Would you be ok if someone gave you Chlamydia/Gonorrhea/Hepatitis/Syphilis without your knowledge?
No. And no one should be OK with that. Not even sure why that would be a question, as the answer is obvious.
And yes, people aren't perfect, but if someone is taking their meds properly they pose effectively zero risk. You're safer having sex with someone poz and on meds than someone who tested negative 2 months ago and has had several sexual encounters since then. But no-one is going to hound the negative person to disclose their recent sexual history since testing negative are they? They're neg so they're 'safe' and don't have to disclose shit.
ART can fail. Someone can be taking their meds properly and still pose a risk.
There is a reason why journal publications are very specific with their wording on these things.
Lol exactly. So many loud and wrong people in this topic, when this bill is progress. I'm here for it. We need to help these people, not send them to jail and pretend it's not a real issue. Especially when chances are greater that you'll contract it with someone who tells you they're "clean" than someone who doesn't. Nevermind the fact that many people who do, don't even know.
Someone who claims they are not infected, and passes along any STD should be liable for the full cost of treatment. Being purposefully negligent in other situations can still be deemed criminal negligence. Why should it be different when it comes to someone's health?
smh at the ignorance in this thread. if you're undetectable, you're not exposing anyone. studies have proven this again and again.
Except when it happened. It's extremely rare, but you can't say it never happened when there is a record of it happening, unless you choose to selectively ignore some published studies.
you don't "get away with it". it's still illegal, they're just treating it now like every single other infectious disease.
A misdemeanor is nothing. If you stole the cost of treatment from someone it would be felony theft. There's also the matter of if you believe in rape by coercion.
We've seen in this very thread that posters have claimed that they wouldn't disclose because then their partners would decline to have sex with them. Lying about status just to get someone into bed when you know they are hesitant is coercion.
If it's undetectable, what is the transmission rate? Is it really 0%?
It is extremely low, assuming that there is no ART failure, which does happen. Part of the issue with this thread is that there are posters who are adamant about the "no chance" stance, based solely on high level messaging. No one is backing up what they say with studies from actual medical journals. For example,
one oft quoted study talks about tracking ~58,000 sex acts, thought that is across less than 900 couples, which works out to less than one sex act per week. It's also a matter of a small sample size, which has an impact on the CI of the study.
Another study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine based on HPTN 052 has nearly 10x person year followup (compared to the study linked above) and is more specific about detailing risks, including possible failure of the ART regimen:
NEJM said:
In the other four cases, partner infection occurred after ART failed in the index participant.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1600693
This this study, there were eight cases of transmission. Four were discounted as they happened too early for ART to be effective. The other four happened after ART should have been in effect and the virus should have been suppressed.
Simply taking meds properly does not guarantee that a person will be virally suppressed. For the vast majority of the population this is true, but it is not a fact across 100% of the population.
This is why the argument of "I'm taking meds, so I can't infect anyone" that has been put forth in this thread should not be taken as an absolute.
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.
From the same HPTN 052 study linked above:
NEJM said:
Previous studies have reported the transmission of HIV-1 by only one participant in whom the infection was stably suppressed during receipt of ART. However, we did not document any such transmission events in this study.
No cases were detected in this study, but one case of transmission from a partner that was suppressed was documented in a prior study.
Extremely unlikely, but not impossible as some posters in this thread are arguing.
Again, the qualifier is undetectable. You seem to be lumping all people with HIV when even medical professionals make distinctions.
Distinctions have been the main point of contention. The arguments have been against those claiming that it is "impossible" and that there is "no chance."
No one is going to disagree that transmission is extremely unlikely.
But if someone if going to argue that transmission is "impossible" despite the fact that the sample sizes in the available studies are low relative to the population at large, and that there has been a documented case, then they're arguing against the current evidence.
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?
Yes, why wouldn't you evaluate risk on a case-by-case basis? Simply ignoring risk is silly. That said, when you are informed you can make an informed decision about whether or not to take a risk and if it is worth it to you.
Anyone who's not willing to be open and upfront about their sexual history with a partner is not doing the right thing.
No one has any problem (moral or legal) with the concept of folks going into things with eyes wide open. That is a choice that is made by two (or more) consenting adults and there's not much more to be said about that.
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.
Why are there so many posts laser focused on supposed selfishness of the person spreading HIV? Get over it. That's not what most people are talking about.
The reason you've seen a focus on that point in this thread is because of prior posters who have claimed that they have the right to deceive their partners about their status and deliberately withhold information, denying the other person the right to make an informed decision.