NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27911541/

LONDON - The virus that causes AIDS could theoretically be eliminated in a decade if all people living in countries with high infection rates are regularly tested and treated, according to a new mathematical model.

This sounds like regular mandatory testing. While I am tested monthly (there's an advantage to donating blood - if you donate monthly, you are tested monthly), I believe that aside from logistical problems, you'll have people who will resist mandatory testing.

I feel that the money spent would be worth it - and I believe that certain countries could well afford to radically curtail the disease in their own country - but I'm not sure that it's feasible in other parts of the world - either for logistical or attitude reasons.

I also feel that a number of people will hate or resent the idea of regular mandatory testing.

Well if it gets rid of HIV and then possibly AIDS, sure.

Would I what? Be eliminated too?

Who is paying for all this, given that many of the countries with the highest rates of HIV infection are also very poor?

Who is paying for all this, given that many of the countries with the highest rates of HIV infection are also very poor?

The developed nations, of course. Rather like the WHO effort to eliminate smallpox, which was successful.

A few billions, and the threat of HIV is gone. Seems worth it to me.

I've never taken the test, but from what I've heard, they hurt really baad when you take it...so would this be an annually year thing?

I've never taken the test, but from what I've heard, they hurt really baad when you take it...so would this be an annually year thing?

There are varieties of test. One is a simple mouth swab, which doesn't hurt, unless you're some sort of weenie. The other is a blood test, which can be done with a simple blood draw.

If you give blood routinely, you're already being tested routinely.

There are varieties of test. One is a simple mouth swab, which doesn't hurt, unless you're some sort of weenie. The other is a blood test, which can be done with a simple blood draw.

If you give blood routinely, you're already being tested routinely.

All the people who have told me (in great detail that I didn't want to know) said they take like a stick thingy and insert it into your area....if you catch my drift

All the people who have told me (in great detail that I didn't want to know) said they take like a stick thingy and insert it into your area....if you catch my drift

That's a comprehensive STD test. HIV can be tested from the blood.

I have serious doubts it'd be effective, but it'd worth a shot.

I have serious doubts it'd be effective, but it'd worth a shot.

I believe it's better than doing nothing.

The developed nations, of course. Rather like the WHO effort to eliminate smallpox, which was successful.

A few billions, and the threat of HIV is gone. Seems worth it to me.

Very different cases. Smallpox, after all, can be eradicated through vaccination, which needs to be done once per person.

HIV, on the other hand, will require annual testing, and treatment for the infected, until they have all died. Vastly more expensive.

it seems like a great idea with severe logistical problems.

Very different cases. Smallpox, after all, can be eradicated through vaccination, which needs to be done once per person.

HIV, on the other hand, will require annual testing, and treatment for the infected, until they have all died. Vastly more expensive.

Skip treatment. They die faster, and it's cheaper.

Make it mandatory, round all the HIV-Positive people up and invite them all into super happy fun camps for the decade it would take to eliminate it... ohnoes, wait...!
:p

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27911541/



This sounds like regular mandatory testing. While I am tested monthly (there's an advantage to donating blood - if you donate monthly, you are tested monthly), I believe that aside from logistical problems, you'll have people who will resist mandatory testing.

I feel that the money spent would be worth it - and I believe that certain countries could well afford to radically curtail the disease in their own country - but I'm not sure that it's feasible in other parts of the world - either for logistical or attitude reasons.

I also feel that a number of people will hate or resent the idea of regular mandatory testing.

Well, yes, I'd support it but I dont think healthcare systems can cope with that. Like in Canada, 30 million people getting tested every month. Would prolly be very expensive...

That's a comprehensive STD test. HIV can be tested from the blood.
It can also be tested for using saliva or urine, and can now be done using highly accurate home tests.

wouldn't it just be easier/cheaper to eliminate the population of Africa?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27911541/



This sounds like regular mandatory testing. While I am tested monthly (there's an advantage to donating blood - if you donate monthly, you are tested monthly), I believe that aside from logistical problems, you'll have people who will resist mandatory testing.

I feel that the money spent would be worth it - and I believe that certain countries could well afford to radically curtail the disease in their own country - but I'm not sure that it's feasible in other parts of the world - either for logistical or attitude reasons.

I also feel that a number of people will hate or resent the idea of regular mandatory testing.

I'm not sure how I feel about mandatory HIV testing, but did you actually read the OP article?

From your article:

The virus that causes AIDS could theoretically be eliminated in a decade if all people living in countries with high infection rates are regularly tested and treated, according to a new mathematical model.

It is an intriguing solution to end the AIDS epidemic. But it is based on assumptions rather than data, and is riddled with logistical problems. The research was published online Tuesday in the medical journal The Lancet.

...

Gilks and colleagues used data from South Africa and Malawi. In their model, people were voluntarily tested each year and immediately given drugs if they tested positive for HIV, regardless of whether they were sick.

...

Only 3 million people are currently on AIDS drugs. Nearly 7 million people are still awaiting treatment, and about 3 million more people were infected last year. Worldwide, WHO guesses that about 33 million people have HIV.

Increasing access to testing and drugs would stretch already weak health systems in Africa, which has most of the world's HIV cases.

"This is not like giving someone a Tylenol," said Jennifer Kates, director of HIV policy for the Kaiser Family Foundation in Washington, DC. Once people start AIDS drugs, they must continue indefinitely. "The idea should be explored, but it's a huge leap," Kates said.

Handing out AIDS drugs to everyone who tests positive could also worsen drug resistance.

Erm... seeing as there is no actual cure for HIV other than "let the bastards die", don't see how this could be resolved in 10 years.

(there's an advantage to donating blood - if you donate monthly, you are tested monthly)Monthly? Certainly not with the Red Cross.

Erm... seeing as there is no actual cure for HIV other than "let the bastards die", don't see how this could be resolved in 10 years.

this article assumes people who know they have HIV will stop spreading it.
Really doesn't take into account Africa at all where some think raping a virgin or a albino can cure HIV infection.

Monthly? Certainly not with the Red Cross.

Yeah, here the IBTS only allows you to donate every ninety days.

Yeah, here the IBTS only allows you to donate every ninety days.The ARC (and to my knowledge the DRK as well) have an 8 week (i.e. bi-monthly) minimum wait time. Also, the DRK won't let you donate if you've donated 6 times in the past 12 months (unless you're a girl, in which case it's 4 times). I'd assume the ARC has similar rules. Now, I don't know the rules on plasma donations, so maybe he did that instead, or he went to a group with fewer scruples.

Edit: Likewise, I get tested. As far as I know, the blood gets tested whenever I donate, and they're required to tell me if something is wrong. But I don't get it automatically every time I get tested. I have to donate 4 times to get that kind of service (though they test for syphilis and hepatitis as well in that one).

No one is going to test me.....ever.

No one is going to test me.....ever.

*sneaks up behind Dorksonian with a syringe*

Yikes

so the cure is money ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_fMefv2euE

this article assumes people who know they have HIV will stop spreading it.
Really doesn't take into account Africa at all where some think raping a virgin or a albino can cure HIV infection.

what is it with you and making sweeping generalizations about groups of people based on the actions of some small subset of said group?

what is it with you and making sweeping generalizations about groups of people based on the actions of some small subset of said group?I don't think "some" falls into the category of "sweeping generalizations"...

I don't think "some" falls into the category of "sweeping generalizations"...

Although I was speaking about a trend I see in greed and death's posts, your point is a good one: I focused more on the "take into account Africa" and less on the "some."

Still I think the poster's intent was to smear with a broad brush.

Although I was speaking about a trend I see in greed and death's posts, your point is a good one: I focused more on the "take into account Africa" and less on the "some."

Still I think the poster's intent was to smear with a broad brush.

I'm sure he could just narrow it down to Mbeke and his political party.

Although I was speaking about a trend I see in greed and death's posts, your point is a good one: I focused more on the "take into account Africa" and less on the "some."

Still I think the poster's intent was to smear with a broad brush.I know. I certainly didn't enjoy admonishing you in his defense... =P

I'm sure he could just narrow it down to Mbeke and his political party.What group did you donate blood with?

What group did you donate blood with?

Direct to Reston Hospital.

Think about it though for a second. What if the HIV postives want to have sex?
You can't regulate sex.

I support HIV testing and treatment for those that deserve it

As far as HIV and AIDS helping kill off the blacks in africa, and homosexuals, hell, they had it coming, let them rot

Direct to Reston Hospital.Apparently the Red Cross does it there, unless I looked up the wrong hospital. I call your claim to donate blood monthly into question.

Sounds like it would be justifiable - however, if they don't come up with a test that doesn't include sticking needles into me, then I'll only be tested whenever I feel the need for it and not on a regular basis.

See, if people were willing to let go of ethics for a moment, and just do what needs to be done, we could have 'cured' HIV by now.

HIV is a virus, which means we probably won't find a medication treatment to elimates it any time soon, however, luckily for us, HIV is also very restricted in terms of movement through the population, as is all STDs.

Set up an island colony somewhere, and send all the infected to the island, keep testing for 10 years to make sure you get everyone, and then let the people on the island to die out, and take the disease with them.

The part you quoted said all people "living in countries with high infection rates". Which does not mean all people who are HIV positive. Considering that the virus started with a small number of people and spread rapidly throughout the world within a few decades, I find it hard to believe that this could not easily happen again unless every person on earth was tested.

Plus, you know, gross violation of human rights and all that.

Sounds like it would be justifiable - however, if they don't come up with a test that doesn't include sticking needles into me, then I'll only be tested whenever I feel the need for it and not on a regular basis.

They do. Saliva tests.

They do. Saliva tests.
Never heard of'em.

As people have already said, the only way this could work is by either exiling or killing all the infected. Considering that we're talking about 30+ million people (including a couple million children), that's not really going to fly.
If a vaccine or cure of some sort were developed, then I would be in favor of mandatory, international distribution. Normally, I'm against forcing or insinuating Western culture into areas where it isn't welcomed, but diseases are bigger than some dirt-farming asshole's superstition and/or penis panic.

As far as HIV and AIDS helping kill off the blacks in africa, and homosexuals, hell, they had it coming, let them rot

Because YOU are superior to them? YOU?

You are not. Before you ask who I am to make such a decision, I am Heikoku. If you don't like it, if you want to take it to a higher authority, there isn't one. It stops with ME.

See, if people were willing to let go of ethics for a moment, and just do what needs to be done, we could have 'cured' HIV by now.

HIV is a virus, which means we probably won't find a medication treatment to elimates it any time soon, however, luckily for us, HIV is also very restricted in terms of movement through the population, as is all STDs.

Set up an island colony somewhere, and send all the infected to the island, keep testing for 10 years to make sure you get everyone, and then let the people on the island to die out, and take the disease with them.

Yeah dude, it's not just ethics you're asking us to let go of, it's the ability to think as well.

First, in order to determine who goes to the island, you'd have to test everybody in order to find out. That means everybody - otherwise your 'restricted in terms of movement through the population' nonsense won't even apply. Did I mention 'everybody?' The entire global population. Every human alive. If it costs just 1 dollar to administer the test, that's 6+ billion dollars right there.

Of course, we haven't even figured in little details like how people are not going to volunteer for the "exiling everybody who fails the test" test, and in many cases will resist violently. So you add costs. Say you need one armed man per individual, just in case. Then you'll need more armed people - like a military - who can act as backup for when there's more than one person resisting. Like if there's a whole lot of people resisting. Then you'll need people to actually go out and round up anyone who hasn't taken the test, locate people who are hiding. Police, in other words. A police force capable of policing every single city and town in the world. Then too the test does NOT cost 1 dollar, it costs quite a lot more. And again we have to give it to everybody in the world.

Then after the newly formed global government, with its global police force backed by the global military, has done this we can send all the infected to Infected Island. Where will this be again? There are so very few uninhabited places, and this will need to house 33 million people, so it'll be kind of like Israel times three. An Israel designed to inflict, rather than protect the Jews against genocide. But no matter, failed analogies are the least of our problems.

Like - as it's an island, people will be able to leave by leaky refugee boat. The global military will need to keep a constant heavily armed presence surrounding the place until the population has died out. Several decades, most likely, if not more.

And of course there will be no way for this to be secretive. The world will receive transmitted videos and images of the people dying on their prison island. Youtube will show the videos of the global military shooting those leaky refugee rafts to pieces. There will be riots and rebellion.

At this point the cost is well into the trillions, the world economy is shattered, and several nations rise up in total, open warfare against a global dominion bent on savagely slaughtering its own 'citizens' after inefficiently trying to transfer them to some ridiculous island. Nuclear weapons are used - it helps that we've all let go of our ethics, see - and mankind, along with most other multicellular life-forms on Earth, dies out.

Really, it'd be more effective to just randomly execute people for no reason, put up false stories about them being AIDS infected or HIV positive. Keep this up for a few decades, eventually people will be too afraid not to use protection during sex. People don't really fear a long, slow, melodramatic death with lots of painkillers - if they did they'd use protection more than they do - but most people are afraid of a bullet in the head. The latter seems more tangible and real a threat, somehow.

So, you are clearly not fit to be the global dictator, because of your inefficient policies, while I am. VOTE ME FOR EARTH EMPEROR 2012!

Give blood routinely?

It'd help if they allowed fags (like me) to do so.

Because YOU are superior to them? YOU?

You are not. Before you ask who I am to make such a decision, I am Heikoku. If you don't like it, if you want to take it to a higher authority, there isn't one. It stops with ME.
You act ridiculous, yet, oh so cute, when on your internet bad-boy power trips.

You act ridiculous, yet, oh so cute, when on your internet bad-boy power trips.

And you seem to have enough of an interest in me to answer just about ANY of my posts, regardless of the fact that I was addressing a person who said, and I quote, "As far as HIV and AIDS helping kill off the blacks in africa, and homosexuals, hell, they had it coming, let them rot".

I am, for now, assuming you are not coming to his aid. As I am, again for now, assuming you do not agree with him. As such, and given that you seem to have answered me here just to irk me, unless you agree with him and think he needs your help, I ask:

What the hell is your problem?

What the hell is your problem?

He has a man crush on you, hence why he wants to cause a ruckus. He thinks its cute when you get mad.

:p

He has a man crush on you, hence why he wants to cause a ruckus. He thinks its cute when you get mad.

:p

1- Though I support gays, I am not one.

2- I'd not give TAI the time of the day even if I were gay/female and a nympho. :p

And you seem to have enough of an interest in me to answer just about ANY of my posts, regardless of the fact that I was addressing a person who said, and I quote, "As far as HIV and AIDS helping kill off the blacks in africa, and homosexuals, hell, they had it coming, let them rot".

I am, for now, assuming you are not coming to his aid. As I am, again for now, assuming you do not agree with him. As such, and given that you seem to have answered me here just to irk me, unless you agree with him and think he needs your help, I ask:

What the hell is your problem?

He is a mix of some kind of East-German Communist and super Racist troll that no body takes seriously...and you come in here acting like a wannabe bad-boy (my guess being because everyone would laugh at you in real life if you tried to carry yourself like that) on some ridiculous internet power trip.

Obviously since he is a troll that nobody takes seriously I'm assuming you're just entertaining us with your ridiculousness, duh :)

He has a man crush on you, hence why he wants to cause a ruckus. He thinks its cute when you get mad.

:p

Actually, forget my above post, this is even better. :p

He is a mix of some kind of East-German Communist and super Racist troll that no body takes seriously...and you come in here acting like a wannabe bad-boy (my guess being because everyone would laugh at you in real life if you tried to carry yourself like that) on some ridiculous internet power trip.

Obviously since he is a troll that nobody takes seriously I'm assuming you're just entertaining us with your ridiculousness, duh :)

Oh, I see. So you only came here to call me ridiculous using as a poor excuse the way I was entertaining myself - not you or anyone else, ME - with him?

And you admit it?

2- I'd not give TAI the time of the day even if I were gay/female and a nympho. :p
Who are you lying to, us or yourself? Don't fool yourself....the only reason that I don't travel to Brazil is because I don't want you all over me.:p

All the people who have told me (in great detail that I didn't want to know) said they take like a stick thingy and insert it into your area....if you catch my drift
What? That's not true...if by 'area' you mean genital region.

While I am tested monthly (there's an advantage to donating blood - if you donate monthly, you are tested monthly),

One does not donate blood monthly...

One does not donate blood monthly...

Oh? What's the periodicity?

First, in order to determine who goes to the island, you'd have to test everybody in order to find out. That means everybody - otherwise your 'restricted in terms of movement through the population' nonsense won't even apply. Did I mention 'everybody?' The entire global population. Every human alive. If it costs just 1 dollar to administer the test, that's 6+ billion dollars right there.
Correction, all you need to do is cull the medical records for those with the disease in the developed world; you'll get a good number that way.

Secondly, the testing can be made more passive in nature; you want a loan from a bank? Get tested. You want a SIN? Get tested? Want to go to public schools? Get tested. Want to vote? Get tested.


Of course, we haven't even figured in little details like how people are not going to volunteer for the "exiling everybody who fails the test" test,
Once we have a nearly complete record of everyone's blood test, we can seek out those who have yet to submit to the test; if they resist, you kill them. After so many examples, the others will fall in line.

Where will this be again? There are so very few uninhabited places, Not really, there are very, very many uninhabited places, if you know where to look. This island doesn't need to be a real island, of course, it could be a section of quarantined desert.


Like - as it's an island, people will be able to leave by leaky refugee boat. The global military will need to keep a constant heavily armed presence surrounding the place until the population has died out. Several decades, most likely, if not more.

I daresay you need not have a 'heavily armed presence' to kill some idiots in a leaky boat; a single Aircraft carrier using UAWs would do the trick nicely.

Oh? What's the periodicity?
Here it's 4 (women) to 6 (men) times a year, 8 weeks apart.

Correction, all you need to do is cull the medical records for those with the disease in the developed world; you'll get a good number that way.

Secondly, the testing can be made more passive in nature; you want a loan from a bank? Get tested. You want a SIN? Get tested? Want to go to public schools? Get tested. Want to vote? Get tested.


Once we have a nearly complete record of everyone's blood test, we can seek out those who have yet to submit to the test; if they resist, you kill them. After so many examples, the others will fall in line.

Not really, there are very, very many uninhabited places, if you know where to look. This island doesn't need to be a real island, of course, it could be a section of quarantined desert.



I daresay you need not have a 'heavily armed presence' to kill some idiots in a leaky boat; a single Aircraft carrier using UAWs would do the trick nicely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leper_colony

Yeah. That works. :rolleyes:

I heard the shove a cue tip up your shaft (for men) when they test you, so, no, I don't not want to be tested.

Yeah I'd have no problem with it. Sadly a few billions doesn't seem to be anything anyone is interested (or in some cases capable) of doing at this time.

this article assumes people who know they have HIV will stop spreading it.

That's the problem. That's exactly the problem.

I suspect that the research program being volunteer-only, didn't include the large number of people who would never dream that they have HIV, nor even believe it when told of the test results, nor even accept the drug treatment with its side effects when in fact they don't have any symptoms (ie are HIV+ but don't have AIDS yet.)

Compulsory testing MIGHT happen. Compulsory treatment, not a hope in hell.

No. It's not worth it.

Skip treatment. They die faster, and it's cheaper.

There's a problem with that. AIDS infection, even realization of it, doesn't mean that people will stop spreading the disease.

I don't "fool around" or do drugs. Why should I be forced to be tested? Besides, how do you treat false positive (they happen) and false negatives (probably going to happen)?

I don't "fool around" or do drugs. Why should I be forced to be tested?

Because "I don't fool around or do drugs" is exactly what anyone who didn't want to be tested can say. Why should anybody take your word for that?

Besides, how do you treat false positive (they happen) and false negatives (probably going to happen)?

Positives would be retested I guess.
False negatives, well, they'll turn positive eventually.

Because "I don't fool around or do drugs" is exactly what anyone who didn't want to be tested can say. Why should anybody take your word for that?

So presumption of guilt is OK? Compulsory testing is OK? What will the testing lead to? Would the information be secure? History suggests no. Will the information be used only for noble and altruistic purposes? Again, I suspect no.

Positives would be retested I guess. False negatives, well, they'll turn positive eventually.

And how do you deal with the potential stigma while the false positive is in effect? What will be the consequences? Someone gets a false negative and decides to get it on. Who is responsible for the resultant infection potential?

This seems too good to be true. HIV drugs cost about $12,000 a year, and since we have 33 million people infected around the world, that would suggest over a hundred times that peak cost estimate given, not to mention the cost of regularly testing about a billion people and distributing all these drugs in areas with low infrastructure. I assume a lot of money will be saved by taking pharmaceutical companies out of the equation - if someone could enlighten me further on that it would be interesting - but I'm still suspicious. I'd like to see where they get their figures from.

I don't know if people have missed that under this proposal only people living in countries with high infection rates would be affected, so most of NS' opinions probably wouldn't matter.

So presumption of guilt is OK? Compulsory testing is OK? What will the testing lead to? Would the information be secure? History suggests no. Will the information be used only for noble and altruistic purposes? Again, I suspect no.

I don't think it's a good idea. But you're objecting for all the wrong reasons -- pretty much that if government tries to do it, or the UN tries to do it, they must have evil intentions.

I object because it wouldn't work. There would be health workers dragged through the streets behind pickup trucks, there would be camps with barbed wire to keep the "positives" on their meds, which for lack of symptoms and lack of faith in medical care, they would perceive as little more than forced poisoning (side-effects of HIV treatments.)

Horrendously expensive even if it was accepted, forced treatment would blow the budget of the G4/UN if it also required military occupation of the "patient" countries. Which it pretty much would.

That you see the problem as "OMG, government trying to invade my privacy" is rather pathetic.

And how do you deal with the potential stigma while the false positive is in effect? What will be the consequences? Someone gets a false negative and decides to get it on. Who is responsible for the resultant infection potential?

No problem there which does not already exist with voluntary testing and voluntary treatment.

I don't know if people have missed that under this proposal only people living in countries with high infection rates would be affected, so most of NS' opinions probably wouldn't matter.

China will probably do something like that. I don't see any of the other countries with growing problems having a strong enough government to enforce compulsory testing. Not even India ...

The rich countries, through the UN, could commission enough of the drugs, and make them freely available world-wide. Any half-measures there leave open a black market, and the poorest sufferers won't get theirs no matter how many soldiers are sent to deliver it.

We've wiped out entire species of bacteria and viri before, we can do it again!

We've wiped out entire species of bacteria and viri before, we can do it again!

Yet we still have syphilis hanging around. I blame the discovery of penicillin for that. Fucking penicillin.