BE CAREFUL People- Aggressive new HIV strain detected

[ronjer1]

Perhaps you should read the article again, Tapatio. You seem to have missed what the CDC said, that HIV is not a "communicable" disease. Use the dictionary to help you understand what this means if you have to.
Regardless, if you don't like what it says, please call the CDC and your government and take it up with them. I didn't make these conclusions. Hope you can comprehend at least that much.

“The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are removing HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection from the definition of communicable disease of public health significance."

[Tapatio]

Perhaps you should read the article again, Tapatio. You seem to have missed what the CDC said, that HIV is not a "communicable" disease. Use the dictionary to help you understand what this means if you have to.
Regardless, if you don't like what it says, please call the CDC and your government and take it up with them. I didn't make these conclusions. Hope you can comprehend at least that much.

“The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are removing HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection from the definition of communicable disease of public health significance."

You'll note that I did not take exception to the CDCs statement but to your interpretation.

Within the context of the statement the CDC statement is fine. Your statement is irresponsible.

Comprehension- check into it

And please don't breed.

[ronjer1]

Within the context of the statement the CDC statement is fine.

"(CDC) are removing HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection from the definition of communicable disease "

It's fabulous to see that you finally understand that HIV is not a communicable disease.

[trish]

The CDC Announced in 2010 that HIV is not an infectious disease that can be transmitted...

WRONG!

The CDC has not ruled that HIV isn’t a communicable disease. Rather, it has removed HIV from the list of diseases that keep people who are not U.S. citizens from entering the U.S. It is not a communicable disease of public health significance, nevertheless it is quite obviously communicable. You cannot leave off the qualifier "of public health significance." This assessment of the public danger can change as new mutations of the virus arise.

http://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeeh...inal-rule.html

(read the italic bold green print)

[lifeisfiction]

WRONG!

The CDC has not ruled that HIV isn’t a communicable disease. Rather, it has removed HIV from the list of diseases that keep people who are not U.S. citizens from entering the U.S. It is not a communicable disease of public health significance, nevertheless it is quite obviously communicable. You cannot leave off the qualifier "of public health significance." This assessment of the public danger can change as new mutations of the virus arise.

http://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeeh...inal-rule.html

(read the italic bold green print)

Trish with the natural acumen for legal theory.

[runningdownthatdream]

Perhaps you should read the article again, Tapatio. You seem to have missed what the CDC said, that HIV is not a "communicable" disease. Use the dictionary to help you understand what this means if you have to.
Regardless, if you don't like what it says, please call the CDC and your government and take it up with them. I didn't make these conclusions. Hope you can comprehend at least that much.

“The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are removing HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection from the definition of communicable disease of public health significance."

Show some respect - you've been here for three posts and trying to educate others who've been here for years. And, it seems you have a reading comprehension problem. Here's the Title and blurb from the CDC site:

Final Rule Removing HIV Infection from U.S. Immigration Screening:

Technical Questions and Answers

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are removing HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection from the definition of communicable disease of public health significance. By law, non-U.S. citizens (known as aliens) who are determined to have a communicable disease of public health significance, a mental health disorder with associated harmful behavior, or drug abuse/addiction are inadmissible to the United States. Aliens wishing to live in the United States permanently are also screened for these medical conditions to determine whether a permanent resident visa will be granted. Prior to the effective date of January 4, 2010, HIV was among the diseases that could prevent people who are not U.S. citizens from entering the country.

They've even tried to help your comprehension by putting the critical sentence in italics:

communicable disease of public health significance

.......and I've taken it one step further by putting the term public health significance in bold. Get it now?

[ronjer1]

[QUOTE=trish;1579319]This assessment of the public danger can change as new mutations of the virus arise.
QUOTE]


So you are saying that as it stands right now, HIV is not dangerous to the public unless a new mutation arises? So nobody was scared of HIV since 2010 because it wasn't dangerous to the public? If that's the case, then HIV must be similar to a flu virus then, of no public health significance. And that doesn't make sense.

[runningdownthatdream]

[quote=ronjer1;1579335]

This assessment of the public danger can change as new mutations of the virus arise.
QUOTE]


So you are saying that as it stands right now, HIV is not dangerous to the public unless a new mutation arises? So nobody was scared of HIV since 2010 because it wasn't dangerous to the public? If that's the case, then HIV must be similar to a flu virus then, of no public health significance. And that doesn't make sense.

Let me help you apologize:

Dear HA, I was wrong. I did not read the article in the way it was intended to be read. I need to brush up on my reading comprehension.

Thank you,
Ronjer1

The New Poster

[trish]

[quote=ronjer1;1579335]

This assessment of the public danger can change as new mutations of the virus arise.
QUOTE]


So you are saying that as it stands right now, HIV is not dangerous to the public unless a new mutation arises? So nobody was scared of HIV since 2010 because it wasn't dangerous to the public? If that's the case, then HIV must be similar to a flu virus then, of no public health significance. And that doesn't make sense.

I'm saying very little. The CDC declared in 2010 that it would remove HIV from the list of communicable diseases of public heath significance. I haven't bothered to examine their definition of significance. Perhaps you could do that for us.

I wouldn't dare guess who was scared of HIV in 2010 and why? I only suggest one be respectful enough of its dangers now to take the recommended precautions.

i would speculate the spread of HIV had been sufficiently stymied by modern treatments and medications for the CDC to justify removing it from the list alluded to above. Should that change, say due to a mutation we may find HIV back on the list.

[broncofan]

[quote=ronjer1;1579335]

This assessment of the public danger can change as new mutations of the virus arise.
QUOTE]


So you are saying that as it stands right now, HIV is not dangerous to the public unless a new mutation arises? So nobody was scared of HIV since 2010 because it wasn't dangerous to the public? If that's the case, then HIV must be similar to a flu virus then, of no public health significance. And that doesn't make sense.

First, admit that you overlooked a very important qualifier. HIV is a communicable disease. That is known. If it were not communicable, then how would people contract it? It's certainly not hereditary. Secondly, as Trish said it could take a while to analyze the different factors the CDC takes into account to determine a communicable disease is one of public health significance.

It is absolutely of personal significance, whatever the global factors are in determining public health significance. If you contract it and it hasn't mutated into a more aggressive form of the virus, you will still be on anti-retrovirals for the rest of your life. And if you do not take them you run a risk of dying from a combination of opportunistic infections and a degraded immune system. In summary, you misunderstood what you read.