• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

plagiarize
Banned
(10-07-2017, 07:40 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by FiggyCal

Are they more lethal than hiv? LIke we can cure syphilis, I thought. You can't cure AIDS.

Pneumonia is way more lethal than HIV and is caused by the common flu virus. If you have ever knowingly exposed people to flu, congratulations, you're a hypocrite.
MrOogieBoogie
BioShock Infinite is like playing some homeless guy's vivid imagination
(10-07-2017, 07:40 PM)
MrOogieBoogie's Avatar
CDC recently announced that "people who take ART daily as prescribed and achieve and maintain an undetectable viral load have effectively no risk of sexually transmitting the virus to an HIV-negative partner."

It's kind of scary that in this day and age there are still people who use "HIV" and "AIDS" interchangeably, as if they're the same thing. They're not, folks. Come on.
99Luffy
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:40 PM)
99Luffy's Avatar
Not a felony.. But wont this just lead to people suing each other??

That one lady got millions from usher just being exposed to herpes and not contracting it.
GaimeGuy
Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
(10-07-2017, 07:40 PM)
GaimeGuy's Avatar
Look, HIV is no longer the death sentence it once was, but it still does shorten one's life span by 5-20 years (depending on the study done), it's still incurable, it still is a death sentence for fertility, and it still incurs significant lifelong medical expenses.

There's no reason exposing others to this kind of a chronic condition shouldn't be considered an affront to society. That's what a crime is. That's why the state, instead of the victim, is the prosecution (plaintiff)
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:40 PM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar

Originally Posted by kirblar

This is what's complicating this right now.

It absolutely should be a crime to try and deliberately infect someone, but how you make the distinction between that and an undetectable person going w/o a condom is going to be difficult.

No it's not. Most people who has hiv and are on treatment have extensive lab and medical records. They have to see thier doctors at least twice a year. If it really comes down to it, it's easy to prove that you are adherent and taking your meds.
malyce
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:41 PM)
malyce's Avatar
GAF is a really weird fucking place that at times seems really disconnected from the outside world. If you have the disease, you should let the other person know. Educate them if need be, but let THEM make that choice. Fuck your feelings. You don't get to make that decision for them no matter how treatable the disease is.
neshcom
Banned
(10-07-2017, 07:41 PM)

Originally Posted by Alavard

You really think there's no other law on the books they can use if you actually try to infect someone else with a disease, HIV or otherwise?

Is there? I donít know, but if you do, please share. Legitimately asking.
WaterAstro
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:41 PM)
WaterAstro's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

OH LOOK ANOTHER PERSON WHO HAS NO IDEA HOW TREATABLE HIV IS THESE DAYS.

Dear EVERYONE in this thread decrying this, please look at the current state of treatment for being HIV positive, rather than throwing around fearmongering based on attitudes and treatments that date back to the 80s.

Thank you.

Uh what does treatment have to do with having sex with someone while having HIV?
diaspora
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:42 PM)
diaspora's Avatar
How much does it cost to have HIV be manageable? I also don't get why people are bringing up Hep or Syphilis since that's just making it a compelling case to add those to a list to criminalize.
BackLogJoe
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:42 PM)
BackLogJoe's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

OH LOOK ANOTHER PERSON WHO HAS NO IDEA HOW TREATABLE HIV IS THESE DAYS.

Dear EVERYONE in this thread decrying this, please look at the current state of treatment for being HIV positive, rather than throwing around fearmongering based on attitudes and treatments that date back to the 80s.

Thank you.

It may totally be treatable but I'd rather not have to take medicine the rest of my life because someone didn't want to speak up.
plagiarize
Banned
(10-07-2017, 07:42 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by Hollywood Duo

How much does it cost though? If someone sticks me with 100s of thousands in medical bills Iím going to sue.

Sue away. Doesn't mean it should be a felony.

And cost of treatment is a whole other kettle of fish. HIV treatments, like many many others, are way too expensive here in the US.
GoldenEye 007
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:42 PM)
GoldenEye 007's Avatar
How much per month does ART cost on average with insurance? Without?
Geno Breaker
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:42 PM)
Geno Breaker's Avatar

Originally Posted by GaimeGuy

Look, HIV is no longer the death sentence it once was, but it still does shorten one's life span by 5-20 years (depending on the study done), it's still incurable, it still is a death sentence for fertility, and it still incurs significant lifelong medical expenses.

There's no reason exposing others to this kind of a chronic condition shouldn't be considered an affront to society. That's what a crime is. That's why the state, instead of the victim, is the prosecution (plaintiff)

Yeah. Also, I feel like knowing you have any disease and not telling your partner of it no matter how low the risk is seems pretty scummy. Well, scummy isn't the right word but it's a breach of honesty/trustworthiness.
Somnid
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:42 PM)
Somnid's Avatar

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

We can treat HIV. Being undetectable means it is impossible for you to infect someone.

What does this even mean though? If you can't detect it, you don't have it or it was cured, no?
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:42 PM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar

Originally Posted by FiggyCal

Well if the law was originally made to be discriminatory towards certain groups of people, then obviously that's not okay. But on a purely surface level it seems to be a bad idea to ease the penalty for knowingly exposing other people to HIV.



Okay.

Knowingly exposing and then knowing that you can't spread it are two different things.
metalslimer
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:42 PM)
metalslimer's Avatar

Originally Posted by GaimeGuy

Look, HIV is no longer the death sentence it once was, but it still does shorten one's life span by 5-20 years (depending on the study done), it's still incurable, it still is a death sentence for fertility, and it still incurs significant lifelong medical expenses.

There's no reason exposing others to this kind of a chronic condition shouldn't be considered an affront to society. That's what a crime is. That's why the state, instead of the victim, is the prosecution (plaintiff)

There are studies that show that treated individuals have an average lifespan, and I'm not sure what you mean by death of fertility when many people with HIV have children.
plagiarize
Banned
(10-07-2017, 07:43 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by WaterAstro

Uh what does treatment have to do with having sex with someone while having HIV?

If you are being treated you aren't infectious. So what right does the other person have to know?
eosos
Banned
(10-07-2017, 07:43 PM)
eosos's Avatar

Originally Posted by Baraka Obama

I feel as if you donít know anything about HIV and current medicine.

Feel like you're side stepping the question. Yes, AIDS is treatable and can fall to non-detectable levels without risk of infection. However, not everyone with AIDS is at that level. I'd be very upset if someone I had sex with didn't tell me about their current STD. Especially one as permanent as AIDS, regardless of what level it's at.

Although it looks like maliciously spreading is still banned, so not 100% sure how I feel about this.
metalslimer
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:44 PM)
metalslimer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Somnid

What does this even mean though? If you can't detect it, you don't have it or it was cured, no?

You still have it, it means that the amount of virus inside of you is so small the machines can't detect it which makes it virtually impossible to spread the virus. That is the goal of treatment currently


I do think that people need to be cautious though. Medications can randomly fail or if the patient isn't consistently you can have a spike in the viral load. The current law though just stigmatized people with HIV though
Lois_Lane
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:44 PM)

Originally Posted by plagiarize

Sue away. Doesn't mean it should be a felony.

And cost of treatment is a whole other kettle of fish. HIV treatments, like many many others, are way too expensive here in the US.

Then do you realize why some people would have a problem with this? There's no guarantee the money won in the lawsuit will cover the lifelong treatment along with having to pay for fertility treatments to get kids. At least putting that person in jail adds some salve to the victim.
kirblar
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:44 PM)
kirblar's Avatar

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

No it's not. Most people who has hiv and are on treatment have extensive lab and medical records. They have to see thier doctors at least twice a year. If it really comes down to it, it's easy to prove that you are adherent and taking your meds.

I mean in terms of getting the law narrow enough to not catch those adherent people accidentally in it without excluding those people who do deliberately infect others.

The latter group absolutely does exist and should be prosecuted. The problem is avoiding catching the first one in by accident.
Kebiinu
Banned
(10-07-2017, 07:45 PM)

Originally Posted by Beer Monkey

It should be a felony to knowingly expose anyone to ANY disease.



Not sure if serious.

I'm dead serious.

HIV is prevalent af in the gay communities, even more so in the black LGBT community. Why do you think people don't get tested as much as they should? It's criminalized; you have a risk of going to jail just for transmitting the disease. So say your argument is, "oh well if it's intentional–" but what if it's not? What if you have HIV, you disclose the info with your partner, y'all have sex, break up a few months later, he sleeps with another dude who also has the disease but never told him, ol' boy gets a checkup, congratulations you have HIV.

If he's feeling vindictive after a bad breakup, what do you think is going to happen? He can claim that his ex willingly gave him HIV, he might think he just infected his current partner...the shit show continues.

Decriminalizing HIV is important, and it sounds impractical on paper. But this just helps people who have the disease/know others that have it. Less criminalization means people are more willing to get tested, get diagnosed, and get help. It also helps get rid of the "IT RUINS LIVES" stigma, as well as helps those born into the world, with HIV transmitted through birth.

Help people, don't put them in fucking jail.
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:45 PM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar

Originally Posted by Somnid

What does this even mean though? If you can't detect it, you don't have it or it was cured, no?

Undetectable means that current tests cannot detect the virus in your blood anymore (which are already really sensitive, goes as low as 20 parts per million). It's as good as if the virus is not in your bloodstream anymore, practically speaking. The virus is still on your body in long lived reservoir cells but those are usually dormant and so long as you are taking your meds, you are good.
Alavard
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:46 PM)
Alavard's Avatar

Originally Posted by neshcom

Is there? I donít know, but if you do, please share. Legitimately asking.

Attempting to do someone physical harm should still fall under assault (and other related charges like grievous bodily harm, etc). The point is you don't need a law for one specific disease.
Baraka Obama
Banned
(10-07-2017, 07:46 PM)
I do see an issue if itís somebody knowingly infecting people but I would imagine thatís a very small percentage of people infected. This isnít as simple of an issue as some of you wanna think, I do think sending someone whoís infected with hiv to prison is insanely irresponsible for public health.
kiyomi
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:46 PM)
kiyomi's Avatar

Originally Posted by legacyzero

Just because it's treatable, doesn't mean I want the risk or the hassle. Got Herpes? tell me. Got a cold? Please warn me before I hug you, or sit next to you on a plane.

Perhaps people with HIV will be more willing to tell people around them what their condition is without the fear of committing a felony with these changes in place.

Why should people be criminalised for trying to live a normal life?
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:46 PM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar

Originally Posted by WaterAstro

Uh what does treatment have to do with having sex with someone while having HIV?

If you are taking your meds, it is practically impossible for you to infect others.
XenodudeX
Junior Member
(10-07-2017, 07:47 PM)
XenodudeX's Avatar

Originally Posted by FiggyCal

This doesn't seem like a great idea.

Also I don't know how this could be true:



Is it?

Are you serious? Get educated jesus christ
metalslimer
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:47 PM)
metalslimer's Avatar

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

If you are taking your meds, it is practically impossible for you to infect others.

This isn't necessarily true as medication failures do happen but if you are adherent there is a much smaller chance of that happening.
skullmuffins
Banned
(10-07-2017, 07:48 PM)

Originally Posted by Temeculan3000

Nah it says it is still a felony if you intend to spread it.

The article's use of "current law" is ambiguous. The bill is here, and it looks to me like it was a felony and the new law changes it to a misdemeanor, in line with how the state charges intentional transmission of any other disease.
plagiarize
Banned
(10-07-2017, 07:48 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by metalslimer

You still have it, it means that the amount of virus inside of you is so small the machines can't detect it which makes it virtually impossible to spread the virus. That is the goal of treatment currently


I do think that people need to be cautious though. Medications can randomly fail or if the patient isn't consistently you can have a spike in the viral load. The current law though just stigmatized people with HIV though

Judging from this thread, did it ever.
FiggyCal
Banned
(10-07-2017, 07:49 PM)

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

Knowingly exposing and then knowing that you can't spread it are two different things.

Yeah, you're right about that.

Originally Posted by XenodudeX

Are you serious? Get educated jesus christ

I mean that's kind of the point of asking questions isn't it? To learn stuff?
legacyzero
Banned
(10-07-2017, 07:49 PM)
legacyzero's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

Pneumonia is way more lethal than HIV and is caused by the common flu virus. If you have ever knowingly exposed people to flu, congratulations, you're a hypocrite.

Good thing you stretched before those gymnastics.

I dont have to worry about taking medication for the rest of my life if I survive Pneumonia. And plus, I can tell if somebody is ill with the Flu. My wife wouldn't even kiss me this week because she's had an angry sore throat. It's courtesy at the minimum, life-threatening and/or wallet killing at the most.

My mind is boggled how some are ok with this.

Originally Posted by kiyomi

Perhaps people with HIV will be more willing to tell people around them what their condition is without the fear of committing a felony with these changes in place.

Why should people be criminalised for trying to live a normal life?

Uhhhh wat..

So youre saying people feel it easier to warn you of that they're infected if felony laws aren't in place, versus when they are????
MrOogieBoogie
BioShock Infinite is like playing some homeless guy's vivid imagination
(10-07-2017, 07:50 PM)
MrOogieBoogie's Avatar
What a glorious day it will be when we can simply remove viruses like HIV and HPV and HSV from a person's body using CRISPR.

That antibiotic resistant gonorrhea, though... Whoo boy, let's hope we get that under control.
DrROBschiz
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:51 PM)
DrROBschiz's Avatar
we are closer to a cure with CRISPR/Cas-9 and immunotherapy arent we?

What is the current state of HIV treatment?
XenodudeX
Junior Member
(10-07-2017, 07:51 PM)
XenodudeX's Avatar

Originally Posted by GaimeGuy

Look, HIV is no longer the death sentence it once was, but it still does shorten one's life span by 5-20 years (depending on the study done), it's still incurable, it still is a death sentence for fertility, and it still incurs significant lifelong medical expenses.

There's no reason exposing others to this kind of a chronic condition shouldn't be considered an affront to society. That's what a crime is. That's why the state, instead of the victim, is the prosecution (plaintiff)

That sounds like complete and utter bullshit
metalslimer
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:51 PM)
metalslimer's Avatar

Originally Posted by legacyzero

Good thing you stretched before those gymnastics.

I dont have to worry about taking medication for the rest of my life if I survive Pneumonia. And plus, I can tell if somebody is ill with the Flu. My wife wouldn't even kiss me this week because she's had an angry sore throat. It's courtesy at the minimum, life-threatening and/or wallet killing at the most.

My mind is boggled how some are ok with this.

Because the current law is a net negative for public health with people being too scared to even get tested



What is the current state of HIV treatment

?

The current standard of care is to get the viral load undetectable with a host of anti vitals. The people who are adherent to therapy live pretty normal lives. There are medication failures but there are a decent number of meds to replace them with.
Keri
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:52 PM)
Keri's Avatar
I was skeptical at first, but I guess it makes sense. HIV used to be a death sentence, but with modern medicine that is no longer the case.
Temeculan3000
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:52 PM)
Temeculan3000's Avatar

Originally Posted by skullmuffins

The article's use of "current law" is ambiguous. The bill is here, and it looks to me like it was a felony and the new law changes it to a misdemeanor, in line with how the state charges intentional transmission of any other disease.

Yeah after re-reading I found 'current' to be confusing as well.

Does this only apply to sexual or incidental contact? What about a nurse that decides to inject a bunch of newborns with a disease. Certainly that isn't just a small fine in California?
titiklabingapat
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:52 PM)
titiklabingapat's Avatar
Many of you don't realize that the current law and the language, specifically the 'knowingly' part is the big problem. Many people that suspect they have HIV don't go in to get tested and seek treatment. After all, you can't get charged if you didn't know you have HIV.

I don't have to spell if to you guys on why this is a big problem.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
(10-07-2017, 07:52 PM)
Sounds good. Intentionally infecting someone with any serious disease should be criminal of course but that should be general not just HIV. In the absence of the former singling out the latter is unreasonable.
WaterAstro
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:53 PM)
WaterAstro's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

If you are being treated you aren't infectious. So what right does the other person have to know?

Your partner doesn't have the right to know about your health before having sex? lol society these days...

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

If you are taking your meds, it is practically impossible for you to infect others.

Unless the meds completely kill the virus so that you don't need to take them anymore, it's not practically impossible because mistakes could be made.
BackLogJoe
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:53 PM)
BackLogJoe's Avatar
This is easy to legally protect yourself.

Before sex, inform the person if they have any STDs and are not disclosing this fact, the sex is not consensual.

If they continue, and the worst case scenario happens, charge them with rape.
plagiarize
Banned
(10-07-2017, 07:54 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

Many of you don't realize that the current law and the language, specifically the 'knowingly' part is the big proble. Many people that suspect they have HIV don't go into to get tested and seek treatment. After all, you can't get charge if you didn't know you have HIV.

I don't have to spell if to you guys on why this is a big problem.

Sadly it seems like you do.

Because for many people in this thread because it is immoral to not tell someone you have HIV, it should also be a felony.
Dreams-Visions
I'm mad as hell but this sandwich is delicious
(10-07-2017, 07:54 PM)
Dreams-Visions's Avatar

Originally Posted by GaimeGuy

Look, HIV is no longer the death sentence it once was, but it still does shorten one's life span by 5-20 years (depending on the study done), it's still incurable, it still is a death sentence for fertility, and it still incurs significant lifelong medical expenses.

There's no reason exposing others to this kind of a chronic condition shouldn't be considered an affront to society. That's what a crime is. That's why the state, instead of the victim, is the prosecution (plaintiff)

Yes, this.
Diablos
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:54 PM)
Diablos's Avatar
I am not sure how I feel about this. I understand if you intend to do harm you'd still get in trouble, but it would be easy to lie your way out of that. Leaning towards bad idea honestly.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
(10-07-2017, 07:54 PM)
Suikoguy's Avatar

Originally Posted by XenodudeX

That sounds like complete and utter bullshit

I think that info is based on some research studies, but I think those studies are also outdated.
GoldenEye 007
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:55 PM)
GoldenEye 007's Avatar

Originally Posted by titiklabingapat

Many of you don't realize that the current law and the language, specifically the 'knowingly' part is the big proble. Many people that suspect they have HIV don't go into to get tested and seek treatment. After all, you can't get charge if you didn't know you have HIV.

I don't have to spell if to you guys on why this is a big problem.

I'm not sure I follow. Sure at some point people may have HIV and not know. But once they get tested, they now know. Are you saying that by getting tested, they could be charged for past sexual encounters?
metalslimer
Member
(10-07-2017, 07:55 PM)
metalslimer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dreams-Visions

Yes, this.

That post is full of inaccurate bullshit though
MrOogieBoogie
BioShock Infinite is like playing some homeless guy's vivid imagination
(10-07-2017, 07:55 PM)
MrOogieBoogie's Avatar

Originally Posted by XenodudeX

That sounds like complete and utter bullshit

Funny enough I've read reports that say some HIV-infected people tend to become extremely diligent about their health and end up living longer than those who are uninfected just because they're constantly monitoring their bodies.

Thread Tools