5 Things to Know About the First Drug to Prevent HIV

[CountDeMoney]

you need the whole system of health and sex education.

That's anti-freedomness and anti-libertyism. 

[CountDeMoney]

Let's also not forget that in many countries (either due to costs of health service or social stigma associated with HIV status) many people forego going to a doctor to get a HIV test entirely, so again the alternative between going to a doctor to take a HIV test and doing it at home is a false one - very often it is either the home test or nothing at all.

Well, guess what;  your average junkie who doesn't bother getting tested at a free clinic isn't going to bother taking a home test, either.

[CountDeMoney]

Which is why home tests are actually a good thing - because people are not rational and will not go to get tested even if they have a reason to believe they have HIV very often, but would be more likely to take a test at home.

See above.  Junkies don't bother to brush their teeth, let alone participate in needle exchange programs.  You really think they're going to bother taking a home test?

[CountDeMoney]

Of course releasing the HIV test without education would be a mistake. You need to 1) tell people this is not 100% certain so if you get a positive result, you still should go to see a doctor to recheck this so don't panic 2) and if you are positive this is what you should know and 3) these are people you should contact, at the very least.

That's more anti-freedomness and anti-libertyism.  According to Berkut, that's their decision to make. 

[Neil]

So given this thread in particular...

Do you support the idea that prescriptions are unnecessary, and that people ought to be able to "decide these kinds of risks for themselves" and have the right to be given any kind of drug that is only available by presciprtion?

Why do you hate liberty?

[CountDeMoney]

Pregnancy, unfortunately in some cases, doesn't kill people.

Yes it does.

Not nearly enough.  But that's for another anti-breeder thread, where we can discuss how the number of babies you pop out is going to fuck with my commute in the morning 18 years from now.

And in some cases, HIV does not kill people - hell, in many cases it does not these days.

In most cases, there's education, healthcare and money at play.  Not everybody has the means to afford the Magic Johnson Treatment.  Everybody else without means gets to stare at the 11 year average onset for AIDS and die from the attendant slew of related immune-related infections.

None of that is the point though - liberty is not about some calcualtion of Seedy's to decide if some information is just too risky for the peasants to have access to - you either buy into the idea that people have the right to decide those kinds of risks themselves, or you buy into the idea that the state is better able to assess those risks for everyone, and should in fact do so and impose a blanket answer for everyone.

Sorry, but "Liberty" isn't about allowing individuals to wander the wilderness alone with the knowledge of what can be a terminal diagnosis without clinical guidance, either.  Have a fucking heart, man.

[Martinus]

Which is why home tests are actually a good thing - because people are not rational and will not go to get tested even if they have a reason to believe they have HIV very often, but would be more likely to take a test at home.

See above.  Junkies don't bother to brush their teeth, let alone participate in needle exchange programs.  You really think they're going to bother taking a home test?

It's not junkies who do not go to a doctor to get tested. Quite the contrary, actually. The high risk demographics (gays, intravenal drug users) are actually quite aware of the risks and I would say get tested more regularly than members of the general public and the "hidden risk groups" (such as married black or Latino women). This is exactly because the latter fear the stigma of being tested and being associated with the former.

Such people may be inclined, however, to take a home test.

[CountDeMoney]

It's not junkies who do not go to a doctor to get tested. Quite the contrary, actually.

Maybe European junkies are more tuned in to their personal wellness plans, but it's a little different here. 
I'm sure there's plenty of college-educated cocknibblers like yourself that like to play HIV Russian Roulette with anonymous bunnyfucking, but I think you're overestimating a junkie's concern for themselves.

[Berkut]

Of course releasing the HIV test without education would be a mistake. You need to 1) tell people this is not 100% certain so if you get a positive result, you still should go to see a doctor to recheck this so don't panic 2) and if you are positive this is what you should know and 3) these are people you should contact, at the very least.

That's more anti-freedomness and anti-libertyism.  According to Berkut, that's their decision to make. 

You don't see the difference between education and denying people access to a test?

I rest my case.

[Martinus]

It's not junkies who do not go to a doctor to get tested. Quite the contrary, actually.

Maybe European junkies are more tuned in to their personal wellness plans, but it's a little different here. 
I'm sure there's plenty of college-educated cocknibblers like yourself that like to play HIV Russian Roulette with anonymous bunnyfucking, but I think you're overestimating a junkie's concern for themselves.

You are really tedious to discuss stuff with.

[Berkut]

Sorry, but "Liberty" isn't about allowing individuals to wander the wilderness alone with the knowledge of what can be a terminal diagnosis without clinical guidance, either.  Have a fucking heart, man.

If you think clinical guidance is a good thing, then provide it. You can in fact provide lots of education in that very same test package about what to do if your test has a first positive, who they can contact, etc.

You could even provide them with a big, friendly "Don't Panic!" sticker that pops up if they test positive.

We are not talking about that though - we are talking about your brilliant idea to deny people the ability to take a test because they might do so in a manner that does not meet your approval.

[CountDeMoney]

Of course releasing the HIV test without education would be a mistake. You need to 1) tell people this is not 100% certain so if you get a positive result, you still should go to see a doctor to recheck this so don't panic 2) and if you are positive this is what you should know and 3) these are people you should contact, at the very least.

That's more anti-freedomness and anti-libertyism.  According to Berkut, that's their decision to make. 

You don't see the difference between education and denying people access to a test?

I rest my case.

Hey, you're the one that's making education and clinical guidance an option.

you either buy into the idea that people have the right to decide those kinds of risks themselves,

[Berkut]

It's not junkies who do not go to a doctor to get tested. Quite the contrary, actually.

Maybe European junkies are more tuned in to their personal wellness plans, but it's a little different here. 
I'm sure there's plenty of college-educated cocknibblers like yourself that like to play HIV Russian Roulette with anonymous bunnyfucking, but I think you're overestimating a junkie's concern for themselves.

So we should deny everyone the right to take a test because junkies might take it (the same junkies you claim won't take a home test in the first place, of course) and freak out at the results?

So Susy homemaker who finds out hubby was not faithful can't take the test because some junkie somewhere, who won't take the test regardless, may not react well to the knowledge he has HIV, when he doesn't take the test to begin with?

That makes a lot of sense.

[Berkut]

Of course releasing the HIV test without education would be a mistake. You need to 1) tell people this is not 100% certain so if you get a positive result, you still should go to see a doctor to recheck this so don't panic 2) and if you are positive this is what you should know and 3) these are people you should contact, at the very least.

That's more anti-freedomness and anti-libertyism.  According to Berkut, that's their decision to make. 

You don't see the difference between education and denying people access to a test?

I rest my case.

Hey, you're the one that's making education and clinical guidance an option.

Yes, I don't think guidance should be mandatory. I do in fact think it should be optional at the discretion of the individual.

I am sure you think some more state mandated education and re-education of the masses is the answer.

[garbon]

It could be that garbon and I are less concerned about this, since the GLBT community has been literally awash with HIV prevention and maintenance education for years now so we don't think there are people who don't know these things - but perhaps it's time to start such campaign for heteros (I don't see why the aforementioned drugs/tests can't have leaflets explaining a lot of this stuff). Especially as in pure numerical values, new HIV infections are on the raise among the straight populace more than in the gay one.

Well I didn't say that it should be blocked but if we had to talk about gays, I think we'd be better able to use Truvada appropriately than learning one has HIV from a take home test.