71–80 of 170 posts
> They can take pre-exposure prophylaxis (prep), a kind of drug that reduces their chance of contracting it by 99% or so. This comes as a daily pill, and is popular among gay men in rich countries. The article takes a global focus (which makes sense since most new HIV diagnoses happen outside of the United States), but even the United States has over 30,000 new HIV infections per year. In 2021 feds mandated that insu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So queer people should remain celibate? Other methods of protection fail. People lie about the status. People don't know their status. Know what's ridiculous is that these drugs cost so much money and companies like Gilead can engage in "revenue maximization" schemes at the cost of the health of US citizens... and then apparently win lawsuits with their Big Pharma war chests.
There's wide, wide middle ground between celibacy and the debauched status quo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To an American audience, yeah, it's definitely better in all caps. However, The Economist is British, and sometimes in British English they capitalize acronyms that way. Only "true" (pronounceable) acronyms, though, so they'll write Nato ("nay toh") and BBC ("bee bee see").
The article uses "AIDS". It's just the HN title mangler at work.
> They can take pre-exposure prophylaxis (prep), a kind of drug that reduces their chance of contracting it by 99% or so. This comes as a daily pill, and is popular among gay men in rich countries. The article takes a global focus (which makes sense since most new HIV diagnoses happen outside of the United States), but even the United States has over 30,000 new HIV infections per year. In 2021 feds mandated that insu…
Er, no, generic Truvada costs $30-$60/month, although it was not available as a generic in 2019, which is when the mandate for free PrEP without cost-sharing was first issued. (The mandate was issued in 2019, but it did not fully go into effect until 2021).
That said, the drug costs aren't the only (or even biggest) costs associated with PrEP - the doctors' vists and labwork are much more. Under the ACA, those were required to be covered for free on all insurance plans, but a judge in Amarillo, TX blocked that as part of a ruling on a lawsuit against abortion care.
> and for potential liver and kidney damage
They aren't checking for liver damage. They do check for indications that the drug isn't being absorbed correctly, which is done via a test for kidney functioning, but kidney issues for both Truvada and Descovy as PrEP are extremely rare. And there are no liver concerns associated with either one.
As an older millennial, it’s interesting to me observe the difference with which HIV/AIDS and COVID has been treated. While untreated HIV infection is more lethal than COVID, COVID has killed more people in the past 4 years than HIV/AIDS did in the past 40+. My childhood was filled with warnings and media depicting the tragedy of HIV/AIDS, the surrounding bigotry, and the history of this pandemic still has some cache…
I've noticed the same thing, and I'm pretty sure it's because COVID no longer features as part of identity politics. It's the identity politics that drove the AIDS discussion, and it's been the identify politics that drove the COVID discussion. Now that has passed, COVID is no longer a topic people care to discuss regularly, while AIDS is still a forefront topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rather depressing that we're subsidizing wanton sexual indulgence to the tune of $30k/year/person.
Just to dispel some myths here: 1. Many people who use PrEP have only one partner. They're using PrEP because their partner has HIV. 2. The alternative is letting people get AIDs. This is more expensive than PrEP. 3. Insurance doesn't pay the full list price of drugs, they pay a lower, negotiated rate. CostPlus Drug Company charges about $20/month for PrEP. This is probably closer to what insurance companies actually…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where did you get that 0.4% number? Is this a well-established statistic?
No - just a guess based on the fact that me and the people around me tend to know ~250 people. Ie. there are probably 250 people who would find out if I got diabetes and died. Those people would then probably take a little more care of their health, and take steps to avoid the same fate.
Around 14% of Americans have diabetes, so I don't think that really pans out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aids is definitely the strongest sexually transmitted virus out there. But don't you think that there will always be sexually transmitted diseases associated with promiscuity? Not to say that aids is only transmitted through promiscuity, but superspreading is highly relevant. It is my understanding that gay people have more sex partners than than straight people, so it's likely that these diseases will disproportiona…
>I think that limiting amount of partners is a vital part to combating sexually transmitted diseases It's much more important to have safe sex. Condoms and PrEP work. Every thread on HN about HIV/AIDS seems to attract at least one person who feels obliged to say something about how promiscuous gay people are. I don't think these comments often come from a good place. (For example, you have previously made a rather in…
Just the one? If only.
Every time there is a story on HN that is even tangentially related to either HIV or LGBTQ+ sexual health, it inevitably devolves into a morass of misinformation and thinly-veiled homophobia. There are different degrees of it - some is presented in a more "civil" veneer, which helps it stay upvoted, but at its core, it's all coming from the same place.
Public health professionals who specialize in HIV and LGBTQ+ sexual health are actually pretty unanimous in their position on this topic, but somehow that never sways these folks (which should be a pretty good sign that they're not arguing in good faith).
As a gay man well into middle age, whenever I get somewhat depressed about the state of human affairs, I think about the incredible improvements in AIDS treatment and prevention and I feel a little better. It's hard for people who didn't live through it to really understand what a terrifying time the 80s and 90s were. First off, the general message of sexual education was pretty much "If you have sex, it's probably g…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aids is definitely the strongest sexually transmitted virus out there. But don't you think that there will always be sexually transmitted diseases associated with promiscuity? Not to say that aids is only transmitted through promiscuity, but superspreading is highly relevant. It is my understanding that gay people have more sex partners than than straight people, so it's likely that these diseases will disproportiona…
>I think that limiting amount of partners is a vital part to combating sexually transmitted diseases It's much more important to have safe sex. Condoms and PrEP work. Every thread on HN about HIV/AIDS seems to attract at least one person who feels obliged to say something about how promiscuous gay people are. I don't think these comments often come from a good place. (For example, you have previously made a rather in…