badcrumble
Member
smh at the ignorance in this thread. if you're undetectable, you're not exposing anyone. studies have proven this again and again.
smh at the ignorance in this thread. if you're undetectable, you're not exposing anyone. studies have proven this again and again.
Hep c is way fucking scarier than HIV and knowingly giving someone hepatitis is only a misdemeanor so the change makes sense to me. No need to single out HIV
So you are saying they should crimilize the spread of all stds?If your viral load is zero, I see zero reason why you should have to tell anyone.
Why should one infectious disease be singled out?
You've got to look at it from the perspective not of 'Should it be a crime to expose people to HIV?' but of 'Should HIV be the only disease it is a crime to expose people to?'
The answer to that second question is clearly "Fuck no."
I so strongly disagree with that sentence I could not disagree any more than I already am.If you aren't infectious you have no obligation to inform and shouldn't go to jail for it.
you don't "get away with it". it's still illegal, they're just treating it now like every single other infectious disease.this is wrong. you should not be able to knowingly spread hiv and get away with it. no matter how far medicine has advanced an uncurable disease will lower your quality of life. I cant support this.
It's still illegal. And the law change is designed to stop the spread of HIV. Have you read anything about this subject before declaring it "wrong"?this is wrong. you should not be able to knowingly spread hiv and get away with it. no matter how far medicine has advanced an uncurable disease will lower your quality of life. I cant support this.
I so strongly disagree with that sentence I could not disagree any more than I already am.
Before having sex, If someone asks you your status.
It doesn't matter if you're undetectable or not. If someone directly asks you before sex. You should have a moral AND legal obligation to tell them the truth. And if you either lie, or otherwise somehow omit your positive status, because you are afraid that person wont have sex with you. And you then have sex with that person based on your deceptions.
That deception should 100% be considered rape in the eyes of the law. And you should be worried about your ass sitting in jail or prison for deceiving someone to have sex with you like that.
How many times do I have to say that almost 100% of people who work on treating HIV have pushed for this? Do you seriously think California is just doing this to be wacky? It's fucking depressing how little people actually know about HIV and that stigmatization is a large part in why people are afraid to get tested
People are spouting their bullshit gut reactions while not knowing a single damn thing about the issue
It should be a felony to knowingly give anyone an STD.
Yea, agreed. Doesn't matter which disease.
Absolutely disgusting.
If it's undetectable, what is the transmission rate? Is it really 0%?
True UHC and a mandate that STD tests and HIV tests are a required part of a yearly wellness check will do a hell of a lot more for getting people tested and diagnosed than just about everything else I can think of."Gee..with logic like this, I won't get tested at all. I don't wanna deal with all that hassle, especially when we can just use a condom..ignorance is bliss, anyway!"
Is what that enforces. It induces fear, it makes it the be all end all diagnosis, and people lie all the time.
This bill makes it so people are MORE likely to get tested and disclose their status because they can't face legal time should allegations and the like, start to fly.
This bill also still makes it illegal to intentionally transmit the disease with malicious purposes. Which is what I assume, you're trying to say. People who are undetectable, and on medication, do not fall under this.
If it's undetectable, what is the transmission rate? Is it really 0%?
I can understand the reasoning for trying to remove the stigma by making it a misdemeanor instead of a felony, but the disease is still dangerous considering the lack of healthcare access and costs to treat than most other stds. And there is no cure, so it's a lifelong maintenance. There is still a reason to be worried about contracting the virus as well because the rate of drug adherence is shockingly bad: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068890/
The treatment of chronic illnesses commonly includes the long-term use of pharmacotherapy. Although these medications are effective in combating disease, their full benefits are often not realized because approximately 50% of patients do not take their medications as prescribed.
Fine stats say if it is diagnosed today you should make it to 75, 3 years of the current life expectancy for the normal person, provided you don't get a secondary illness.That's bullshit.
Pretty much, yes. You just don't see the researchers saying it is absolutely zero because they are doing a good job presenting the data. As always, people are hung up on that 0.001% margin of error. I mean, what do the researchers know anyway.
Hence you see the term undetectable. If you are adhering, you are undetectable.
That's a big if when 50% of people on these medications aren't adhering properly. Informed consent should still be encouraged between sexual partners.
Fine stats say if it is diagnosed today you should make it to 75, 3 years of the current life expectancy for the normal person, provided you don't get a secondary illness.
Bottom line is though, autoimmune deficiency is not something you want when you get older and your body weaker.
The solution is to make it a crime to knowingly expose others to all STDs without telling them, not to decriminalize spreading HIV.
One step back
I'd still kill someone that deceived and knowingly gave me hiv. I don't care how treatable it is.
effectively = zero?... since when?https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/dcl/dcl/092717.html
This link was, of course, posted back on page three. You even quoted the post mentioning it.
Maybe you'll actually pay attention this time, eh?
How many times do I have to say that almost 100% of people who work on treating HIV have pushed for this? Do you seriously think California is just doing this to be wacky? It's fucking depressing how little people actually know about HIV and that stigmatization is a large part in why people are afraid to get tested
People are spouting their bullshit gut reactions while not knowing a single damn thing about the issue
"Gee..with logic like this, I won't get tested at all. I don't wanna deal with all that hassle, especially when we can just use a condom..ignorance is bliss, anyway!"
Is what that enforces. It induces fear, it makes it the be all end all diagnosis, and people lie all the time.
This bill makes it so people are MORE likely to get tested and disclose their status because they can't face legal time should allegations and the like, start to fly.
This bill also still makes it illegal to intentionally transmit the disease with malicious purposes. Which is what I assume, you're trying to say. People who are undetectable, and on medication, do not fall under this.
Fucking depressing how people in here are willfully ignoring the data, the science and the opinion of people who have spent most of their adult lives resarching HIV.
This is how Trump won tbh.
This is barbaric.
It has been shown time and time again that upping the criminality of STDs does little to stop the spread of them, and a LOT to discourage people from acting responsibly.
So many people in this thread are only pretending to give a shit about the spread of STDs, when the only thing they seem to care about are Draconian laws that only punish and shame, not prevent.
Yep. Serodiscordant couples have known this for a while but recent studies have borne it out.
The imaging (aka successful molecule detection, considering both false negatives and false positives to be 'unsuccessful') on the blood test is good enough at this point that if the test can't see it, you don't have any active/transmissible viral load (it's still dormant in your cells and capable of reproduction if no longer suppressed via drugs).
I'm sure that where you see "0%" you should read it as "0.001%" or whatever, because statistics include a margin of error, but that's what the studies show.
Seriously. All of this.The ignorant outrage in this thread is laughable. You would prefer people to not have themselves tested for HIV so that they can't "knowingly" spread it and hence save themselves from prosecution. Spreading it "unknowingly" out of fear of testing is your preferred way.
Your ass would be in jail then.
So you'd be a rape victim and a murderer.
Yep. Serodiscordant couples have known this for a while but recent studies have borne it out.
The imaging (aka successful molecule detection, considering both false negatives and false positives to be 'unsuccessful') on the blood test is good enough at this point that if the test can't see it, you don't have any active/transmissible viral load (it's still dormant in your cells and capable of reproduction if no longer suppressed via drugs).
I'm sure that where you see "0%" you should read it as "0.001%" or whatever, because statistics include a margin of error, but that's what the studies show.
Again, the qualifier is undetectable. You seem to be lumping all people with HIV when even medical professionals make distinctions.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-39872530
It's 78 with current regimens.
Seriously. All of this.
This thread seems to be a case study of how fake news spreads and is so effective (even though, to be clear, the news itself is indeed real in this case. It's the reactions to that news and how it's processed that concerns me). Facts don't matter. Science doesn't matter. Only feelings and perceptions. All else is irrelevant.
Knowingly exposing someone to HIV is STILL. ILLEGAL. in California. It's just a misdemeanor instead of a felony. LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE. There was no reason it should have ever been singled out like that to begin with. This is just finally correcting that wrong.
As for the idea of making things "fair" by just making everything a felony, that's insane. No evidence bares out that such a move would be helpful at all. All it does is make people less likely to get tested at all, which in turn makes it less likely they're getting treatment, which in turn means they're at GREATER risk of infecting others (because the treatment for HIV not only helps those infected but if taken properly reduces the rate of transmission to zero), not less. Such laws result in the problems they're trying to tackle becoming WORSE, not better. The desire for such a change is not rooted in any sort of logic, evidence, or science, but vengeance. Just pure vengeance, that doesn't care if it makes the problem it's tackling worse or not. It just wants to lash out regardless.
It might be tempting to do that at first. It might feel right. But that doesn't actually make it right. Particularly not when nothing other than those feelings of vengeance, that is, no science, evidence, or anything backs it up at all. But it's so sad and frustrating that those feelings are so strong and prevalent nonetheless. No wonder stuff like fake news has such an easy time spreading. No one really cares about facts or research or whatever. Just feelings, and confirming those feelings. That's all.
Just glad that most people here aren't in charge of making the laws I guess. If that happens even in a typically progressive site like NeoGAF, that's pretty strong evidence that representative democracy trumps true democracy. Too hard for most people to put their initial feelings and instincts and hunches aside and look at just the facts.
Either way, California did the right thing with this move, and that's what matters, regardless of how upset it may make people.
I so strongly disagree with that sentence I could not disagree any more than I already am.
Before having sex, If someone asks you your status.
It doesn't matter if you're undetectable or not. If someone directly asks you before sex. You should have a moral AND legal obligation to tell them the truth. And if you either lie, or otherwise somehow omit your positive status, because you are afraid that person wont have sex with you. And you then have sex with that person based on your deceptions.
That deception should 100% be considered rape in the eyes of the law. And you should be worried about your ass sitting in jail or prison for deceiving someone to have sex with you like that.
Just curious, do you treat all non-zero chances this same way, with this same venom, fear, and level of concern? Like, are you equally concerned about the non-zero possibility of condoms/birth control/IUDs/even all these combined failing and an unintentional pregnancy occuring? The possibility that you get into or are the (accidental) cause of an automobile accident? The chance of a horrific death in a plane accident? Because those are also events that are just as (and in the case of stuff like car accidents, way more) likely to happen on any given day, every day of the year, yet most people push them out of their mind.It's not ZERO, quit the bullshit. There's a margin of error miniscule as it might be, hence the need to declare your HIV status.
Nope.If it's undetectable, what is the transmission rate? Is it really 0%?
People get into their cars KNOWING there is a chance of accidents. You parter has the right to KNOW the risk, however small that is.To start off with, this particular post goes out to everyone who keeps focusing on this zero/non-zero chance of transmission subject and not just pixelation in particular. I am NOT singly anyone out, but using this as post as just an example. That's all. With that said:
Just curious, do you treat all non-zero chances this same way, with this same venom, fear, and level of concern? Like, are you equally concerned about the non-zero possibility of condoms/birth control/IUDs/even all these combined failing and an unintentional pregnancy occuring? The possibility that you get into or are the (accidental) cause of an automobile accident? The chance of a horrific death in a plane accident? Because those are also events that are just as (and in the case of stuff like car accidents, way more) likely to happen on any given day, every day of the year, yet most people push them out of their mind.
Why is this non-zero event different? Especially since, if you'd consider those accidents or what-have-you, and that's why it's different. The accident part.... You realize we're talking about people ACTUALLY using protection here, right? That that is what all this zero/non-zero stuff is about? The fact that they're using protection in of itself means they're NOT trying to infect anyone. If they didn't give a fuck about that, they wouldn't take itto begin with. We're talking about people who ARE in fact trying to do the right thing, to reduce their viral load to zero so that they DON'T infect others and treating them like lepers anyway (the irony of how leprosy itself is so infamous in part because of historical misconceptions over such aspects of the disease such as it's method of transmission that were so widespread that even though we know better now it's still in our lexicon to this day), as if they're some type of super-villain regardless.
The act itself is proof of their true intentions, regardless of whether they share that fact or not. If they didn't care at all, why bother taking that protection to begin with? That's not very consistent, is it? They of course ideally SHOULD tell the other person regardless, that's indeed what SHOULD happen, but if they don't, I can't really blame them since revealing that fact will aparently have others just treat them like lepers regardless. Just look at all the misinformation in this thread and the fact that you're even asking this question to begin with for proof. That you're asking such a thing and are so concerned by people who ARE in fact TRYING to do the right thing, by taking the proper medication which not only protects themselves but others as well by reducing the rate of transmission to as close to zero as anyway.
Yet the fact that you are very concerned with making the distinction between true zero and as close to zero as possible while not technically being zero reveals your true intentions and thoughts, regardless of whether you yourself realize it or not, and how you see them as lepers regardless of which actions they take or do not take. Like, seriously. Stop and think about that for a zero.
Unless, that is, you do treat other not-technically zero chances the same? Like the chance of accidental pregnancy even when using multiple forms of contraception? The chance if dying each time you get into a car? A plane? The chance of the Yellowstone supervolcano errupting on any given day? Do you treat all of those the same way that you're approaching this subject, since they're all just as (and in the case of cars, moresi, especially when we consider that's an activity most people engage in multiple times each day, driving, so over the course of a typical lifespan that's exponentially more likely that you'll be involved in some form of automobile accident) likely, so you approach all of those from this same point of view, right?
If not, why? And in particular, why is so much of this venom reserved for people who are in fact trying to do the right thing. Because realize, this current discussion, about zero and non-zero isn't framed on just anyone with HIV, but rather those who ARE in fact taking the proper medication and protection, to help not only themselves, but proevt others as well, regardless of whether they tell others or not. We're still talking about people who are doing everything they can to reduce the rate of transmission regardless. Why is so much of your venom seemingly reserved for people like that, of all people? Just stop and think about that. Just stop and think about that for a moment. Are you really treating this the same as other non-zero chances or not, and if not, why is so much concern being directed toward THOSE people, if all people, who are clearly trying to do the right thing regardless of whether they tell anyone or not.
Because I have though about that. And doing so makes this whole thing bizarre, because why ARE we do fixated on those people who clearly are trying to do the right thing by protecting others regardless of if they tell them or not? Why is so much of the discussion focused on them, of all people! It's just bizarre.
Shadows of leprosy. Just so many shadows of leprosy...
Nope.
Not really sure why there is an agenda to push the idea that it is, the possibility is radically reduced, but there's absolutely still a chance of transmission.
Again, I'm not sure why people seem to be pushing some sort of agenda that HIV is just like any other infection and is easily treatable/has little impact on day to day life.
What's the motive behind this?
People need to take responsibility it's as simple as that.
If you have HIV tell the other person - if they want to sleep with you then they will. Otherwise, deal with it, you're not entitled to anything just because they are statiscially unlikely to get it - especially when those statistics rely on you taking your meds correctly.
Nope.
Not really sure why there is an agenda to push the idea that it is, the possibility is radically reduced, but there's absolutely still a chance of transmission.
Again, I'm not sure why people seem to be pushing some sort of agenda that HIV is just like any other infection and is easily treatable/has little impact on day to day life.
What's the motive behind this?
People need to take responsibility it's as simple as that.
If you have HIV tell the other person - if they want to sleep with you then they will. Otherwise, deal with it, you're not entitled to anything just because the other person is statistically unlikely to get it - especially when those statistics rely on you taking your meds correctly.
WHO'S FUCKING SAYING THIS? WHO?Nope.
Not really sure why there is an agenda to push the idea that it is, the possibility is radically reduced, but there's absolutely still a chance of transmission.
Again, I'm not sure why people seem to be pushing some sort of agenda that HIV is just like any other infection and is easily treatable/has little impact on day to day life.
What's the motive behind this?
And people struggle to understand why someone might be hesitant to reveal if they're HIV+, even if they are in fact trying to do the right thing. Heh, I wonder. Threads and discussions like this are why. They're exactly why.
smh at the ignorance in this thread. if you're undetectable, you're not exposing anyone. studies have proven this again and again.
If it's undetectable, what is the transmission rate? Is it really 0%?
When ART results in viral suppression, defined as less than 200 copies/ml or undetectable levels, it prevents sexual HIV transmission. Across three different studies, including thousands of couples and many thousand acts of sex without a condom or pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), no HIV transmissions to an HIV-negative partner were observed when the HIV-positive person was virally suppressed. This means 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.
Again, I'm not sure why people seem to be pushing some sort of agenda that HIV is just like any other infection and is easily treatable/has little impact on day to day life.
What's the motive behind this?