At any rate, the analogy is weak. Testing partners for HIV only makes sense if you're planning to be in a monogamous relationship with them, and ideally should be done 6 months after the start of a monogamous relationship. You should use a condom with a girl you meet at a bar no matter what. An HIV test doesn't help you at all.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  Thanks for the data point. Interestingly when I first got a cycle helmet was the first time I banged my head whilst cycling, though it was a direct factor (didn't account for the helmet when ducking under a tree). Seatbelts apparently cause some to take more risks.