World AIDS Day

[sKorpia]

This isn't the 80s. We know more about HIV, how it works, sometimes how to block it from working. It's not just "that gay disease." We know the virus doesn't discriminate between race or gender.

We know it's no longer a death sentence. A positive diagnosis in the early stages means a life filled with strict drug regimens and their associated side effects, but it also means living. You can be almost normal again. Things are good, right? No worries?

Well, while the attention around HIV and AIDS has quieted, the epidemic is still among us and the worst thing we, as a species, could do is to let the issue fall into complacency. The numbers of newly infected in Asia are rising rapidly. According to reports, the face of HIV/AIDS is also changing into a female one; the numbers of heterosexual females who are infected are rising as well.

So why am I posting this? Just doing my part, spreading awareness. It's not gone; it's actually not getting much better either. And we shouldn't forget that.

Dec. 1: World AIDS Day (http://www.worldaidsday.org/index.asp)

[Zach]

I'm so tired of this "Safe sex" bullcrap these websites and ads put out. Condoms have a 20% failure rating and AIDS travels through the pores of a condom...I figure you just wati until your married and then start screwing...

[sKorpia]

I don't think the young South and East Asian girls forced into being sex workers really get a say in what type of sex they practice, so an 80% protection rate (I think your number's a bit inflated though) is better than absolutely no protection at all. And what about those instances of transmission between people in long-term relationships? Part of the reason why Africa's numbers haven't declined even though more effort has been put into fighting the virus there is because of the social acceptability of having 2-3 long-term partners simultaneously (1 wife, a couple of "secret" mistresses on the side).

And of course, by that logic, transmission will just shift from singles to those in marriages. The transmission rates would be even higher since repeated exposure greatly increases the risk on infection; it's actually rather hard to contract HIV from a single encounter. It's not like getting married prevents HIV transmission.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,


I'm so tired of this "Safe sex" bullcrap these websites and ads put out. Condoms have a 20% failure rating and AIDS travels through the pores of a condom...I figure you just wati until your married and then start screwing...
According to this article from Consumer Reports (http://sqzm14.ust.hk/condom-ratings-95.HTML) (admittedly from 1995), condom failure rates are approximately 12%, not 20%, and that failure rate only applies to breakage. Proper usage apparently drops that number to 2-3%.

Your claim that AIDS will pass through the pores of a condom applies only to the "natural" ones; latex condoms do effectively block STD viruses when used properly (so says the FDA, anyway (http://www.fda.gov/oashi/aids/condom.html)).

Abstinence is still the only 100% guaranteed way to avoid transmission of STDs, but as sKorpia correctly points out, waiting 'till you're married isn't going to help you if your partner has AIDS to begin with.

-- Ed/Ace

[DisneyBoy]

"Proper condom use" this..."awareness that" that...

Sex just isn't worth it anymore. It's become fear factor. How much fun could anyone be having when the possibility of a slow, painful death is ever present?

Don't answer that.


Adopt instead.

[MahouShoujo13]

Well...the safest way to not get STDs like AIDS is Abstinence. I'd rather wait for that special guy; why risk getting it while doing a one night stand?

Well, I agree what Ace said, latex condoms do work for people that are sexually active. But some people still don't use condoms...

Well....you could get you and your partner tested. At least you know you and your significant other has AIDS/HIV or not.

Adoption...let's see...well, later on in life the child will know s/he does not actually belong in the family and will search for clues about his/her birthparents. Rather have my own than lie to a kid that I have to take care of and become his/her parent.

One person at another board I'm in thought that becoming married (heterosexual way) would prevent AIDS. I tried to prove he was wrong, but in one post I said that the thread should be closed because it was going to become a personal war, which is now closed.

[Zebi]

I'm very happy to see World AIDS Day didn't go unmentioned here. :) Thank you sKorpia for posting the thread. I'm not affected by the disease, but I do the annual AIDS Walks in my community, and have just recently begun to do volunteer work for the group in my community.

[cross blues]

most people that contract the virus do so through their own actions. they are not victims.

if you spit into the wind, it blows back in your face.

[randomguy]

most people that contract the virus do so through their own actions. they are not victims.

if you spit into the wind, it blows back in your face.In many, many parts of the world, people are so uneducated about AIDS and how it spreads that they can hardly be faulted for not knowing how to avoid it. Lies and falsehoods concerning the disease are so widespread in the developing nations that few people can distinguish from what's rumor and what's fact. Furthermore, thousands upon thousands of people a year are born with AIDS/HIV and are hardly culpable for the suffering they'll have to endure.

Even those who do contract the disease through their own actions still don't deserve to spend their lives fighting an oftentimes crippling illness. I'd encourage you not to be so dismissive.

You can find an excellent summary of worldwide AIDS statistics here (http://www.avert.org/statindx.htm). Anyone interested in doing their part to fight the spread of AIDS can hit up the UN's offical page (http://www.unaids.org/en/default.asp) on the subject, which has many possible courses of action you can look into. The Official World AIDS Day website also has an excellent "Get Involved" (http://www.worldaidsday.org/getinvolved.asp) page.

[Caffeine King]

:( I hope that they come close to finding a cure soon...

I just feel like saying this but, I hate it when people say stuff like "anybody with AIDS is an idiot and whoever has it should be shipped off to an island, it's their own fault!"

How ignorant. :mad:

[cross blues]

In many, many parts of the world, people are so uneducated about AIDS and how it spreads that they can hardly be faulted for not knowing how to avoid it. Lies and falsehoods concerning the disease are so widespread in the developing nations that few people can distinguish from what's rumor and what's fact. Furthermore, thousands upon thousands of people a year are born with AIDS/HIV and are hardly culpable for the suffering they'll have to endure. oh come on, where do you think the money goes? it's being used to EDUCATE people and sometimes even provide condoms. the problem is, most of the time the condoms aren't used even after the people understand the risks of HIV. are you going to tell me those people AREN'T morons? I do agree with your statement about those unfortunate enough to be born with the virus. that's why I said "most people" in my previous post.


Even those who do contract the disease through their own actions still don't deserve to spend their lives fighting an oftentimes crippling illness. I'd encourage you not to be so dismissive. until there are cures for diseases like cancer and diabetes, I don't think time or money should be spent on AIDS research. you have the links to the site. I'm sure you've read that the new treatment allows people with AIDS to live longer, and in that time those infected people are spreading the virus even more.

[Eddie G.]

oh come on, where do you think the money goes? it's being used to EDUCATE people and sometimes even provide condoms. the problem is, most of the time the condoms aren't used even after the people understand the risks of HIV. are you going to tell me those people AREN'T morons? I do agree with your statement about those unfortunate enough to be born with the virus. that's why I said "most people" in my previous post.You're thinking of in terms of the United States, there are nations where people are either uneducated or in some sad cases there are woman in poor nations who are aware of the risks but either have sex for money or are forced into having sex. Which brings us to the fact that some HIV/AIDS victims are also rape victims. You also have to account for children who are infected through mother's breast millk or born with it. You also have to consider that there are HIV/AIDS victims who recieve the disease from a partner and even spouse they have trust in. Then we have tons of freak accidents involving blood and people who grow up in bad situations leading to drug abuse which leads to them getting the disease. Then we have the fact that a lot of people in this country still don't think that you can be infected by oral and anal sex.



until there are cures for diseases like cancer and diabetes, I don't think time or money should be spent on AIDS research. you have the links to the site. I'm sure you've read that the new treatment allows people with AIDS to live longer, and in that time those infected people are spreading the virus even more.
But there are people who also get cancer and diabetes through their own actions, why should we give a damn about them?

Listen man, I have friends who smoke, I have friends who get arrested, I have friends who sleep around just a little too much, I friends who over eat, and I have friends who under eat, and I'm just a plain idiot in some of the things I try to do. But you know what, I help them, because in the end that's all any of us can do, try our best to help each other out.

Anyway for the sake of all HIV/AIDS victims I hope a cure is found soon, I really do.

[CookieS]

The worst thing about AIDS in the US, is that within the last decade more young people are taking a risk. I watched an MTV News clip that quoted a girl saying she thought the AID epidemic was over since she never hears about it anymore on TV. Boy, what a sheltered life.

I'm gald we can talk about this issue, and I think awareness of the disease around the world is what will help get more research done to perhaps eliminate it one day.

[sKorpia]

oh come on, where do you think the money goes? it's being used to EDUCATE people and sometimes even provide condoms. the problem is, most of the time the condoms aren't used even after the people understand the risks of HIV. are you going to tell me those people AREN'T morons? I do agree with your statement about those unfortunate enough to be born with the virus. that's why I said "most people" in my previous post.

until there are cures for diseases like cancer and diabetes, I don't think time or money should be spent on AIDS research. you have the links to the site. I'm sure you've read that the new treatment allows people with AIDS to live longer, and in that time those infected people are spreading the virus even more.
Most of the U.S. money is going towards "abstinence only" awareness programs throughout the world, which is an extremely short-sighted and ultimately dangerous philosophy to hold with HIV. "Originally, President Bush pledged $15 billion to AIDS relief through the Global Fund [to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria]. However, the administration has instead decided to move forward with its own plan - the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) - to provide financial support for governments and community groups in developing countries....Activists criticize PEPFAR because it allows the Bush administration to handpick governments and community groups whose prevention and treatment policies coincide with the Bush administration. The policies that are favored by the administration are primarily those promoting sexual abstinence instead of condom use and safer sex education and that attempt to block development and access to cheap (generic) drugs in poorer nations" ("Access for All: The Politics of Leadership", Positively Aware, Sept/Oct 2004). This isn't education; it's the covert enforcement of one set of ideals on societies which don't necessarily hold those same ideals. It ignores the fact that, throughout the rest of the world, women are still subject to the ultimate authority of the men. Just because they say "No" doesn't mean the men will listen. Just because they want to use a condom doesn't change the social belief that using a condom makes you less of a man. Just because they want to protect themselves doesn't make men suddenly respect women as people. The education needed is much broader than you realize. "Stigma, discrimination and isolation due to one's HIV status are as much a problem in Thailand and other parts of Asia as it is elsewhere. Women are stoned to death, neighbors shun families, and children are ostracized in school. This goes on largely without the influence of media and the politicization of AIDS that has occurred in the U.S." ("Access"). Changes need to be made at legislative levels (women's rights, healthcare) and at social levels (removal of stigma, gender equality in terms of respect) too. There are still hospitals and healthcare workers who will refuse treatment to a person whom they know is HIV-positive. Knowing about the virus, how it's transmitted, and how to protect yourself is just the tip of the iceberg.

Diabetes and cancer are not transmittable diseases. You can't give someone cancer or diabetes, even if you tried. But HIV is transmittable and that's why it's more dangerous than either of these two. Before the introduction of convenience and refined sugars, the major epidemics belonged to the realm of bacterial and viral infection.

The implication of your last statement leads directly to social ostracization and refusal of treatment. By extension, if we treat HIV-positive people this way, why should we bother to treat anybody for anything at all? Let STDs run rampant. Allow the flu to kill infants and the elderly. We should quarantine all sick people, not allow them the dignities of human life such as friendship, community, and even love. Slippery slope indeed.

[cross blues]

The implication of your last statement leads directly to social ostracization and refusal of treatment. By extension, if we treat HIV-positive people this way, why should we bother to treat anybody for anything at all? Let STDs run rampant. Allow the flu to kill infants and the elderly. We should quarantine all sick people, not allow them the dignities of human life such as friendship, community, and even love. Slippery slope indeed. I didn't mean to go so far as to imply "refuse treatment of AIDS victims". but the treatment allows them to live longer lives, and with that time they are transmitting the virus to even more people. so while this treatment may be good for a few people, it is actually worse for the general population, don't you think? what annoys me most is that I think the treatment is more to make money than to help people. but I always think that way.

I'd like to talk about the Bush administration's plan (or lack thereof), but I think that would be cause enough to close the thread. I am curious, though, about where that $15 billion went.:confused: it can't possibly be that expensive to go around telling people "don't have sex".

[Shnay]

but the treatment allows them to live longer lives, and with that time they are transmitting the virus to even more people.I don't have any stats to back this up, but I think that the vast majority of people being treated for AIDS are not spreading it to others. I think it is mostly spread before one finds out that he or she has it.


what annoys me most is that I think the treatment is more to make money than to help people. but I always think that way.There are certainly many things in this world that are driven by the dollar, but I don't think AIDS treatment is one of those things.

[Eddie G.]

I didn't mean to go so far as to imply "refuse treatment of AIDS victims". but the treatment allows them to live longer lives, and with that time they are transmitting the virus to even more people. so while this treatment may be good for a few people, it is actually worse for the general population, don't you think? what annoys me most is that I think the treatment is more to make money than to help people. but I always think that way.
But a good portion of people going for treatment wouldn't be those who continue to spread the virus by intention.

[randomguy]

I didn't mean to go so far as to imply "refuse treatment of AIDS victims". but the treatment allows them to live longer lives, and with that time they are transmitting the virus to even more people. so while this treatment may be good for a few people, it is actually worse for the general population, don't you think?Well, as has been said, in the developed countries, those who have discovered that they have AIDS generally don't spread it. And those in the developing countries often just don't know better, which is where that education part comes in. I agree that just throwing money at the problem isn't the ideal way to go about things. There needs to be a reasonably comprehensive overhaul of how AIDS treatment is funded, but that's true of nearly every initiative on a global scale. Doesn't mean we can't make our best effort.

But beyond that, even if (and I'm conceding this for the sake of argument, not because I believe it) those who have AIDS have contracted it through entirely their own fault, I still think treatment is something we should fight for. Have they made a mistake? Of course. But, frequently, so have people who suffer from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc. Would stuffing all AIDS victims into a quarantined zone and letting them die off solve the problem in the long-term? Yeah, I guess so. But the fact of the matter is, our basic humanity and sense of compassion compels us to extend the lives of our fellow man, because we'd want them to do the same for us. Even for those who've made mistakes, we fight to keep AIDS sufferers alive, because it's the right thing to do. I can't stand idly by and let another human being suffer, even if they've earned it to a certain extent.

I wish to stress that I believe we can have it both ways, fighting both the spread of the disease and helping those who suffer from it. I figure this solution has the best balance of pragmatism and compassion.

[sKorpia]

I'd like to talk about the Bush administration's plan (or lack thereof), but I think that would be cause enough to close the thread. I am curious, though, about where that $15 billion went.:confused: it can't possibly be that expensive to go around telling people "don't have sex".
A slippery slope tends to start out with "I didn't mean to . . . "

Part of the $15 billion pledged did go to the Global Fund, but not all of it, which is why the activists at the International AIDS Conference in Thailand were accusing President Bush of failing to live up to his obligations. He instead earmarked money for his own PEPFAR program.

Money is used for educational materials (pamphlets, posters, condoms and the like), building and/or equipping clinics and pay for the health care professionals who work at those clinics. There are probably other expenses, maybe a means of transportation to reach patients in rural areas who have no other means of obtaining treatment . . . if the clinic is lucky enough to have money available. And, of course, the antiretroviral therapies cost a lot of money too. Education and treatment go hand-in-hand in the clinical HIV/AIDS world.

The conditions of some of these clinics is shocking. They're doing the best they can but they still have glass syringes, which they sterilize in bleach. Sharps containers don't really exist, nor do disposable supplies like gloves and masks.