3 ms·

This is perilously close to "people who get COVID are innocent victims so forcible interventions are justified, while people who got HIV chose to do it so those

This is perilously close to "people who get COVID are innocent victims so forcible interventions are justified, while people who got HIV chose to do it so those same nterventions are less justified." I agree that, for the average person, COVID is easier to contract than HIV. But by the same token, COVID is much less severe than HIV, even with modern treatment plans. It's not at core about some abstract principle about how preventing disease spread trumps all other concerns but is instead a cost benefit analysis. Keeping the country shut down perpetually is an extreme cost that we are continually incurring.

reallyagain 5y ago
> But by the same token, COVID is much less severe than HIV, even with modern treatment plans. Do you have a source for this? This wouldn't surprise me for the Omicron variant, but I'm surprised that (for example) someone getting the Delta variant in 2021 was "much less severe" than someone getting HIV in 2021.
- TMWNN 5y ago
  COVID19 has, since the beginning, had a 0.6% IFR. The odds of someone under 40 without comorbodities dying of it were and are more or less zero. HIV was and is invariably fatal. Yes, current drug regimens are remarkably effective. They are also very complex, required for the rest of your life, and do not affect the odds of you infecting someone else by unprotected sex. *No one*, not even the most ill centenarian, would choose HIV over COVID19 if required to be infected by one.
  - scarmig 5y ago
    Minor point of correction: someone who is HIV positive but has an undetectable viral load is very unlikely to give someone else HIV. It's riskier to have sex with a random at a bar of unknown status than it is to have sex with someone with an undetectable viral load. (If you trust that they do indeed have an undetectable viral load and strictly adhere to their medication protocol.)
    - TMWNN 5y ago
      Thank you for the correction. I'm still amazed that the person I responded to thought that HIV would be preferable to COVID19! What does that say about the effectiveness, so to speak, of media campaigns about COVID19's dangers?
      - reallyagain 5y ago
        You've misquoted me twice in a short period of time, I didn't say that HIV would be preferable to the Delta variant. You're right, I would "prefer" COVID over HIV, but my personal preference is not a good metric of the overall severity. In abstract, given the choice between something that had a (say) 30% chance to kill me but was mostly harmless in the long-run and HIV, I would "prefer" the former over the latter. But I also think that the former is more severe. In my view you're equating two things which are not the same. For some context, I lost 6 family members in a short period of time to the Delta variant of COVID. My experience with COVID is not "media campaigns" but funerals.
        TMWNN 5y ago
        >You've misquoted me twice in a short period of time, I didn't say that HIV would be preferable to the Delta variant. You wrote >I'm surprised that (for example) someone getting the Delta variant in 2021 was "much less severe" than someone getting HIV in 2021. I do not think that my >No one, not even the most ill centenarian, would choose HIV over COVID19 if required to be infected by one. and >I'm still amazed that the person I responded to thought that HIV would be preferable to COVID19! are so far off. >In abstract, given the choice between something that had a (say) 30% chance to kill me but was mostly harmless in the long-run and HIV, I would "prefer" the former over the latter. If the only two choices were infection by something that had a 30% chance to kill me, or HIV (presumably followed by the appropriate drug regimen to control it), I think I'd probably take HIV! But that's not a choice between COVID19 and HIV. Let me repeat: COVID19 has a 0.6% IFR. Yes, IFR increases by age, but even 85-year olds' IFR is 15%; not great, but (as I understand it) pretty comparable to the flu for the cohort. >But I also think that the former is more severe. This is more support for the accuracy of my paraphrasing of you. >For some context, I lost 6 family members in a short period of time to the Delta variant of COVID. My experience with COVID is not "media campaigns" but funerals. I am sorry to hear that about your family. But (thankfully for society, if not so much for you or your loved ones) your experience is very atypical. Unless all had multiple comorbidities (immune suppression + obesity + something else), what happened to your family members was very, very, very rare.
jjoonathan 5y ago
> This is perilously close to "people who get COVID are innocent victims so forcible interventions are justified, while people who got HIV chose to do it so those same nterventions are less justified." Nope. The existence of simple, effective countermeasures and ease of accessing them set the level of moral culpability for refusing and then infecting someone else as a result. I'd agree that the cost-benefit is nearing the point of "fuck it, let the selfish jerks have what they want."
- scarmig 5y ago
  Now disease is a matter of "moral culpability"? It's far easier to accidentally infect someone with COVID than it is to infect someone with HIV, and the harm of the former is less than the harm of the latter. The latter per incident is significantly more costly to society as well. Should the government require Grindr and gay bars to require customers to show an up-to-date negative status and proof of being on PreP in order to be allowed to participate? With poz people banned from participating at the venue/platform?
danans 5y ago
> Keeping the country shut down perpetually is an extreme cost that we are continually incurring. Which country is this that is perpetually shut down? Even the most mask and vaccine forward (ergo "shut down perpetually") parts of the US are pretty operational. Offices are open as are restaurants and schools Disneyland is packed. We've learned how to keep society running during the pandemic: vaccines, masks, testing, and occasionally heightened indoor occupancy restrictions during large waves to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed. That's nothing at all like a "perpetual shutdown".

reallyagain 5y ago

> But by the same token, COVID is much less severe than HIV, even with modern treatment plans. Do you have a source for this? This wouldn't surprise me for the Omicron variant, but I'm surprised that (for example) someone getting the Delta variant in 2021 was "much less severe" than someone getting HIV in 2021.

TMWNN 5y ago
COVID19 has, since the beginning, had a 0.6% IFR. The odds of someone under 40 without comorbodities dying of it were and are more or less zero. HIV was and is invariably fatal. Yes, current drug regimens are remarkably effective. They are also very complex, required for the rest of your life, and do not affect the odds of you infecting someone else by unprotected sex. *No one*, not even the most ill centenarian, would choose HIV over COVID19 if required to be infected by one.
- scarmig 5y ago
  Minor point of correction: someone who is HIV positive but has an undetectable viral load is very unlikely to give someone else HIV. It's riskier to have sex with a random at a bar of unknown status than it is to have sex with someone with an undetectable viral load. (If you trust that they do indeed have an undetectable viral load and strictly adhere to their medication protocol.)
  - TMWNN 5y ago
    Thank you for the correction. I'm still amazed that the person I responded to thought that HIV would be preferable to COVID19! What does that say about the effectiveness, so to speak, of media campaigns about COVID19's dangers?
    - reallyagain 5y ago
      You've misquoted me twice in a short period of time, I didn't say that HIV would be preferable to the Delta variant. You're right, I would "prefer" COVID over HIV, but my personal preference is not a good metric of the overall severity. In abstract, given the choice between something that had a (say) 30% chance to kill me but was mostly harmless in the long-run and HIV, I would "prefer" the former over the latter. But I also think that the former is more severe. In my view you're equating two things which are not the same. For some context, I lost 6 family members in a short period of time to the Delta variant of COVID. My experience with COVID is not "media campaigns" but funerals.
      - TMWNN 5y ago
        >You've misquoted me twice in a short period of time, I didn't say that HIV would be preferable to the Delta variant. You wrote >I'm surprised that (for example) someone getting the Delta variant in 2021 was "much less severe" than someone getting HIV in 2021. I do not think that my >No one, not even the most ill centenarian, would choose HIV over COVID19 if required to be infected by one. and >I'm still amazed that the person I responded to thought that HIV would be preferable to COVID19! are so far off. >In abstract, given the choice between something that had a (say) 30% chance to kill me but was mostly harmless in the long-run and HIV, I would "prefer" the former over the latter. If the only two choices were infection by something that had a 30% chance to kill me, or HIV (presumably followed by the appropriate drug regimen to control it), I think I'd probably take HIV! But that's not a choice between COVID19 and HIV. Let me repeat: COVID19 has a 0.6% IFR. Yes, IFR increases by age, but even 85-year olds' IFR is 15%; not great, but (as I understand it) pretty comparable to the flu for the cohort. >But I also think that the former is more severe. This is more support for the accuracy of my paraphrasing of you. >For some context, I lost 6 family members in a short period of time to the Delta variant of COVID. My experience with COVID is not "media campaigns" but funerals. I am sorry to hear that about your family. But (thankfully for society, if not so much for you or your loved ones) your experience is very atypical. Unless all had multiple comorbidities (immune suppression + obesity + something else), what happened to your family members was very, very, very rare.

jjoonathan 5y ago

> This is perilously close to "people who get COVID are innocent victims so forcible interventions are justified, while people who got HIV chose to do it so those same nterventions are less justified." Nope. The existence of simple, effective countermeasures and ease of accessing them set the level of moral culpability for refusing and then infecting someone else as a result. I'd agree that the cost-benefit is nearing the point of "fuck it, let the selfish jerks have what they want."

scarmig 5y ago
Now disease is a matter of "moral culpability"? It's far easier to accidentally infect someone with COVID than it is to infect someone with HIV, and the harm of the former is less than the harm of the latter. The latter per incident is significantly more costly to society as well. Should the government require Grindr and gay bars to require customers to show an up-to-date negative status and proof of being on PreP in order to be allowed to participate? With poz people banned from participating at the venue/platform?

danans 5y ago

> Keeping the country shut down perpetually is an extreme cost that we are continually incurring. Which country is this that is perpetually shut down? Even the most mask and vaccine forward (ergo "shut down perpetually") parts of the US are pretty operational. Offices are open as are restaurants and schools Disneyland is packed. We've learned how to keep society running during the pandemic: vaccines, masks, testing, and occasionally heightened indoor occupancy restrictions during large waves to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed. That's nothing at all like a "perpetual shutdown".