NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, almost everybody knows about HIV. What do you propose we do about it? Is HAART actually effective or not, can nutritional therapy help with AIDS wasting syndrome, should there be mandatory testing policies for certain groups, and all those other questions. What would YOU do about the whole situation?

Education. Contraception.

Don't let it spread, prevention is better than the cure.

EXECUTE THEM ALL! MWA! HA! HA!

Ahem. Abstinence is the best way, really. Keep your goddamned pants zipped, people!

I dont really know what aids is.
I know gay people get it and the africans also.
I know that education is allways key no matter what the issue is.
I know you can get sick if an aids infected persons blood gets on you.
I heard you cant get aids from an aids infected person if his or her saliva gets on you.
People die in mass numbers each year from it.
Thats about it.

I dont really know what aids is.
I know gay people get it and the africans also.
I know that education is allways key no matter what the issue is.
I know you can get sick if an aids infected persons blood gets on you.
I heard you cant get aids from an aids infected person if his or her saliva gets on you.
People die in mass numbers each year from it.
Thats about it.

Yes, yes, yes, no (technically. You need an open cut/sore/whatever for that to happen, but lets not go around touching HIV positive blood kay), no, yes.

I dont really know what aids is.
I know gay people get it and the africans also.
I know that education is allways key no matter what the issue is.
I know you can get sick if an aids infected persons blood gets on you.
I heard you cant get aids from an aids infected person if his or her saliva gets on you.
People die in mass numbers each year from it.
Thats about it.
Here's a page that might have some useful info about what HIV and AIDS are:
http://www.thebody.com/nmai/whatisaids.html

I heard you cant get aids from an aids infected person if his or her saliva gets on you.

You know wrong. You would have to inject or swallow about a litre and a half of saliva for transmission of HIV to be able to occur.

well ive never been the biggest fan of modern medicine but this is one thing that definitely needs a cure, in the mean time use a condom

Condoms don't necessarily guarantee you won't get HIV, although they help and are certainly better than the alternative. AIDS definitely is NOT a gays or blacks only disease; it infects people of all ages, nationalities, and races. It is only prevalent in sub-saharan Africa because of poor prevention methods, low awareness, and because in many places it is believed that you can be cured by having sex with a virgin (which leads to raping of girls as young as five).

As for how to deal with it, education is pivotal but also needed are the medications and means with which to prevent its spread. For example, there is a safe and relatively cheap, effective drug that prevents mothers from transmitting HIV (the early form of AIDS) to their children. Advocating the use of condoms would definitely help, both for men and for women.

I heard a rough estimate that said that the spread of HIV could be severely curtailed if the developed nations of the world committed about $40 billion US a year collectively. Although it definitely requires more than just throwing money at it.

Or how about...YOU DON'T HAVE SEX! Now, isn't that a novel idea? Hmmm?

Well, almost everybody knows about HIV. What do you propose we do about it? Is HAART actually effective or not, can nutritional therapy help with AIDS wasting syndrome, should there be mandatory testing policies for certain groups, and all those other questions. What would YOU do about the whole situation?

Why not introduce a law that makes spreading STDs a crime?

Or how about...YOU DON'T HAVE SEX! Now, isn't that a novel idea? Hmmm?
no. because telling people not to have sex doesnt work

so, if you know that theyre going to have sex anwyay, why not educate them and provide them with condoms to try and reduce the risk?

Why not introduce a law that makes spreading STDs a crime?

Why not also extend it to cover such things as the common cold?

Better education, yes. Contraception may decrease risk of contraction but it's still not garunteed. Even if it's not practical, abstinence is still 100% effective at preventing HIV's spread

Why not introduce a law that makes spreading STDs a crime?
Knowingly spreading STDs is assualt and battery, possibly assualt with a deadly weapon and attempted murder.

Why not also extend it to cover such things as the common cold?

Because that's just a dumb idea you made up to try and make my suggestion sound draconian by comparing it to a very different idea?

I would prefer constructive criticism.

Better education, yes. Contraception may decrease risk of contraction but it's still not garunteed.

but it does reduce the risk of infection, yes?

and if theyre going to have sex anyway, then we should help them reduce the risk

Even if it's not practical, abstinence is still 100% effective at preventing HIV's spread
Blood infections?

Unfortunately, another hardline conservative Pope is in the Vatican so he's not going to give contraception the 'OK'. The Catholic population of Africa is in for more years of AIDS.

Because that's just a dumb idea you made up to try and make my suggestion sound draconian by comparing it to a very different idea?

I would prefer constructive criticism.
what do you think it is that finally kills people with HIV/AIDS?

The disease itself cant kill, it just destroys the immune system and increases the risk from other diseases....such as the common cold.

Because that's just a dumb idea you made up to try and make my suggestion sound draconian by comparing it to a very different idea?

The principle is the same.

Not all STDs are as serious in the effects as HIV/AIDS: mild forms of some are about as bad as a very heavy cold. - for example most people infected with chalmydia display no symptoms.

Or how about...YOU DON'T HAVE SEX!

I think not having sex is a brilliant way to prevent the spread of AIDS.

Further more, I think that to stop the spread of dysentary people should stop drinking water, and to stop food poisoning they should stop eating food. If everyone does that, life will be so good it will be like living in a dreamworld.

what do you think it is that finally kills people with HIV/AIDS?

The disease itself cant kill, it just destroys the immune system and increases the risk from other diseases....such as the common cold.

A pillow on the face itself can't kill, it just prevents breathing.

-------------------------------------

My point was, that while you can accidentally sneeze on someone, it's pretty difficult to "accidentally" have sex with someone. I'd like to modify my suggestion to only a crime if you know you have an STD. Also, people should be provided with STD testing.

Unfortunately, another hardline conservative Pope is in the Vatican so he's not going to give contraception the 'OK'. The Catholic population of Africa is in for more years of AIDS.

Maybe the Pope thinks there are too many Catholics?

Blood infections?
Ok, I concede that point - but contaminated blood through a transfusion is exponentially lower than the risk of sex w/an infected parter, I will persist on that

A pillow on the face itself can't kill, it just prevents breathing.

-------------------------------------

My point was, that while you can accidentally sneeze on someone, it's pretty difficult to "accidentally" have sex with someone. I'd like to modify my suggestion to only a crime if you know you have an STD. Also, people should be provided with STD testing.
sex is not the only way to pass on STDs

AIDS definitely is NOT a gays or blacks only disease; it infects people of all ages, nationalities, and races.

The country with the largest population of AIDS/HIV positive people is actually India. The drug slums of New Delhi in particular, what with the rampant exchange of contaminated needles, are helping to spread the disease at a never-before-seen rate.

The principle is the same.

Not all STDs are as serious in the effects as HIV/AIDS: mild forms of some are about as bad as a very heavy cold. - for example most people infected with chalmydia display no symptoms.

If someone doesn't know they have an STD, it's not their fault. But if they know they have it, it's pretty hard to accidentally pass it on.

The country with the largest population of AIDS/HIV positive people is actually India. The drug slums of New Delhi in particular, what with the rampant exchange of contaminated needles, are helping to spread the disease at a never-before-seen rate.
Wow, I didn't know that. That's pretty interesting.

If someone doesn't know they have an STD, it's not their fault. But if they know they have it, it's pretty hard to accidentally pass it on.
No intent=no crime. Generally.

sex is not the only way to pass on STDs

What do you have in mind? I imagine it's just as difficult to accidentally share a diseased heroin needle.

If someone doesn't know they have an STD, it's not their fault. But if they know they have it, it's pretty hard to accidentally pass it on.


...leaving aside such things as the failure of prophylactics... you seem to be avoiding the issue here that most people who have a cold will have worse symptoms than most people who have an STD such as chlamydia, so why not extend you proposed legislation to cover the common cold or the flu?




EDIT: if I could actually even spell 'chlamydia' correctly it would help.

No intent=no crime. Generally.

Yeah, that sounds fair. Unless it's something like causing injury or death as a result of neglecting to follow safe procedures.

Bah. Impractical. People are too obsessed with sex. I get along fine without it. AIDs is the only disease spread directly and entirely by something people can control.

How about.. we don't have sex! And then in a hundred years, the human race will die out because nobody ever conceives another child because we don't have sex! That's a ridiculous idea. And seriously, abstinence-related education doesn't work for many people: they're going to have sex whether or not you tell them they can. On the other hand, condoms are more efficient. Making it illegal to transmit wouldn't work anyway: what're you going to do? Death penalty? Some live life like they're going to die anyway.

This isn't my solution, but just throwing out an idea: have required HIV/AIDS testing, mandatory ID, placing HIV/AIDS reports on said IDs, and no non-HIV person has sex w/ HIV person? Just an idea... wouldn't work in Africa, though.

...leaving aside such things as the failure of prophylactics... you seem to be avoiding the issue here that most people who have a cold will have worse symptoms than most people who have an STD such as chalmydia, so why not extend you proposed legislation to cover the common cold or the flu?

Because, unless I'm mistaken, the latter are easier to pass on by accident.

How about.. we don't have sex! And then in a hundred years, the human race will die out because nobody ever conceives another child because we don't have sex! That's a ridiculous idea. And seriously, abstinence-related education doesn't work for many people: they're going to have sex whether or not you tell them they can. On the other hand, condoms are more efficient. Making it illegal to transmit wouldn't work anyway: what're you going to do? Death penalty? Some live life like they're going to die anyway.

This isn't my solution, but just throwing out an idea: have required HIV/AIDS testing, mandatory ID, placing HIV/AIDS reports on said IDs, and no non-HIV person has sex w/ HIV person? Just an idea... wouldn't work in Africa, though.
Ever hear of a small thing called a right to privacy?

What do you have in mind? I imagine it's just as difficult to accidentally share a diseased heroin needle.
anytime where your blood is likely to come into contact with any other blood, in any way

for example, you might have a cut on your thumb and think nothing of it. it brushes against some contaminated blood you didnt see, say a drop from a nosebleed, and you have a very real risk of getting an STD from it. Even water with some blood in it can carry diseases.

AIDs is the only disease spread directly and entirely by something people can control.
no...no its not. its not only spread by sex.

and somebody could not know they have HIV and have a child...congratulations, your child has it too, through no fault of your or their own.

whats your suggestion? ban people from having children "just in case"?

anytime where your blood is likely to come into contact with any other blood, in any way

for example, you might have a cut on your thumb and think nothing of it. it brushes against some contaminated blood you didnt see, say a drop from a nosebleed, and you have a very real risk of getting an STD from it. Even water with some blood in it can carry diseases.

OK, I don't think people with STDs should spread it in any preventable manner.

Perhaps people should be required to get regular tests for STDs. That would help, since a lot of people would be too nervous or self-conscious to get tested, but if it were compulsory, that's no longer an issue.

OK, I don't think people with STDs should spread it in any preventable manner.
and if they dont know they have an STD?

and if they dont know they have an STD?

Then it's not their fault. I said that in an earlier post.

Or how about...YOU DON'T HAVE SEX! Now, isn't that a novel idea? Hmmm?

Yeah, that's worked so well as contraception for the last 10,000 years.


I like my idea better.
Needle exchange. Condoms. Education. Criminal prosecution for reckless behavior.

Then it's not their fault. I said that in an earlier post.
your original point was about abstinence.

do you concede that abstinence wouldnt be a 100% effective method of stopping the spread of STDs?

What do you have in mind? I imagine it's just as difficult to accidentally share a diseased heroin needle.
i doubt many heroin junkies take the time to get tested, so i imagine it's not terribly difficult.
that reminds me, we need good needle exchange programs

There ARE laws "preventing" the wilfull infection of another with an STD.

And people will always have sex, and have it for pleasure, and have it often. Its what we were made to do; if you cant except that maybe you should pick a different species. Why the hell do you think we masturbate (shock and awe).

This is a terrible thing to say and I'm going to draw much flak for it, but I dont think HIV should be cured. The same people who will say "there are too many of us" will then turn around and go "lets cure another disease in the places with the densest populations".

This is a terrible thing to say and I'm going to draw much flak for it, but I dont think HIV should be cured. The same people who will say "there are too many of us" will then turn around and go "lets cure another disease in the places with the densest populations".

HIV doesn't kill people quick enough to be an effective method of population control, so your statement is both flawed and unethical.

I think education is the best way to stop this epidemic. You teach people how the virus is transmitted, maybe young girls won't be raped in an attempt to find a cure, you teach someone how to put on a condom, you drastically lower their chances of catching the disease, you teach people how to sanitise their needles in a rudimentary way by burning the needle or boiling it before use to hopefuly kill off the infection. But in Rwanda, remember, women who were left without fathers and husbands were raped by men who knew they had AIDS and who told them as they were raping them that they were going to die too, slowly and painfully.
Damn right people who knowingly pass on the infection should be punished to the limit of the law, testing should be free, or at least affordable, and more methidone clinics set up so people can get clean, using clean needles and reenter society as a functioning human being

This is a terrible thing to say and I'm going to draw much flak for it, but I dont think HIV should be cured.

What about the innocent people who contract the disease every year from contaminated blood and rape? Don't they deserve a chance at life?

Ever hear of a small thing called a right to privacy?

That's why it isn't my solution of choice, I just intended to stir up some conversation.

Then it's not their fault. I said that in an earlier post.

I guess I kind of agree with you but for the sake of discussion....how does transmitting a disease via sex which kills a person without your intent to do so or knowledge of it different from killing a person in another way without intent or knowledge which would usually be considered manslaughter?

I guess I kind of agree with you but for the sake of discussion....how does transmitting a disease via sex which kills a person without your intent to do so or knowledge of it different from killing a person in another way without intent or knowledge which would usually be considered manslaughter?

Possibly because manslaughter is usually a violent act which, although not intended to kill, or maybe even harm, does so through foolishness and neglect. Infecting someone with a sexually transmitted disease is usually done through consentual sex between two adults, both people had a say in what happened, both people had an option to back out

Just my opinion

What should be done about HIV. Nothing: No-one really wants to do anything about it anyway,

I think not having sex is a brilliant way to prevent the spread of AIDS.

Further more, I think that to stop the spread of dysentary people should stop drinking water, and to stop food poisoning they should stop eating food. If everyone does that, life will be so good it will be like living in a dreamworld.
Ah, but if you don't eat or drink you will die. Nothing will happen to you if you don't have sex.

Ah, but if you don't eat or drink you will die. Nothing will happen to you if you don't have sex.

Maybe your balls will explode due to pressure

Ah, but if you don't eat or drink you will die. Nothing will happen to you if you don't have sex.

Possibly die of boredom while all your friends are off humping their other half

I think people should have ONE sexual partner... i mean, a boyfriend or girlfriend... Not go with one and another and keep doing it without know WTF has that person!! @@ I mean.. U DONT EVEN KNOW THEIR NAMES AND U'RE HAVING SEX?!?!.. And It would be erradicate maybe if we take apart that infecting people in some kind of "reserve" evading all kind of contact with them... would it be possible? ;)

Maybe your balls will explode due to pressure


Nah, you can always engage the manual overide.

Possibly because manslaughter is usually a violent act which, although not intended to kill, or maybe even harm, does so through foolishness and neglect. Infecting someone with a sexually transmitted disease is usually done through consentual sex between two adults, both people had a say in what happened, both people had an option to back out

Just my opinion

Would those two adults have still been consenting if they were supplied with the full information? The person carrying the disease acted out of foolishness and neglect because he wasn't aware of his disease. Obviously though he must have had sex previously with a different partner to contract the disease so technically he was in a position where he should have been check out for STDs. Though this isn't really practical and how many people actually get checked everytime they have sex with a new partner?

Also, is it the other person's responsibility to know who they are having sex with and to make the effort to gather the information before hand? Perhaps if a person was carrying an STD but told a partner they weren't and then transmitted the disease to them, they would be liable. If, however, the partner never asked, would they still be?

I think people should have ONE sexual partner... i mean, a boyfriend or girlfriend... Not go with one and another and keep doing it without know WTF has that person!! @@ I mean.. U DONT EVEN KNOW THEIR NAMES AND U'RE HAVING SEX?!?!.. And It would be erradicate maybe if we take apart that infecting people in some kind of "reserve" evading all kind of contact with them... would it be possible? ;)

Possible yes, as much fun...no.

Some people are fine with having one partner forever. Others might prefer having a hot asian chick services them south of the border while they are entertained by the rack of the hot blonde upstairs, while their buddy is having a romantic encounter with three others of the same sex in the room next door. You can't deny them those rights. [BTW I fall more into the first catagory FYI, ABC]

[MODS - Sorry if that post was a bit too graphic, I tried to keep it PG]

Would those two adults have still been consenting if they were supplied with the full information? The person carrying the disease acted out of foolishness and neglect because he wasn't aware of his disease. Obviously though he must have had sex previously with a different partner to contract the disease so technically he was in a position where he should have been check out for STDs. Though this isn't really practical and how many people actually get checked everytime they have sex with a new partner?

Also, is it the other person's responsibility to know who they are having sex with and to make the effort to gather the information before hand? Perhaps if a person was carrying an STD but told a partner they weren't and then transmitted the disease to them, they would be liable. If, however, the partner never asked, would they still be?

I agree, people who just sleep around, not bother to get to know the person they're about to sleep with before the deed are, and I'm sorry to say this, deserving of the consequences. Never, ever sleep with someone without a condom unless you've been with them at least 3 months, know their sexual history and possibly have had blood tests done if deemed necessary.

Medical records would show that a person had an STD, so if it came up in court, dates could be verified. But it's highly irresponsible for someone with HIV to be having sex openly, as sexual contact with another HIV positive person could accelerate the disease.

Regarding the checking every time you have sex, I'm married, been with him six years, know everything, both of us in good health, I thank God that promiscuity and experimentation is done with. Not a good idea in this day and age. Abstinence until marriage is beginning to sound more and more like a good idea...

Nah, you can always engage the manual overide.

(True, but bear in mind, to him, sex is ugly and disgusting)

I agree, people who just sleep around, not bother to get to know the person they're about to sleep with before the deed are, and I'm sorry to say this, deserving of the consequences. Never, ever sleep with someone without a condom unless you've been with them at least 3 months, know their sexual history and possibly have had blood tests done if deemed necessary.

Medical records would show that a person had an STD, so if it came up in court, dates could be verified. But it's highly irresponsible for someone with HIV to be having sex openly, as sexual contact with another HIV positive person could accelerate the disease.

Regarding the checking every time you have sex, I'm married, been with him six years, know everything, both of us in good health, I thank God that promiscuity and experimentation is done with. Not a good idea in this day and age. Abstinence until marriage is beginning to sound more and more like a good idea...

I dunno if I would say they deserve it but they certainly don't do anything to help themselves avoid it and thus cop the consequences.

I think it's sad that being promiscious [not that I am] is so dangerous and I would much rather they simply cure all these diseases and remove the worry. I'm glad you have been lucky enough to find someone you are happy with and I agree that it is much more safer an environement as far as STDs are concerned. However, not all people are as lucky or as suited to long term monogamous relationships, that certainly doesn't excuse them from taking foolish risks and being un0educated about the facts though.

I dunno if I would say they deserve it but they certainly don't do anything to help themselves avoid it and thus cop the consequences.

I think it's sad that being promiscious [not that I am] is so dangerous and I would much rather they simply cure all these diseases and remove the worry. I'm glad you have been lucky enough to find someone you are happy with and I agree that it is much more safer an environement as far as STDs are concerned. However, not all people are as lucky or as suited to long term monogamous relationships, that certainly doesn't excuse them from taking foolish risks and being un0educated about the facts though.

That's true. The only way to minimise your risk is to ask your partner to wait a while. If it's something that's meant to last, they'll wait, if their promiscuous, and can't wait, then it's probably not worth the risk.

I agree, people who just sleep around, not bother to get to know the person they're about to sleep with before the deed are, and I'm sorry to say this, deserving of the consequences. Never, ever sleep with someone without a condom unless you've been with them at least 3 months, know their sexual history and possibly have had blood tests done if deemed necessary.

Yes, I agree. And people who just drive around without a seatbelt deserve the consequences too. Ambulance drivers should just leave them by the side of the road.

Anyone who is injured at a construction site also deserves what they get. It's not as if they didn't know it's an accident prone industry when they signed up.

Or maybe, just maybe, a human being deserves compassion, even if their suffering was the result of a mistake they made?

Or maybe, just maybe, a human being deserves compassion, even if their suffering was the result of a mistake they made?
"Compassion"? That sounds like a commie plot to steal our children.