1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungFirst, let me pose a very simple question:
What's faulty about it?
If you wanted to run a study to show that an HIV test was accurate, what would you need to do, formally speaking?
I submit you would need to compare the results of such a test with either (a) something that was either itself a definitive index of HIV, or (b) some other test that had been itself compared to such definitive index, and shown to correlate nearly redundantly with it.
Do you agree?
If you don't, please suggest some other formal manner in which an HIV test could be validated.
Originally posted by deathbypawnUnless times have changed, you are not required by law to tell your partner anything, ever. I know someone else who had multiple partners and refused to get tested. But here's the thing -- if you choose to have what's referred to as unprotected sex, then you choose to risk getting any number of diseases, including fatal ones. In the end your partner's words are simply words; the decision is yours to accept responsibility for your own health.
but if you have aids and you dont tell your partner and they die cant you get in trouble for murder. arent you required by law to tell your partner that you have aids and therefore they can make the decision....so in him not wanting to know he doesn't want to accept responsibility for his actions.
Originally posted by reader1107Times have changed, actually. In Australia it is a crime for a person with HIV to not disclose that fact to their sexual partner. Several people were convicted last year.
Unless times have changed, you are not required by law to tell your partner anything, ever. I know someone else who had multiple partners and refused to get tested. But here's the thing -- if you choose to have what's referred to as unprotected sex, then you choose to risk getting any number of diseases, including fatal ones. In the end your partner's words are simply words; the decision is yours to accept responsibility for your own health.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/items/200601/1559253.htm?sa
http://www.napwa.org.au/index.php?q=node/510
Originally posted by orfeoAh. It's a geographical issue as well, then.
Times have changed, actually. In Australia it is a crime for a person with HIV to not disclose that fact to their sexual partner. Several people were convicted last year.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/items/200601/1559253.htm?sa
http://www.napwa.org.au/index.php?q=node/510
The funny thing is in some religious communities, HIV testing is mandatory to become a nun. Just seems ironic to me.
2 edits
i wonder if they have online dating sites for people who have aids all members have it already and therefore there is no more risk...im not just being funny im curious...been tested clean thank god considering my past
found one site and an article was very surprised
http://personals.poz.com/
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=24184
Originally posted by deathbypawnHaving unprotected sex in which both parties are HIV infected is still not safe. Different strains of HIV have different characteristics and two strains of HIV can combine in a person to create even more deadly strains.
i wonder if they have online dating sites for people who have aids all members have it already and therefore there is no more risk...im not just being funny im curious...been tested clean thank god considering my past
found one site and an article was very surprised
http://personals.poz.com/
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=24184
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no3/burke.htm
If a randomly chosen adult man had unprotected penile-vaginal sex on a single with a randomly chosen adult woman then
(a) what is the probability that HIV would be transmitted from the man to woman, if the former was infected and the latter not; and
(a) what is the probability that HIV would be transmitted from the woman to the man, if the former was infected and the latter not?
Assume both adults are from the US.
What does the CDC say?
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI am not ignoring you. I am thinking of whether you're right or not and if not, why not.
First, let me pose a very simple question:
If you wanted to run a study to show that an HIV test was accurate, what would you need to do, formally speaking?
I submit you would need to compare the results of such a test with either (a) something that was either itself a definitive index of HIV, or (b) some other test that had been itself compared t ...[text shortened]...
If you don't, please suggest some other formal manner in which an HIV test could be validated.
Originally posted by MikeBruceSome types of Life insurance has you take AIDS tests.
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 reader1107You can still get it even with protected sex!!
Unless times have changed, you are not required by law to tell your partner anything, ever. I know someone else who had multiple partners and refused to get tested. But here's the thing -- if you choose to have what's referred to as unprotected sex, then you choose to risk getting any number of diseases, including fatal ones. In the end your partner's words are simply words; the decision is yours to accept responsibility for your own health.
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterA better solution: Educate people about AIDS, encourage abstinence in risky situations, and, when
An interesting solution: Cuba already quarantines people living with AIDs and HIV. Consequently, they have the lowest infected rate in our hemisphere. What if we expanded the quarantine in Cuba to encompass the whole island and anyone, anywhere in the world with AIDs and HIV had to relocate to the island? I think this would be a great idea becaus ...[text shortened]... om being exposed and those infected would be able to, as Prince says, "Party like it's 1999."
electing to have risky sex, teach them about condoms and make them available.
The Caribbean has the second-highest rate of HIV infections after Sub-saharan Africa. Those countries
in which safe-sex education has been the most prevalent have been the ones with the greatest
decrease of HIV infections in the past decade. There is no dispute regarding this correlation:
education + condoms = decreased HIV rates.
Nemesio
Edit: Cuba's system of quarantine is hardly a 'sectioning off' like I'm sure you would enjoy.
In Cuba, access to medical care is the right available to all persons with HIV. Though it is a cruel dilemma, they are able to chose between enjoyment of personal liberty and privacy by living at home, or taking advantage of their social rights to housing, food, income, recreation, a supportive environment and medical care by living in a sanitarium. A poor person in the US has no such choice. Sanitarium residents are provided with high caloric diets (not possible on the outside due to the economic situation), free medications (what is available), a partial salary, and care from a team of physicians, nurses, social workers, and psychologists. Currently approximately 70% of persons with HIV have elected to remain in the sanitariums as their primary residence. Sacrifice to the community is an integral part of post-revolutionary Cuba. Therefore, the sacrifice of personal freedom is perceived to be part of preserving public health and safety.
http://www.cubasolidarity.net/cubahol2.html
Furthermore, they have emphasized (as I mention above) education and safe-sex methods for all
people, another factor which contributes significantly to their low HIV-infection rate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2003/denver_2003/2770631.stm