It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
believe that sexual behaviors that could lead to the transmission of HIV, like unprotected sex, are less risky" if viral levels are low
(source)
Originally posted by Nygdan
I was reading earlier that AIDS infections, in particular amoung youths, are increasing steadily. The authors of the study attribute this to a casual attitude about the disease. The reasoning is that the various and effective cocktails of anti-viral drugs that are out there are prolonging the 'infected but not symptomatic' stage, and that this results in a perception that aids isn't all that bad. Witness the recent reports of actual "bug chasers".
Some youths, who are infected with HIV :
believe that sexual behaviors that could lead to the transmission of HIV, like unprotected sex, are less risky" if viral levels are low
(source)
This may have, in my understanding, helped result in the formation of the new drug-resistant and rapid onset version of the incurable and fatal disease. You see, lots of diseases have 'alternate' versions that rapidly kill their victims/hosts. THis is perplexing, because its in the 'interests of the disease' to kill people slowly, so as to spread to the most number of victims and result in the highest numbers of disease organisms. Its understood now tho that these rapid onset diseases with high fatality rates are 'more fit' than their relatively docile counterparts when infection rates are high. IOW, having a population wherein infections can occur at high rates practically results in the creation of these more virulent forms.
So now the subject matter. Distributing anti-viral AIDs cocktails to prolong life and reduce onset of fullblown AIDS in those infected with HIV has resulted in a situation where the population effectively creates new and more powerful and, importantly, more infectious, versions of the disease, along with a social attitude that in itself promotes not merely lax sexual practices amoung the population of non-infectives or those unaware that they are infected, but actual permisivity amoung those knowingly infected.
In order to prevent the spread and increase in disease virulence, to attain the greatest good for the greatest number of people, should non-cure symptom treatments and such be prohibited?
And, importantly, if not, then why permit a minority of people to not suffer for a slightly longer period of time, if it comes at the cost of many many more lives?
Originally posted by Nygdan
In order to prevent the spread and increase in disease virulence, to attain the greatest good for the greatest number of people, should non-cure symptom treatments and such be prohibited?
And, importantly, if not, then why permit a minority of people to not suffer for a slightly longer period of time, if it comes at the cost of many many more lives?
Originally posted by lmgnyc
Your hypothesis is based on distorted information and regardless, rather draconian.
Condemning hundreds of thousands of people to death
seems to mask a larger and more sinister agenda, no?
First off, the existence of a "super-strain" of AIDS is still unknown as there has only been one confirmed case
How about abstinence education.
These programs sometimes teach nothing more about HIV/AIDS than to avoid getting it, don't have sex until you are married.
should be followed with accurate information on how to protect yourself when the inevitable happens.
So no, I don't think that treatment should be held back from those who contract HIV/AIDS "for the greater good."
People with HIV/AIDs aren't an isolated group of homosexuals, drug users, freaks and felons[p/quote]
Excuse me, but I never even suggested that. And I take great offense if you infact are implying that I do suggest it. I can only assume that I have misunderstood your drift in the above. Is that correct?
it is a global problem that will effect all of us if it is left unchecked
And how will the globe and history look upon a social decision to allow a more virulent, more terrible, and more destructive virus come into being? The decision to do nothing when aids was spreading the first time was a great folly. COuld not this similiar decision be seen as again doing nothing?
soficrow
Quarantine camps maybe?
And what would be wrong with that? How would you suggest a segement of a population that has bubonic plague be treated? Especially if all they had to do to prevent the spread of plague was wear a surgeons mask? I certainly don't suggest that that is what shoudl be done with AIDS victims. I suspect that what will really happen with this new variant is that lots of people will get disgustingly and terrifyingly sick very quickly and die off in large numbers, putting it in the forfront and making people scared of catching the disease again, thus proding them into being careful and reducing transmission.
Indeed, camps are uncessary, because AIDS is not a highly transmitable disease. Any disease where you can make out with the person who has it and not have much of a chance of catching it has a 'low infectious ability'. Realistically and generally, only sex spreads it. So people who have it don't have unprotected sex, at the very least.
What would you suggest be done with someone who has AIDs, but refuses to stop having sex with ignorant partners in an unprotected manner? Would you say that such a person has committed a crime? Would a crime not warrant imprisonment? How is that logic different from concentration camps? Anyway, its an unrealistic scenario, the vast majority of people with AIDS are hopefully not transmitting it, so there is no reason to quarentine them. If they were, then, why not?
believe that sexual behaviors that could lead to the transmission of HIV, like unprotected sex, are less risky" if viral levels are low
(source)
Originally posted by Nygdan
In order to prevent the spread and increase in disease virulence, to attain the greatest good for the greatest number of people, should non-cure symptom treatments and such be prohibited?
Originally posted by Nygdan
Everyone infected with AIDs is going to die. THere is no cure. They are all already dead. There is no getting around this for now.
Absurd. AIDs is a STD. Any prevention program logically has to focus on not engaging in the very behaviour that is the only real thing that transmits this disease. I certainly don't think ab education is going to solve anything, but to suggest that a programme that focuses on abstinence is somehow resulting in more dangerous sexual activity is a stretch.
Well, lets ignore the fact that that would stop this disease dead in its tracks. Yes transfusions can spread it, but lets be serious for a moment, its spread thru sexual activity, decrease the number of sex acts, or sex partners, and you decrease the infection rate.
Indeed, this is the general programme of sex education. An 'abstinence only' programme is rare in the extreme, certainly in NYC where a third of this study was conducted.
My scenario is that there is infact this rapid onset, as has been reported. And that the current programme of sex ed, which is the programme you describe, is ineffective, de facto
Given that, to prevent millions more from becomming infected, and getting inffected with a rapid untreatable variant, why not withhold treatment ( to increase public fear of aids?). We are talking about limiting the number of people suffering from aids symptoms and dying of the disease no? SO what sit idle and not just allow, but create (as a society) the evolutionary conditions requisite to make this rapid onset&untreatable type more fit? Do nothing and the current batch of aids patients wait another decade to die from it, but meanwhile they are replaced by an even greater number of people who die horribly and with much suffering.
People with HIV/AIDs aren't an isolated group of homosexuals, drug users, freaks and felons[p/quote]
Excuse me, but I never even suggested that. And I take great offense if you infact are implying that I do suggest it. I can only assume that I have misunderstood your drift in the above. Is that correct?
And how will the globe and history look upon a social decision to allow a more virulent, more terrible, and more destructive virus come into being? The decision to do nothing when aids was spreading the first time was a great folly. COuld not this similiar decision be seen as again doing nothing?
Originally posted by noctu
viruses mutate over time anyways if you apply this to hiv/aids then are you willing to apply this to anti biotics as well? I bet your not
surfup
If scientists and researchers had taken this kind of attitude a hundred years ago, a lot of us would be suffering from Polio
Contrary to the notion that the virus evolution is bad, it is not. There are many possible side effects to this. For example evolution from the wild type could lead to a newer form of virus, that could co exist with us.
vanguard
look up Eugenics to fight your corner.
lmgnyc
People are living with AIDS.
Are you suggesting that these people should be abandoned?
I would say that teaching safe-sex and accurate information on transmission is more realistic.
Why use an obscure example of aberrant behavior that clearly doesn't represent the majority of the population as a basis for an argument to kill hundreds of thousands of people?
Can't this be accomplished by having P.Diddy create an educational video instead?
mainly due to their self-deafeating social behavior
Why not suggest that we forcefeed fat people a pound of lard every day or put more toxins in cigarettes to speed up these people's deaths?
are you suggesting that allowing a virulent strain of AIDS to ravage new generations of uneducated teens would somehow make the world look upon us more favorably?