4 ms·

For rich people (meaning the ~3 billion people that have some sort of access to medical infrastructure), it is a solved problem, but there are quite many people

by est31 2mo ago

For rich people (meaning the ~3 billion people that have some sort of access to medical infrastructure), it is a solved problem, but there are quite many people without any access to it. Even for those "solved problem" people, taking a pill every day to be protected is inconvenient. They might not take it every day, etc. Also, even if it were a solved problem, the methodologies developed here can probably help with other viruses too in the future. This has already happened with the antivirals originally developed for HIV.

compass_copium 2mo ago
Again, inaccurate. You can get a PrEP shot twice a year now. Access is a valid point. Perhaps the money being used to fund a superfluous vaccine should be used to fund access to PrEP in the Third World.
- thinkcontext 2mo ago
  > Perhaps the money being used to fund a superfluous vaccine should be used to fund access to PrEP in the Third World An astounding statement. Is it not possible that a vaccine giving decades of protection would give better health outcomes than doing PrEP every 6 months?
- Muromec 2mo ago
  Or maybe we should solve poverty which is a proxy to all kinds of solved problems that somehow still exist
lizknope 2mo ago
I was 16 when Magic Johnson announced he had AIDS. That was the first time it felt real to me. I remember a couple of friends crying because we all thought he would be dead in 1-2 years. And here he is and seems to be living a normal life.
- SoftTalker 2mo ago
  He doesn't have AIDS, he's HIV-positive.
  - kstrauser 2mo ago
    I understand the difference between those statements, but confess that I'm not clear on the important distinction. Are there situations where untreated HIV doesn't progress to AIDS? Is the virus more transmissible in someone with AIDS than someone who's still at the HIV-positive stage? Asking here because I don't know, and I think an answer might help others know, too. (And to clarify, I genuinely don't know, and I'm asking from a supportive POV.)
    - freeone3000 2mo ago
      We are unaware of any situations where HIV+ doesn’t turn into AIDS without treatment. But being HIV+ is simply having a virus, not actively dying. HIV+ status also never clears - later tests that are “negative” mean your viral load is undetectable, at which point you can no longer transmit HIV to others. Undetectable = Untransmissable.
      - kstrauser 2mo ago
        That all makes sense. A couple things I’m still not clear on: * If someone has a negative test after treatment, but that’s not counted as “cured”, does that imply it could (or maybe will) come back if treatment is stopped? * What’s the importance of the distinction between HIV+ vs AIDS, from a public health or human perspective? We don’t talk about influenza+ vs “has the flu”, at least as far as I know. Does HIV+ carry less stigma than AIDS? Thanks for your earlier answer. I know this specific infection has lots of difficult history. It’s hard to formulate my questions without sounding suspiciously close to a sea lion or something, but I sincerely want to know. And yes, I could google it but then it wouldn’t be an interesting conversation, or one others could read and learn from.
        freeone3000 2mo ago

by est31 2mo ago

compass_copium 2mo ago

Again, inaccurate. You can get a PrEP shot twice a year now. Access is a valid point. Perhaps the money being used to fund a superfluous vaccine should be used to fund access to PrEP in the Third World.

thinkcontext 2mo ago
> Perhaps the money being used to fund a superfluous vaccine should be used to fund access to PrEP in the Third World An astounding statement. Is it not possible that a vaccine giving decades of protection would give better health outcomes than doing PrEP every 6 months?
Muromec 2mo ago
Or maybe we should solve poverty which is a proxy to all kinds of solved problems that somehow still exist

lizknope 2mo ago

I was 16 when Magic Johnson announced he had AIDS. That was the first time it felt real to me. I remember a couple of friends crying because we all thought he would be dead in 1-2 years. And here he is and seems to be living a normal life.

SoftTalker 2mo ago
He doesn't have AIDS, he's HIV-positive.
- kstrauser 2mo ago
  I understand the difference between those statements, but confess that I'm not clear on the important distinction. Are there situations where untreated HIV doesn't progress to AIDS? Is the virus more transmissible in someone with AIDS than someone who's still at the HIV-positive stage? Asking here because I don't know, and I think an answer might help others know, too. (And to clarify, I genuinely don't know, and I'm asking from a supportive POV.)
  - freeone3000 2mo ago
    We are unaware of any situations where HIV+ doesn’t turn into AIDS without treatment. But being HIV+ is simply having a virus, not actively dying. HIV+ status also never clears - later tests that are “negative” mean your viral load is undetectable, at which point you can no longer transmit HIV to others. Undetectable = Untransmissable.
    - kstrauser 2mo ago
      That all makes sense. A couple things I’m still not clear on: * If someone has a negative test after treatment, but that’s not counted as “cured”, does that imply it could (or maybe will) come back if treatment is stopped? * What’s the importance of the distinction between HIV+ vs AIDS, from a public health or human perspective? We don’t talk about influenza+ vs “has the flu”, at least as far as I know. Does HIV+ carry less stigma than AIDS? Thanks for your earlier answer. I know this specific infection has lots of difficult history. It’s hard to formulate my questions without sounding suspiciously close to a sea lion or something, but I sincerely want to know. And yes, I could google it but then it wouldn’t be an interesting conversation, or one others could read and learn from.
      - freeone3000 2mo ago