Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 May 2000 18:22:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
483 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In the specific case, I disagree. the virus is too hard to transmit for it to
> become a plague. I wouldn't even call it an epidemic, much less a pandemic.
> Now, if the virus mutates (and this DOES happen, sometimes, and we must watch
> out for that happening) to where it has a new, much more reliable vector open
> to it, such as dust particles as carrier and respiratory tract as entry point,
> I would agree, it could well lead to a civilization breakdown.
Ok, the virus does mutate. the mutation rate for the genes that code for the
protein coat is about 15%/8 years. Compare this to the divergence rate in
almost any gene between a person and a chimpanzee which is about 2%/several
million years.
Scientists are already predicting that HIV will become airborne... probably
not a virulant as it is now. It will be a less serious disease, however
many, many people will have been killed all over the world. It should be
less serious because it wouldn't make much evolutionary sense for a pathogen
to be species specific and ultra-deadly- it would kill itself off in the
process- kinda like speeding down a dead end street. of course, that's only
a theory of how viruses work, they may be exceptions...
In a more general sense, before it ever becomes less virulent, it will affect
us. What if thousands or millions of refugees want into the US, Germany, or
whatever country with decent health system, because their country is overrun
with HIV/AIDs victims. We could refuse admittance, we could let them in.
How would either one of those options affect or economy?
> At that point it would be justifiable to move the virus up to the top of the
> "list of diseases and illnesses that need research dollars" so that it was
> swatted down quickly. But today, with finite resources, there are more
> important things to spend money on. That's not an argument for zero funding,
> it's good to have some level of funding percolating, but it is an argument
> against making AIDS the number one priority of all biological research that
> some seem to think it deserves to be.
We have had over fifty years of cancer research and the overall rate has not
decreased. After a few years of intense research against the polio virus,
it's rate of infection was almost down to nothing... Seems like the logical
choice to me is to fight a battle that we may have the ability of winning in
the short term.
-chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) This is a good point that hasn't been discussed much here. The likelihood of progress should go into the cost-benefit analysis. OTOH, if the techniques developped for Polio worked for HIV, it'd be under control by now, right? Since that's not (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) Hypothetically speaking, of course. And hypothetically, I agree. In the specific case, I disagree. the virus is too hard to transmit for it to become a plague. I wouldn't even call it an epidemic, much less a pandemic. Now, if the virus (...) (24 years ago, 9-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
|
|
|
|
