Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 May 2000 23:31:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
565 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ed Jones writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ed Jones writes:
> > The fact that in your local sample set there's a high incidence is not in and
> > of itself an argument for AIDS being number one on the funding priority list.
> > I'd argue it's currently getting proportionally more funding than it deserves
> > to get given relative harm to the nation as a whole.
>
> Hmm, on what do you base your opinion? Are you considering only those who • have
> died of AIDS, only those who have full blown AIDS, all who are HIV positive?
> Check your numbers. HIV+ is the number disease in America.
Cite please. It's certainly not the number one cause of death, I think that's
heart disease. (24 % of all deaths?? I can't recall)
Further, it's not the number one disease either. I'd put the common cold at the
top of the disease list. Everyone gets it at least twice a year on average, so
we're looking at 500M cases a year in the US.
So you're not being precise. What you actually mean is that you assert that
it's the number one infectuous disease that routinely kills people (heart
disease isn't infectuous and the death rate from the common cold is quite low).
That in and of itself is not an argument for why it deserves funding more than,
say, genetic research into how to eliminate certain forms of inherited
diseases, or improvements in air traffic control to reduce the incidence of
flying planes into mountains, or legalizing most street drugs to reduce the
incidence of lead poisoning (via instantaneous insertion) in inner city
neighborhoods. Not in and of itself. You need to show
However, I dispute even your corrected assertion. Cite please.
> > However it IS an argument that perhaps there *is* something in your local
> > sample set that makes your sample set more vulnerable. And there is, and now • we
> > know *what* it is. Pity we didn't better understand it back in 1982 so your
> > friends and my uncle didn't die, but it's also a pity we don't have automated
> > guideways on all our roads so no one dies in car accidents, or any of 1000
> > other possible ways to reduce death from anything other than old age.
>
> Huh? what is the relevance to the current discussion?
You seem to have a lot of trouble with these sorts of arguments. More slowly.
There are a lot of causes of death out there. It would be nice to eliminate all
of them, if we had unlimited funding. Since auto accidents kill a lot of
people, and injure even more, why not eliminate THEM? Because we only have
limited funds to allocate. We must weigh the costs and benefits of our
expenditure.
I would posit that the funds should go to the place where the most good could
be done, that is, where the victims are mostly there through no fault of their
own, the death rate is high, the cost to society is high, and the probability
of success is meaningful.
AIDS fails that test. So does smoking related cancer and so does heart disease.
I am likely to fall victim to heart disease... but I bring it on myself, my
sedentary lifestyle, lack of exercise and poor diet are all factors I know darn
well not to do but I persist in my bad habits. When I am struck down you won't
hear me whining about how it was government's duty to save me from my own bad
choices.
> I'm not arguing who funds the research. Remember that the initial funds for
> AIDS research were rasied by chartiy benefits. I'm saying that if the
> govenment is funding research, than AIDS research has to be a priority. It is
> far more financially responsible to find a cure/life prolonging drugs, than to
> treat full blown AIDS.
Trust me, I know why. Now answer this, why, if we have limited resources,
should we spend government funds to treat full blown AIDS, or for that matter,
to treat lung cancer caused by smoking, any more than we should treat people
who walk off cliffs deliberately? There IS such a thing as taking
responsibility for one's actions. Now, 15 years after we have learned how to
avoid AIDS transmission, ignorance is no longer an excuse.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: [snip a bunch a debate bait] (...) Except that the incubation period for AIDS is 3-15 years. There are people who are only now discovering that they have AIDS. But I won't bother debating this with (...) (24 years ago, 10-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) Not getting into a "more of my friends died" contest. Mike was making the point that AIDS has only touched 1 person in his life and that he felt the diseases that touched the people in his life should receive funding before AIDS is funded. I (...) (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
|
|
|
|
