# HIV pandemic



## Creator (Apr 8, 2008)

With our ethnics regarding sex eroding with time, how far are we from a world where HIV becomes so rampant that it has infected at least 50% to 75% of the world?

And what kind of conditions will allow this to happen and how will life be like in such a society before, during and after the pandemic?


----------



## Overread (Apr 8, 2008)

hmm I think if we get to such a state then it is a state that we have Allowed to develop rather than one that is inevitable. I say this because HIV can be detected and thus can be "contained". This might not be a very PC or pro human rights line of thinking, but my thinking is that preventing people (teens to young adults esp) from partaking in intercourse is not the way to preventing the spread of such deseases, I think a screening program and stronger controls on human migration are needed. By migration I refer to the migration between different nations and continents consider that we do this for animals in the UK from non-EU member countries to prevent the spread of things such as rabies, I see no reason why humans cannot do a similar system whereby a medcial heathcheck is required to allow travel. Granted this will slow down international travel and thus affect the tourist industry - governments and industry should be able to cope easily - consider internet meetings and webcams - much cheaper and eco friendly.


----------



## Creator (Apr 8, 2008)

But what kind of conditions social and biological will allow such a pandemic that will kills billions worldwide. Is it the erosion of sexual ethnics to the point where the sexual morality degrades to such point where a single male/females probably slept with many partners today from the age of puberty where it would look unethnical in today's and yesterday's point of view?


----------



## Overread (Apr 8, 2008)

careful with the concept of eroding ethics and yesterday's views -- but older histories standards we still have a long way to go before we hit moral lows (raping vikings and roman leagions).
As for allowing it world wide - Political correctness (or weakness as I like to think most ot hte time) goes a long way to preventing such measure as I outlined from being brought into practice. Its the mentality that you don't want to rock the boat because you are only in it for so long - and to stay in it you have to keep it steady -- even if you are on course for a waterfall!


----------



## Quokka (Apr 8, 2008)

Well HIV and AIDS may be somewhat new but sexually transmitted diseases have been around for a long long time, we probably are more sexually active now then before but to some extent the sexual revolution was about bringing out into the open what was already happening. Of course that probably differs from culture to culture.

I can't see HIV getting to this point, it works very slowly, is easily identifiable before symptoms are obvious and to a large extent is treatable if you have access to health care. But one side effect of it being so much more treatable now then 20 years is that some of the fear has gone out of it. I was going to say that if treatments continue to improve maybe people could get so blase about it that it does spread to 50-70% of the population and then have a mutation back to a more deadly strain... but of course the 50-70% would still have the less deadly strain. Anyone know if you can be infected with HIV twice?  

Otherwise maybe drug use combined with a no tolerance policy? There seems to be more and more science used in creating increasingly addictive illegal drugs. Ice is bad enough now what if someone really cracks it? Interventions fail and so eventually governments fall back on no tolerance policies that leads to massive increases in needle sharing. Far fetched but maybe possible.


----------



## Creator (Apr 8, 2008)

I see...

But then STDs have been around for a long time but most of them as far as I know most of have visible symptoms almost immediately like in months. But HIV as far as we know have a very long incubation period and even worse the patients do not have visible symptom until its too late.

I have a friend who volunteered in a HIV center of some sort. He told me that many people in modern countries get HIV during their teens rather than extra martial affairs. Many mature and responsible adults present were once young and naive and get into trouble with the opposite gender, and it is during this "young and naive" period they catch HIV.

Like it or not, it is a fact that we all used to make big blunders in our teens and so from those blunders we mature into adults. But if the big blunder is so big like a record from juvenile delinquency or something like HIV, it's like a scar follow you to your grave.

anyone got something to say or have I gone out of topic?


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 8, 2008)

Incidentally, the word is "ethics", not "ethnics" -- rather a different thing there....

On topic, though: It's highly unlikely that we're any more sexually active than we have been through the majority of history, though there are exceptions here and there. A lot of the morality we've all been used to comes from fairly recent social views on the matter; compare today's sexuality with, say, the 8th through the 11th centuries, and you'll see some strong similarities both as regards open practice and times of repression. Or Shakespeare's day, or the Restoration, for that matter.

And no, not all STDs have visible symptoms quickly. Syphillis, for instance, _does_ produce a sore (or chancre) early on, but it also heals within a week (generally), and this does not always occur. (Also, there are other conditions that can produce similar sores, so it may not be recognized for what it is.) The second phase simply shows symptoms much like a great number of common diseases (such as a sore throat, or even headache), and all such symptoms can disappear without treatment. Then you hit the latent phase, where you may not show any symptoms for decades. (This was the case, for instance, with Lovecraft's father, who -- by all the evidence -- died of tertiary syphillis.) These diseases mutate and adapt, just like any other living organism, in order to survive. That is one of the difficulties of battling such things.

As for how close we are to a true pandemic: In some areas (such as some parts of Africa, for instance) we've been there for some time (which is plenty of reason for fighting it). Generally speaking, though, we are a very long way from that point; nor (as others have pointed out) are we likely to get there, for numerous, and complex, reasons.


----------



## Creator (Apr 8, 2008)

Ah... enlighting words from the great worthington...
But ok here is a very disturbing news from one of my most visited country's forums.
Teen sex infections likely to hit new high - Singapore's Online Community

Do you think that this route mentioned in the link will be the route that a pandemic may erupt in the future?


----------



## Drachir (Apr 9, 2008)

This whole thread seems rather alarmist.  The rate at which HIV is spreading has declined considerably in technologically advanced nations and has even declined in many developing nations.  The idea of billions being infected is quite far-fetched.  That is not to say that HIV is not a serious danger in many areas of the world, however, other diseases such as malaria are much more widespread and infect many more people than HIV.


----------



## Creator (Apr 10, 2008)

Well, malaria is more dangerous as it is spread from mosquitoes which human cannot avoid. But HIV is fatal as well but the problem is that HIV has a long incubation period and so many people who have HIV are unaware of their conditions.


----------



## Dave (Apr 10, 2008)

I'd agree with everything said by Drachir and j.d. worthington. I don't believe we are anymore sexually active than in the past. Even the times of so called 'Victorian Moral Superiority', there were more unreported rapes, men had a lawful right to sexual relations with their wives even if they objected, single women in ports and garrison towns were examined for STDs and locked up if they refused, yet men were allowed to "indulge their natural impulses", and there were many illegitimate children, though probably not quite as many legal partners. The only real difference was that sex was not written about. There was much more shame in society, so anything shameful was covered up. If you think about it logically, if everyone only ever had one single sexual partner, then STDs would have disappeared within a single generation.

There was a BBC 'Horizon' programme on TV a few years ago that was tracing descendents of the Bubonic Plague in Eyam, who seemed to have a natural immunity to both the Plague and to HIV. Eyam Museum An American gay man had found that although he had been very sexually active in the '70's and '80's, and had lost many of his friends and partners, he himself had never developed AIDS. He was found to be a descendant of Eyam survivors and had an HIV immunity.

Not only does that give some hope to a future vaccine, but I think it shows that there would always be some survivors, even if it did become Pandemic. But before it ever reached such proportions, governments would take steps to restrict travel and migration. Those steps might be more damaging than the disease itself though. As an example, I wouldn't want to live in the world shown in the film 'Children of Men'.


----------



## Creator (Apr 14, 2008)

Children of Men occured because women became infertile to the extreme which by right shouldn't come from HIV. 

Well my point is that now that people are catching the HIV at a younger age. How far will that come to a point like Children of Men, that the disease has nearly killed off the young of humanity and leaving the older members to reproduce but only to produce children that are progressive more unhealthy and unfit for survival.


----------



## the smiling weirwood (Apr 14, 2008)

Of course the easiest solution would be to excise those infected. But we can't take the easy route because we have human feelings and morals and such. 

I think the best route is to promote better awareness in schools and homes and the media. You have to begin on an individual basis to teach people to make responsible choices and inform them of the consequences of irresponsible ones. 

I really think the "higher moral standards" of the past are a factor in the rising incidence. If people were more open and not so repressed and shame-ridden about sexual matters these issues could be aired and sounded in the general populace without all this ridiculous Political Correctness ********.


----------



## Creator (Apr 15, 2008)

the smiling weirwood said:


> Of course the easiest solution would be to excise those infected. But we can't take the easy route because we have human feelings and morals and such.



Agreed, if such a route was taken, human rights groups will make a lot of noise. But I think that kinda of move will be a last resort. But hey why don't we sterilise the HIV infected, since anyway no matter how they reproduce they are going to have HIV infected children.


----------



## Wybren (Apr 17, 2008)

As long as people keep being educated about the risks of HIV then I don't think it will ever get to that point. In Australia the infection rate is about .1%. (about 26 000 people from memory) this is because they scared us into safe sex with the grim reaper campaign and other such things. If people keep being educated then it shouldn't ever get to those levels.

Someone mentioned if you could get HIV twice. I think you can, there are different strains and one of my mums good friend got it from her husband in the early 90s and was told to always use protection with him, incase his strain had mutated and she got reinfected. (She is no longer married to him by the way)


----------



## purple_kathryn (Apr 17, 2008)

How about some proper sex education in Africia? Since the "STOP HAVING SEX" message that the church pushes just doesn't seem to be working


----------



## Wybren (Apr 17, 2008)

I think there are some parts of africa where they do have really good education. But there is some problem in trying to dispel some of the beliefs that some people have in regard to prevention and cures. I read somewhere that some people believe that if you have sex with a virgin it will cure the HIV. However there are some places that they are making progress.


----------



## Creator (May 19, 2008)

Well so far, I see that we have been looking at developing countries. But what about developed countries like USA or Europe.

I can see that nowadays more and more younger people are catching HIV. How do you explain that? Young as in 12 to 16. 

Here in Singapore like most countries, despite a law that states any sex with a minor is punishable by law. There are people who lose their virginity at a much younger age.

I think it will come to a point where humanity's future is a mix of the themes of three movies.

*I am Legend theme*
In the bleak future, HIV has spread throught out the globe killing people in the millions.

*40 year old Virgin*
Some of the individuals of society who failed to get laid or get laid after 30-40 years old due to what ever reasons, survive the HIV pandemic but they are mostly old men and women due to the fact that the HIV age range increases to include that of the young and the teenagers.

*Children of Men*
And since the reproductive age humans, teenagers and 20-30 year olds are slowly being killed by HIV, only the old people who behaved themselves get to reproduce. But as we all know children conceived by people 40 years and above tend to be weaker and have life threatening and crippling mutations that could kill them despite technology and slowly, humanity comes to point where everyone cannot no longer reproduce or reproduce children to sick to survive.


----------



## Cayal (May 19, 2008)

j. d. worthington said:


> Incidentally, the word is "ethics", not "ethnics" -- rather a different thing there....



Yeah I was wondering the same thing.

As for a pandemic, HIV is mostly confined to Africa.


----------



## Harpo (May 19, 2008)

Cayal said:


> As for a pandemic, HIV is mostly confined to Africa.



Even if that were to remain the case, and even if that made it ok, Africa is the second most populous continent on Earth.  885 million people with HIV would still be a pandemic.

Currently there are just over 31 million cases (plus a further 7 million who have died so far)

31 million? That's less than 0.5% of the world's population - hardly a pandemic!


So that's all right then.


[/sarcasm]


----------



## Cayal (May 20, 2008)

My point was it isn't a pandemic if it is confined mostly to Africa. Pandemic is something existing over a large geographical area. 
Sure Africa is a large continent, but on the scale of Earth, it's not a pandemic.


----------



## dustinzgirl (May 20, 2008)

Sexual morality or immorality has absolutely nothing to do with HIV virus. 

The HIV virus is found in  blood, semen, vaginal fluids and breast milk and is a disease that is transfered through blood and bodily fluids, except that it doesn't have enough of a 'punch' so to speak, in saliva. 

This means that me, you, our families, are all able to contract the virus regardless of our sexual ethics and morality. In fact, many people have contacted the virus without ever even having sex or even as a relationship to sex, such as nurses getting stuck with needles on accident, cops and fireman who tried to save someones life, blood transfusions, and many others.

I get worried when people start to confuse a disease with morality, ethics, or whatever you want to call it. This is the kind of thing that causes witch hunts to be justified, as they were during the Plague, if I remember my history this was especially true in Southwest Germany around the 1500's or so?? 

You could point 'witch' at someone as easily as you can point 'promiscuous' or 'homosexual'  

So, while I kind of went off on a tangent here that was kind of but not really related to the OP, please remember that when discussing the transference of blood born pathogens such as HIV, it is not the individual's frame of social acceptance that we should be worried about, but the prevention, therapy, and eradication of disease.

PS: Here's a thought for those of you who think that Africa has a high rate of HIV because people don't use condoms:

HIV & AIDS in South Africa

"Although HIV prevention campaigns usually encourage people to use condoms and have fewer sexual partners, women and girls in South Africa are often unable to negotiate safer sex and are frequently involved with men who have several sexual partners. They are also particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse and rape, and are economically and socially subordinate to men. Police reports suggest that in 2004-2005 there were at least 55,114 cases of rape in South Africa 23, although the actual figure is undoubtedly higher than this since the majority of cases go unreported. In a 2006 study of 1,370 South African men, nearly one fifth revealed that they had raped a woman.24 Rape plays a significant role in the high prevalence of HIV among women in South Africa."

Its not sexual ethics that are the problem, since ethics would constitute a CHOICE.

PPS: Africa has lots and lots and lots and lots of education and free condoms.

PPPS: Up until the invention of antibiotics, most STD's killed you or drove you insane. Like syphilis, for example.


----------



## Quokka (May 21, 2008)

I agree that ethics has nothing to do with the physical disease of HIV/AIDS but at the same time I don't think you can try to stop or limit it's spread without looking at ethics and sexual practices.



dustinzgirl said:


> Its not sexual ethics that are the problem, since ethics would constitute a CHOICE.


 
But someone there is a making a choice based on their ethics and beliefs. The idea that AIDS can be cured by having sex with a virgin, the belief that condoms are being used to help spread the virus and the ethics and morals of these men that justifies their actions to themselves, these are things that if challenged successfully could help slow the spread of HIV/AIDS (apart from abuse and rape needing to be challanged for a whole range of reasons). 

Yes Africa has lots of condoms but many people refuse to use them, maybe a more coordinated education program would help or maybe condoms won't be the answer but first off I think that somehow we have to find something that works as far as getting everyone to agree on what HIV/AIDS is medically. If everyone (or almost everyone) could agree on what the illness is, then maybe there'd be half a chance of really making a difference, not just in these examples but in all the ways the virus is spread.


----------



## Dave (May 21, 2008)

I think I would agree with Quokka here. I don't think that anyone sensible would say that the African pandemic is because of their lower moral standards, but beliefs and practices must play some large part. If you compare the problem in Africa with a similar sized continent such as North America, what are the differences? Certainly, America has better standards of health and health care in general, and easier access to medicine and to cheaper drugs, and some of these drugs can help reduce the spread of the disease, but none can cure it. The main difference has to be education. 

The AIDS/HIV TV advertising campaign in the UK in the 1980's and 1990's had a huge impact on young people's attitudes to sex, and I heard anecdotal stories of it scaring some from even having sex at all. That is why we have not seen the same scale of problem here, and the fact that that message is now diluted is a cause for concern.


----------



## Drachir (May 25, 2008)

Creator said:


> With our ethnics regarding sex eroding with time, how far are we from a world where HIV becomes so rampant that it has infected at least 50% to 75% of the world?
> 
> And what kind of conditions will allow this to happen and how will life be like in such a society before, during and after the pandemic?


 

Relax Creator.  Check out these links for some up to date information on HIV. NationMaster - HIV AIDS > Adult prevalence rate (most recent) by country

WHO | A global view of HIV infection

If you look at it I think you can see that unless you visit certain African nations and engage in indescrimiate sex you are pretty safe.  With less than forty million cases of HIV worldwide we are a long way from the 50 to 75% figure you are waving around.  Forty million is not even 1% of the world population.  There are dozens of other diseases that kill more people.


----------



## Dave (May 25, 2008)

Drachir said:


> ...unless you visit certain African nations and engage in indescrimiate sex you are pretty safe.


Or you could move to Svalbard!


----------



## Creator (May 25, 2008)

Drachir said:


> unless you visit certain African nations and engage in indescrimiate sex you are pretty safe.



I know I don't, I am a virgin male who never got laid. I am 22 this year and got no gf before.

Unfortunately now in the modern First world societies, people lose their virginity by age 14 or earlier.  I have heard of cases from my friend from the hospital that nowadays HIV patients do not just include men and women who were unfaithful to their spouses. etc. 

There were more and more cases of teenagers getting it too. Even a percentage of the adult patients admitted that they caught HIV while they were young and wild..

How's that?


----------



## j d worthington (May 25, 2008)

Creator said:


> I know I don't, I am a virgin male who never got laid. I am 22 this year and got no gf before.
> 
> Unfortunately now in the modern First world societies, people lose their virginity by age 14 or earlier. I have heard of cases from my friend from the hospital that nowadays HIV patients do not just include men and women who were unfaithful to their spouses. etc.
> 
> ...


 
Again, that's a seriously limited view of history. Sexual activity between young people has _always_ been fairly widespread in the majority of cultures (sometimes with, sometimes without, the overt approval of the society). For one thing, there were periods where people simply didn't _live_ all that long; if you were to have offspring, you had to begin early. Don't forget that marriage has, throughout history, more often than not involved people we today would simply consider to be far too young to be mature enough for such a responsibility (or such activities); and quite a few cultures have had polygamy as the mainstay of marital/family relations....

What we're likely seeing here is simply, as with the spread of so many other diseases, the ease of accessibility due to travel, allowing what might otherwise be fairly isolated pathogens to spread much more quickly and efficiently. And, of course, once it's introduced into a new population unprepared for it, the rate of infection tends to be much higher until it is identified and steps are taken to reduce the risks. The main factor of sexual "morality" I see here is that of young people who disregard the precautions we know should be taken, such as the wearing of condoms; in the spirit of invulnerability so often a part of a youngster's psychology... a long way from the idea of sexual mores themselves becoming any worse, which is something that (save for a very brief period and in a very select number of cultures -- and even then more apparent than real) simply isn't backed by the historical facts....


----------



## Delvo (May 26, 2008)

Teenagers that our culture claims are kids are biologically adults and have been acknowledged as adults by practically all human cultures that have existed before, all over the world.


----------



## Creator (May 27, 2008)

So Teenagers are adults with a kid's mentality.... No wonder they make mistakes in life. Ah well those were the days. right? 

And I also wonder if early puberty is another factor?


----------



## Delvo (May 27, 2008)

Creator said:


> So Teenagers are adults with a kid's mentality


That "kid's mentality" part is just age-prejudice. Some do and some don't. (And the number of those that do is mostly created by our culture's silly tendency to keep treating them like kids even though they're not anymore.)


----------



## j d worthington (May 27, 2008)

Delvo said:


> That "kid's mentality" part is just age-prejudice. Some do and some don't. (And the number of those that do is mostly created by our culture's silly tendency to keep treating them like kids even though they're not anymore.)


 
Not entirely (though there is a strong element of that). Various studies have shown that some of the brain functions controlling the ability to finely discriminate, to make rational decisions in the face of emotional stress, the ability to exercise good judgment, etc., _simply aren't finished developing_ until well into a person's twenties (with very rare exceptions). Even though there are adults (chronologically) who fail to do these things, in these cases it is more a case of either A) individual inability or B) not lack of ability but lack of a desire to exercise that ability; whereas with teens it is simply that the "equipment" they have is not fully functional yet. This puts them at higher risk for making poor judgments when emotions (or hormones) are running high. They simply aren't _emotionally_ mature yet, however biologically mature they may be.

Nor should this be seen as any derogation of them; it's as natural to their time of life as seasoned judgment is to someone in their 40s or 50s, with a lifetime of experience to draw on. But the two simply aren't equivalent when it comes to making such decisions....


----------



## Creator (May 28, 2008)

Well of course adults do commit childish acts but most of the time adults can 





j. d. worthington said:


> finely discriminate, make rational decisions in the face of emotional stress, the ability to exercise good judgment, etc.,



unless they are on drugs, alcohol or in love

OK if I am not wrong, I think another thing is early puberty? I think if you have puberty at an age where the child is not mature enough to control himself, Disaster... And its one of the channels where HIV and other STDs enter the teenage community.


----------



## Delvo (May 28, 2008)

j. d. worthington said:


> Various studies have shown that some of the brain functions... _simply aren't finished developing_ until well into a person's twenties (with very rare exceptions).


So I keep seeing & hearing from various people, but it hasn't appeared among the science sources that I've read and doesn't match up with real-world observations of people's behavior. I want to find a real source for that in the form of an article in a science journal. In fact, I'll go and post at a science forum asking about it next. Until I see the original study this idea comes from, I must say it sounds like the kind of urban legend that we get when people take a science report that says one thing and then start passing along stories that say it said another (the latter usually being something people had been saying anyway and would have wanted some convenient scientific support for, like South Africa's racial IQ "studies" under Apartheid).


----------



## Delvo (May 28, 2008)

OK, the origin of that idea seems to be the work of Jay Giedd, as described in this article in _Time_ Magazine. But it doesn't really say what people say it says...



> When a child is between the ages of 6 and 12, the neurons grow bushier, each making dozens of connections to other neurons and creating new pathways for nerve signals. The thickening of all this gray matter--the neurons and their branchlike dendrites--peaks when girls are about 11 and boys 12 1/2, at which point a serious round of pruning is under way. Gray matter is thinned out at a rate of about 0.7% a year, tapering off in the early 20s.


The only process that continues so late is not building up or increasing connections and abilities but dumping the unused and unneeded ones, such as, according to the article, highly efficient learning and healing of injuries. That's not a case of young adults lacking abilities; it's a case of them still being MORE able to adapt to their surroundings and learn from experience.

Further evidence of that is found in another interview with Giedd in which he says that the only part of the brain still undergoing any changes so late is not the cerebrum but the cerebellum, because:





> Giedd's research suggests that the cerebellum, an area that coordinates both physical and mental activities, is particularly responsive to experience


...which means that the changes are happening in the place that adapts to experience and not happening in the places that are not so responsive to experience. (On top of that, the cerebrum, not the cerebellum, is the brain's logic and decision-making center anyway; the cerebellum's involvement is only indirect and secondary, so small it wasn't even noticed until recently; the cerebellum's primary role is physical coordination. The real thought processor, the cerebrum, stops changing soon after puberty.) This isn't a matter of still being juvenile and not grown up; it's just a matter of continuing to learn by accumulating experience. This is just how the brain stores that input.


----------



## j d worthington (May 28, 2008)

Thanks for bringing that one in, Delvo, but that's not what I was thinking about. The article(s) I had seen were some years ago (something like 10 or more), and I can't recall exactly where I saw them, but I recall them being scattered in more than one journal dealing with psychology or neurobiology. If I can track them down, I'll bring in the information. However, one of the people who brought them to my attention works in the mental health field, and if I can get hold of _her_, she may be able to expedite the process....


----------



## Creator (May 29, 2008)

Fascinating..... how the 

OK guys I wonder if that is the case. Am I right to assume that early puberty is like a disruption to the way a teen or tween absorbs his experience, like hormones clouding your mind and judgement something like that?

I just feel that nowadays the way youngsters do things are simply immature in an adult point of view. They can be right at some times but most of the time, they are blunders.


----------



## bri_457 (Jul 5, 2008)

the only way that HIV would infect more than half of the world is if everyone just began raging to sleep with anyone they found. but since that is most likely not the case, i doubt that HIV would ever increase in numbers. the disease is now somewhat under control but we have yet not found a cure. it is soon to come though because there are pills, for a price, that have substantially increased your chances of living with HIV or AIDS for a longer expectency than the normal medication. it prevents your immune system from dropping below 1200 count which is what causes HIV to transform into a more widespread disease known as AIDS.

ask OJ simpson. he's poppin like 2,900 pills a day haha


----------



## Creator (Nov 5, 2008)

bri_457 said:


> the only way that HIV would infect more than half of the world is if everyone just began raging to sleep with anyone they found.



True.

Oh yah I wonder why didn't they quarantine the HIV patients.... Just a question?

It was thanks to Quarantine measures, that Ebola didn't spread far and wide. I was thinking if they had done this in the first place, the world wouldn't be infected with HIV or will decrease in numbers.


----------



## Drachir (Nov 7, 2008)

Creator said:


> True.
> 
> Oh yah I wonder why didn't they quarantine the HIV patients.... Just a question?
> 
> It was thanks to Quarantine measures, that Ebola didn't spread far and wide. I was thinking if they had done this in the first place, the world wouldn't be infected with HIV or will decrease in numbers.


 
They are not quarantined for a number of reasons.  In advanced nations there really is no need.  There have been only a handful of cases of HIV carriers continuing to have sex with the general population.  In places like Africa there are simply too many people to quarantine.  No state has the resources to support millions of HIV positive patients.


----------



## Creator (Nov 7, 2008)

Or is it too late to quarantine?

I believed that if they had quarantine the disease infected patients earlier. I think the disease would have gone extinct by now.


----------



## Wybren (Nov 7, 2008)

No, it wouldn't have, because the early infected cases detected were just a handful of what was actually out there at the time.

 But to compare HIV with Ebola .. Ebola is a totally different pathogen, it spreads differently and progresses differently can be contained easier because it is a fast acting fast killing fever, HIV takes much longer to manifest any symptoms so even if they had quarantined some early patients there would have been many more out there who had it and not known about it.

As to the issue of why younger people are getting it, if governments actually gave people better education on STI's and the transmission of them, and how to prevent them and also on how babies are made rather than pretend that sex doesn't happen then perhaps they can stop young people getting the virus.


----------



## Creator (Nov 8, 2008)

I see so that means even if they quarantined them, there will be a few fish which slip from the net right? But every epidemic has got cases like this, what makes a HIV pandemic any different?

But so far we have been talking about the developing countries right?

What about the developed countries, they know the disease's existence but still there are men/women who flirt with danger by being unfaithful.


----------



## Wybren (Nov 8, 2008)

Well if there are people in developed countries that flirt with the devil and do not us a condom when having sex - extramarital or otherwise - knowing of the potential concequences that could arise from having unprotected sex and they contract HIV then that is their own fault that they got it because they should have known better. I feel sorry though for anyone they unsuspectingly infect by their stupidity though

I have a long time family friend who is one of my countries very small percentage of HIV carriers, she has had it for nearly 20 years and caught it from her husband at the time, because he went and had unprotected sex with another man and gave her the virus. She has quarantined herself from the relationship world and is therefore preventing herself from spreading the disease. But like I said, she has been living with it for nearly 20 years and is still pretty healthy and happy despite the virus in her blood.


----------



## Drachir (Nov 8, 2008)

On a more depressing note there is this story.
Accused knew of status, HIV murder trial told

Perhaps if the accused is convicted it will send a message to others who are HIV positive that they must be


----------



## dustinzgirl (Nov 8, 2008)

Cuba quarantined. It didn't work all that well. 

Also, if I remember my childhood, there were long drawn out debates and media frenzies about quarantining infected. Especially children being in schools and such. But that was before we learned more about it. 

I also don't agree with quarantining a preventable disease. 

Of course, I suppose if we quarantine HIV people, we should also quarantine other STDs (just in case of mutation) and TB and well, heck, I don't know. But I'm pretty sure that when the American gov't starts talking about quarantines, I get a nasty nasty chill up my spine. Then again I watch a lot of x-files. Its also late so I'll leave you with this neato little history on quarantines. I especially like the part about quarantining prostitutes because venereal disease broke out. Wonder why they didn't do the same to all the men? 

NOVA | The Most Dangerous Woman in America | History of Quarantine | PBS


----------



## Creator (Nov 8, 2008)

Well as far as I delve into history, I can see that some human rights infringing solutions to some problems like HIV had bad names because I think the people who first used them were corrupted by discrimination, racism or sexist or homophobic, you name it.......etc

Hitler embraced eugenics which could have been fine who getting rid of bad genes in the population but too bad he had to let his childhood grudge cloud his judgement and so eugenics was associated with racism and Nazis, thanks to him.

HIV is a good example too, ways of trying to quarantine them were associated with homophobia, sexism.etc. as far as I can see according to my little research.

In other words, these so called human right infringing solutions to certain problems could have worked only if the people who execute these solutions had to ensure that they are unbiased against race, sex, religion.etc. 

Look at the ants, they too have diseases but why most the population are pretty fine? Cause they are willing to sacrifice one sick individual to save a million.It's not a matter of just human rights now, it's the survival of the human race. 

Just my view that's all, I have no hatred for HIV infected people. I pity them more than I fear them to be frank.


----------



## Drachir (Nov 15, 2008)

This looks encouraging.  

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE4AC07O200811137


----------



## Creator (Nov 15, 2008)

Err the page is missing..


----------



## Drachir (Nov 15, 2008)

Thanks Creator, try this:

Medical News: Claims of HIV Cure by BMT Greeted With Caution - in HIV/AIDS, HIV/AIDS from MedPage Today


----------



## Creator (Nov 17, 2008)

Hmmm sounds like some form of hope then...... but then what if this method doesn't work, I have seen too many HIV cure frauds.


----------



## Drachir (Nov 18, 2008)

I think this is still very much an experimental method and only to be used in the most drastic of medical circumstances.  However, it does have possiblities.


----------



## Wybren (Nov 18, 2008)

From what I understand it was a fluke, and definitely not what they had planned to happen, but it does show potential for looking into the area of gene therapy for a cure. I don't think they'd want to try the bone marrow donation too frequently though because of the risks involved.


----------



## Creator (Jan 7, 2009)

Hey just to bump up the thread.

If say the pandemic continues to occur and kill millions, will we end up like in the movie "Children of Men"? I just thought about the subject after watching the movie. They didn't exactly say what is making the women infertile. But I suspect that most likely some creepy disease must have killed off the healthy fertile females leaving only the infertile woman to dominate the population. 

I think HIV or its evolved descendants is capable of doing that. Since currently lots of youngster like flirting with danger despite laws put in place to protect them. HIV is also classified as neutropic...dunno how the word is spelled.... it can affect the nerves.


----------



## Dave (Jan 7, 2009)

Creator said:


> Since currently lots of youngster like flirting with danger despite laws put in place to protect them.


I would dispute the "currently". Teenagers and young people think they are invincible and they always have done. It is part of being young to think that nothing applies to you. It is only when you get a little older; when first your grandparents die, then parents, then peers and siblings, and eventually your children, that your own mortality slowly dawns on you.

I can't see an HIV pandemic producing the effects on society seen in 'Children of Men'. I'm not a Doctor, but I don't think HIV is sufficiently virulent or acute. We have already developed drugs to slow the onset and it's effects, even if there is no actual cure. Compare it with Spanish Flu in 1918-1919, or Ebola, or the Cholera in Zimbabwe right now; diseases which were/are virulent and acute. 

I looked up Neurotropic viruses and there are two different terms - neuroinvasive (capable of entering or infecting the central nervous system) and neurovirulent (capable of causing disease within the nervous system). I think what you are saying is that by avoiding the bloodstream, neuroinvasive viruses are able to evade to a great extent the usual immune response and entrench themselves in the host body's nervous system, but I believe that while it is neurovirulent, HIV is not particularly neuroinvasive.


----------



## Creator (Jan 9, 2009)

Dave said:


> I would dispute the "currently". Teenagers and young people think they are invincible and they always have done. It is part of being young to think that nothing applies to you. It is only when you get a little older; when first your grandparents die, then parents, then peers and siblings, and eventually your children, that your own mortality slowly dawns on you.
> 
> I can't see an HIV pandemic producing the effects on society seen in 'Children of Men'. I'm not a Doctor, but I don't think HIV is sufficiently virulent or acute. We have already developed drugs to slow the onset and it's effects, even if there is no actual cure. Compare it with Spanish Flu in 1918-1919, or Ebola, or the Cholera in Zimbabwe right now; diseases which were/are virulent and acute.
> 
> I looked up Neurotropic viruses and there are two different terms - neuroinvasive (capable of entering or infecting the central nervous system) and neurovirulent (capable of causing disease within the nervous system). I think what you are saying is that by avoiding the bloodstream, neuroinvasive viruses are able to evade to a great extent the usual immune response and entrench themselves in the host body's nervous system, but I believe that while it is neurovirulent, HIV is not particularly neuroinvasive.



I see but okay I know this sounds like some sorta cheap porn movie ingredient... but I think based on my observation of the adaptations especially reproductive ones and also rabies, I just current have found the good reason to continue an otherwise old fic I have put in the backburner for 3 years. The premise of my story is similar to GATTACA, but I just have found the good reason for eugenic's revival in my fic; HIV. And this is not your usual strain I am talking about. 100 years ago before the premises of my fic, the HIV virus evolved and mutated into a form that is very virulent even more than its "predecessor" today. 

Basically, it doesn't just attack the immune system, attacks the nervous system in the part where it controls our "sexual" desires. So the infected victims are sorta like serial rapists on Viagra. So it's like the virus just managed to bypass their barriers like condoms, abstinence.etc

If my concept of evolution is correct, if a mutation benefits the creature in good way like, spreading its genes faster and widespread. The evolution will naturally go on that path. So in my fic, the strain of HIV that managed to control the host survived better becos it was able to bypass the normal traditional barriers that prevented the virus from spreading in the first place.


----------



## Creator (Jan 10, 2009)

They say that HIV is very adaptable that's why people have failed to find the cure for it. And even if they found the cure, the virus would have mutated again.


----------

