Full Version: Rare HIV strain found
I watched CSPAN this morning and a report was read that a new strain of HIV untreatable by drugs has been discovered and the need for gays to use protection during sexual contact. See link: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/...ynews-headlines & http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp.../132203/1/.html & http://nydailynews.com/front/breaking_news...0p-239939c.html the report on CSPAN was on one individual identified having the untreatable virus who had had unprotected sex with in excess of over 100 partners over the last weeks.
Question for debate:
Do you think there should be public announcements mandatory for health related news as this?
Does the government have responsibility to notify the public on such life and death issues?
Should Surgeon General warnings like those on cigarette packs be prominently displayed at entrances to common areas where gays assemble?
Question for debate:
Do you think there should be public announcements mandatory for health related news as this?
Does the government have responsibility to notify the public on such life and death issues?
Should Surgeon General warnings like those on cigarette packs be prominently displayed at entrances to common areas where gays assemble?
Do you think there should be public announcements mandatory for health related news as this?
This is a moot point. The media is already up and running with this one. I saw it on CNN today.
Does the government have responsibility to notify the public on such life and death issues?
Sure. CDC is and should be sensitive to all serious health threats. This new strain is apparently just starting in the gay community. Since HIV is a virus, it probably won’t be too long before it starts showing up in the genral population throuh bisexual links, shared needles, accidents and blood transfusions. From past experience we can assume that this will not be the last mutation.
Should Surgeon General warnings like those on cigarette packs be prominently displayed at entrances to common areas where gays assemble?
Surgeon General warnings should be placed everywhere gays congregate—supermarkets, malls, workplaces, schools, the post office, the dentist's office, the doctor's office, airports, subways, the parking lot and the sandlot, movie theaters, concert halls, city hall, the jailhouse, the warehouse, maybe the whorehouse, the outhouse, the guardhouse, the hothouse, the crack house, the statehouse and perhaps visitors and workers at the White House, on Wall Street, Madison Avenue and Main Street, jury rooms, court rooms, hospitals, coffee shops, public restaurants, pool halls, golf courses, bowling alleys, (oops, now that were a Christian family value oriented society that should be bowling lanes
) sporting events and even churches. This should satisfy the most rabid homophobes among us. The sign should say in big red letters:
BEWARE GAYS AMONG US MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH!
This is a moot point. The media is already up and running with this one. I saw it on CNN today.
Does the government have responsibility to notify the public on such life and death issues?
Sure. CDC is and should be sensitive to all serious health threats. This new strain is apparently just starting in the gay community. Since HIV is a virus, it probably won’t be too long before it starts showing up in the genral population throuh bisexual links, shared needles, accidents and blood transfusions. From past experience we can assume that this will not be the last mutation.
Should Surgeon General warnings like those on cigarette packs be prominently displayed at entrances to common areas where gays assemble?
Surgeon General warnings should be placed everywhere gays congregate—supermarkets, malls, workplaces, schools, the post office, the dentist's office, the doctor's office, airports, subways, the parking lot and the sandlot, movie theaters, concert halls, city hall, the jailhouse, the warehouse, maybe the whorehouse, the outhouse, the guardhouse, the hothouse, the crack house, the statehouse and perhaps visitors and workers at the White House, on Wall Street, Madison Avenue and Main Street, jury rooms, court rooms, hospitals, coffee shops, public restaurants, pool halls, golf courses, bowling alleys, (oops, now that were a Christian family value oriented society that should be bowling lanes
) sporting events and even churches. This should satisfy the most rabid homophobes among us. The sign should say in big red letters: BEWARE GAYS AMONG US MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH!
QUOTE(BoF @ Feb 13 2005, 01:03 AM)
Surgeon General warnings should be placed everywhere gays congregate—supermarkets, malls, workplaces, schools, the post office, the dentist's office, the doctor's office, airports, subways, the parking lot and the sandlot, movie theaters, concert halls, city hall, the jailhouse, the warehouse, maybe the whorehouse, the outhouse, the guardhouse, the hothouse, the crack house, the statehouse and perhaps visitors and workers at the White House, on Wall Street, Madison Avenue and Main Street, jury rooms, court rooms, hospitals, coffee shops, public restaurants, pool halls, golf courses, bowling alleys, (oops, now that were a Christian family value oriented society that should be bowling lanes ) sporting events and even churches. This should satisfy the most rabid homophobes among us. The sign should say in big red letters:
BEWARE GAYS AMONG US MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH!
) sporting events and even churches. This should satisfy the most rabid homophobes among us. The sign should say in big red letters: BEWARE GAYS AMONG US MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH! Maybe the SG could require a tattoo on the lower back with your warning?
You and I seem to be equally goofy late at night. I really didn't want to debate the issue just spread the word of the dangers involved in unprotected sex related to this new danger. Late Saturday night my imagination is limited and not much better on Sunday morning.
Be constructive in this debate or we close it.
QUOTE(Ol Sarge @ Feb 13 2005, 08:42 AM)
You and I seem to be equally goofy late at night. I really didn't want to debate the issue just spread the word of the dangers involved in unprotected sex related to this new danger. Late Saturday night my imagination is limited and not much better on Sunday morning.
Well Ol Sarge,
I'm at a complete loss. Why did you start a thread on a debate board with three questions, if you "really didn't want to debate the issue?"
To frame my reply in a little less facetious way, viruses are equal opportunity disease agents. Sooner or later this new strain will be found in the general population.
Gays go every where the rest of us go, as my early morning madness list indicates. The Surgeon General issue raised in your third question would signal out a group for "special attention." There might be a civil rights issue involved and I wouldn't doubt someone would hear from the ACLU.
Do you think there should be public announcements mandatory for health related news as this?
Does the government have responsibility to notify the public on such life and death issues?
This issue in itself really requires extra attention. The government is required to announce all sorts of things. For example, local government must announce hearing dates on various issues, when property is to be seized for taxes, etc.
Most often, government chooses to do this in the local newspaper. Yet, how many people actually read the newspaper these days. Also, why should someone be required to buy a newspaper to learn what their government is up to?
Whenever a new disease, health risk, or other danger crops up, the government needs to do more to ensure that the word gets out. I realize that people have to take some responsiblity in this matter, after all, if you do not want to buy the paper, there is usually a copy available at the library. But with the availability of the internet, government could create web pages where citizens can go to, look up information and perhaps even subscribe to an email notification list for special announcements such as the discovery of a new disease.
Should Surgeon General warnings like those on cigarette packs be prominently displayed at entrances to common areas where gays assemble?
This is going rather far. I think this has been addressed quite well by BoF. However, let me ask you this.
Would you equally support placing a health warning on all churches notifying the public of the health risk of using a shared communion cup?
Does the government have responsibility to notify the public on such life and death issues?
This issue in itself really requires extra attention. The government is required to announce all sorts of things. For example, local government must announce hearing dates on various issues, when property is to be seized for taxes, etc.
Most often, government chooses to do this in the local newspaper. Yet, how many people actually read the newspaper these days. Also, why should someone be required to buy a newspaper to learn what their government is up to?
Whenever a new disease, health risk, or other danger crops up, the government needs to do more to ensure that the word gets out. I realize that people have to take some responsiblity in this matter, after all, if you do not want to buy the paper, there is usually a copy available at the library. But with the availability of the internet, government could create web pages where citizens can go to, look up information and perhaps even subscribe to an email notification list for special announcements such as the discovery of a new disease.
Should Surgeon General warnings like those on cigarette packs be prominently displayed at entrances to common areas where gays assemble?
This is going rather far. I think this has been addressed quite well by BoF. However, let me ask you this.
Would you equally support placing a health warning on all churches notifying the public of the health risk of using a shared communion cup?
Excuse me, but why is this considered to be a "gender issue"? First, it has nothing to do with grammar. Oops, my bad, I forgot about the Orwellian transformation of the language at hand.
Moving beyond Orwell, unless this is a "gay" disease, why was the subject started in Gender Issues, and why does it continue to remain here?
Do you think there should be public announcements mandatory for health related news as this? For slow spreading, virulent, easily preventable deadly diseases, yes. Any such announcements always have to be weighed against the potential risk of panic, but thus far the only panic this one has generated is more "oh no, they're might invade our privacy to fight the spread of this disease." Of course the announcements should be realistic as well. Given that its going to be a long while before the truth "Safe sex isn't" is the gist of the announcments, I don't hold much hope. Return to my opening question...
Does the government have responsibility to notify the public on such life and death issues? Depends on who ethical standards you're using. If you use the standard of "what goes on between two consenting adults in the private is not the government's business, then no, the government has no responsibility. None, zilch, nada, zero. Seems to me like this is more a task for the tabloid media.
Should Surgeon General warnings like those on cigarette packs be prominently displayed at entrances to common areas where gays assemble? Why bother? The only difference between this strain and the previous strains of HIV is the swiftness with which it kills. The current cocktail of drugs only slows the disease's progression, a slowing that the new strain resists. Gays (and everybody else) already know that promiscuity bears with it lethal risks, yet as the NYC case illustrates, some simply don't care. Even with 20+ years of "education", the infection rate of HIV remains level at about 40k year.
Moving beyond Orwell, unless this is a "gay" disease, why was the subject started in Gender Issues, and why does it continue to remain here?
Do you think there should be public announcements mandatory for health related news as this? For slow spreading, virulent, easily preventable deadly diseases, yes. Any such announcements always have to be weighed against the potential risk of panic, but thus far the only panic this one has generated is more "oh no, they're might invade our privacy to fight the spread of this disease." Of course the announcements should be realistic as well. Given that its going to be a long while before the truth "Safe sex isn't" is the gist of the announcments, I don't hold much hope. Return to my opening question...
Does the government have responsibility to notify the public on such life and death issues? Depends on who ethical standards you're using. If you use the standard of "what goes on between two consenting adults in the private is not the government's business, then no, the government has no responsibility. None, zilch, nada, zero. Seems to me like this is more a task for the tabloid media.
Should Surgeon General warnings like those on cigarette packs be prominently displayed at entrances to common areas where gays assemble? Why bother? The only difference between this strain and the previous strains of HIV is the swiftness with which it kills. The current cocktail of drugs only slows the disease's progression, a slowing that the new strain resists. Gays (and everybody else) already know that promiscuity bears with it lethal risks, yet as the NYC case illustrates, some simply don't care. Even with 20+ years of "education", the infection rate of HIV remains level at about 40k year.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.