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

[quiet_samurai]

Actually AIDS is very treatable nowadays. With the advances in medicine and medical technology it is not a serious as it once was back in the 80's & 90's. Contracting the disease now is not the death sentance it once was, the only thing that is sad is the fact that it is incredibly expensive and most health care programs in the state won't insure you if you have AIDS.

But I think your idea is terrible, mainly due to the fact AIDS is not contageous. However if we were deling with some Ebola, Steven King's The Stand type shit, then yeah.

 

[bodyklok]

I think we should focus or efforts on finding a cure. You know, like like we already are [http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22663/]. We have the technology [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17003-fluorescent-puppy-is-worlds-first-transgenic-dog.html], and we have the scientists devoted to this cause. We could potentially save millions, as opposed to the mass culling route which would condemn people we could easily save and even then you'll never know if you've caught them, the virus could spring up again and again.

However, if we had a cure we could stop it where ever it showed up, where ever it reared it's ugly head, and I think mankind would be better for it. Knowing that we can solve these problems with out employing mass murder.

 

[Del-Toro]

Most people who have it brought it on themselves, they spread it around, and they still have the gall to act like the victims? The end justifies the means.

 

[Senial]

Woulden't the reason for not wanting to kill them all be along the same reason of getting rid of the diease?

 

[Ignignoct]

I think we should focus or efforts on finding a cure. You know, like like we already are [http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22663/]. We have the technology [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17003-fluorescent-puppy-is-worlds-first-transgenic-dog.html], and we have the scientists devoted to this cause. We could potentially save millions, as opposed to the mass culling route which would condemn people we could easily save and even then you'll never know if you've caught them, the virus could spring up again and again.

However, if we had a cure we could stop it where ever it showed up, where ever it reared it's ugly head, and I think mankind would be better for it. Knowing that we can solve these problems with out employing mass murder.

Correction, we could THEN cure it for anyone who has a Platinum Visa card.

Actually AIDS is very treatable nowadays. With the advances in medicine and medical technology it is not a serious as it once was back in the 80's & 90's. Contracting the disease now is not the death sentance it once was, the only thing that is sad is the fact that it is incredibly expensive and most health care programs in the state won't insure you if you have AIDS.

So... In Africa, it's still a death sentence. I understand your point, and that you understand this as well, but you phrase it as if "well, it's not a huge problem for our middle-upper class..."

 

[AkJay]

Ok, humanity really only has this "get out of jail free card" every 200 years or so. I say let us wait until *Zombies* comes around before we decide to qaurentine and euthanize a shit-ton of people.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

You'd have to make sure that no-one is out there fucking monkeys still, too.

So, we're doomed.

 

[UbarElite]

In general, I do believe we can sacrifice some civil/economic liberties to solve some of society's problems, however I do not believe there are that many problems that I think are worth solving at the cost of our liberty. In the case of your hypothetical scenario, I feel it would be unnecessary, expensive and costly (in terms of liberty) when say, required use of condoms for those who are aids infected would achieve the same result (and would be much less expensive or costly to the freedom of those infected).

 

[Mother Yeti]

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)

You'd have to make sure that no-one is out there fucking monkeys still, too.

So, we're doomed.

Sigh.

I'm not trying to be mean, but do you people understand how stupid you make yourselves look when you say things like this?

By far the most likely explanation is that the virus (originally SIV, Simian Immunodeficiency Virus) jumped species (becoming HIV, Human Immunodeficiency Virus) when an infected chimp bit a human. That's all there is to it.

People really need to stop making shit up. There's enough misinformation about HIV/AIDS out there already.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I don't think it's really necessary to put everyone with HIV onto a modern day leper colony. Even if it weren't a human rights issue, people would be even less inclined to disclose that they have the virus. Someone turning you down for sex is one thing, being exiled from your home?

No. This is as realistic a solution as murdering everyone who's HIV positive.

 

[Mother Yeti]

Most people who have it brought it on themselves, they spread it around, and they still have the gall to act like the victims? The end justifies the means.

Please, elucidate upon your views. I'm fascinated.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

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)

Viruses travel from one organism to another. They're living things that reproduce by injecting their DNA into the nucleus of a living cell. Viruses mutate fast because they're just simple strings of DNA with attitude.

They aren't generated by sex. If any two healthy people, or any other animals, have sex, it's not going to create a new virus. Shit doesn't work that way.

 

[Ignignoct]

if you really want to get rid of AIDS then become a docter/scientist and research it until you find a cure

Awesome.

The people who already care enough are doing that, by virtue of... ehh... caring enough.

We're not.

 

[Ghostkai]

Maybe we should construct special 'camps' to care for them

 

[captainwalrus]

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.

Your self-righteousness isn't boding too well for you, either.

1. I understand that there are drug resistant strains of TB (notice I said "most TB cases")
2. I didn't bother addressing the issue, because that wasn't the direction of my argument. I spoke in generalities, because the argument really only needs generalities.

Resistant or not, the point of my argument was that TB is an airborne contagion. HIV/AIDS is not. There is no serious, inherent health risk involved in allowing HIV infected individuals to move freely amongst the general population. There is a serious, inherent health risk in allowing individuals with active TB to roam freely. Coughing is a natural, uninhibitable effect of having TB. Having sex and sharing needles is not a natural effect of contracting HIV.

TB and HIV/AIDS have a wildly divergent set of symptoms and treatment procedures. Nobody has a problem quarantining individuals with TB, when their TB is active and are at serious risk of spreading the disease. If their TB is latent, then health workers don't care, and the general populace doesn't care. It's the same with the flu or the common cold. They're both easily transmissable diseases, so health workers ask those infected to stay away from others, if at all possible, and we all wish they'd just stay home.

Irresponsibility isn't a rational excuse to quarantine a population. It's an excuse to raise educational standards and health procedures, but not restricting the freedom of an entire population. If you're looking at cases where quarantining people is accepted, then look at what diseases are easily transmissable and what diseases aren't. Typhoid cases were quarantined, while cancer cases aren't.

 

[HardRockSamurai]

It is impossible.

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

Monkeys can spread AIDS???

Gentlemen, we are fucked.

 

[Datalord]

You know, if we had two generations of complete fidelity and chastity, HIV would be eradicated without a loss of human rights