There is some guy at my work that is always talking about his sex parties. The guy is a major swinger obviously. I asked him one day "What about aids? Dont your worry about that?" he said he doesnt worry. he also siad that he did not know if he had aids.
He also said he does not want to know if he has aids so he can enjoy himself.
This is when I came to the conclusion that AIDS test should be mandatory. I think it would save many lives.
Im not totaly for this idea. Im not sure what I believe on this. I guess it might be infringing on some rights. But I dont see how myself. I wouldnt care if they gave me a aids test.
I want to learn what others thinks on this idea.
Let me know
Originally posted by MikeBrucethat is impossible
There is some guy at my work that is always talking about his sex parties. The guy is a major swinger obviously. I asked him one day "What about aids? Dont your worry about that?" he said he doesnt worry. he also siad that he did not know if he had aids.
He also said he does not want to know if he has aids so he can enjoy himself.
This is when I cam ...[text shortened]... hey gave me a aids test.
I want to learn what others thinks on this idea.
Let me know
Originally posted by MikeBruceThe natural objection is that those of us who aren't so foolish resent the time and bother spent on testing. I prefer to treat people as adults. Those who go to such parties know what they're risking. If they get an STD, they have no one to blame but themself.
There is some guy at my work that is always talking about his sex parties. The guy is a major swinger obviously. I asked him one day "What about aids? Dont your worry about that?" he said he doesnt worry. he also siad that he did not know if he had aids.
He also said he does not want to know if he has aids so he can enjoy himself.
This is when I cam ...[text shortened]... hey gave me a aids test.
I want to learn what others thinks on this idea.
Let me know
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem...as long as everyone is properly educated about STIs.
The natural objection is that those of us who aren't so foolish resent the time and bother spent on testing. I prefer to treat people as adults. Those who go to such parties know what they're risking. If they get an STD, they have no one to blame but themself.
Originally posted by MikeBruceSuppose a HIV test is accurate 99% of the time. That is, when HIV is present, it say so 99 times out of a 100, and when it is absent, it also says so 99 times out of a 100.
There is some guy at my work that is always talking about his sex parties. The guy is a major swinger obviously. I asked him one day "What about aids? Dont your worry about that?" he said he doesnt worry. he also siad that he did not know if he had aids.
He also said he does not want to know if he has aids so he can enjoy himself.
This is when I cam ...[text shortened]... hey gave me a aids test.
I want to learn what others thinks on this idea.
Let me know
Now suppose that you test everyone in the UK for HIV (about 60,000,000). Further suppose that only 0.1% of the UK population (about 60,000) have HIV.
Now let’s do some math.
Of the 60,000 who have it, 99%, or 59,400, will be correctly diagnosed as having it (true positives), while 1%, or 600, will be incorrectly diagnosed as not having it (false negatives).
And of the 59,940,000 who don't have it, 99%, ot 59,340,600, will be correctly diagnosed as not having it (true negatives), while 1%, or 599,400, will be incorrectly diagnosed as having it (false positives).
So let's summarize:
HIV test at 99% accuracy. Prevalence = 0.1%. Population = 60,000,000.
Total:
True positives = 59,400
False positives =599,400
True negatives = 59,340,600
False negatives = 600
Now, just consider the results for the positive tests. You can see that the ratio of the true positives to false positives is 1 to 11. That is, a person who tests positive for HIV is *eleven times* more likely *not* to have HIV than to have it.
Still in favour of “testing everyone”?
Originally posted by MikeBruceA person who has sex with another person is, by necessity, taking a
There is some guy at my work that is always talking about his sex parties. The guy is a major swinger obviously. I asked him one day "What about aids? Dont your worry about that?" he said he doesnt worry. he also siad that he did not know if he had aids.
He also said he does not want to know if he has aids so he can enjoy himself.
This is when I cam ...[text shortened]... hey gave me a aids test.
I want to learn what others thinks on this idea.
Let me know
risk. Your swinger friend is essentially playing russian roulette with
his life and, as dumb as that might be, it is his right. Yes, he may
have AIDS. And, yes, he might infect someone who thinks he's clean.
But, excepting rape, that person infected by him only has herself to
blame.
She always has the option of saying 'No, I don't want sex until you get
tested.' She has to weigh the factors: immediate, but risky gratification
now versus delayed, safe(r) gratification later.
Given that sex is one of the most common things to lie about (how often,
with whom, where, and so on), and given that STDs are often visually
undetectable, it would be wisest for the person who doesn't want to get
one to abstain (or wiser to utilize safe sex practices) until that person
knows his/her partner's health (and honesty) status.
Nemesio
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeYou could test the positives a second time with a different test.
Suppose a HIV test is accurate 99% of the time. That is, when HIV is present, it say so 99 times out of a 100, and when it is absent, it also says so 99 times out of a 100.
Now suppose that you test everyone in the UK for HIV (about 60,000,000). Further suppose that only 0.1% of the UK population (about 60,000) have HIV.
Now let’s do some math. ...[text shortened]... imes* more likely *not* to have HIV than to have it.
Still in favour of “testing everyone”?
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeThread 58799 is a similar probability problem.
Suppose a HIV test is accurate 99% of the time. That is, when HIV is present, it say so 99 times out of a 100, and when it is absent, it also says so 99 times out of a 100.
Now suppose that you test everyone in the UK for HIV (about 60,000,000). Further suppose that only 0.1% of the UK population (about 60,000) have HIV.
Now let’s do some math. ...[text shortened]... imes* more likely *not* to have HIV than to have it.
Still in favour of “testing everyone”?
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemSo it's a trade off between people wasting their time and being forced to do something, which is bad, and gaining power over an epidemic.
The vast majority of the positives don't have HIV, and they are now forced to waste their time on [b]two mandatory tests.[/b]
It will happen if AIDS gets to be so bad nations think this is necessary. In principle, it's neither a good nor a bad idea, but dependent on the danger of the epidemic IMO.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungyou seem to assume that people come up as false positives becaus ethe test went wrong. It is likely that they came up as possitive because something about their make-up means that they will aways come up as possitive in the test. You would have to have a second, equally accurate method that tested a different parameter in order to eliminate the false possitives effectively, but this would also multiply your flase negatives meaning that more people were given the all clear when in fact they did carry HIV.
So it's a trade off between people wasting their time and being forced to do something, which is bad, and gaining power over an epidemic.
It will happen if AIDS gets to be so bad nations think this is necessary. In principle, it's neither a good nor a bad idea, but dependent on the danger of the epidemic IMO.
That said, screening could have it's place. However, whether or not HIV screening meets all the (8?) criteria for natioanl screening I will ahve to think about after sleep. They're things like:
1) does an accurate screening test exist?
2) does catching the disease early help it's prognosis/treatment (does it?)?
3) is the test acceptable to the public?
etc...
2 edits
Originally posted by belgianfreakWhat I described is what the police do with drunk driving. First, the breathalyzer, then a blood test. I don't remember having heard your concern with respect to that.
you seem to assume that people come up as false positives becaus ethe test went wrong. It is likely that they came up as possitive because something about their make-up means that they will aways come up as possitive in the test. You would have to have a second, equally accurate method that tested a different parameter in order to eliminate the false po y help it's prognosis/treatment (does it?)?
3) is the test acceptable to the public?
etc...
In fact, they already use this sort of idea:
Tests used for the diagnosis of HIV infection in a particular person require a high degree of both sensitivity and specificity. In the United States, this is achieved using an algorithm combining two tests for HIV antibodies. If antibodies are detected by an initial test based on the ELISA method, then a second test using the Western blot procedure determines the size of the antigens in the test kit binding to the antibodies. The combination of these two methods is highly accurate (see below).
...the use of repeatedly reactive enzyme immunoassay followed by confirmatory Western blot or immunofluorescent assay remains the standard method for diagnosing HIV-1 infection. A large study of HIV testing in 752 U.S. laboratories reported a sensitivity of 99.7% and specificity of 98.5% for enzyme immunoassay, and studies in U.S. blood donors reported specificities of 99.8% and greater than 99.99%. With confirmatory Western blot, the chance of a false-positive identification in a low-prevalence setting is about 1 in 250 000 (95% CI, 1 in 173 000 to 1 in 379 000).
Other studies have confirmed the accuracy of current methods of HIV testing in the United States, reporting false-positive rates of 0.0004% to 0.0007% and false-negative rates of 0.003% in the general population
I accidentally closed it, but that's from the Wikipedia article on HIV Test.
Someone might want to re-run the statistical analysis with these, more accurate figures. The earlier example assumed the tests were less effective than they are.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeActually, it's more like a ratio of 10 to 1, isn't it 🙂
Suppose a HIV test is accurate 99% of the time. That is, when HIV is present, it say so 99 times out of a 100, and when it is absent, it also says so 99 times out of a 100.
Now suppose that you test everyone in the UK for HIV (about 60,000,000). Further suppose that only 0.1% of the UK population (about 60,000) have HIV.
Now let’s do some math. ...[text shortened]... imes* more likely *not* to have HIV than to have it.
Still in favour of “testing everyone”?