Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 256 posts

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#21

Post by soneca »

vtange wrote: post #15
soneca wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I (annedoctally) heard several times stories about how today's youth (~20yo) doing more unprotected sex than my generation (~35yo) only because HIV "does not kill anymore" . If AIDS is actually curable, I would bet that all other STD would explode in the short term

Isn't there a lot of talk about how today's youth is much less likely to date/engage in sexual activity? So what you're saying is, they don't always have sex, but when they do it's unprotected? That sounds pretty normal to me.

I think this is the time we should start using some data in this discussion, but my view is that people in their twenties are doing much more sex today. Due to tech (eg Tinder) and less stigma for sexually active women.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#22

Post by dalbasal »

anovikov wrote: post #4

Well, 99% means eradication of the virus very quickly. People won't become totally sexually irresponsible after the preventive shot, because there are many other hard to cure STDs now, especially as antibiotics are not as potent as they use to be, so i think there is no threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave.

thank god.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#23

Post by nonbel »

perryprog wrote: post #2

Reddit discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/comments/71neat/new_a... I like how the ID is 71 neat

Why would you link to that discussion? Here is what I see as the "top" comments:

  -what about that 1%? I'd fear if it became the new super HIV
  --Can you not appreciate the 99%?
  ---He's a 1%er for sure...
  ----Let's git im!
  -----ANGRY AT OP? WANT TO JOIN THE MOB? I'VE GOT YOU COVERED! COME ON DOWN TO /r/pitchforkemporium...
  ------Here you go Comrade
  -------!redditsilver
  --------Here's your Reddit Silver, ZarathustraV!
  ---------Good bot

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#24

Post by jessriedel »

vkou wrote: post #17
jampekka wrote: post #14

HIV must be the most almost cured disease ever.

In the 1980s, getting HIV was a quick death sentence. In the 2010s, getting HIV means that you are likely to live until... Your 70s. (Assuming you have access to medication.) The problem is that you need to take expensive medication for the rest of your life. And that you can infect other people.

> In the 1980s, getting HIV was a quick death sentence.

It has never been quick.

> Without treatment, average survival time after infection with HIV is estimated to be 9 to 11 years, depending on the HIV subtype

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Prognosis

You may be thinking of the ~1 year survival times after an AIDS diagnosis, but HIV is usually latent for a decade after initial infection.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#25

Post by evo_9 »

gwbas1c wrote: post #7
anovikov wrote: post #4

Well, 99% means eradication of the virus very quickly. People won't become totally sexually irresponsible after the preventive shot, because there are many other hard to cure STDs now, especially as antibiotics are not as potent as they use to be, so i think there is no threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave.

I think the 1960's unprotected sex wave was more a symptom of ignorance of STDs. People used to see condoms as primarily for birth control, and not really a sanitary measure. Remember, the birth control pill came out in the 1960s! Even then, knowledge of condoms wasn't widespread like it is now. My grandmother was super-pissed-off when my grandfather told her about them after she was pregnant for 18 months straight!…

The 'sexwave' was in the 70's when studio54 was a thing and disco and cocaine became common/popular/big in the mainstream culture (famously captured by the film Staying Alive).

Also the legalization of abortion in 1972 contributed to this as well.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#26

Post by rconti »

anovikov wrote: post #11
gwbas1c wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the 1960's unprotected sex wave was more a symptom of ignorance of STDs. People used to see condoms as primarily for birth control, and not really a sanitary measure. Remember, the birth control pill came out in the 1960s! Even then, knowledge of condoms wasn't widespread like it is now. My grandmother was super-pissed-off when my grandfather told her about them after she was pregnant for 18 months straight!…

Ignorance of STDs was okay in 1960s, because antibiotics worked really great back then and just about every STD was easily curable.

This is being downvoted to oblivion but I'm not sure if it's true or not; hopefully someone can weigh in before it disappears.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#27

Post by hashmal »

joshstrange wrote: post #9
soneca wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I (annedoctally) heard several times stories about how today's youth (~20yo) doing more unprotected sex than my generation (~35yo) only because HIV "does not kill anymore" . If AIDS is actually curable, I would bet that all other STD would explode in the short term

Not only that I've had friends on Truvada (PrEP) that use condoms less because they know they won't get HIV.

Why is that a bad thing? I don't know for the US, but in other countries you have mandatory tests (hepatitis, gonorrhea, many others) to do every 3 months in order to get the treatment. This alone makes you more protected than people who only use condoms as protection and think they don't need tests.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#28

Post by jMyles »

anovikov wrote: post #4

Well, 99% means eradication of the virus very quickly. People won't become totally sexually irresponsible after the preventive shot, because there are many other hard to cure STDs now, especially as antibiotics are not as potent as they use to be, so i think there is no threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave.

> People won't become totally sexually irresponsible after the preventive shot, because there are many other hard to cure STDs now, especially as antibiotics are not as potent as they use to be, so i think there is no threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave.

The way you've phrased this, it sounds like you are casting "other hard to cure STDs" as a protective measure against the "threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave."

Isn't sexual freedom a goal?

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#29

Post by spklin »

vkou wrote: post #17
jampekka wrote: post #14

HIV must be the most almost cured disease ever.

In the 1980s, getting HIV was a quick death sentence. In the 2010s, getting HIV means that you are likely to live until... Your 70s. (Assuming you have access to medication.) The problem is that you need to take expensive medication for the rest of your life. And that you can infect other people.

Successful treatment means you cannot infect others:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-hiv-transmission/p...

This is why "treatment as prevention" is important part of stopping further spread.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#30

Post by mfoy_ »

jessriedel wrote: post #24
vkou wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 1980s, getting HIV was a quick death sentence. In the 2010s, getting HIV means that you are likely to live until... Your 70s. (Assuming you have access to medication.) The problem is that you need to take expensive medication for the rest of your life. And that you can infect other people.

> In the 1980s, getting HIV was a quick death sentence. It has never been quick. > Without treatment, average survival time after infection with HIV is estimated to be 9 to 11 years, depending on the HIV subtype https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Prognosis You may be thinking of the ~1 year survival times after an AIDS diagnosis, but HIV is usually latent for a decade after initial infection.

The passing of the sentence was quick, the execution of it was painful and slow.
Post reply on HN