With all due respect, ZAK, SAK, whatever - this is the only thing you EVER say. No matter what the post, this is your comment, as if it is something so smart and miraculous. Well, hon, it aint, and you have beaten this dead horse to a state of beyond, I'd say. We get the point already. Got anything else up your sleeve?
No, that's pretty much it. I'm gratified that people in the health community are gradually coming around to the idea of universal testing and the importance of universal testing in the epidemic so that it becomes more like testing for tuberculosis, cancer or any other disease.
> so you are advocating for the criminalization of HIV transmission?
I made no argument for the criminalization of it. I simply made a couple of references that have the words criminal and criminalization. I myself have never brought any sort of criminal complaint against anyone who either acquired an infection or passed it on to anyone and I have a large number of friends and acquaintances who have died probably approaching a hundred individuals.
> most rational folks in the public health sphere would argue with that one...
Some might but some might support it. Generally it's people who become infected by a known partner that are interested in such cases. I don't consult or advise such people. Those people probably filed those cases because it can be a death sentence. Which in some cases can be equivalent to murder, especially in such cases where somebody deliberately infects someone. If somebody points a gun at you and shoots it and says I didn't know it was loaded. would you excuse that, for example? That's the way some people see it. Would you argue that nobody should ever bring a case against somebody?...
most infections, data reveal, happen when partners do not know their status.... and pushing an "edgy" intervention such as not having sex with a potential partner until the two have tested for STDs and HIV together is rather inane, as it is highly unlikely to be widely adopted. interventions need to be low threshold and be acceptable to a community if they are to be effective. try thinking of something new....
Have you asked your sex partner let's get tested TOGETHER for A VARIETY of sexually transmitted diseases?...
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, ZAK, SAK, whatever - this is the only thing you EVER say. No matter what the post, this is your comment, as if it is something so smart and miraculous. Well, hon, it aint, and you have beaten this dead horse to a state of beyond, I'd say. We get the point already. Got anything else up your sleeve?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteso you are advocating for the criminalization of HIV transmission? most rational folks in the public health sphere would argue with that one...
ReplyDelete> Got anything else up your sleeve?
ReplyDeleteNo, that's pretty much it. I'm gratified that people in the health community are gradually coming around to the idea of universal testing and the importance of universal testing in the epidemic so that it becomes more like testing for tuberculosis, cancer or any other disease.
> so you are advocating for the criminalization of HIV transmission?
I made no argument for the criminalization of it. I simply made a couple of references that have the words criminal and criminalization. I myself have never brought any sort of criminal complaint against anyone who either acquired an infection or passed it on to anyone and I have a large number of friends and acquaintances who have died probably approaching a hundred individuals.
> most rational folks in the public health sphere would argue with that one...
Some might but some might support it. Generally it's people who become infected by a known partner that are interested in such cases. I don't consult or advise such people. Those people probably filed those cases because it can be a death sentence. Which in some cases can be equivalent to murder, especially in such cases where somebody deliberately infects someone. If somebody points a gun at you and shoots it and says I didn't know it was loaded. would you excuse that, for example? That's the way some people see it. Would you argue that nobody should ever bring a case against somebody?...
most infections, data reveal, happen when partners do not know their status.... and pushing an "edgy" intervention such as not having sex with a potential partner until the two have tested for STDs and HIV together is rather inane, as it is highly unlikely to be widely adopted. interventions need to be low threshold and be acceptable to a community if they are to be effective. try thinking of something new....
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete