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

The global fight against HIV is at risk

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 106 posts

Re: The global fight against HIV is at risk

#71

Post by faeriechangling »

totetsu wrote: post #13
huytersd wrote: post #2

I’m going to be very mad if there is a resurgence in HIV because of the asinine GOP. If people have to be worried again about their next sexual contact (condoms only offer between 70-90% protection against HIV), we will return to a prudish lifestyle again at a time the west can least afford it with falling birth rates.

Not just chastity but also poverty. Imagine how much economic damage a global HIV pandemic would do that can be avoided by keeping it suppressed. What it the opposition to continuing this program thinking? The article mentions wrongly associating it with abortions, .. and maybe some support goes to at risk people which includes mentioning transgender… they would tank the global economy and ruin their own lives on thi…

>Not chastity but also poverty

I never see poor people collectively failing to have children.

I only ever see wealthy people complain they aren't wealthy enough to have children and once they have more money that's when they'll have children.

It doesn't actually take very much money at all to have a child if you have no standards.

Re: The global fight against HIV is at risk

#72

Post by asveikau »

mnau wrote: post #53
asveikau wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a shocking lack of empathy and understanding of the connectedness of the planet.

Don’t share needles and don’t engage in casual sex don’t seem like a too high bar. There is a lot rape, but Botswana has 25% of population infected and per UNICEF > While there is increased awareness of HIV in general, comprehensive knowledge of HIV remains low, condom use among sexually active young people is declining , and rates of forced sex and teenage pregnancy are ominously high.

> Don’t share needles and don’t engage in casual sex don’t seem like a too high bar.

Very close to what Americans said about AIDS in the 80s. This is now regarded to have been stupid at best, discriminatory and bigoted at worst.

Re: The global fight against HIV is at risk

#73

Post by amanaplanacanal »

bakugo wrote: post #23
huytersd wrote: post #2

I’m going to be very mad if there is a resurgence in HIV because of the asinine GOP. If people have to be worried again about their next sexual contact (condoms only offer between 70-90% protection against HIV), we will return to a prudish lifestyle again at a time the west can least afford it with falling birth rates.

> If people have to be worried again about their next sexual contact (condoms only offer between 70-90% protection against HIV), we will return to a prudish lifestyle again at a time the west can least afford it with falling birth rates. Are you really trying to imply that a "prudish lifestyle" where people actually have long-term relationships and marry is bad for birthrates, and more casual sex is good?

Ok I’ll bite. Yes. Forcing people to marry early and stay in abusive relationships is bad. Having options is good.

Re: The global fight against HIV is at risk

#74

Post by asveikau »

Brigand wrote: post #43
asveikau wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a shocking lack of empathy and understanding of the connectedness of the planet.

The empathy overdrive is on track to bring down civil live in many cities of the us, maybe the country as a whole.

You say empathy overdrive, I say empathy baseline. Refusing to see others who suffer as human because you think it doesn't affect your bubble (and the latter part is usually false) doesn't meet the minimum.

I'm not saying we should intervene in 100% of people who suffer, because we will not succeed at such an impossible task. But solving HIV and other critical diseases in less developed parts of the world is a relatively small investment with a high success rate, per TFA. Yet some will say "I don't care because it won't affect me". Seems pretty weak to me. Does not strike me as wisdom or emotional maturity to be honest.

Re: The global fight against HIV is at risk

#75

Post by striking »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #64
striking wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If not for your benefit, then for everyone else's; here are the DOJ's recommendations for modernization[1], from a sub-link of the above: > Generally, the best practice would be for states to reform these laws to eliminate HIV- specific criminal penalties except in two distinct circumstances. First, states may wish to retain criminal liability when a person who knows he/she is HIV positive commits a (non-HIV specific…

I think the parent may have been referring to actual laws that exist today, rather than DOJ recommendations. Like in California where it is perfectly legal for an HIV positive person to have unprotected sex with somebody else, without disclosing it, so long as it wasn’t specifically their intention to infect the other person. If it was specifically their intention to infect the other person (good luck proving that bt…

So, still a crime, even if a misdemeanor? Pretty sure it's still negligence if you actually infect someone, as per your link:

> A defendant might be negligent for infecting a partner with HIV if:

    The defendant knew he or she had AIDS or was HIV-positive;
    The defendant was negligent in not disclosing his/her status and/or not using a condom or dental dam; and
    As a result of that negligence, the plaintiff acquired the disease through the transmission of HIV and suffered damages  (such as medical bills and/or pain and suffering).

Re: The global fight against HIV is at risk

#76

Post by huytersd »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #73
bakugo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If people have to be worried again about their next sexual contact (condoms only offer between 70-90% protection against HIV), we will return to a prudish lifestyle again at a time the west can least afford it with falling birth rates. Are you really trying to imply that a "prudish lifestyle" where people actually have long-term relationships and marry is bad for birthrates, and more casual sex is good?

Ok I’ll bite. Yes. Forcing people to marry early and stay in abusive relationships is bad. Having options is good.

Abusive is too wide of term that covers too many things. Marriages can be hard if it’s a partnership of equals. It needs to move back to the paradigm where the husband is the primary dominant and makes all the decisions. The wife needs to be submissive. Marriages of this variety are easy. We already have domestic violence laws in place so there are safeguards in place against actual abuse.

Re: The global fight against HIV is at risk

#77

Post by valianteffort »

TheBigSalad wrote: post #66
jksflkjl3jk3 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you had much casual sex lately? Anecdotally, condom use is down significantly over the last couple decades now that HIV is no longer a death sentence.

I'm single, but ugly. I didn't realize condom use was down.

I would have to assume most sexually active women in the US are on some form of birth control or just avoid hooking up near ovulation windows. I've had exactly one woman ever ask me to use a condom, but she was french. Not sure if they're more expected there.

I'd happily raise any kid that came of it so I've never been worried.

Re: The global fight against HIV is at risk

#78

Post by Grazester »

huytersd wrote: post #52
Grazester wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a condom doesn't break then it's 100% effective. When a condom breaks you fails in a manner that you will know it failed and then there is PEP.

I think there’s a chance of getting it if the condom rolls/bunches up as well.

This usually the result of poor condom use/knowledge, like condom breakage. If the condom is too big this can happen or you become flaccid(it's a thing to also check to make use that this isn't happening during intercourse), and condoms can break when you don't use lubricant or the incorrect lubricant(e.g. petroleum jelly based lubricant).

Re: The global fight against HIV is at risk

#79

Post by sargun »

valianteffort wrote: post #77
TheBigSalad wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm single, but ugly. I didn't realize condom use was down.

I would have to assume most sexually active women in the US are on some form of birth control or just avoid hooking up near ovulation windows. I've had exactly one woman ever ask me to use a condom, but she was french. Not sure if they're more expected there. I'd happily raise any kid that came of it so I've never been worried.

My data point is that every woman under about 30 wants to use condoms. Above 30, there is a lot less of a concern.

Re: The global fight against HIV is at risk

#80

Post by sargun »

a_cardboard_box wrote: post #63
sargun wrote: post #37

One thing I'm confused about is why HIV at-home tests are not more available. There's Oraquick ( https://oraquick.com/ ), which in bulk is $15/test, whereas its about $40 retail. On the other hand, we've gotten COVID tests down to something like $5 retail. On top of that, it's relatively easy to get free COVID tests. Imagine if you could test for this right before you "got down." I imagine that'd change the game. Alt…

> Imagine if you could test for this right before you "got down." I imagine that'd change the game. Unfortunately, HIV tests can't detect early infection, which is when it's most transmissible. The Oraquick FAQ says their test is accurate 3 months after exposure. So there isn't much benefit to testing right before sex vs every few months.

Fair, CUE health built RT-NAT COVID tests, and I imagine that same tech can be copied to HIV testing (provided there is a cheap-ish way to detect HIV RNA).
Post reply on HN