Poll: AIDS, it could be eradicated but human rights would need to be sacrificed.

[Mother Yeti]

You do realize that HIV/AIDS is very treatable (though not curable) with antiretroviral drugs, and that the disease is no longer the certain-death scourge it once was?

Yeah, if you have health coverage. Africa, not so much.
(Southpark covered this very well in S12E1 "Tonsil Trouble")

So who else is noticing a very creepy racial undertone to this discussion? Sure, let's eradicate a substantial portion of the sub-Saharan African population. It's for their own good, and they don't know any better!

Nobody mentioned race, just people with the diesease whatever colour they may be. Are you trying to start an argument by chance?

Hey, I'm just seeing a proposal that would disparately impact impoverished black Africans (not to mention gays) and no one besides me seems to give a shit.

 

[martin's a madman]

You do realize that HIV/AIDS is very treatable (though not curable) with antiretroviral drugs, and that the disease is no longer the certain-death scourge it once was?

Yeah, if you have health coverage. Africa, not so much.
(Southpark covered this very well in S12E1 "Tonsil Trouble")

So who else is noticing a very creepy racial undertone to this discussion? Sure, let's eradicate a substantial portion of the sub-Saharan African population. It's for their own good, and they don't know any better!

Nobody mentioned race, just people with the diesease whatever colour they may be. Are you trying to start an argument by chance?

Hey, I'm just seeing a proposal that would disparately impact impoverished black Africans (not to mention gays) and no one besides me seems to give a shit.

But it would desperately affect people of all races and groups. Trying to get a few groups to look overly victimised is an act of segregation itself.

 

[Abedeus]

I think that this would be worse than what they were going to do in Prototype.

I was thinking about it the other day, too... But I doubt that AIDS originated from humans. So it would affect us in other way. Better no, don't do anything harsh.

 

[Guitar Gamer]

It is impossible.

To many lives would be lost and its not 100% fullproof. Plus. Monkeys can still spread it.

dam! it is simply unaccepible to kill monkeys

 

[Mother Yeti]

You do realize that HIV/AIDS is very treatable (though not curable) with antiretroviral drugs, and that the disease is no longer the certain-death scourge it once was?

Yeah, if you have health coverage. Africa, not so much.
(Southpark covered this very well in S12E1 "Tonsil Trouble")

So who else is noticing a very creepy racial undertone to this discussion? Sure, let's eradicate a substantial portion of the sub-Saharan African population. It's for their own good, and they don't know any better!

Nobody mentioned race, just people with the diesease whatever colour they may be. Are you trying to start an argument by chance?

Hey, I'm just seeing a proposal that would disparately impact impoverished black Africans (not to mention gays) and no one besides me seems to give a shit.

But it would desperately affect people of all races and groups. Trying to get a few groups to look overly victimised is an act of segregation itself.

Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for two-thirds of all the HIV/AIDS cases in the world. Either you're woefully ignorant of the facts or you're just being obtuse. I also don't think you understand what I meant by "disparate impact."

 

[Nargleblarg]

I think that this would be worse than what they were going to do in Prototype.

I was thinking about it the other day, too... But I doubt that AIDS originated from humans. So it would affect us in other way. Better no, don't do anything harsh.

We think it originated from two monkeys having incestual (if that's a word) sex and then passing it to a human although we don't know for sure how it was passed. (I'm not even joking that's how we think it happened)

 

[Biek]

In the first world aids is practically a chronic disease nowadays.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

And the end never justifies the means.

Tell that to Fredrick Banting and all the diabetics currently living thanks to the heaps of dead dogs carted away from his labs.

Seriously though, I do agree with you that "end justifies means" mentality is more often than not a bad thing.

Dogs /= Humans

 

[captainwalrus]

Yes, sorry, got off topic there.


I would still like to know if people would have an easier time quarantining people with say.. TB(Tuberculosis) than people with aids and why.

Considering they are both diseases that can be easily transmitted to other people in the right condition.

That's a terrible analogy.

TB is an airborne contagion. If someone with active TB coughs or sneezes, he puts all those around him at risk. HIV is spread through sex or blood. So, unless you go squirting your blood or seed onto or into everyone around you, it's not transmissable.

Plus, most TB cases are either latent or require only a short quarantine w/ anti-TB treatment until the threat of transmission has basically been neutralized. What's the threat of transmission of HIV, and how long would it take to neutralize it? Oh, probably a lifetime.

 

[Lexodus]

Don't they have something like that in Germany, and that ***** from No Angels got thrown in jail because she slept with three guys after testing HIV positive?

 

[Lexodus]

I think that this would be worse than what they were going to do in Prototype.

I was thinking about it the other day, too... But I doubt that AIDS originated from humans. So it would affect us in other way. Better no, don't do anything harsh.

We think it originated from two monkeys having incestual (if that's a word) sex and then passing it to a human although we don't know for sure how it was passed. (I'm not even joking that's how we think it happened)

Watch American Pie Presents: The Naked Mile. You'll find out how it was passed.

 

[Mordereth]

It is impossible.

To many lives would be lost and its not 100% fullproof. Plus. Monkeys can still spread it.

It's the monkeys! Just kill the monkeys!

 

[Pimppeter2]

Yes, but that only leads to the question. What about other diseases?

 

[sallene]

Yes, sorry, got off topic there.


I would still like to know if people would have an easier time quarantining people with say.. TB(Tuberculosis) than people with aids and why.

Considering they are both diseases that can be easily transmitted to other people in the right condition.

That's a terrible analogy.

TB is an airborne contagion. If someone with active TB coughs or sneezes, he puts all those around him at risk. HIV is spread through sex or blood. So, unless you go squirting your blood or seed onto or into everyone around you, it's not transmissable.

Plus, most TB cases are either latent or require only a short quarantine w/ anti-TB treatment until the threat of transmission has basically been neutralized. What's the threat of transmission of HIV, and how long would it take to neutralize it? Oh, probably a lifetime.

The fact you are coming off as self righteous does not help the fact that you do not understand that there are currently drug resistant strains of TB.

Also, its is a good question because it gives an example in which cases quanrantining people would be ok with.

Say, if one of the drug resistant versions of TB were released into the general populace.

The fact that there are drug resistant strains of diseases we thought we beat a long time ago is just as relevant to the discussion of eliminating/removing the affected populace.

The point being is that with diseases like TB that are traditionally spread through the populace people seem to have no problem with a quarantine scenario. However, with a disease like HIV/AIDS that can hide in the populace and it mostly transmitted through irresponsible decisions on the part of the carrier you have people thinking it is a bad idea.


I am just putting things into perspective.

 

[spuddyt]

If we can save lives, lets not do it

It isn't exactly as if the world isn't already overpopulated