Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 May 2000 19:13:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
468 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ed Jones writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > > 2. Because a disease mobilized a "special interest group" to take action to
> > > defend their own lives.
> >
> > And they did a good job of protecting their special interest. But again, I
> > don't see the link.
>
> They weren't protecting their "special interest", they were fighting to defend
> their lives. This fight is now taken up by highly infected Africian • countries.
> They now seek assistance from the US government for maintenance drugs.
Maybe I used the term special interest incorrectly. I think of a special
interest as being any sub-group of the population who wants public monies
distributed in a certain way such that it will specifically help their sub
group. So, from my vantage, they were addressing their special interest
desires AND doing what you are saying...fighting for their lives.
By the way, what is the rationalle behind their desire to have the US stock
their pharmacy? Is it just that we have the cash and almost no one else does,
so they're asking for help? Or is it that they see us as somehow responsible
for their plight, and are claiming that we owe them?
> Additionally, the group that now has the fastest AIDS infection rate is high
> school kids. At 16 you think you're invincible, you don't bother to practice
> safe sex. You reap the results. If safe sex education was working, we would
> have seen a decline in teenage pregnacny. Instead, the news reports that now
> pre-teens are having sex.
I do find this trend troubling. What can we do about it? Don't all eleven
year olds know that sex can be life-threatening at this point?
> > you just mean generally aware? I was in high school from '84-'88 and I
> > remember it becomming a national concern, but I also seem to remember it • being
> > on the news at least as early as '82 or so.
>
> Yes it was on the news, but what did you see on the news:
> - exponentially growing death statistics among gays and needle users
Honestly, I don't recall what exactly I knew at the time. It is likely that I
knew more than many people who weren't involved with the disease.
> What you should have seen but didn't was:
> - the statistics of AIDS in Africa among heterosexual non needle users which
> was already an epidemic
Was it really? Wow. I don't have any readily available stats about it, but I
guess it must have gotten a strong early hold to be such a tremendous problem
now.
> Not only did the US government not care about the lives of gays and needle
> users, but black Africans were expendable too.
Well, at some point I think that last point is more reasonable. There is no
excuse for the cover-up or lack of attention that HIV received if that
inattention was because those in charge didn't mind homos and junkies dying
horibly. That's just evil. But those folks are US citizens. They are clients
of the US protection racket and as such should have been beneficiaries.
Africans (that is, citizans of African nations) don't have that claim.
> What did you see on the news:
> - three children who were not only forced out of their school, but forced out
> of their community by the ignorance of their neighbors
That and similar issues were hot buttons of discussion in my house. It was
unbelievable to me at the time that people weren't willing to be a bit more
humane than that. As if those kids didn't already have the short end of the
stick.
> - religious leaders who were permitted to spew their hate of homosexuals by
> claiming AIDS was a gay disease brought by god to smite the homosexual
Right. Same-o, same-o. And their little pinnacle of evolution is with us
today -- Fred Phelps of "God Hates Fags" fame.
> - members of Congress who spewed the same bigoted filth even though they knew
> the African statistics (evidently a gay plague was good for re-election)
Wow, I have no recollection of that. I'm surprised they could get away with
anything even like that.
> What you should have seen but didn't was:
> - a statement from the President saying that these actions were morally wrong
> - reports from the press stating that it was not a gay plague, but could
> affect anyone, using Africa as an example (we didn't get that message until
> the very late 80s)
Agreed.
> > Basically, I agree with your points and I acknowledge that especially to the
> > growing number of people personally impacted by HIV it's a terrible social
> > concern. But I guess I also tend to agree with the "other side" that says • that
> > (public) funding should be roughly matching of the severity of the issue.
>
> If AIDS had first struck the heterosexual community:
> - Would you still hold the same opinion?
Yes. I don't particularly feel any affiliation with the "hetero community." I
think that this is one of the many little differences that people obsess about
when losing the big picture that we're all much more alike than we are
different.
> - Would the US Government had acted differently?
Maybe. Obviously you believe they would have.
> While both diseases are terminal:
>
> If you have cancer, you know you have a physical ailment. You see a doctor.
Eventually. Many people don't see a doctor until it is fatal.
> Cancer is not communicable. And in most cases is now curable or at least
> removeable. If you contract cancer, you don't need to worry that you have
Most cases? I just don't have the stats. Is that true if you remove skin
Melanoma from the pool? I know there are lots of people who are diagnosed with
inopperable cancer. And there are forms of cancer that have a very high
mortality rate.
> infected anyone else (and yes, some cancer can be hereditary).
Right, so you sort-of do infect people. But only your offspring.
> The dormancy period of the AIDS virus is 3-15 years. Unless you have an AIDS
> test performed, you could be infected for years and not know it. How may • other
> people could you have infected in that time frame?
Right, obviously this is why it's fairly wide-spread. And I'm sure that's
devestating to those who find that they have it and may have passed it on to
dozens of others. I'm sure that condemning to death (even accidentally)
doesn't sit easy with most people.
> > I may be biased too. I am much more likely to bite it from cancer than from
> > AIDS.
>
> Unless you are practicing safe sex, you are more likely to bite it from AIDS.
If you count monogamy as safe sex, then you're correct. If you don't then you
are not. There is virtually no chance that I will die from AIDS, and I have a
long family history of grostesque cancers.
> Cancer is a horrible disease, but you can't spread cancer.
But you also can't just behave in certain ways as to make it almost impossible
to get. With HIV, it's easy to avoid. Now that we know about it. Obviously
it was different twenty years ago.
> AIDS is a plague that was left to run uncontrolled in the 80s. Africa is now
> devistated by an AIDS epidemic that threatens extinction.
Extinction of what? Not species. Cultures? Maybe. But the worst I've heard
so far is 25% infection rate. That's bad, but not extinction-level bad.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) how do you figure? i think a 25% infection rate with all offspring produced after infection of the parent being affected would set some alarms off for the possibility of a local extinction. Especially if you figure that the infection rate has (...) (25 years ago, 8-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) Its very simple: AIDS is a communicable disease, a plague that spread exponentially in the late 70s and early 80s, and continues to do so in Africa. If the US Government had funded AIDS research, or even AIDS education, in the early 80s, far (...) (25 years ago, 6-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
|
|
|
|
