2023 UNAIDS global AIDS update
thepath.unaids.orgThis is probably politically incorrect, but there was always a path to end AIDS, just like there was and is a path to end syphilis and gonorrhea. That path is safe sex: get tested, check your partner's test, wear condoms if you're both clean, and abstain from sex if you are infected. Venereal diseases continue to exist because selfish people put lust ahead of science and hygiene. People refuse to change their behavior, and, because (not "so long as") they refuse, there will be no end to venereal disease of any sort. Sure, there are edge cases of transmission by blood transfusion or something else non-sexual, but the vast bulk of cases are from irresponsible sex.
It’s not politically incorrect. It’s idiotic. Any “solution” that ignores human behavior ain’t a solution.
See also: “If only people would choose good, unique passwords!”
Sex is literally why we’re alive. It’s what we’re evolved to do. Creatures without strong sex drives don’t multiply as quickly, or go extinct. We’re the end result of billions of years of being rewarded for getting it on. Anything that requires abstinence or safer sex is magical thinking and will never work.
This might be politically incorrect, but: only procreative sex (i.e. in some sort of marriage) is literally what makes us alive, and other types - not necessarily. This sexual behaviour statistically does not create STD spread, because of negative feedback, while other behaviours create positive feedback of amount of people infected. In current state of standards in medical procedures other transmission vectors are negligible.
Of course only speaking of the first world countries.
There are lots of problems in third world countries, where numerous behaviours are not related to sex promote transmission of HIV
All I'm reading is "gay people cause AIDS" in more exotic and roundabout language. This an argument older than time at this point, tired and beaten into the ground over and over again.
Yes, indeed.
I think people conflate promiscuity risk with sexual act risk.
PIV is lower risk as it is less likely that semen will come into contact with blood.
Whereas anal sex has a risk of tearing the anal wall and thus blood coming into contact with semen.
Other STDs have run wild in straight sex communities.
Oral sex presents virtually zero risk of HIV transmission.
That’s not what I’m taking from this at all. There is nothing preventing gay people from having safe sex using protection and testing for diseases regularly.
> This sexual behaviour statistically does not create STD spread, because of negative feedback...
You know that it's possible to infect someone while also impregnating them, right? In fact, this leads to more STD spread than non-procreative sex, because the child then runs the risk of infection as well. There is no 'negative feedback' here beyond "being upset that your partner infected you", which is already a factor in non-procreative sex.
yes of course. this is about negative feedback (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback) in terms of statistical infection. People who infect each other and who will despite remain loyal to each other will not spread the infection. The child might and as well might not get infected (https://www.who.int/teams/global-hiv-hepatitis-and-stis-prog...) but this is transmission to the next generation. Also HIV positive parents could consider refraining from further procreation, once they noticed it (the infection), while maintaining their closeness and loyalty. This could break the infection positive feedback loop.
You seem to be under the impression that gay people don't get married.
What are you talking about? The comment you’re replying to doesn’t mention anything about gay people at all.
It’s 2023, yes we know gay people get married.
Parent comment's argument is that married heterosexual couples are less likely to spread HIV, on the grounds that a married couple won't spread HIV outside of that pairing if they remain faithful to each other.
Begging the question...gay people can be monogamous too, does that not count for whatever reason?
I'm straight. My wife and I have kids together. When we decided to stop doing that, we both got snipped. Although it's astronomically unlikely that we'd procreate again, my body doesn't take that into consideration when I look at my wife.
To be fair, the message to use condoms was the answer to the problem of transmission.
It still is more of less.
It wasn’t idiotic, it was all we had.
Education about transmission vectors coupled with availability and normalisation of the use of condoms.
Although PREP is now available for some as an option.
Seeing you throw up this stream of flimsy arguments makes me suspect that the current equilibrium in the West (of most people's believing it is futile to have social norms against sexual behavior) is held in place mainly by motivated cognition.
In other words, reading your comment made me less sympathetic to your position.
It’s futile to expect perfect compliance with social norms, especially when our evolved biological drives are basically:
1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Procreate
with everything else being a fraction as powerful as those.
You're only arguing the punishment for taboo violation isn't harsh enough.
Using punishments and taboos to control these things does not work. You're not incentivizing 'good behavior', you're incentivizing not getting caught--not to mention that, inevitably, the power structure that forms around these taboos starts rewarding people who punish others with the ability to do the taboo themselves.
You're only arguing that all lies would end if all lying was an immediate death sentence.
There are consequences to doing any of those activities in excess.
Breathing too fast = hyperventilating
Eating too much = obesity
Procreating with too many partners = likely sexually transmitted infections
I agree that abstinence is not the answer, but safe sex with fewer partners is.
This is probably politically incorrect, but there was always a path to end crime, just like there was and is a path to end slavery and collective punishment. That path is kindness: get a job, don't feel the urge to commit a crime, avoid prison to be sure you live a good life, and abstain from crime if you are poor. Crime continue to exist because selfish people put selfish needs ahead of sociology and human rights. People refuse to change their behavior, and, because (not "so long as") they refuse, there will be no end to crime of any sort. Sure, there are edge cases of accidental theft or something else non-criminal, but the vast bulk of cases are from irresponsible criminal behavior.
> Get a job...
Actually, this doesn't work. Many people who are homeless--and thus, constantly committing small 'crimes' like loitering--actually have jobs. According to recent statistics, 53% of people in shelters and 40% of people living on the street are 'working homeless'.[1] It's simply not practical to live off of a single job in parts of the country where it's easy to get a single job--which makes it harder to make an honest living. And if you can't make an honest living anymore...
> Avoid prison to be sure you have a good life...
This is another problem with "Get a job". Most places will not hire someone once they have a criminal record of any kind, which means that going to jail once permanently ruins your life--there are some places that hire people with a record, but those are few, far between, and take full advantage of how desperate the people who work there are. Of course, this is only exacerbated by flaws in the criminal justice system, which include things like "evidence presented as rock-hard proof may actually be complete bunk"[2].
> Crime continue to exist because selfish people put selfish needs ahead of sociology and human rights...
I mean, I'd agree with you if you were talking about tax evasion or wage theft. In fact, wage theft makes up a larger percentage of overall theft than any of the things people think of when you say the word 'theft'. However, you explicitly stated that you're talking about people who are poor or who have a risk of going to prison, which excludes a lot of white-collar crime.
[1] https://endhomelessness.org/blog/employed-and-experiencing-h... [2] https://www.propublica.org/article/putting-crime-scene-dna-a...
The comment you're replying to is a satirical take on the comment above it.
The person you're replying to almost definitely agrees with you.
Ah, my bad. It was linked to me without context. I hope the links I cited were useful, anyway.
> That path is kindness: get a job, don't feel the urge to commit a crime, avoid prison to be sure you live a good life, and abstain from crime if you are poor. Crime continue to exist because selfish people put selfish needs ahead of sociology and human rights. People refuse to change their behavior, and, because (not "so long as") they refuse, there will be no end to crime of any sort. Sure, there are edge cases of accidental theft or something else non-criminal, but the vast bulk of cases are from irresponsible criminal behavior.
I'd wager the guess that a lot of crime committed by poor people is committed because they are poor. Think of a single mother stealing food for her and her children. They are putting their "selfish needs ahead of sociology and human rights", but I don't think people would call them unethical. You're proposing too simplistic a framework.
(Read the above as if it was Tom Swift saying we should eat babies.)
Edit: John.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Can you express it more clearly?
The reply about how to end crime was sarcastically mocking the original comment, similarly to the way "A Modest Proposal" mocked other helpful suggestions of its time.
Makes sense, thank you!
I'll leave my way-too-literal interpretation in case someone gets a kick out of it.
It’s satire of the post it was responding to.
You mean Johnathan Swift.
Oh, good grief. I even googled that right before I wrote it, and my fingers still refused to go along with the right answer.
> Sure, there are edge cases ... but the vast bulk of cases are from irresponsible sex.
*Millions* of people contracted HIV as children. Either as infants, or as victims of sexual assault. That's not an "edge case". And tens of millions of people were infected in countries where testing wasn't/isn't available. That's not an "edge case" either. Or the millions who got infected because they didn't have access to accurate information/education about what HIV was or how it spread.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with the new cases for the last 10 years. Sexual assault isn't where the cases are coming from.
That last 10 years has still seen millions of babies getting hiv through vertical infections. 2022, the best year on record, still had 120,000 children/babies infected.
"If only everyone listened to me, everything would be perfect" is never a realistic solution for anything.
Just like how "if only everyone listened to me and stayed locked up in their house for two weeks" was never a realistic solution to Covid.
Exactly this. Expecting people to have a bare minimum of civilized behavior shouldn't be controversial.
>check your partner's test
Has anyone in the history of mankind successfully advanced to third base after such a request?
It really didn't help that the Gay community thought that HIV/AIDS was a homophobic hoax and tried very hard to downplay the risks of unprotected sex.
If we're placing blame, it also didn't help that the Catholic community advocated against preventative measures throughout the AIDS crisis.
> advocated
I'm pretty sure they're still advocating against contraception of any kind, which certainly doesn't help prevent the spread of AIDS and other STDs. The most positive thing they seem to have to say is "it's better than HIV" and even that was a controversial stance within the church.
Do you have evidence for this claim because I don't remember Mr Ronald Reagan being gay when he ignored AIDS for years in office.
You realize this is the exact opposite of what happened, right? Governments and churches were very firmly convinced at the start of the AIDS epidemic that it was exclusively a thing that happened to gay people, even though it spreads through any kind of sexual activity. In fact, the LGBT community is largely more careful about STDs than the general public--when it was claimed that monkeypox spread more easily through anal sex (a mirror of earlier bogus claims about AIDS), the LGBT community responded faster than the government did[1].
Turning this around and saying that the gay community "tried to downplay the risks of unprotected sex" is a flat-out lie. The LGBT community has been working harder to share resources about safe sex than most US state governments do, through sites like the Trevor Project. What they have 'downplayed' is the idea that AIDS is more common among gay men because it's more easily transmitted through anal sex. The actual reason that HIV incidence happens more often among gay men is that, up until very recently, getting tested for HIV meant having to tell someone about your sexuality in the 80s and 90s, a time when violence targeting gay men was on the rise[2]. Getting tested could mean getting beaten half to death--or worse--if the wrong person found out, so people avoided getting tested. Would you let someone beat you half to death for 'moral superiority'? (If the answer is 'yes', I suspect you might not understand how severe a beating that is.)
Simply put, you are spreading misinformation. I hope this post helps others recognize that misinformation for what it is.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/29/health/monkeypox-lgbtq-slow-r... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/23/us/violence-against-homos...
This is so unreal to me. In the 80’s AIDS was an enormous specter that guaranteed death. Now there are long term maintenance drugs that can be had for like $20/mo. Not that anyone wants to have to take pills for the rest of their life, but now they can be annoyed by it until old age.
I love science.
San Francisco, California was one of several Western urban epicenters of the large scale spread of AIDS starting around 1981
And...?