3 ms·
An infectious disease doesn't care about any of that, it doesn't care what your political process is or where you draw the line. It's not a trade off of public
by md8z 5y ago
An infectious disease doesn't care about any of that, it doesn't care what your political process is or where you draw the line. It's not a trade off of public health maximalism vs individual freedoms, it never is that simple. Every decision you make there trades someone else's individual freedom by increasing their risk of contracting the disease. Please let's stop dancing around that and trying to play politics here.
The only fool proof solution that exists is to totally quarantine people, but the grandparent post already took that off the table, so even if we wanted to have that discussion there is simply nowhere left for it to go. See what I mean here? This rhetoric doesn't do anything besides shut down the conversation.
- rob_c 5y agoAgain. You are advocating ban sex due to HIV. Please stop being so black and white about policy involving human beings and reality.
- md8z 5y agoNo I am not, please stop this. You're jumping to the other extreme and that's exactly why I think that type of rhetoric is not helpful. If you have something nuanced you'd like to say then I'd love to hear it. Personally if I was somewhere where there was an HIV outbreak, and we didn't have adequate resources to test and protect against it, then I would say that abstaining from promiscuous sex and promoting that as a public health measure would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. That would actually probably help the situation in areas of the world where the ongoing HIV epidemic is particularly bad, which by the way is still a real thing.