5 Things to Know About the First Drug to Prevent HIV

Started by garbon, July 17, 2012, 03:39:30 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

crazy canuck

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 12:48:24 PM
Total strawman - we are not talking about who can and cannot take prescription drugs. There is no argument there.

So for some things you are willing to take away freedom - Commie!

Berkut

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 18, 2012, 12:52:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 12:48:24 PM
Total strawman - we are not talking about who can and cannot take prescription drugs. There is no argument there.

So for some things you are willing to take away freedom - Commie!

Of course - how is that even disputed?

I find it interesting that your argument is that as long as we take away any freedom, no matter how well justified, it is ok to take away any other freedom without any need to justify doing so at all. In fact, because freedom is not absolute (which is non-sensical anyway), then any argument that we should not restrict freedom is by definition dismissed as irrelevant.

Like I have said, most people pay only lip service to the concept of liberty.
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

grumbler

The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

grumbler

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 02:08:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 18, 2012, 12:52:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 12:48:24 PM
Total strawman - we are not talking about who can and cannot take prescription drugs. There is no argument there.

So for some things you are willing to take away freedom - Commie!

Of course - how is that even disputed?

I find it interesting that your argument is that as long as we take away any freedom, no matter how well justified, it is ok to take away any other freedom without any need to justify doing so at all. In fact, because freedom is not absolute (which is non-sensical anyway), then any argument that we should not restrict freedom is by definition dismissed as irrelevant.

Like I have said, most people pay only lip service to the concept of liberty.

I don't think CC has any clue as to how bad his ass is getting spanked in this thread.  Kinda reminds me of the old thread about the British panicking over the Italian invasion of Egypt in 1940.

The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Neil

Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2012, 03:06:39 PM
I don't think CC has any clue as to how bad his ass is getting spanked in this thread.
Is he?  It seems to me that Berkut's arguments tend to fall back on liberty and freedom, which is a poor base for public policy.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

Razgovory

Quote from: Neil on July 18, 2012, 04:09:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2012, 03:06:39 PM
I don't think CC has any clue as to how bad his ass is getting spanked in this thread.
Is he?  It seems to me that Berkut's arguments tend to fall back on liberty and freedom, which is a poor base for public policy.

CC is losing because Grumbler doesn't like CC therefore, nothing CC says is persuasive.  Berkut's just going on about how he knows what liberty really means, but most people don't.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Barrister

Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2012, 12:13:29 PM
But the important idea here is that we as a society should recognize that humans as a whole are better able to make those decisions for themselves than the state making that decision for everyone.

There is a word for this concept: it is "liberty".

But Berkut - you just conceded that there are situations where government should restrict that liberty - people need a prescription for various medicines.

So if it can be justified, it is possible that perhaps home HIV tests should not be allowed.  I'm not certain it is justified - I would think the benefit of more people getting tested outweights the negative actions some may take when finding a positive result.  But it's a discussion worth having.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

garbon

Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2012, 04:46:24 PM
But it's a discussion worth having.

Is it though? As I pointed out somewhere in here - at-home kits already existed for HIV. However, you had to mail in those kits to get your results back (usually by punching in your code into a phone and then potentially having a counselor delivering the news).  The only difference here is that you can get your results back super quick (with of course, no counselor standing by - though OraSure does similarly have a help line to call post-test).

I think the biggest concern though is what happens to the below individuals (quote found in an NYT article about OraQuick):
QuoteSo, while only about one person in 5,000 would get a false positive test, about one person in 12 could get a false negative.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Barrister

Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 05:02:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2012, 04:46:24 PM
But it's a discussion worth having.

Is it though? As I pointed out somewhere in here - at-home kits already existed for HIV. However, you had to mail in those kits to get your results back (usually by punching in your code into a phone and then potentially having a counselor delivering the news).  The only difference here is that you can get your results back super quick (with of course, no counselor standing by - though OraSure does similarly have a help line to call post-test).

I think the biggest concern though is what happens to the below individuals (quote found in an NYT article about OraQuick):
QuoteSo, while only about one person in 5,000 would get a false positive test, about one person in 12 could get a false negative.

Fair enough points.  But I wonder what the "false negative" rate is for tests done in a doctor's office.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

crazy canuck

Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2012, 03:06:39 PM
I don't think CC has any clue as to how bad his ass is getting spanked in this thread. 

You are losing your grip on reality.

katmai

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son

garbon

Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2012, 05:08:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 05:02:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2012, 04:46:24 PM
But it's a discussion worth having.

Is it though? As I pointed out somewhere in here - at-home kits already existed for HIV. However, you had to mail in those kits to get your results back (usually by punching in your code into a phone and then potentially having a counselor delivering the news).  The only difference here is that you can get your results back super quick (with of course, no counselor standing by - though OraSure does similarly have a help line to call post-test).

I think the biggest concern though is what happens to the below individuals (quote found in an NYT article about OraQuick):
QuoteSo, while only about one person in 5,000 would get a false positive test, about one person in 12 could get a false negative.

Fair enough points.  But I wonder what the "false negative" rate is for tests done in a doctor's office.

Wiki says 3 in 1,000 for standard lab test. So that looks alarming as not an insignificant difference.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

grumbler

Quote from: Barrister on July 18, 2012, 04:46:24 PM
But Berkut - you just conceded that there are situations where government should restrict that liberty - people need a prescription for various medicines.

So if it can be justified, it is possible that perhaps home HIV tests should not be allowed.  I'm not certain it is justified - I would think the benefit of more people getting tested outweights the negative actions some may take when finding a positive result.  But it's a discussion worth having.

I am not sure what the argument is for not allowing home testing.  It surely isn't the argument used to justify prescription medication.

The justification for making medications require a prescription is that the medication might be harmful to the patient if used incorrectly (and, in some cases, even when used correctly), and therefor that a doctor needs to evaluate the needs and condition of his/her patient before authorizing the risk.  Since the doctor controls the patient's access to the prescription, he or she can ensure that the patient is taking the medicine in the proper dosages and after proper counseling.

The justification for not allowing home testing for HIV appears to be that the justifiers feel that the testee isn't able to understand the results of the test unless those results are delivered in person by someone else.  There is no harm here to the recipient of the test, except maybe for some emotional trauma if it is positive, so I don't see any connection whatsoever.

The only purpose of government intervention in peoples' decision-making, it seems to me, should be to preserve some greater good.  If the government is intervening in peoples' decision-making just because someone feels that it is a good idea, even if it serves no greater good, then I don't find it justified, and I oppose it.

The greater good of having prescription medicine seems to me to be clear.  The greater good in banning home testing seems to me to remain completely unarticulated.  So far the argument is bogus analogies and straw men, as far as I can tell.

I could be convinced though.

I thought I would add this as I am out of popcorn.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

grumbler

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 18, 2012, 05:37:10 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2012, 03:06:39 PM
I don't think CC has any clue as to how bad his ass is getting spanked in this thread. 

You are losing your grip on reality.

You seem to be taking me seriously.  By your standards, doesn't that make you a moron?  :lol:
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

garbon

Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2012, 06:22:36 PM
The greater good in banning home testing seems to me to remain completely unarticulated.  So far the argument is bogus analogies and straw men, as far as I can tell.

I could be convinced though.

I thought I would add this as I am out of popcorn.

Only bit I added above is that it does look like home testing has a higher chance of telling individuals they don't have the disease when they do.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.