An AIDS vaccine. Is it worth it.

[pluralgravity]

I've just seen a BBC news feature about a american company announcing that they will have a vaccine for the western variant of AIDS in five years time. Aparently the vaccine will be very expensive to develop and will need continuing investment to remain effective. This means that a lot of very clever people will be devoting their working lives and a lot of expensive kit to this project.
A vaccine is not a cure. It protects you when you are exposed to the desease. The groups most exposed to AIDS in Western society who would benefit from the vaccine are promiscuous homosexuals and injecting junkies. IMHO niether group can claim to be 'victims'. Someone smokes 50 cigarettes a day for forty years and dies of lung cancer is generally considered to have 'asked for it'. A man who drinks a bottle of vodka and then drives his car is an 'idiot' if he kills himself and a murderer if he kills someone else. Why should this enormous effort be expended to protect those vulnerable to AIDS.
I know that there is a catastrophic AIDS epidemic in southern Africa but but the vaccine will not be any use against that strain.But millions of dollars will be spent protecting life-style choices in the western world.
If you don't care about Africa, like me, there are probably much better things to spend this money on.

[pldennison]

Why should this enormous effort be expended to protect those vulnerable to AIDS.

Because some unthinking man who has it is going to give it to his wife or girlfriend in the process of getting her pregnant, and she's going to pass it to her child, and her child shouldn't have to suffer from AIDS because its biological father is an asshole, that's why.

[SuperNova]

Could be a great debate...

In the end, it is worth it. A vaccine wouldn't save those already infected, but could eventually end that variety of AIDS completely. Many people are infected who are not "promiscuous homosexuals and injecting junkies.." Even if it only was those people who could potentially be saved by this, it would still be worthwhile, IMHO.

[StGermain]

13 years ago, I participated in an AIDs vaccine study through NIH. At that time, they said it would be 5-10 years before they had a vaccine. 13 years later and they're not even close. Why did I participate? I'm not gay. I don't use drugs. I live a celibate life. I did it because I thought I could help countless people. Whether it worked or not, the effort is worth making.

I was fortunate that I could participate. It may've been the most important thing I could do with my life.

StG

[Francesca]

Oh dear lord. You think that the majority of people in the western world who get AIDS "ask for it"? That it's not worth developing a vaccine to protect those who do contract it? That contracting AIDS is part of/ a consequence of a life-style choice?

I'm sorry but I just don't have the time or the patience to tell you how ignorant you are. The only thing I can tell you is that assuming that you are a male heterosexual non-junkie, it's your peer group that is experiencing the bigger growth in infection than any other. Not the homosexuals and junkies who you seems to think "ask for it".

I hope that someone with more patience than I can take the time to explain to you why developing a vaccine is worth it.

[Rasa]

After just having heard the figure "as much as 40% of the population of Botswana may be living with HIV" all week, I cannot even begin to summon the mental clarity to give an answer as to why an HIV vaccine, no matter how expensive, would be a Good Thing.

You might not "care about Africa" but with percentages like that, it's not something that's going to stay confined to Africa for long.

I cannot wrap my brain around your reasoning... I don't want to.

[Brutus]

Originally posted by Francesca
...The only thing I can tell you is that assuming that you are a male heterosexual non-junkie, it's your peer group that is experiencing the bigger growth in infection than any other. Not the homosexuals and junkies who you seems to think "ask for it"...


Actually, you are wrong. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/news/At-a-Glance.pdf)

67% of new infections were among gays (which are called 'msm' in the report) and IV drug users. It further breaks down as 42% of new cases being among gays and 33% among heterosexuals.

But that doesn't really matter. In a moral sense, the only people who truely 'accidently' contracted HIV are those who get it from blood transfusions, rape victims, and children born to HIV+ mothers. Also, if someone's SO, in a supposedly monogamous relationship, cheated on them, and spread HIV. But I doubt that is very common. For these people, I would like to see a AIDS cure (which is not the OP, I know).

Much of Africa is out of control, which is obvious when you look at the mind-boggling AIDS statistics in many countries there. Education is key to at least stemming the growth of AIDS over there, not medicine. Men raping virgins (in some cases, infants), to 'purge themselves of AIDS' show what an uphill fight it would be to educate the people there.

AIDS is incredibly preventable. It should be a non-issue by now, but fucking morons (statistically, we men are at fault far more) don't take basic precautions. It is so simple to NOT get AIDS, that I have zero sympathy for those who engage in risky behavior and then bemoan their fate.

A vaccine would be nice, but shouldn't be neccesary. It is a sad state of affairs that such a preventable disease is so widespread.

[Tars Tarkas]

Pssst! HIV isn't the only retrovirus in the universe. Founding out how to trounce this one will help us immensely on the next one, which may not adhere to your moral viewpoint.

[ultrafilter]

Originally posted by Brutus
67% of new infections were among gays (which are called 'msm' in the report) and IV drug users. It further breaks down as 42% of new cases being among gays and 33% among heterosexuals.

Nitpick: it's possible for both you and Francesca to be right. Even if most of the new cases are in gays, the heterosexual male population may be experiencing the highest increase in infections, which is what I think she was talking about.

But yeah, I disagree with the OP. To my mind, Tars has the best point: there are other, similar viruses with different infection vectors, and knowing how to fight this one will give us a head start on the next one.

[edwino]

No drug cure has ever been found for a viral infection, to the best of my knowledge. HIV comes closest as far as I can tell.

There are viruses that we have eliminated (or mostly eliminated) -- polio and smallpox come to mind. How was this done? By vaccine.

A best case scenario would have a vaccine to treat the populations who have had contact with HIV+ individuals, like what was done for smallpox. Prevent spread of the virus, prevent the chain of infection. It is another piece of the puzzle in addressing this disease -- education, prophylactics, drug treatments are all other key parts.

With HIV, though, there may be another level. HIV maintains its dormancy in macrophages for years after infection. We treat the disease basically by preventing it from emerging from dormancy. HIV drugs work by killing the virus in replication -- inhibiting the protease or the polymerase which are working to build to viruses. We have no access to the virus in dormancy. A vaccine may give us access to this virus in dormancy, and thus offer something closer to a cure.

A vaccine is just one avenue of research. As Tars pointed out, any avenue of research may have benefits beyond the initial focus. Besides treatments for other retroviruses, this is a good area for studying evolution of viruses, emergence of resistance, epidemiology on huge scales, large scale drug manufacture while minimization of costs, modularization of the vaccine making process so epitopes can be swapped easily to make vaccines for different strains, and so on and so forth.

[Speleophile]

It is also not true that vaccines are only effective pre-exposure. This is usually the case, but it's not universal. Rabies, considered by the CDC to be the most deadly disease known to man, is treatable by vaccine post exposure. Indeed, this is generally the rule, as only people with some heightened risk factor (zoo worker, vet) take the pre-exposure series.

Of course, once the symptoms of rabies start, the treatment goes along the lines of "bend over, put your head between your legs...."

[cainxinth]

Why is the West getting an AIDS vaccine before Africa who needs it so much more? $. Most of the money behind that research both from charities and pharmaceutical corps is from the West. Africa simply can’t afford the AIDS cure, but that’s a whole other thread.

But, is the vaccine worth it? I'm gonna take it. Aren't you?

Originally posted by Brutus
AIDS is incredibly preventable. It should be a non-issue by now, but fucking morons (statistically, we men are at fault far more) don't take basic precautions. It is so simple to NOT get AIDS, that I have zero sympathy for those who engage in risky behavior and then bemoan their fate.

A vaccine would be nice, but shouldn't be neccesary. It is a sad state of affairs that such a preventable disease is so widespread.

Its 3 AM Saturday night you're drunk and horny, there’s a hot chick sitting on your lap and there’s no condom in sight. People aren’t morons, they’re weak and impulsive. Certainly it behooves people to be more cautions, but I think its apparent its not gonna' happen.

[pluralgravity]

Woo-hoo cainxinth

quote:
''Its 3AM Saturday night your drunk and horny, there's a hot chick sitting on your lap....''

Oh crap, its Francesca

[Polycarp]

Brutus, this is purely anecdotal, but just to give you a quick refutation of your line of thinking, I am one individual who has known precisely one person known to me to be suffering from AIDS -- and that person was a chaste wife who had slept with nobody but her husband, did not do drugs, or any of the other "evil things that AIDS sufferers do to bring the disease down upon them." Unfortunately, her husband was not of the same fibre, and did contract the virus and give it to her. So I personally doubt that that situation is all that rare, even in America. (And both you and pluralgravity might do a little reading on what's happening in Africa. It truly pains me to say that Jesse Helms is a much more charitable person than you two seem to be.)

[erislover]

"Deserve" is not a word I recognize, biologically speaking.

[jayjay]

Silly me. I thought we'd grown out of the "virus as punishment for wicked acts" stage of thinking on the AIDS issue.

For these people (the "innocents", by Brutus' reckoning - jj), I'd like to see an AIDS cure.

And God take the rest of them, eh? And why don't we, as a society, get rid of drug and alcohol rehab as well. They're just a bunch of weak souls who knew better, after all. We could probably save some money by not allowing treatment for work-related injuries as well...they knew the dangers when they signed up for the job.

The stigma associated with STDs is long overdue for a rethink. People make poor decisions all the time...those where sex is involved, while not a good thing, don't deserve any more opprobrium than any other bad decision in any other aspect of life.

And of course, if this were a disease that was spread in an equally limited way that wasn't sexual, and if it weren't associated first in this country with us filthy hom'sexu'ls, the attitude throughout right-wing America would be quite different...

jayjay

[Baldwin]

And why don't we, as a society, get rid of drug and alcohol rehab as well. They're just a bunch of weak souls who knew better, after all.

I know you're being ironic, but this is exactly the position held by AG John Ashcroft; he doesn't believe in any public funding of rehab centers because it "rewards immorality". Gee, thanks for the Christian love, John. What a collosal dick.

I haven't heard much from this administration about AIDS, in any case.

A vaccine for the Western strain of AIDS would be great; a vaccine for African AIDS would be even better, because of the number of people involved. And even if you "don't care about Africa", there's such a disaster brewing there that in would be in our most basic self interest to do whatever we can to help them, before there's yet another group of desperate people who see nothing to lose in attacking the West any way they can.

[Cervaise]

Originally posted by pluralgravity
If you don't care about Africa, like me, there are probably much better things to spend this money on. I'm a human being, I care about my fellow human beings, and I'm nothing like you.

[JohnM]

We all make bad choices; that is part of being human. Should our bad choices carry a death sentence? In the case of HIV, if you live in the developing world and don't have access to the full range of Western health care, your bad choice in engaging in unprotected sex may very well result in not only your own death, but that of those close to you (spouse, children born to infected spouse, etc.)

But, as the OP doesn't care about Africa, and seems to see the issue as one of pure self interest, how about this? The potential for political and military turmoil in Africa caused, or at least exacerbated, by the tremendous human misery of the AIDS epidemic will have repercussions for the entire world. Developing a vaccine can help prevent this, and even from a strict economic point of view will cost far less than picking up the pieces afterwards.

[robertliguori]

Hmm. I'm in the running for the SDMB's selfish bastard award, and I think that knocking out AIDS, African or American, is a good investment. Read a history book: the people with high standards of living are less liable to shoot people.

[Brutus]

Originally posted by robertliguori
Read a history book: the people with high standards of living are less liable to shoot people.


Hrmmm. Maybe as far as internal crime is concerned, but definitely not true when it comes to terrorism or traditional state-on-state aggression.

Regardless...

I can see maybe the 'first generation' of HIV+ people could be forgiven for being ignorant. But now? How many years later?

There is no big secret as to how one gets HIV. There is no fucking excuse for having unprotected sex, or needle sharing. Heck, if people followed the Judeo-Christian practice of entering into purely monogamous relationships, I doubt we ever would have heard of HIV.

Like so many other things in life, it will be the responsible and hard-working people of the world that foot the bill for other peoples total and utter stupidity. How nice.

[gobear]

Like so many other things in life, it will be the responsible and hard-working people of the world that foot the bill for other peoples total and utter stupidity. How nice.

Well, since this isn't the Pit, my reply can't be as colorful as I would like.

Let me break this down into simple language for you.

HIV is a retrovirus. It doesn't check out the sexual habits or orientation of its victims. It just wants to find some cells with it can hijack to make more copies of itself. It is most easily transmitted by blood to blood contact, but it will also transmit itself through sexual contact, or through mother-to-child transmission during birth.

Hemophiliacs have gotten it through contaminated blood supplies. Did they deserve it?

Children have gotten it from their mothers? Did they deserve it?

People, both straight and gay, have gotten it through sex. Is that a crime worthy of a painful, lingering death?

Diseases are not a scourge from God; they are caused by microorganisms. Yes, it would be helpful if people, both gay and straight, took responsibility for their health, but how do you tell that to a married woman in Uganda who des not dare ask her HIV+ husband to wear a condom lest she be accused of being a whore? How do you tell that to a 10-year-old prostitute whose parents sold her to a Patpong Road brothel? How do you tell that to people in countries where condoms are not readily available or are forbidden by cultural and relgious taboos?

Please, please, grow a conscience, or at least read a book about HIV so you can stop spewing misinformation and hate.

[pldennison]

Yeah, because those faggots don't have jobs or pay taxes or anything. :rolleyes:

Heck, if people followed the Judeo-Christian practice of entering into purely monogamous relationships, I doubt we ever would have heard of HIV.

Aside from the issue of why the crap non-Judeo-Christian people should follow practices of dubious general applicability, this is a completely silly assertion. In fact, it's quite possible that absent the homosexual community's recognition of what was then called GRIDS, HIV could have spread (and infilitrated the blood supply) through a monogamous intravenous drug user, and we wouldn't have known about it as early as we did.

[Brutus]

Gobear:

You misunderstand. I know that gay men can have monogamous relationships. Also, they can, and statistically speaking, generally do, practice safe sex.

My ire is for all who screw everything in sight, sans condom. Even a latex condom isn't a free-ticket for hedonism, but it is better then nothing.

I care not if the screwing in question is homosexual or heterosexual in nature. That is meaningless; The responsiblity (or lack thereof) of the involved parties is what I am mad about.

And like I said earlier, I feel strongly that the HIV+ babies, transfusion victims, etc, should have every opportunity to access the best care available. A cure, as soon as it is available.

And of course, God has nothing to do with it. Never said God did have anything to do with it, so refrain from putting words in my mouth.


pldennison

I realize that this is wishfull thinking on my part, but...

1) Assuming that everyone was in a monogamous relationship (gay, straight, who cares)

then it follows that:

2) STD's wouldn't spread. They couldn't. At best, you could get some bizarre transmission paths like widow to new husband or something, but nothing like the wildfire spread of STD's we have now.


I know, people want to hump everything in sight. God forbid anyone show self-restraint. Even suggesting it would be unfair, it seems. But if people learned to have monogamous relationships, coupled with safe sexual practices, we wouldn't need a vaccine.

[BlackKnight]

Monogamous relationships? I know, people like to have sex. But god forbid anyone show self-restraint! Why can't people just be celibate? Even suggesting it would be unfair, it seems. If people would just stop having sex, we wouldn't need a vaccine.

[Freudian Slit]

But how can we possibly all be in monogamous relationships? People date and break up, have sex (in and out of relationships), many times before marriage. In a world where the only way STDs wouldn't spread except through widows/ers to new spouses, we'd probably have to have arranged marriages. In the real world, people experiment...because how do you know who you're going to marry and enter into a long monogamous relationship with?

This whole tendency to condemn someone- those people who have sex promiscously- just seems like another way of scapegoating. Like those who say abortion should be legal but only in certain cases (i.e, rape), which can be seen as punishing those, it's a way of at least trying to punish someone, and "save" the supposedly innocent victim. No one deserves to die of AIDS. A vaccine, or eventually even a cure, should be available to everyone, including those who engage in risk-taking activity. For practical reasons (they might spread it to others), but also because why do we have to construct reasons to brand them as pariahs? Why use the fact that they had sex to suddenly insinuate that they've become morally inferior? Why try to make anyone morally inferior- can we not just accept that AIDS is a terrible disease and try to help combat it?

[Tars Tarkas]

If people would just stop having sex, we wouldn't need a vaccine.


Of course not, there'd be no people....

[drachillix]

Originally posted by Tars Tarkas


Of course not, there'd be no people....

Problem solved, disease killed, we won!!! :D

Bit of a Pyhrric Victory but hey we needed a little positive moment.

[tavalla]

And, if it were a perfect world, my parents would have given me that pony I wanted when I was ten.

The OP wasn't asking about the worth of an AIDS vaccine in a perfect world; the question is, rather, whether an AIDS vaccine is worth it in this world. I can look at this question in two ways.

The "practical accountant" method means balancing the cost of developing and refining, then distributing an AIDS vaccine (plus, as mentioned previously, the bonus of new knowledge about countering retroviruses) against the cost of caring for those living with AIDS, maintaining medical facilities, ongoing research into new drugs when current therapies are rendered less effective or ineffective through resistance, the loss of productive work years of those affected either directly or because they leave the workforce to care for their beloved, ongoing promotion of AIDS-reduction education plans...

In which case, the AIDS vaccine is a winner, even before considering the amount of heartache it could save.

Meanwhile, the humanitarian in me insists that, even in the case that developing an AIDS vaccine cost more than it saved, we cannot say to thousands of people in the west - never mind millions more in the rest of the world - "We could probably have done something for you but it cost too much. Try and catch something a little more cost-effective next time, mmkay?"

[erislover]

Monogamy is overrated anyway. :pMy ire is for all who screw everything in sight, sans condom.Somehow I don't believe this makes the majority of AIDS victims.I know, people want to hump everything in sight. God forbid anyone show self-restraint.Devil forbid you tell us how to have sex in the first place.

Whether you are religious or not, you are clearly asserting a moral solution to a biological problem. Be my guest. Just don't expect the rest of us wild and crazy fuck-monkeys to give a hoot.

We want to have sex. We want to cure AIDS. Why, oh why, these are not both feasible to you simultaneously I cannot quite understand yet.

[Cervaise]

Why, oh why, these are not both feasible to you simultaneously I cannot quite understand yet.Because Brutus, as usual, is incorrectly assuming that anybody who doesn't share his misguided moral philosophy is either uninformed or inferior or both. :rolleyes:

[Esprix]

Because, as we all know, the 1950's were perfect.

Excuse me while I throw up. Thank you.

Esprix

[Brutus]

Originally posted by erislover
...We want to have sex. We want to cure AIDS. Why, oh why, these are not both feasible to you simultaneously I cannot quite understand yet.

You do know that there is no vaccine or cure today, right? That is why both are not feasible to me simultaneously. There is no cure. None.

Scientists may or may not someday come up with a cure or vaccine. But until then, there are only 'moral' (behavioral)solutions to this biological problem. Nothing else works.

[erislover]

Not to be rude, but, well, the moral solution isn't working either in case you didn't notice. Hence the problem.

[Tars Tarkas]

I don't think there are 'moral' solutions, more like 'moral' preventatives. A few people will still get it even if they are careful.

Something will work someday, then people will be free to screw each other will all abandon until the next big disease shows up.

[Esprix]

I, for one, don't see a problem with spending money so that people will have the freedom of sexual expression. Irresponsibility is irresponsibility, I agree - for everyone's sake, we should all practice safe sex, monogamous sex, or no sex. But curing this disease (heck, all STD's for that matter) would, IMHO, be a positive thing for freedom of expression. Immoral? Depends on your moral grounding, I'd say.

Esprix

[pluralgravity]

I posted the OP in IMHO, it now looks as if it's on the way from here to the BBQ Pit.
I honestly hoped that other Dopers would have ideas about medical problems, disabling, painful and relatively common, that could be solved by the effort that is proposed for a Western AIDS vaccine.
I have no moral, religeious(dog forbid) nor personal health axe to grind here. I just think good health for many people is a better goal than a less risky sex life for a (very shrill) few.
I don't care about Africa because the African strain of the human race is being patronised to death by western liberals.
The West should cancel all debts and leave them alone to solve their problems. If they suceed,and why should'nt they, they will have something to be proud of.
Since this is now a debate let me say that the contribution of
Tars Tarkas is the most interesting to me. Yes, in the past projects benefiting from a tsunami of research cash have had some world changing spin-offs that were unforseen at the start,
like Apollo. I'll have to think about it.
I mentioned this thread to a friend last night and he said ''Its just a pack of lies (the AIDS vaccine), they put out to boost their share price.'' Now living in the land of Spin I think he could be right.

[Esprix]

No, no axe to grind - just let the junkies and faggots die.

:rolleyes:

Esprix

[pluralgravity]

Esprix Sweetie, your're steriotyping me. Thats against the law in the land of Spin. And probably against the rules of this board

[Esprix]

Oh, I'm terribly sorry - I forgot to include Africans in your "list of people that don't matter and can go ahead and die." My sincerest apologies.

(Trust me, you need no help from me - you're digging your own grave just fine round these parts.)

Esprix

[pluralgravity]

This is turning into a chat room Esprix me old mate.

'The list' is of people who should go ahead and save themselves.

g'night.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by jayjay


The stigma associated with STDs is long overdue for a rethink. People make poor decisions all the time...those where sex is involved, while not a good thing, don't deserve any more opprobrium than any other bad decision in any other aspect of life.


Damn, now I have to go look up opprobrium. I'll be right back.

Ok, that was fun.

Anyway we do deride people for making stupid decisions in other areas of life quite often. For example every time I see someone on a motorcycle without a helmet or wearing shorts and flip flops I think to myself "What a dummy." I certainly wouldn't say a helmetless rider deserves to get his skull cracked open but I would say that it was the consequences of his actions. Likewise someone who engages in high risk behavior and contracts HIV is living with the consequences of their actions but I would never say that they deserve the virus. Though I might still roll my eyes and think "What a dummy."

To everyone else. I do think it is a bit of a red herring to bring up someone abberent examples of people contracting the virus. Sure, that one night stand might result in you getting HIV but unless you engage in such behavior on a regular basis you're probably safe.

Of course like any other medical problem I don't have any problems with anyone developing treatments or vaccines.

Marc

[Tars Tarkas]

I don't care about Africa because the African strain of the human race is being patronised to death by western liberals.


I'm not really sure how to react to this....

[Esprix]

Originally posted by pluralgravity

If you don't care about Africa, like me, there are probably much better things to spend this money on.

Yeah, you're Mother Theresa. Let me call the Vatican to start the sainthood proceedings.

I wonder how many other people who "asked for it" are undeserving of life in your book? To invoke Godwin, I wonder how many Jews "asked for it" by their choice of religion when Hitler gassed them? After all, they could have easily changed their behavior, right?

:rolleyes:

Esprix

[elfkin477]

Originally posted by jayjay
The stigma associated with STDs is long overdue for a rethink. People make poor decisions all the time...those where sex is involved, while not a good thing, don't deserve any more opprobrium than any other bad decision in any other aspect of life.

I don't know...I'm more a fan of " you reap what you sow." Sure, lots of people make bad decisions all the time, but the ones that effect other people seem more deserving of scorn and derision, and spreading disease ranks up there with driving while drunk as far as devestating other people's lives are concerned. Live and let live is fine as long as you're not hurting other people in the process of enjoying the right to make stupid decisions.

[Efrem]

pluralgravity, on behalf of all those Africans (past, present and sadly future) who have died of AIDS, had family members who have died of AIDS, have had close friends who have died of AIDS, knows, works with, or helps African AIDS victims (including Orphans and others): Fuck you.

And I hope in the future you might be able to fathom the horroric toll that AIDS takes for anybody. African or non-African.

[erislover]

Um, this is still GD folks... :(

[Gaudere]

Efrem:Fuck you.

[Moderator Hat ON]

Not in GD you don't, Efrem.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Efrem]

Originally posted by erislover
Um, this is still GD folks... :( Damn it, this is a sign that I am way too used to debating things in 'The Pit'.

[GSV Consolation of Dreams]

Originally posted by Esprix


Yeah, you're Mother Theresa. Let me call the Vatican to start the sainthood proceedings.

I wonder how many other people who "asked for it" are undeserving of life in your book? To invoke Godwin, I wonder how many Jews "asked for it" by their choice of religion when Hitler gassed them? After all, they could have easily changed their behavior, right?

:rolleyes:

Esprix

Dude, I'm with you 100% in spirit but this example is not a good one. I believe a great many "Jews" had actually converted to other religions, or were totally integrated into German society, it took extensive background checks to identify a lot of them.

Made possible by compulsory ID cards and the Germans' love of extensive record keeping. An awful lot of them had changed their behaviour, it didn't do them any good.

Back on topic. I don't have the words in this forum to describe Pluralgravity's OP. An entire continent is facing a viral apocalypse but s/he "doesn't care". How liberating it must be, not to have a conscience.

[Tars Tarkas]

Originally posted by Efrem
Damn it, this is a sign that I am way too used to debating things in 'The Pit'.

Debating in the Pit=beating each other with insult thesaruses!

;)

Just remember to wash you mouth out with Lifebuoy before you come back to GD!

[Esprix]

And just to make sure we don't all get banned in our vehement opposition to the OP, I started a Pit thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=125013).

Have fun!

Esprix

[Tars Tarkas]

Man, where will i make my smart remarks now? This is the first GD thread i actually got praise in, but i can swear in the pit. decisions decisions...:confused:

[wring]

so, Brutus and plural, you are ok with compassionate treatment for those you perceive as 'innocent' victims of HIV, but not for others.

So, would you then be in favor of a moral evaluation prior to medical treatment for other issues? Cancer eating your lungs, too bad you smoked. Arteries blocked, nearly stroking you out, well, damn you shouldn't have had that second helping of bacon last Tuesday.

Why stop with cause/effect? why not only allow medical treatment for any illness/condition for those who can demonstrate that they're a productive member of society, tax paying, no criminal convictions, of the appropriate religious background, eat right, exercise, vote, no sex before marriage, non littering (gotta figure out that whole meat eating/veggie thing, tho' ) country western listen'in, ?

hell, we'd solve the health care crisis.

[Tim R. Mortiss]

I think everyone is missing an important distinction. Advocating, endorsing, or wanting an end to suffering and death is a nice thing. Doing all that you personally can, with your own resources, to help achieve that goal is a compassionate thing. Wanting them to keep suffering and dying, of course, is mean and nasty.

But....

NOT wanting the government to take your money at gunpont (taxes, that is, to you non-libertarians) and spend it on causes not of your choosing is NOT a lack of compassion, it is a preference for personal liberty.

And WANTING the government to take money from other people at gunpoint and spend it on your own personal causes is NOT compassion! It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Usually works, though, when Paul is sufficiently louder, or has more votes, than Peter.

[Esprix]

Ah, yes - curing disease doesn't actually benefit you, so why should you be forced to pay for it? "I want my tax dollars only to go to research on athlete's foot - but nothing else! At least, until I get cancer, that is..."

:rolleyes:

Esprix

[erislover]

Tim: diseases that can be spread have the potential to affect everyone. The HIV virus (redundant?) can lie dormant in a host without causing AIDS. This means your average serial monogomist (that is, not a fuck-monkey) could spread the disease to one or two parties.

Like a child.

Yes, if all humans everywhere only had sex with one person ever, and if the monogomous relationship failed then they would not have sex with anyone else again, and if all blood gathered were screened and cleared for HIV, and if all persons who had HIV were unable to bear children, then sure: no one has to rob Peter to pay Paul. Except that this behavior would have to be enforced. Preference for personal liberty? Pshaw. Spending some tax dollars to research a cure or a vaccine is nothing compared to enforcing the above.

[Tim R. Mortiss]

You are misunderstanding me. Nowhere did I say that AIDS isn't everyone's problem. That's a whole nuther issue.

I'll make my point real simple for ya: Spending MY money does not make YOU compassionate. And vice versa....Timmy

[erislover]

And I'll make mine real simple for you, too, since we're all such chums now: we're not trying to steal YOUR money to be compassionate; we're trying to SAVE LIVES to be compassionate. Stealing money, as you would say, is a whole nuther issue.

[Esprix]

Um, ok. Whatever.

Esprix

[wring]

So, let me ask- what is an appropriate expenditure of tax money?

Fire? pshaw - I haven't personally had a fire, don't need that.

Police? well, but only a part time force, since I rarely need that.

Research into heart disease? Hey, it doesn't run in my family.

The arguement that you're trying to support here isn't new. Many people in the past have suggested that tax money should only be spent on things that they personally find worthwhile. No welfare for individuals (but farm subsidies, well that's ok etc.)

Our system has a variety of checks and balances. No one individual will ever agree with absolutely every expenditure of their tax money, and it's unrealistic to think it would happen (in any society comprising more than one individual).

deal.

[erislover]

*dreamy sigh* wring and I "pshaw"ing the same thing... :D

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by Esprix
Yeah, you're Mother Theresa. Let me call the Vatican to start the sainthood proceedings.

I wonder how many other people who "asked for it" are undeserving of life in your book? To invoke Godwin, I wonder how many Jews "asked for it" by their choice of religion when Hitler gassed them? After all, they could have easily changed their behavior, right?

:rolleyes:

Esprix

I'm sure if you really, really put your vast mental resources to the test, you could come up with a more stupid comparison, but frankly, I don't know what it could be.

Obviously the evil AIDS Stormtroopers are going around, rounding people up and forcing them to take HIV injections. It's surely not that certain people's behavior is risky and makes them more likely to contract the disease... :rolleyes:

Yes, I think that a vaccine would be worth it, but as one of the "bad guys" already pointed out, as long as there is no cure or vaccine, the so-called "moral/behavioral solution" is the only one. So why do you bitch every time somebody who is not a doctor says that monogamy and not shooting drugs are the best risk-reduction factors? Especially since that's exactly the same thing doctors say...does that make them gay-bashers? Judgemental assholes? Hate-filled bigots? Or maybe they're people who recognize that stupid and irresponsible behavior can have dire consequences.

Give me a break.

[Tars Tarkas]

Originally posted by Tim R. Mortiss
It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Usually works, though, when Paul is sufficiently louder, or has more votes, than Peter.

No, it's more like robbing Peter to cure Paul, so Paul's disease that makes his wang fall off doesn't infect Peter or Timmy.

[Lady of the Lake]

Originally posted by Joe_Cool

So why do you bitch every time somebody who is not a doctor says that monogamy and not shooting drugs are the best risk-reduction factors? Especially since that's exactly the same thing doctors say...does that make them gay-bashers? Judgemental assholes? Hate-filled bigots? Or maybe they're people who recognize that stupid and irresponsible behavior can have dire consequences.
Give me a break.

No...I haven't seen many people doing this in this thread.

It's when people say that we shouldn't try to find a cure BECAUSE it's 'only happening to people in Africa and homosexuals'...then we may start thinking people are 'hate filled bigots'(but then I haven't seen people saying that either so I don't know exactly why you're saying these things).

The point has been made that currently aids is predominately passed through irresponsible behavior. Shout it to the heavens, I hear you on this. BUT, to then move from that to 'and die because I see no reason to spend money on treatment for this' is a whole 'nother matter.

[erislover]

Oh Tars, let's not get all literal with everything!

Joe Cool:So why do you bitch every time somebody who is not a doctor says that monogamy and not shooting drugs are the best risk-reduction factors?Um, lesse... this "moral solution" is wildly unrealistic that no society since recorded history has been able to implement it? Nah, that can't be relevent.

[Dead Badger]

Originally posted by Tim R. Mortiss
I'll make my point real simple for ya: Spending MY money does not make YOU compassionate. And vice versa....Timmy
But for the purpose of debate, surely you can assume that everyone in this thread pays taxes, yes? In which case it's spending OUR money, making US compassionate if we spend it for the general good. No-one's saying "let's send in the shock troops, get Mr. Mortiss to pay for some drug research," it's a case of having a communal pot of money, and expressing an opinion on how it might best be spent. How many times can it be said that AIDS research is not the personal agenda of a couple of junkies and some gay men, but is something which will benefit the vast majority of the human race?

[Tars Tarkas]

Originally posted by erislover
Oh Tars, let's not get all literal with everything!


Cool, i'll make this response all cryptic and metaphorical!

The eagle soars as the fires burn, but gorilla teeth eclispe the badger's nose, firefly, firefly!

[erislover]

I said
this "moral solution" is wildly unrealistic that no society since recorded history has been able to implement it? As this will certainly elicit a "cite?" call, I withdraw the comment.

[Esprix]

Thank you, Vivien and eris.

Esprix

[Tars Tarkas]

just FYI, mobo85 brings us news of HIV positive muppets

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=125070

[erislover]

Incidentally, though I did withdraw the comment, I am not wondering about it. Has there been any society of appreciable size that has been able to enforce any sort of morality efficiently? Hell, we can't even get rid of something as obvious as murder, you know? so I don't completely withdraw the comment, but instead sort of toss it out there: yeah, it is a solution (and if things were different they wouldn't be the same), but is it really a reasonable one? Especially taking into account my comments here:all humans everywhere only had sex with one person ever, and if the monogomous relationship failed then they would not have sex with anyone else again, and if all blood gathered were screened and cleared for HIV, and if all persons who had HIV were unable to bear children...I mean, limiting a person to one sexual partner ever, for life? That's "non-risky" behavior that is reasonable? I'm sorry... I can't buy it for the life of me.

Esprix: I gotta say, after my embarassing tango on the whole use of the word "gay" with you.... anytime. :)

[erislover]

Not wondering about it?? Um... I mean, I am now wondering about it.

[vanilla]

Yes, its worth it. Nobody ever asked to get it!

vanilla, an AIDS widow

[Esprix]

And you know what? That's what it comes down to - yes, we can all take reasonable precautions and still maintain our joie de vie, no matter what form it takes (we are, after all, granted life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). In the end, however, nobody ever asked to get it. By saying, "Your behavior equates to deserving it" you are saying (a) they asked for it; and (b) they are not worthy of compassion because of their behavior (which begs [c] your behavior is immoral).

Esprix

[Netbrian]

I'd like to throw in my comment that you do have a say where your money goes. Tis called a "vote". You may say you voted against people that would support this. Well, most people didn't. Do you still want to withdraw your money? Why not just decide that your money went to be spent on things you appreciate, and them bleedin' heart liberals are paying for HIV research? Works much nicer that way.

[Cat Whisperer]

What interests me about this thread is how the OP seems to have placed a dollar figure on human life. From the position that spending X number of dollars to save people who don't deserve it (paraphrasing, of course) is a waste of money, I believe you can logically get to X number of dollars is worth it to save people who *do* deserve it. I'm curious as to how you decide who deserves it and what the dollar figure is that makes the balance sheet equal out when weighing human lives against money for vaccines. One deserving human saved? Two? Three hundred? One million? Your mother?

[Cat Whisperer]

Um, I just realized it might appear that I support the idea that some people deserve AIDS. I do not.

[Joe_Cool]

erislover:
I mean, limiting a person to one sexual partner ever, for life? That's "non-risky" behavior that is reasonable? I'm sorry... I can't buy it for the life of me.

So basically what you're saying is that because you don't like the nature of the solution, society has to pay the price for your knowingly putting your health at risk? I don't like having to wear a seatbelt. It's inconvenient and uncomfortable. But if I crash my car, I'll be glad I did wear it. I'm sorry you don't like the behavioral solution, but at this point it is the only one. If you choose to ignore it and catch AIDS, it's nobody's fault but your own, and you don't get to expect me to pay for research to cure the consequences that you reaped for your irresponsible actions.

Esprix, nobody is saying anybody deserves AIDS. But At the same time, there is no excuse for anybody this day and age to get it through sex. We all know the dangers and how to minimize the risks. If you are running around screwing a bunch of people without taking the obvious precautions, you ARE asking for it.

So you (generic) can't whine about society not caring about your plight, if you go out there and take that risk KNOWING BETTER. If I'm screwing around on my roof without proper safety precautions and I fall and break my neck, is it your responsibility to do something about it? Or am I reaping what I sowed? Do you petition the government for a chicken in every pot and a safety railing on every roof? Or do you shake your head and say "stupid ass, you should have been more careful"?

Again, I do support research for a cure, but that's because I think it would be a good thing, not because I feel obligated to rescue people who basically did it to themselves.

[erislover]

So basically what you're saying is that because you don't like the nature of the solution, society has to pay the price for your knowingly putting your health at risk?I'm saying a solution that cannot be implimented is not a solution.

[Tars Tarkas]

oh, come on, erislover, you know we can stop murder if we just don't kill each other. Why we haven't tried that before is beyond me..... ;)

[Esprix]

Right, Joe - no one ever makes mistakes, and if they do, we should have no pity or compassion for what happens to them. (And never mind that the vast majority of Africans remain ignorant of how to prevent the spread of the disease, let alone the fact that not every person in the U.S. is wholly knowledgable about it, either.)

Your compassion (and foresight) underwhelms me. This is a global, human problem, and people are running around pointing fingers and deciding who deserves to live and who deserves to die.

Esprix

[Joe_Cool]

Esprix, I know you have trouble with your reading comprehension, so I'll say it slowly:

I. Do. Support. Research. For. A. Cure. For. Aids.

That does not change the fact that the vast majority of people who have it brought it on themselves. I am not deciding who deserves to live or die. They have the disease, they are going to die. There is no cure, so the only alternative is prevention.

People decide that for themselves, when they engage in behavior that puts them at risk for the disease.

Tars and eris:
I know you think you're pretty clever, but guess what? I don't have aids. And I've never killed anybody. So I guess the solution can be implemented after all.

[erislover]

Well, I haven't been hit by an asteroid, so I guess we've got the solution for that, too.

[Joe_Cool]

Sure, if not wearing a rubber makes you more likely to get hit by an asteroid. :rolleyes:

[reprise]

I'm sure all these sub-Sarahan Africans are just going to pop into their local convenience store and buy condoms with their disposable incomes...

[wring]

Joe When some one is killed in an airplane accident, have they, too 'brought it on themselves'? or, have they made a specific judgement for themselves, weighing the risks and benefits, made a decision which may entail some amount of what for them is an appropriate risk?

And if not, why not?

And if so, why is that different from engaging in behavior which may have some small (tho measurable) amount of risk.

And, of course, you do also understand that the person who is monogomous with some one who claims to be monogomous but does engage in risky behavior, is just as much at risk as some one who engages in risky behavior themself?

So, in order for anyone to not have 'brought it on themself' they should not exchange bodily fluids with anyone, since anyone can be lying and there is that 'window' between infection and positive testing. Hm.

[Tars Tarkas]

Originally posted by Joe_Cool

Tars and eris:
I know you think you're pretty clever, but guess what? I don't have aids. And I've never killed anybody. So I guess the solution can be implemented after all.

Wow!! It's Jesus!!! And He's casting stones!!!!

[lisa simpson]By that logic, i could say this rock keeps tigers away....[/lisa simpson]

BTW, got a cite for your no AIDS having? like an AIDS test?

[Esprix]

"How much do you want for your tiger rock?"

Again, no one is denying that people sometimes do stupid things. I still don't equate that to "they brought it on themselves." YMMV.

Esprix

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by Tars Tarkas


Wow!! It's Jesus!!! And He's casting stones!!!!

[lisa simpson]By that logic, i could say this rock keeps tigers away....[/lisa simpson]

BTW, got a cite for your no AIDS having? like an AIDS test?

As a matter of fact, smart ass, I had a full bloodwork done about 2 months ago. Not that it's any of your f-ing business...

[Esprix]

Goodness, a heterosexual didn't just get offended at being asked about his HIV status, did he? Goodness, gracious! Stop the presses!

(For the sarcasm impaired, that's a taste of what we gay folk here at the SDMB have been putting up with for weeks now.)

Esprix

[reprise]

To be honest, Esprix, I don't understand why anyone (gay, straight, bisexual, injecting drug user or not) feels compelled to reveal the timing and results of any sexual health tests they might have had.

We might be a relatively enlightened and informed community, but I sometimes think that the many "I play safe and I have the results to prove it" comments that get made around here, coupled with the venom which is sometimes directed at people who do not view celibacy or monogamy as the only two available options, can only DISCOURAGE anyone who might be HIV+ from ever revealing the fact on the SDMB, let alone fighting our ignorance or gaining any support or understanding for themselves.

For the record, I no longer carry disposable latex gloves in my bag at all times and I no longer routinely glove when cleaning up bodily fluids. Yes, some day I might stumble across an accident and become infected with some nasty disease because there are no gloves in my bag (perhaps even HIV). In anything less than an immediately life-threatening situation I am likely to be able to find something available for use as a barrier between myself and someone else's blood, and in an immediately life-threatening situation I'm not going to let the fact that a perfect stranger MIGHT have some transmissible disease prevent me from rendering immediate first aid. The chances of that person bleeding to death are far higher than my chances of contracting HIV from them if they ARE infected and bleed all over me; and if I don't render first aid because they MIGHT have HIV and I don't have gloves, the chances of the likelihood of them bleeding to death unless other, immediate, help is available could be 100%.

I can live with that risk just as I could live with the far more immediate risk of dying while trying to save someone from a burning building or drag someone out of deep water.

So I guess I'll only have "myself to blame" should I contract HIV or any other blood borne disease under such a scenario.

[Brutus]

Originally posted by reprise

...For the record, I no longer carry disposable latex gloves in my bag at all times and I no longer routinely glove when cleaning up bodily fluids. Yes, some day I might stumble across an accident and become infected with some nasty disease because there are no gloves in my bag (perhaps even HIV).

You are not a paramedic I hope. Forget you getting infected, what about you possibly infecting the patient?

[reprise]

No Brutus, I am not a paramedic but I do have first aid training and like any average citizen I can come across a traumatic accident at any time.

The reason I used to routinely carry gloves was because I worked and socialised primarily with people living with AIDS for a very long time (I also used to carry dental dams, condoms, and syringes).

If I were in a health care situation, of course I would routinely apply universal precautions - I'm just talking about coming across accidents and the like in everyday life. It happens to average citizens - with or without first aid training - every single day.

[Brutus]

Fair enough then. You had me worried! ;) Even though the officers in our PD ( I am just a volunteer reservist) technically do not provide first aid, we still pack the standard barriers (gloves, eyes, and one-way valves). I wouldn't want to spread Brutus cooties just as much as I wouldn't want to catch other's cooties.

[reprise]

Brutus, I would fully expect in that situation you would not only be provided with the appropriate barriers but that you would be drilled to use them no matter what.

Most of my encounters with possibly infectious (either way) situations these days are pretty much unforeseeable given that I'm living an average suburban mum's life. I encounter blood in either catastrophic but unforeseen situations (such as traumatic accidents) or quite trivial ones (the nosebleeds and scraped knees of my kids and their friends). In the first situation, the absence of gloves isn't going to be my primary consideration, in the second situation, I have all the time in the world to take action to prevent cross-infection.

And no, I wouldn't hesitate about performing CPR without a one-way valve either (never mind the cooties, OWVs prevent the transfer of vomitus which sometimes occurs during mouth to mouth).

[reprise]

At the risk of taking this debate in another direction than that intended by the OP, does it really matter if we have different motivations for wanting or opposing the development of an HIV vaccine.

From a personal standpoint, I buried far too many friends and acquaintances in the 80s and 90s to want this disease to be a permanent part of the landscape.

Yes, I'd like to be able to see people able to make bad judgements about relationships without the consequences being potentially lethal (and the moralists out there might like to acknowledge that an HIV vaccine is hardly going to be a "license to screw"; it isn't going to protect people against other STDs or pregnancy).

Yes, I'd like health care workers and emergency service workers not to have to endure months of anxiety following accidental exposure in order to confirm that "probably OK" is "definitely OK.

Yes, I'd like to see AIDS removed from the "I hate gays and junkies" agenda so that those people who really just hate gays and junkies could no longer use this disease to validate their own prejudices and bigotry.

Yes, I'd like to see a world in which we could relieve just one of the devasting diseases facing many developing countries.

I'm not really happy about the fact that a vaccine for HIV is being pursued for primarily commercial reasons, and that it will probably be made available first to those who are already best empowered in terms of both prevention and treatment, but at the end of the day I can live with that too - because without the profit motive driving people to develop such a vaccine, it can never be available to benefit those who want it to exist for other reasons.