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

31–40 of 256 posts

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#31

Post by soneca »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #19
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

That's factually untrue according to the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior[0]. The facts are[1] that the younger the age group the higher the condom usage is. And while condom use has fallen a little since its height, it still remains significantly higher amongst the young than any older generation or group. [0] http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/ [1] http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/condomgra…

My anedoctes are from Brazil (São Paulo), I don't think that paper's conclusion extends to a different group.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#32

Post by mfoy_ »

nonbel wrote: post #23
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! -…

Ah, good ol' Reddit.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#34

Post by vtange »

soneca wrote: post #21
vtange wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

According to many articles that's a common misconception - that younger people empowered by Tinder can bang each other more and casually.[1] From my own anecdotes Tinder is actually a hindrance, since it creates a picture-oriented, extremely competitive environment where lack of physical attractiveness effectively shuts down the world of dating to the majority of men and women who aren't 8s, 9s, or 10s.[2]

I mean, on the net you'll often hear stories about kids scoring big but that's survivor bias. You don't hear anything from those who didn't bang.

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/no-sex-please-were-mill... [2] http://time.com/4435058/millennials-virgins-sex/

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#35

Post by otakucode »

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.

If there is no significant chance of untreatable disease, it is not 'irresponsible' to have a very active sex life. The irresponsibility stems purely from the danger. Without it, it becomes a moral issue and is quite different from 'irresponsible'. And yes, there are people who actively oppose any development of an HIV vaccine or cure due to their moral fear that people will start having more sex. The chaplain of the CDC announced in the 1990s that he would do anything in his power to prevent any research into an HIV vaccine, for example.

The most likely significant health threat as far as STDs go in the future are anti-biotic resistant gonorrhea. There were a couple of those spreading in Asia a couple years ago that were positively nightmarish.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#36

Post by anovikov »

rconti wrote: post #26
anovikov wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well hepatitis C wasn't and isn't easily curable, but i guess awareness of it was pretty low.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#37

Post by nkkollaw »

Hopefully it's cheap and/or Bill Gates starts throwing money into producing it if it passes clinical trials. I have a feeling that Africa is where AIDS does the most damage, and I doubt they can afford the $1000/mo. it will certainly cost in the States.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#38

Post by otakucode »

evo_9 wrote: post #25
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!…

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.

The 'sexwave' was all of human history up to the Industrial Revolution... then another in the 70s with development of the birth control pill and no known significantly dangerous STDs. Interestingly, the USA was viewed as the vanguard of sexual progressivism in the 1970s and places like France were seen as provincial backwaters. There's a great book about Frances attempt to modernize their views to be more progressive called 'Good Sex Illustrated'. If you're interested in the ways in which sex education can be stilted to promote extremely conservative antiquated mindsets, it includes a multitude of examples. It is remarkably relevant because it's basically exactly what American educators and parents inflict on kids today.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#39

Post by joshstrange »

hashmal wrote: post #27
joshstrange wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They only check Liver/HIV every 3 months (I have to ask for liver every 3, my doctor was going to do it only every 6). I make my doctor also do a full screening but by default he doesn't.

Re: New antibody attacks 99% of HIV strains

#40

Post by [deleted] »

jMyles wrote: post #28
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 unprote…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN