That’s baffling to me. Before my vasectomy, I always used a condom, and I almost always combined that with coitus interruptus, since according to Planned Parenthood, that’s virtually foolproof at preventing pregnancy. If I’m ever in a situation where testing has not been done recently, I’ll certainly use a condom.
Why not? Cost/benefit…
One thing nobody is mentioning is the multiplier effect. This drug is not without side effects, and I don’t think people are likely to take it unless they really need it.
So here we have a subset of people who have more partners, and are less likely to wear condoms, and we are making it much less likely for them to contract HIV. This is huge! Because now all the people they are having unprotected sex with are now not going to contract HIV from them. This drug can potentially take out the “nodes” that transmit HIV across different communities (including the primary partners of people who are fooling around on the side).
Who cares if people get to screw without dying for it? Combined with drugs that suppress viral loads, we now have the people with HIV not transmitting it, and the people most likely to spread it widely not catching it in the first place. It’s a potential game changer that benefits everyone.
And apparently they’re researching an injection that could last three months. That would be cool.
Nevertheless, I think that its better policy to tell people we’ll pay for the easier and cheaper preventive method than subsidize the harder chronic treatment. Considering the other diseases that afflict people that are higher priority, I think condoms and such contraceptives should be the best we do in this case
Well I don’t want to take it that far, but I think we can classify diseases into how many people it affects and how much it will cost to treat. In this case, AIDS affects less people per year than, for example, heart disease. I know which one I would rather put more money into.
If there is going to be a 50-fold increase in the number of prescriptions, the price from the pharmaceutical company should be able to negotiated down by a factor of at least 20 times. (Wild ass guess, based on manufacturing experience in some completely unrelated hardware.) The major cost has been the research, development and testing. Cost averaging for for 500,000 prescriptions per year instead of 10,000 allows the overhead costs to get written of in less than one year. After that, negotiate the price down to 50 times less.
Would I pay that? Sure.
Understood, just wondering about the extent of what high risk behaviors warrant extra expense to mitigate them.
That being said, I know people that are on it now. They already used condoms and still use them. The main thing one friend told me is that he doesn’t panic if one breaks or in the heat of the moment doesn’t use one.
So you “pull out” even though you are wearing a condom? Is that what you are saying? Geez. That’s certainly safe.
It could definitely mean a lot to, say, prostitutes who might not get a lot of choice about insisting on condom use. Of course, that’s also likely to be a group that doesn’t exactly have insurance through the workplace, so yes, tax dollars would be paying for it - and I’d be fine with that.
Puts spermicidal jelly on his toast as well. Can’t be overly cautious.
Forgive the tangent, but when the medicare drug bill passed, it forbade the government from negotiating prices with drug companies, as idiotic as that may sound. Has that changed?
Insurance companies can negotiate, but Medicare can’t (or, couldn’t originally).
The ol’ belt-and-suspenders plan, for a bathing suit: safe, but not much fun!
I’m curious how much the gay public is subsidizing straight pregnancies now.
Also, wouldn’t people who are also open to exposure to HIV want to be on this prophylactic as well? A police officer who has to pat down drug users with sharp needles, the doctor or the dentist who has exposure to bloody situations? A person who might need frequent blood transfusions?
Frankly, this thread not being in the pit is a shame as the question is just on the side of being offensive.
Yeah, I already knew that combining contraceptive methods is an excellent idea, and then I read a Planned Parenthood brochure that specifically mentions those two. No others were in use at that time, so I did precisely that, and it was worth it.
And only in the butt. You never know.
Putting toast in your butt prevents AIDS?
It’s not like you have to buy them dinner first.
Still gotta wear condoms if you don’t want to get herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, HPV… I’d be concerned that too much excitement over this, and too widespread prescription, will lead to even greater rates of these other increasingly antibiotic resistant STIs. Is it a good idea for individuals in monogamous or closed relationships where one partner is HIV+ and the others don’t and nobody has the Clap? Absolutely. But it’s not a ticket back to Free Love, either.
The same argument could be made, and has been, against giving contraceptive pills to women.
Seriously. Why do we pay for contraception? Can’t the sluts say no now and then?
Wait, what? A bunch of women terrified into celibacy would ruin your fun?
It would be foolish to stop using condoms because you are on this pill. Plenty of other STD’s out there. If I had the option to be on this pill assuming it had no side effects I’d take it. I wouldn’t be willing to pay any significant amount for it however.
As a matter of public policy HIV is still out there and spreading despite people being scolded for high risk behavior. Scolding people more isn’t going to solve the problem.
The costs of treating people with HIV and AIDS is very expensive. If this drug has the potential to reduce the number of new infections we should consider adding it to our public health policy. Eradicating HIV and AIDS is in our interest as a society.
As to subsidizing gays… I subsidize plenty of stupid heterosexual activity that goes on every day. Heterosexuals participating in unsafe sex and having children they can’t afford probably costs us a hell of a lot more than all new HIV infections put together straight and gay.
Lesbianism–cheap and with a low HIV transmission rate.