5 Things to Know About the First Drug to Prevent HIV

[grumbler]

No, they'd develop AIDS without the appropriate treatment plan and clinical guidance--which is apparently optional.

Clinical guidance and treatment plans are completely optional right now - experts think some 20% of the people with HIV don't even know it.

The real choice here isn't between lab testing and home testing, its between no testing and home testing.  As Garbo noted, the well-informed and motivated will opt for the best testing they can get.  Home saliva testing is infinitely faster and less hassle, and some people who couldn't be bothered to make appointments and spend several hours at their doctors might be motivated enough to go through a procedure no more complex than taking their own temperature.

Once all the false dilemmas are stripped out, this seems to me to be a pretty clear-cut case of a win.  As noted above, the relevant experts in the field seem to agree.  So, fight the good emotional fight for the nanny state if you'd like, but I think you'll lose this one just on logic.

I mean, CC agrees with you.  Doesn't that give you pause at all? 

[CountDeMoney]

With cancer, sure.  With a communicable condition with distinct public health risks, not so much.

You can't reason with a homo when it comes to AIDS.

grumbler and Berkut aren't homo.  If they were, that would be funny.  But they're not.

[CountDeMoney]

So, fight the good emotional fight for the nanny state if you'd like, but I think you'll lose this one just on logic.

Dude, when have I even needed to rely upon logic?  I mean, hello.

I mean, CC agrees with you.  Doesn't that give you pause at all? 

All I know is, you and most of Languish would make shitty ass healthcare professionals.  CPR? GET UP BEFORE YOU DIE

[Neil]

With cancer, sure.  With a communicable condition with distinct public health risks, not so much.

You can't reason with a homo when it comes to AIDS.

grumbler and Berkut aren't homo.  If they were, that would be funny.  But they're not.

They're just hardcore individualists who don't like the idea of compromising libertarian principles in the name of good governance.  Which is almost as bad as being gay.

[garbon]

Yes, the "so why bother" argument.  Convincing.

Well yes, why bother restricting a route through which individuals can find out they are infected? After all, someone purchasing a 60-dollar kit is actually pretty involved with their health. Why would you assume they'd just give up there?

[garbon]

Oh and for note, that was the speculated price for this learn your status in 20-40 minutes kit.

[CountDeMoney]

Well yes, why bother restricting a route through which individuals can find out they are infected? After all, someone purchasing a 60-dollar kit is actually pretty involved with their health. Why would you assume they'd just give up there?

I don't give a shit;  I'm emigrating to Canada, where they actually care about people.

[garbon]

Well yes, why bother restricting a route through which individuals can find out they are infected? After all, someone purchasing a 60-dollar kit is actually pretty involved with their health. Why would you assume they'd just give up there?

I don't give a shit;  I'm emigrating to Canada, where they actually care about people.

So you want to impose nanny state regulations on the US for no apparent reason?

As I already pointed out (and grumbler did as well), at home HIV tests already exist. What is so threatening about a test that gives quick answers (as opposed to waiting with white knuckles to get your results back a week later) that we should be opposed?

[CountDeMoney]

So you want to impose nanny state regulations on the US for no apparent reason?

People say I'm fucking tedious;  I don't get this constant and consistent equivalency of ensuring a healthcare-based support structure around dealing with a condition like HIV as some sort of nanny statism.

Fuck it, everyone for themselves.  Fuck the poor that won't be able to afford the test, fuck the illiterate that won't be able to read the instructions, and fuck the emotionally hanicapped that won't be able to follow up with doing the right thing.

Never figured I'd be the one defending case management for HIV.  Fuck it.  Death to all fags and junkie niggers then.  PAUL 2016

[garbon]

So you want to impose nanny state regulations on the US for no apparent reason?

People say I'm fucking tedious;  I don't get this constant and consistent equivalency of ensuring a healthcare-based support structure around dealing with a condition like HIV as some sort of nanny statism.

Fuck it, everyone for themselves.  Fuck the poor that won't be able to afford the test, fuck the illiterate that won't be able to read the instructions, and fuck the emotionally hanicapped that won't be able to follow up with doing the right thing.

Never figured I'd be the one defending case management for HIV.  Fuck it.  Death to all fags and junkie niggers then.  PAUL 2016

What are you talking about?  Where is the evidence that a) individuals who currently use at home HIV tests are doing themselves a disservice? b) That individuals who shell out 60 bucks for a quick at home test (that doesn't have the inconvenience of needing to draw blood, be mailed in, or having the testee wait on pins and needles waiting for the result) will be doing themselves even more of a disservice.

I think that if you are going to claim there is a problem with letting people have an easy route to find out about their health - it should be incumbent on you to show the risk.  Instead, you just keep wrapping yourself up in perverted Demo-slogans about how evil everyone is here in America. WTF, dude, does Mittens have you that scared?

[garbon]

And where is the proof that an individual willing to shell out $60+ bucks on a kit now (or in the past) will then proceed to take no further steps (i.e. counseling and/or drug therapy)???

[CountDeMoney]

Sorry, too busy basking in the sunshine of libertyness and freedomhood at the moment to respond.

[garbon]

Sorry, too busy basking in the sunshine of libertyness and freedomhood at the moment to respond.

Oh that's fine. Please dodge and weave when you've been called out on your bullshit.

[CountDeMoney]

I think that if you are going to claim there is a problem with letting people have an easy route to find out about their health - it should be incumbent on you to show the risk.

I have.  You guys didn't like it.  And there we are.

[Neil]

Well yes, why bother restricting a route through which individuals can find out they are infected? After all, someone purchasing a 60-dollar kit is actually pretty involved with their health. Why would you assume they'd just give up there?

I don't give a shit;  I'm emigrating to Canada, where they actually care about people.

It might not be a good idea to abandon the fight for justice in your homeland.