BE CAREFUL People- Aggressive new HIV strain detected

[ronjer1]

[quote=trish;1579342]

I'm saying very little.... I haven't bothered to examine their definition of significance. Perhaps you could do that for us.

Ok, then thank you for being honest in that you didn't understand exactly what the CDC was saying. The definition of "significance" is easily found in any dictionary. The CDC is saying that HIV poses no danger of significance (i.e. importance) to public health. What's there not to understand here? If HIV was deadly, would it be of NO significance to public health? LOL, do we even need to ask such a question? Of course, no, they would never make that statement in this case.
So HIV is not deadly then. People in Africa are not dying of HIV infections, for if they were, it would certainly be "of significant importance".



"I wouldn't dare guess who was scared of HIV in 2010 and why?"

No need to guess, as Tapatio said he was scared to go fuck all the HIV positive people, especially going bareback, at the bottom, etc. So obviously somebody is scared of an "insignificant" pretend danger of no importance, right?
Wow, the contradictions posted here are astounding.



"I only suggest one be respectful enough of its dangers now to take the recommended precautions."

Are you kidding me? Don't you see your contradiction in that statement? First you stated to read the CDC statement of "no significant public health" danger....and then you ignore that and claim that HIV is indeed a significant public health danger. Say what? Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Perhaps 'runningdownthatdream' can step in here and solve this contradiction for you....after he apologizes (like he said he would) of course.



"i would speculate the spread of HIV had been sufficiently stymied by modern treatments and medications"

Speculate? I thought we were talking about what CDC stated in their statement. Nobody cares about speculations and what not. It is a fact that viruses spread. Whether they kill is an entirely different issue.

The fact remains that the only reason that any authority would say that HIV is of no significant danger to public health is if it:

a) did not spread (not communicable), or
b) did not kill, or
c) both a and b.

Take your pick.

[ronjer1]

[quote=broncofan;1579345]

It is absolutely of personal significance, whatever the global factors are in determining public health significance. In summary, you misunderstood what you read.

Please read that CDC statement again, especially the italics that everyone hypes about here. That will show you that HIV is of no public health significance, despite you trying to change that statement by negating it. Either HIV is a danger to the public or it isn't. You can't have it both ways to suit your argument.

[fred41]

The answer is in the CDC article you cited:

"HIV infection is being removed from the definition of a communicable disease of public health significance because it is no longer applicable based on current medical knowledge and practice, scientific knowledge, and public health practice. HIV infection is not spread by casual contact, through the air, or from food or water."


One of the reasons it's off the list is because one has to significantly go out of one's way to contract this virus.
pretty simple really

[trish]

Thank you, Fred.

Ronjer1, that the CDC does not regard HIV to be a communicable disease of public health significance does not mean HIV can't be permanently debilitating or deadly. In fact we know it to be so. Its effects are significant to those who contract it, but (for what it's worth) I suspect it's off the list because the CDC does not regard as threat epidemiologically speaking.

You suggest that the only reason an authority such as the CDC would say HIV is of no significance to the public health is if

a) did not spread (not communicable), or
b) did not kill, or
c) both a and b.

Take your pick.

I don't think those constitute the complete criteria used by the CDC, though I do think its a good starting point. I might (and I would speculate the CDC might) add a few more criteria to the list including...

d) Even though it's deadly and communicable, it is not currently spreading (in the sense that the percentage of infected persons is steady or dropping) because people i) are getting diagnosed and ii) taking precautions.

I'm not looking for any drama here. Just saying that it seems perfectly reasonable to me to say that a deadly, communicable disease that is being kept under control by the consistent use of practicable precautions no longer poses a significant threat to public health. If you disagree, your beef is with the CDC, not me. Just know that HIV is communicable and it does degrade your immune system leaving you vulnerable to infections that may prove deadly. I sincerely hope that you always take the proper precautions so that it never happens to you.

[Tapatio]

One of the reasons it's off the list is because one has to significantly go out of one's way to contract this virus.
pretty simple really

Nicely summarized. It's a shame that HIV was ever on the entry ban list. It was actually a real step forward that it was removed.

Remember when AIDS was called GRID and the only thing our president had to say about the crisis was "Don't medicine and morality teach the same lessons"?

Still so much misinformation/disinformation- that's my only objection to someone pointing to this CDC statement without proper context.

[TSLoverIB]

Why listen to comments of interpretations of a article, when you can watch a VIDEO that CLEARLY explains it.
http://news.yahoo.com/video/aggressi...231031547.html

Be Careful People, Opinions are one thing, facts are another...

[Tapatio]

And a warm HA welcome to ronjer1, by the way.