Aids!!

2008-04-01 20:53:21

#26

Smithereener: Member; +138|6742|California

SenorToenails wrote:
lowing wrote:
ATG wrote:
airbourne plague=yes
Sex disease=no
please explain
I would support the quarantine of an airborne disease with a high mortality rate, like Ebola Zaire. I would not support the quarantine of HIV/AIDS since it is spread through contact with bodily fluid. That's like requiring a quarantine for genital herpes.

That's probably what ATG means also.

I was under the impression Ebola (or at least the Zaire strain [still a shit scary disease]) isn't an airborne disease. Then again, I base all my knowledge on The Hot Zone, so I'm don't really know.

At any rate, if the disease is highly contagious with high mortality rate, quarantine would be an excellent idea, as well as trying to get rid of any other vectors of the disease.

But for AIDS, I wouldn't quite support it. I've only known one person who had AIDS, but him and his family moved to another state. He was normal and lead a relatively normal life like any of us, the only difference was that he had AIDS. Unless the guy/girl is running around sleeping with anyone and everyone, they don't really deserve to be quarantined to shut off from society.

Last edited by Smithereener (2008-04-01 20:54:14)

2008-04-01 20:56:38

#27

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6557|North Tonawanda, NY

Smithereener wrote:
I was under the impression Ebola (or at least the Zaire strain [still a shit scary disease]) isn't an airborne disease. Then again, I base all my knowledge on The Hot Zone, so I'm don't really know.

At any rate, if the disease is highly contagious with high mortality rate, quarantine would be an excellent idea, as well as trying to get rid of any other vectors of the disease.

But for AIDS, I wouldn't quite support it. I've only known one person who had AIDS, but him and his family moved to another state. He was normal and lead a relatively normal life like any of us, the only difference was that he had AIDS. Unless the guy/girl is running around sleeping with anyone and everyone, they don't really deserve to be quarantined to shut off from society.

Well shit on me for not checking first. Certain strains have been demonstrated as airborne, but they weren't human strains of the virus. (I forgot that the Reston, VA strain was primarily on monkeys.) I will edit my post to make it a hypothetical.

2008-04-01 21:07:03

#28

FallenMorgan: Member; +53|6341|Glendale, CA

Okay, so what rank are you in the SS, OP?

It's very silly to cut off ALL contact with the outside world. I think it would be okay to atleast do something to prevent the spread of HIV, without fascist means. What if somebody gets it by accident and does his or her best to not spread it? There are sickos who spread it on purpose - they should be sent to jail, not the innocent victims.

2008-04-01 21:16:50

#29

CoronadoSEAL: pics or it didn't happen; +207|6945|USA

FallenMorgan wrote:
Okay, so what rank are you in the SS, OP?

It's very silly to cut off ALL contact with the outside world.

lowing wrote:
2. Each colony can be supplied with all of the modern comforts but they are completely isolated short of communication with the outside world. I am not talking about punishment but banishment from each country's mainstream society. (If you can look at banishment as not punishment).

---

FallenMorgan wrote:
I think it would be okay to atleast do something to prevent the spread of HIV, without fascist means. What if somebody gets it by accident and does his or her best to not spread it? There are sickos who spread it on purpose - they should be sent to jail, not the innocent victims.

lowing wrote:
1. There are no exceptions, how the disease was contracted is irrelevant for this discussion.

2008-04-01 22:09:04

#30

FallenMorgan: Member; +53|6341|Glendale, CA

It's irrelivant to say that how they caught it is irrelivant.

2008-04-02 00:51:48

#31

B.Schuss: I'm back, baby... ( sort of ); +664|7268|Cologne, Germany

could work theoretically, but as it would violate most nations laws, and some human rights, I won't happen. Apart from the fact that you simply cannot identify and isolate everyone who has aids. Too many people in total, too many who can't be tested, and so on. Impossible. From a practical and a legal point of view.

are you getting more radical as you grow older, lowing ?

2008-04-02 01:44:47

#32

mikkel: Member; +383|7028

Segregation only really works well if it's comprehensive and perfectly executed, and that's never going to happen. AIDS spread from just one person before, and it would do it again.

Turquoise wrote:
lowing wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Your suggestions would make sense regarding an airborne disease, not a blood one.
I am thinking the reverse, if you isolated the sources of the infected blood, would you not isolate the disease?
Well, for starters, you'd also need to screen every incoming immigrant for AIDS as well. In addition to this, we'd still have illegals coming in who might have AIDS as well.

There are far too many external factors for your plan to be 100% effective (or even 75% effective for that matter).

Actually, all immigrants are already tested for HIV/AIDS. I have to be tested in conjunction with my application for citizenship, and people suffering from HIV will normally not be granted one.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-04-02 01:45:13)

2008-04-02 01:54:11

#33

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7101|Canberra, AUS

No to anything save airborne viruses. Those are nasty little buggers, and I believe CDC would have plans to do exactly that: shut down infected areas.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2008-04-02 03:35:18

#34

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7078|USA

I promise this is not one of Sergeriver's "thread traps". I am not going anywhere, or trying to prove a point with this discussion, for another discussion, but I have a blanket question to all that do not support quarantine:

Obvously there is no way anything will stop the natural instincts that drive human beings to have sex including the risk of death. Given the knowledge we have today and the death toll, would you STILL take the accumulated deaths up to today, over quarantine 30, or 20 years ago?

From what I gather, you would rather have the death toll where it is, than take a drastic step like quarantine to contain the disease. Is this a fair assessment or not? For this discussion we are assuming quarantine works. Basically it is now a morality, legal, freedom compromising issue.

Last edited by lowing (2008-04-02 03:38:23)

2008-04-02 04:48:57

#35

Burwhale: Save the BlobFish!; +136|6649|Brisneyland

Assuming that :
1. Quarantine works completely.

2. You have screened the ENTIRE population to make sure all of the AIDS carriers are in the quarantine zone. ( even though this would be incredibly expensive and almost impossible from a clinical point of veiw).

I still wouldnt be in favor of quarantine as AIDS isnt really that contagious. Sexual contact and needle sharing account for the majority of cases. Practise safe sex, dont use a dirty syringe, AIDS stops being a problem. I dont see the point of separating people from their families/friends when the solution can be got using education and safe sex. The risk of infected people transmitting AIDS to the public is too small to justify the expense and morality issues associated with quarantine.

2008-04-02 04:55:27

#36

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|7048|London, England

He's only saying that because he doesn't know anybody with AIDS, so he can say whatever he wants. (neither do I, but that's a pretty extreme measure)

Unfortunately there's no way of stopping some twat having sex even though they have AIDS... you need to people to have sex, if one of them isn't smart enough to use a rubber then fuck 'em both (lolpun not intended)

Last edited by Mek-Izzle (2008-04-02 04:55:40)

2008-04-02 05:09:40

#37

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6982

Pretty ludicrous and impractical idea. What are you going to use? Montana? How are they going to be on an equal footing in the global or domestic economic marketplace? You're essentially describing Gulags. They aren't sheep that you can herd into a field ye know. They're actually human.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-02 05:10:19)

2008-04-02 05:33:12

#38

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7184|Argentina

https://img399.imageshack.us/img399/82/bullshitee2.jpg

2008-04-02 05:35:37

#39

Burwhale: Save the BlobFish!; +136|6649|Brisneyland

Regarding your point:

lowing wrote:
Given the knowledge we have today and the death toll, would you STILL take the accumulated deaths up to today, over quarantine 30, or 20 years ago?

Diagnostic techniques for AIDS back in the 80's were poor. Basically, people may have had AIDS and been quite healthy, therefore there was no way of knowing for certain whether a person had AIDS or not. If we could go back in time and do it over again, quarantine wouldnt have worked then either as poor diagnostics would have let too many people through the quarantine net.

Edit: to be honest I think Lowing is just trying to get a reaction out of people. I dont think he would even believe quarantine was a solution ( would he?)

Last edited by Burwhale the Avenger (2008-04-02 05:39:41)

2008-04-02 07:38:19

#40

elmer_42: Sanford and Son; +22|6328|California

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
everyone has it

Nice Team America reference.

2008-04-02 07:49:08

#41

kylef: Gone; +1,352|6920|N. Ireland

Major human rights violation for most, if not all countries. I think that Iceland would be the best place for them to go
if hypothetically it were to happen. It's an island all on its own - far from anywhere! (none of you dare say Ireland )

2008-04-02 09:25:16

#42

Mitch: 16 more years; +877|6952|South Florida

In theory it sounds like a smart idea, but until your the one whos quarentined from having a full life because of something you likely, accidently, contracted, im sure you would have a different opinion.

15 more years! 15 more years!

2008-04-02 10:12:20

#43

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6649|Escea

kylef wrote:
Major human rights violation for most, if not all countries. I think that Iceland would be the best place for them to go
if hypothetically it were to happen. It's an island all on its own - far from anywhere! (none of you dare say Ireland )

Emerald Isle, notice I didna say Ireland

2008-04-02 10:15:04

#44

jord: Member; +2,382|7105|The North, beyond the wall.

Mitch wrote:
In theory it sounds like a smart idea, but until your the one whos quarentined from having a full life because of something you likely, accidently, contracted, im sure you would have a different opinion.

I don't think anyone contracts aids purposefully...

2008-04-02 10:25:38

#45

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7027|132 and Bush

lowing wrote:
ATG wrote:
airbourne plague=yes
Sex disease=no
please explain

I presume he means with STD's you have the ability to protect yourself by making responsible decisions.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2008-04-02 10:40:02

#46

cpt.fass1: The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n; +329|7122|NJ

You know, it'd probably be easier to seperate perfectly healthy Humans.. Make a super nation like that..

And by perfectly I'm talking no history of Cancer, no STD's at all, mental illness, etc. etc. etc.

2008-04-02 10:49:21

#47

wah1188: You orrible caaaaaaan't; +321|6887|UK

That would be really wrong. Dave Chapelle said it came from people fucking monkey's he is probably right.

2008-04-02 11:24:08

#48

IRONCHEF: Member; +385|6917|Northern California

I do not condone the isolation or quarantine of AIDS/HIV infected people (i didn't call them victims because they most likely asked for it). Castration or legal penalization for those knowingly spreading it because it does use tax dollars to treat and research.

AIDS is pretty much a 100% avoidable disease. Unlike other diseases worthy of every effort to cure like Cancer, ALS, MS, Autism, Meningitis, Psoriasis, etc...AIDS should not be any priority whatsoever to research clinics, of our government, or any such cause that puts it above diseases that are not based on behavior.

2008-04-02 16:30:44

#49

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6832|North Carolina

mikkel wrote:
Segregation only really works well if it's comprehensive and perfectly executed, and that's never going to happen. AIDS spread from just one person before, and it would do it again.

Turquoise wrote:
lowing wrote:

I am thinking the reverse, if you isolated the sources of the infected blood, would you not isolate the disease?
Well, for starters, you'd also need to screen every incoming immigrant for AIDS as well. In addition to this, we'd still have illegals coming in who might have AIDS as well.

There are far too many external factors for your plan to be 100% effective (or even 75% effective for that matter).
Actually, all immigrants are already tested for HIV/AIDS. I have to be tested in conjunction with my application for citizenship, and people suffering from HIV will normally not be granted one.

Good points... I stand corrected.

Still, there is no 100% effective test to determine HIV infection.

2008-04-02 16:33:23

#50

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6982

Kmarion wrote:
lowing wrote:
ATG wrote:
airbourne plague=yes
Sex disease=no
please explain
I presume he means with STD's you have the ability to protect yourself by making responsible decisions.

Game, set, match ATG.

BF2S Forums Aids!!

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

ATG wrote:

Smithereener wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

lowing wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

kylef wrote:

Mitch wrote:

lowing wrote:

ATG wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

ATG wrote:

Board footer