More people living with HIV then ever before

[Texashiker]

I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks HIV treatment and research is a waste of resources just doesn't get the big picture... and knows woefully little about medicine.

The research into HIV over the last 25 years has led the fight against viruses. Who knows, maybe in a few years viral infections will be as easy to treat as a bacterial infection.

Got HIV, Hep B, Hep C,,, no problem, all you need is take these pills for a week and that pesky virus will be cleared from your system.

I think mankind is in a race against the HIV virus. Its going to get to the point where our future is at risk over the financial cost, or we will have to have a cure.

There have been some news articles in the past few years that talked about the cost of HIV. If something is not done, and soon, the future does not look to good.

 

[zsdersw]

Your article is from 2005. The link I provided talks about studies in 2006 and later.

Oh yes, that's right... 2006 and 2007 are "new and current" while 2005 is "ancient".

Incorrect.

 

[Dari]

Oh yes, that's right... 2006 and 2007 are "new and current" while 2005 is "ancient".

Incorrect.

Yep. And don't forget the one TH linked to as well. It's no myth and if you're not careful you can get it.

 

[zsdersw]

I think mankind is in a race against the HIV virus. Its going to get to the point where our future is at risk over the financial cost, or we will have to have a cure.

There have been some news articles in the past few years that talked about the cost of HIV. If something is not done, and soon, the future does not look to good.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/52525.php

The research shows that differences in medical care result in dissimilar costs--both direct and indirect � for various racial/ethnic groups. "We found that direct costs were lower and productivity losses were higher for minorities," says Dr. Hutchinson.

Specifically, minorities incur fewer direct medical costs than whites ($160,400 for blacks on average, compared with $180,900 for whites), but suffer greater financial damage from lost productivity ($838,000 for Hispanics and $766,800 for blacks on average, compared with $661,100 for whites).

The differences, according to Hutchinson, reflect disparities in treatment. Minorities are, on average, diagnosed at later stages of the disease than whites. In addition, whites with HIV/AIDS are more likely to receive antiretroviral therapy (ART).

As Dr. Hutchinson notes, "ART is not used universally because it is expensive. Many patients with HIV/AIDS do not have health insurance and/or do not have access to ART."

Though ART is costly, it has proven very effective at extending lives, and productivity. The researchers found that ART patients have direct medical costs averaging $230,044, with a projected life expectancy of 24.4 years. Patients not receiving ART have direct medical costs of approximately $114,938, with a projected life expectancy of 12.4 years.

The additional years of productivity after being treated with ART mean that the more expensive treatment is actually more cost effective in the long run. "Universal access to treatment would be cost saving," says Dr. Paul Farnham, a co-author and economist from the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University, "because it decreases the years of life lost from the illness, and thus lowers productivity losses more than it increases the direct medical costs."

Besides recommending such universal access, the paper also emphasizes the importance of diagnosing the disease early. As Dr. Hutchinson explains, in order to narrow the treatment divide and expense gap among racial/ethnic groups with HIV/AIDS, "There needs to be a focus on earlier diagnosis, particularly for minorities."

This article mentions that the costs in lost productivity and direct medical care can be more offset by earlier and more comprehensive treatment (ART). It makes the case for treatment, not for quarantines.

 

[umbrella39]

I've never in my life seen someone so fucking consumed with FUD. You must have a massive bed under which to hide... My condolences to the people who you rub off on.

 

[zsdersw]

Yep.

Nope. Your article points to 2005 sources, mostly.. with one from 2006 and one from 2007. That's not any significant amount newer than the article I mentioned.

 

[Throckmorton]

According to the CDC, 1/5 of men who have sex with men (MSM) in America is HIV+, and the rate if infection is increasing. That's not a typo. One in five. So the long survival times are now an issue. The CDC says that gay men tend to think HIV isn't that big a deal so they don't worry about protection. It's also politically incorrect to associate HIV with homosexuality, so we aren't educating people like we should.


Think it doesn't affect you because you aren't a gay male? Well HIV can go undetected by tests for up to 6 months. There are gay men who give blood because they think it's unfair for them to be banned when they're HIV-. See the problem?

 

[Texashiker]

According to the CDC, 1/5 of men who have sex with men (MSM) in America is HIV+, and the rate if infection is increasing. So the long survival times are now an issue. The CDC says that gay men tend to think HIV isn't that big a deal. It's also politically incorrect to associate HIV with homosexuality, so we aren't educating people like we should.

With the long survival times, I wonder if people are developing a relaxed attitude about HIV?

1980s and 1990s - People saw HIV as a death sentence, it was something to be afraid of.

2000s - People see HIV as nothing more then taking a few pills everyday.

I have seen several news stories saying HIV is no longer a death sentence. With articles like that, I wonder if people are getting more reckless?

 

[Throckmorton]

Where did zsdersw say anything about their right to willfully infect others? It's about letting people live their lives. There's laws against knowingly infecting others. That doesn't mean every last person with HIV/AIDS actively seeks to do so.

Prisons don't separate inmates with HIV, because this is considered cruel.

We all know what happens in prisons. But of course the rights of the infected to not have their feelings hurt trump the rights of the uninfected to stay that way.


http://www.avert.org/prisons-hiv-aids.htm

Here's what makes no sense. Avert.org lists the transmission paths between prisoners and explains why HIV spreads so easily in prison:

As it is difficult for researchers to gain access to prisoners, there are few documented cases of HIV transmission within prisons.14 However, this does not mean that HIV is not a significant risk to prisoners.

“Prison conditions are often ideal breeding grounds for onward transmission of HIV infection. They are frequently overcrowded. They commonly operate in an atmosphere of violence and fear. Tensions abound, including sexual tensions. Release from these tensions, and from the boredom of prison life, is often found in the consumption of drugs or in sex.” UNAIDS15​

Although this view from UNAIDS refers to prisons in the 1990s, it still applies to many prisons across the world today. Injecting drug use, high-risk sexual behaviour, and tattooing are common within prisons, each posing a risk of HIV transmission. According to studies, a record of incarceration is often associated with HIV infection, particularly in western and southern Europe.16

Then they defy common sense and claim that separating them doesn't reduce the spread of HIV. Really? Not allowing sexual contact, or violence, or tattooing, or needle sharing between prisoners doesn't reduce the spread of HIV? How can they just ignore everything they just said?

Separate housing for HIV positive prisoners does not reduce the spread of STDs or other blood-borne infections, has few healthcare benefits and increases HIV related stigma from other inmates and staff.76

 

[zsdersw]

But of course the rights of the infected to not have their feelings hurt trump the rights of the uninfected to stay that way.

In situations where sexual activity is consensual who should/shouldn't be punished? Those are a hell of a lot more common than prison stuff.

 

[zsdersw]

With the long survival times, I wonder if people are developing a relaxed attitude about HIV?

1980s and 1990s - People saw HIV as a death sentence, it was something to be afraid of.

2000s - People see HIV as nothing more then taking a few pills everyday.

I have seen several news stories saying HIV is no longer a death sentence. With articles like that, I wonder if people are getting more reckless?

Probably, but that is a matter of individual stupidity.

 

[Nebor]

Texashiker seems to be discounting the fact that people can carry HIV without showing symptoms. It would never die out on it's own.

 

[Texashiker]

Texashiker seems to be discounting the fact that people can carry HIV without showing symptoms.

Everyone born since the 1980s should know that.

It would never die out on it's own.

One of the factors that determines how effective a disease is, is how long the patient is infectious. HIV is probably a worse case situation.

Unlike the flu, or the bubonic plague where the person has a narrow window of only a few days to spread the infection, HIV can spread the infection for years.

But to say the infection will never die out on its on, I dont know if I agree with that.

HIV is mostly a lifestyle disease. Once the population of people living that "lifestyle" gets below a certain number, the disease can not find another host to infect.

Take the black death of the middle ages, it killed so many people, that there was nobody else to infect. The bubonic plague, like a fire, consumed all of its fuel and died out.

The problem with HIV, it takes so long to kill, the fuel may never be consumed.

 

[Throckmorton]

Everyone born since the 1980s should know that.




One of the factors that determines how effective a disease is, is how long the patient is infectious. HIV is probably a worse case situation.

Unlike the flu, or the bubonic plague where the person has a narrow window of only a few days to spread the infection, HIV can spread the infection for years.

But to say the infection will never die out on its on, I dont know if I agree with that.

HIV is mostly a lifestyle disease. Once the population of people living that "lifestyle" gets below a certain number, the disease can not find another host to infect.

Take the black death of the middle ages, it killed so many people, that there was nobody else to infect. The bubonic plague, like a fire, consumed all of its fuel and died out.

The problem with HIV, it takes so long to kill, the fuel may never be consumed.

Without treatment it could be worse, at least among people who know they're infected. HIV drugs reduce the amount of virus in the blood which reduces transmission risk.

But the CDC did say that one reason for the high prevalence among gay men and the increasing infection rate is longer survival times.

 

[Throckmorton]

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/

• A recent CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19&#37 MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection. In this study, 28% of black MSM were HIV-infected, compared to 18% of Hispanic/Latino MSM and 16% of white MSM. Other racial/ethnic groups of MSM also have high numbers of HIV infections, including American Indian/Alaska Native MSM (20%) and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander MSM (18%).
• In 2007, MSM were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared with other men, and 40 to 77 times as likely as women.

 

[zsdersw]

Everyone born since the 1980s should know that.

Yes, they should. Unfortunately your statements in this thread don't demonstrate that.

HIV is mostly a lifestyle disease. Once the population of people living that "lifestyle" gets below a certain number, the disease can not find another host to infect.

Take the black death of the middle ages, it killed so many people, that there was nobody else to infect. The bubonic plague, like a fire, consumed all of its fuel and died out.

You keep mentioning the black death as evidence of your claims, and you keep ignoring the differences between it and HIV. It was easy to identify those with the black death, making quarantining easy. Quarantining those with HIV would be infinitely more challenging:

- HIV doesn't show up on most tests for months
- No race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status has a monopoly on HIV infection

The problem with HIV, it takes so long to kill, the fuel may never be consumed.

The "fuel" will never be completely "consumed" not because the fire takes so long to consume the fuel, but because the fuel is common and not easily separated from everything else.

 

[Texashiker]

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/

From the above link

28% of black, 18% of Hispanic, and 16% of white men tested positive for HIV.

Besides lifestyle factors, there might be genetic factors in those numbers.

People of European decent (though the numbers are low) who have the ccr5 gene mutation show to have limited resistance to HIV. This might explain why HIV is not as wide spread in the US and Europe as it is in Africa.

Besides a lifestyle disease, I am starting to wonder if HIV is also a genetic disease. People without certain genetic traits are being killed off.

What we have been seeing since the 1980s is a slower replay of what happened in the middle ages. Historians noted that the plague would kill one family, skip a family, and then kill the next family. The people back then did not understand why certain families were not killed by the plague.

Today, and with the help of genetics, we understand that certain races are resistant (not immune) to certain diseases.

You keep mentioning the black death as evidence of your claims,

Not as evidence, but as a comparison.

What the black death did in a couple of years, HIV is taking decades to do.

 

[senseamp]

People get arrested and charged criminally for knowingly exposing others to HIV. I don't think that usually happens for most other infectious diseases, where people are placed into forced quarantine but not generally criminally charged if they violate isolation orders. So in that sense, HIV is treated harsher than other communicable diseases.

 

[zsdersw]

Not as evidence, but as a comparison.

What the black death did in a couple of years, HIV is taking decades to do.

It doesn't succeed any more as a comparison than it does as evidence.

 

[Texashiker]

It doesn't succeed any more as a comparison than it does as evidence.

It seems the majority of your post include some kind of personal attack or insult. Do you intend to sway the debate with your insults and attacks?

If you disagree with something, just say so, but there is no reason to include attacks.

Now then, why cant HIV and the Bubonic Plague of 1348 - 1350 be compared?

Nutrition might be a factor in both

Genetics might be a factor in both

Socio/economic factors might affect both

Ignorance of how the diseases are spread is certainly a factor

Fear of the disease can be directly compared - everything from blaming the plague on witches, to gay hate and gay bashing.

One of the differences is how fast the black Death killed off the population, as compared to HIV that can take a decade to kill. When you add in modern medicine, the number of HIV positive people is on a steady increase.

Instead of HIV killing off a certain population group like what plagues have done in the past, modern medicine is extending lives, thus allowing the number of infected people to grow.

 

[Howard]

It seems the majority of your post include some kind of personal attack or insult. Do you intend to sway the debate with your insults and attacks?

If you disagree with something, just say so, but there is no reason to include attacks.

Now then, why cant HIV and the Bubonic Plague of 1348 - 1350 be compared?

Nutrition might be a factor in both

Genetics might be a factor in both

Socio/economic factors might affect both

Ignorance of how the diseases are spread is certainly a factor

Fear of the disease can be directly compared - everything from blaming the plague on witches, to gay hate and gay bashing.

One of the differences is how fast the black Death killed off the population, as compared to HIV that can take a decade to kill. When you add in modern medicine, the number of HIV positive people is on a steady increase.

Instead of HIV killing off a certain population group like what plagues have done in the past, modern medicine is extending lives, thus allowing the number of infected people to grow.

I'm more comfortable with AIDS-infected people living longer, with the risk of further transmission, than with AIDS-infected people dying off faster so that the risk of transmission decreases.

I'm hoping in the near future AIDS will be no worse than baldness (or any other common affliction).

 

[zsdersw]

It seems the majority of your post include some kind of personal attack or insult. Do you intend to sway the debate with your insults and attacks?

If you disagree with something, just say so, but there is no reason to include attacks.

This thread of yours started out in the OP with some blatantly idiotic statements; comparisons between how tuberculosis is handled, etc.. so yes, I'm going to call them what they are.

Now then, why cant HIV and the Bubonic Plague of 1348 - 1350 be compared?

Nutrition might be a factor in both

Genetics might be a factor in both

Socio/economic factors might affect both

Ignorance of how the diseases are spread is certainly a factor

Fear of the disease can be directly compared - everything from blaming the plague on witches, to gay hate and gay bashing.

One of the differences is how fast the black Death killed off the population, as compared to HIV that can take a decade to kill. When you add in modern medicine, the number of HIV positive people is on a steady increase.

Instead of HIV killing off a certain population group like what plagues have done in the past, modern medicine is extending lives, thus allowing the number of infected people to grow.

They cannot be compared because of the following:

- It is spreading in Africa at a far faster rate than anywhere else in the world. This isn't because of modern medicine, it's because there's little or no prevention occurring.

- HIV is not spread with the same methods or with the same relative ease as the black death.

- Lack of hygiene was the predominant cause of the rapid spread of the black death. HIV is not spread for that reason.

 

[Texashiker]

This thread of yours started out in the OP with some blatantly idiotic statements;

There ya go again.

They cannot be compared because of the following:

- It is spreading in Africa at a far faster rate than anywhere else in the world. This isn't because of modern medicine, it's because there's little or no prevention occurring.

I have to disagree with there is no prevention going on in Africa.

1 - From what I have read, a lot of the prevention is being disregarded because people fear modern medicine. In a lot of villages, people put their faith in witch doctors over modern medicine.

2 - Circumcision / HIV studies out of Africa are being used to promote circumcision. If "no" prevention is going on, then we would not have the circumcision studies, now would we?

 

[zsdersw]

There ya go again.

Too bad. You initially wondered why tuberculosis was handled so differently from HIV. Really? Did the fact that tuberculosis can be spread by simply breathing not register with you or something? Is it really that hard to understand why a passenger on a plane with tuberculosis would be arrested/quarantined yet someone with HIV would not?

I have to disagree with there is no prevention going on in Africa.

1 - From what I have read, a lot of the prevention is being disregarded because people fear modern medicine. In a lot of villages, people put their faith in witch doctors over modern medicine.

2 - Circumcision / HIV studies out of Africa are being used to promote circumcision. If "no" prevention is going on, then we would not have the circumcision studies, now would we?

You essentially contradicted #2 with #1. Prevention is available, but is not being used.

 

[Texashiker]

You essentially contradicted #2 with #1.

Why are you trying to twist my words?

There are people that reject modern medicine, and there people that accept modern medicine.

What is the issue?