Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 May 2000 03:22:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
348 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Peter Callaway writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > In this country, AIDS carries a lot of political baggage (right and left) • that
> > obscures where we should place AIDS research on the priority list. As to it
> > being a threat to national security, well, only obliquely. Losing 20% of • your
> > adult population that normally would have plenty of productive live ahead of
> > them could well destabalize already shakey governments. That's certainly a
> > concern. Clinton is grandstanding - perhaps he feels it is warranted or is
> > trying to mollify foreign diplomats (or acquired something from one of his
> > indiscretions).
>
> With all of the stats just presented above, on must ask the obvious question
> "How is it spreading so darn quickly?"
>
> How did 20% of tha male population in that African nation become infected? Are
> they so sexually prolific that they go around sowing their wild oats with
> anything they see (male or female by the sounds of it). And what are the stats
> on the Women?
20% of the *adult* population, not just *male*. As to the breakdown between
male and female, I don't know. In India, I know it is spread through
prostitutes. I'm not familiar with the primary vector in Africa.
>
> The answer as far as I see it is EDUCATION.
20% of your population is going to die soon. Education isn't going to avert
absolute disaster at this point (though certainly needed).
> No amount of medical research
> funding is going to help the situation if people still don't get it that these
> things are LARGELY transmitted by unsafe sexual practises. Larry is right
> (Crumbs! That's twice in as many days!), we can't shirk responsibility when we
> know the risks associated.
Who says the population of these countries knew? I'm asking - I don't have the
answer.
> Now before I get flamed off the planet, for those
> who don't know (young teenagers, students at Catholic schools, the greater
> population of the Third World), we should be spending time and money on
> EDUCATING them. Medical funding is great, we need it, but to ignore the
> merrits of a proactive worldwide education campaign is to ignore half the
> problem, and that's just bad policy.
This is fine to complain about, clearly education is desperately needed - but
are you sure that this isn't underway at the moment, or that this in part is
what Clinton is trying to promote?
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) OK, my bad, but it's still a horrifying statistic. (...) No it's not, sadly, but that's why the medical funding needs to continue. What I'm saying is that we need the education to prevent further infections, otherwise people will continue to (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) and (...) triple." (...) With all of the stats just presented above, on must ask the obvious question "How is it spreading so darn quickly?" How did 20% of tha male population in that African nation become infected? Are they so sexually (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
228 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
