I’m not a pathologist. Heck, I’m not sure that’s even the right word for it.
But the thought has occurred to me that if the AIDS virus has an incredibly hard time surviving outside the human body and that only humans (with the exception of some monkeys?) can carry the disease… would not a concerted global effort be able to eradicate all trace of the AIDS virus?
Here’s how it would work: say everybody on earth… all 6+ billion of us STOPPED ALL SEXUAL ACTIVITY (beyond Jocelyn Elder’s preferred method of self gratification) for a cessation period. If there is a 100% accurate HIV test and we could all take it say, six months later, we could effectively stop the spread of infection of this (and theoretically any such) disease.
Granted, this would require an unprecedented amount of international cooperation and widespread coordination to perform the testing. Not to mention the ethical and logistical problems with identifying the carriers to the rest of the population. But given the difficulty of finding an AIDS cure scientifically, would this not be a big shortcut?
I realize that some AIDS transmission occurs outside of sex (i.e. blood transfusions, accidental blood contact, etc.) but my understanding is that this is very rare and presumably such incidents would have to be regarded with extra precaution during the cessation period in order for this to work.
Suspending disbelief long enough to believe humans would do this (heck, we can’t even be troubled to take our anti-biotics properly) the only thing that I can think of that would derail this is if no amount of rigorous testing over any period of time is 100% accurate.
This falls in that all-too-large category of “theoretically possible, but not practically.” It might work, if you had 100% everything, but that’s just not going to happen. Ever. Sorry.
Yep, and we could end war if we asked everyone to stop fighting each other. And we could stop terrorism if we asked the terrorists not to drive airplanes into crowded buildings and they agreed not to.
Well, for this to work we would have to stop all sexual activity, blood transfusions, sharing of needles, etc. until everyone who currently has AIDS dies
Er… right now, there are documented cases of people knowing they are HIV+ and yet still engaging in unprotected sex, sharing needles, and so forth.
The Controvert’s plan doesn’t seem to figure on such a thing. Implicit in the OP’s assumption is that once a person definitively knows his HIV status, he will behave rationally and not infect others.
The problem is not that people are infecting others while unaware of their HIV status. The problem is that people are infecting others because they don’t act rationally.
Presumably, there are ways to prevent further transmission (isolation, marking carriers, etc.) that are probably unpopular.
I will have to concede that the original proposal wouldn’t work… humans would need to either eradicate all trace of the virus (unfortunately current tech can only do this by killing carriers) or prevent carriers from spreading the virus (requires too much cooperation or limits freedom).
It’s like saying you can stop deaths from skydiving accidents by telling folks not to jump out of airplanes.
It is normally not very easy to make people abstain from sex.
Ask president Moi, who a few months ago pleaded for his people to abstain “even for only two years”. The reasoning was the same as The Controverts - to stop AIDS.
I haven’t heard any official reply, but I doubt that much will change.
I think this is the only way to go, until we have a cure. And for most people it works. To most people sex is an act of love, and one does not willingly inflict HIV on someone one loves. Therefore most people aware of being infected actually use adequate protection.
Of course, even if you could convince people to do it (that is, not do it) for 6 months, you have to make sure you come up with a fair test, then test everybody in the world, or else you don’t really gain a whole lot, except a brief drug stockpile and a bit of time towards working on the cure.
But I’ll support you if you try it. I’ve already put in at least 6 months effort into the plan.
Sadly I personally know somone who doesn’t seem to care about risks. She is actively seeking out multiple anoynmous partners for “barebacking,” sex without condoms. She’s not stupid and the only other possible explanations for her behavior made my blood run cold. It was painful but I had to walk away from her as a friend. Fortunately a strictly platonic friend, I thank God for that.
People’s thoughts come from between their legs, not from between their ears. “Pausing” sexual activity aorund the world would be like stopping a train with a Lego. I hate to sound like a bible-thumper, but this cure is already printed in the bible. A person in a monogamous marriage (and a trustworthy partner), who doesn’t take drugs, can honestly declare an “immunity” to AIDS, since all means of exposure have been ceased. How about proposing a world wide period of monogamy?
Even if it were possible, can you imagine the surge of sexual activity once it was “okay” again? Or the “dry spell” that would sweep across hospitals before the new baby boom. I guess it would give them time to remodel.
Dale the Bold is correct. There is no need to give up sex to prevent the spread of HIV infection. There are few theoretical (but highly improbable) scenarios. A. Everyone is identified as either infected or not infected and agrees to have sex only with people sharing their infectious status. Then the tens of millions of HIV-infected people could have as much sex as they could manage with other HIV-infected people and the billions of uninfected people could do likewise with other uninfected people. The only new infections would be in infants. The only person who couldn’t have sex would be the last remaining HIV-positive person. B. Everyone engage in mutually monogamous relationships. After some years, transmission would cease (except from mothers to their infants). C. Everyone have sex only with people who share their birthdate. After 50 years or so, HIV infection would die out (unless medical advances resulted in infected children living well into young adulthood.)
The basic error most people and many posters make is equating sexually activity with HIV risk. The most promiscuous person in the world won’t get HIV infection if they live where there is no HIV infection and a sexually conservative, monagamous person can easily be infected in an environment where HIV infection is common. It is true that someone who doesn’t have sex won’t become HIV infected (at least not through sexual transmission) but that doesn’t mean that being promiscuous is sufficient for getting infected.
The idea that people who are not HIV infected are necessarily morally superior (in an old testament sense) to people who are is a gross and very unfair simplification.
