Page 1 of 1
Hypothetical: HIV Starts Today
Posted:
Thu Jul 29, 2021 8:33 amby Page
In an parallel world much like our own, it is the year 2021 and a frightening new virus called HIV is spreading. Those who are infected suffer from an increasingly ineffective immune system and many die within a few years of exposure. You are the public health authority of your country, and you must decide how to respond to this outbreak.
The following conditions apply:
- HIV is already inside your country and most countries of the world and the scientific community is in agreement that total eradication of the virus is impossible. Contact tracing will only have limited efficacy.
- You have all the knowledge about how the virus is spread as in the IRL present.
- You also have IRL present testing capabilities.
- But here's the catch: No drugs made after 1986 exist. Antiretrovirals and inhibitors are entirely theoretical and there is no way of knowing how well they might work.
- Covid doesn't exist in this reality
What do you do? How will you promote and fund research and drugs? How will you get people to have safe sex? What about IV drug users? Will you enact travel bans from counties with worse infection rates? Will you control sex between consenting adults? Quarantine infected people?
My approach in regards to drug research would be to nationalize any resources of the pharmaceutical industry needed to research and make these drugs, to offer however much funding is necessary, to prohibit drug patents and encourage international cooperation.
In regards to public health, I would implement mandatory comprehensive sex education in all public middle and high schools with heavy encouragement of condom use and harm reduction advise such as if you insist on hooking up with multiple partners to limit your activities to manual and oral. I would open after hours sex ed classes in public libraries and encourage homeschool and private school students to come.
I would decriminalize all personal drug use and possession at once and mandate the construction of safe injection sites and needle exchanges in every town.
I would incentivize being tested every few months by offering cash rewards.
What say all of you?
Posted:
Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:09 pmby Major-Tom
Hypotheticals like these only further my belief that I should never be in power. Lots of bad options to choose from.
I think closing borders and tightening domestic policy would be overkill given that the way HIV spreads is a known factor in this hypothetical. But unlike Reagan and the political/medical establishment of the 80s, I'd certainly want to spread awareness as quickly as possible and direct our medical apparatus to begin working on treatments like the antivirals that now exist. Beyond that, actively trying to reduce scaremongering would be a great option.
Posted:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 amby Austreylia
These days, HIV-preventative measures would probably be seen as some kind of malicious targeting of homosexuals.
Posted:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:01 amby Grave_n_idle
Austreylia wrote:These days, HIV-preventative measures would probably be seen as some kind of malicious targeting of homosexuals.
With good reason. I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but that's how the (IRL) response to HIV happened - it was portrayed as a 'gay' disease (literally, it was first colloquially known as GRID - Gay-Related Immune Deficiency) and the immediate response was to basically target gay men. It was only once data started rolling in and it became clear that the disease wasn't (as was previously assumed) limited to the gay male population that we started to get a more mature response.
Posted:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:18 amby Austreylia
Grave_n_idle wrote:Austreylia wrote:These days, HIV-preventative measures would probably be seen as some kind of malicious targeting of homosexuals.
With good reason. I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but that's how the (IRL) response to HIV happened - it was portrayed as a 'gay' disease (literally, it was first colloquially known as GRID - Gay-Related Immune Deficiency) and the immediate response was to basically target gay men. It was only once data started rolling in and it became clear that the disease wasn't (as was previously assumed) limited to the gay male population that we started to get a more mature response.
It's not limited to gays, of course. Everybody knows that.
But it does effect them disproportionately. I wonder why that is.
Posted:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:19 amby Grave_n_idle
Austreylia wrote:Grave_n_idle wrote:With good reason. I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but that's how the (IRL) response to HIV happened - it was portrayed as a 'gay' disease (literally, it was first colloquially known as GRID - Gay-Related Immune Deficiency) and the immediate response was to basically target gay men. It was only once data started rolling in and it became clear that the disease wasn't (as was previously assumed) limited to the gay male population that we started to get a more mature response.
It's not limited to gays, of course. Everybody knows that.
But it does effect them disproportionately. I wonder why that is.
Re-read my post.
Posted:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:38 amby Unstoppable Empire of Doom
Grave_n_idle wrote:Austreylia wrote:It's not limited to gays, of course. Everybody knows that.
But it does effect them disproportionately. I wonder why that is.
Re-read my post.
His post still stands. If the government started telling gay men "wear condoms so you don't die from this new disease which we have discovered is most often transmitted by gay sex and reusing hypodermic needles." The response of modern society would be to ostracized the scientists, call them homophobic, demand they lose their jobs, and claim condoms cause hiv.
Posted:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 7:12 amby Kubra
Unstoppable Empire of Doom wrote:Grave_n_idle wrote:Re-read my post.
His post still stands. If the government started telling gay men "wear condoms so you don't die from this new disease which we have discovered is most often transmitted by gay sex and reusing hypodermic needles." The response of modern society would be to ostracized the scientists, call them homophobic, demand they lose their jobs, and claim condoms cause hiv.
sure, if you call it "gay sex" instead of "unprotected anal intercourse with greater risk to the receiving partner".
Posted:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 7:29 amby Ethel mermania
The widespread start of aids was in the gay community. Again NYC was the epicenter of the disease in the states. Some of the earliest attempts at stopping the disease was closing the gay bath houses in the city. It wasn't till later that blood transmissions were identified as to how the disease spread, and then a better understanding of what was happening came about
Posted:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:21 amby Grave_n_idle
Ethel mermania wrote:The widespread start of aids was in the gay community. Again NYC was the epicenter of the disease in the states. Some of the earliest attempts at stopping the disease was closing the gay bath houses in the city. It wasn't till later that blood transmissions were identified as to how the disease spread, and then a better understanding of what was happening came about
No, the first
observed pool of people WITH the disease was in the gay community - the widespread start of GRID (as it was called at that point) was spread out over intravenous drug users, and hetero- AND homo- sexual partners who engaged in risk sex behavior.
You basically just illustrated my point.
Posted:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:23 amby Tinhampton
1. Get my boss to announce his HIV status
2. "I want everybody to know whether they have HIV or not by 202x"
3. ???
4. Widespread increase in HIV testing
5. "contraception good"
Posted:
Fri Jul 30, 2021 10:07 amby Saiwania
Nothing would change because I'm celibate and am unlikely to have sex, I also avoid drugs/needles and don't donate or accept blood. I consider HIV to be more or less the worst possible outcome you might get from having sex with someone. I know it can be treated these days, but I consider it as a death sentence effectively; because I don't have the money to pay for treatment and don't believe my life would be extended much anyways from HIV medication were I to have it. I could forget any ambitions of becoming rich in that scenario.
My only recourse would be to make it so I die sooner than to wait until I get a painful death via my immune system deteriorating. So I'm very much in favor of those laws which make it a crime to knowingly pass on the disease.
I'd criminalize HIV transmission and would require those found to have it, to wear a distinguishing badge or mark on clothing to enable people to avoid getting too intimate with them. Ideally, if as many HIV positive people as possible were quarantined or prevented or kept from having sex with anyone who doesn't have it or sharing needles/blood, the virus would fade out in a few generations from it just not being transmitted.
Yes, people would complain that I trample over individual rights, but I only care about the end result. Which is to aspire to an HIV free country if not world. I'm sure if HIV originated in say, China. That China's government would be very draconian in limiting its spread and pull out all the stops to try containing it and I'd very much be on the same page.
Posted:
Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:16 amby Mercatus
If HIV started today, it’d still be the most boring apocalypse alongside COVID.
If I did manage to somehow contract HIV, I think I’d go ahead and shoot myself so I don’t live a life of constantly needing medication and have a deteriorating immune system. I’d rather go out with a bang than a whimper in this situation.
Posted:
Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:23 amby The Alma Mater
Unstoppable Empire of Doom wrote:Grave_n_idle wrote:Re-read my post.
His post still stands. If the government started telling gay men "wear condoms so you don't die from this new disease which we have discovered is most often transmitted by gay sex and reusing hypodermic needles." The response of modern society would be to ostracized the scientists, call them homophobic, demand they lose their jobs, and claim condoms cause hiv.
Do note that nowadays gays are not the main spreaders of HIV anymore. It is unclear to me if that is the same in the hypothetical.
Posted:
Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:38 amby The New California Republic
Page wrote:The following conditions apply:
- HIV is already inside your country and most countries of the world and the scientific community is in agreement that total eradication of the virus is impossible. Contact tracing will only have limited efficacy.
- You have all the knowledge about how the virus is spread as in the IRL present.
- You also have IRL present testing capabilities.
- But here's the catch: No drugs made after 1986 exist. Antiretrovirals and inhibitors are entirely theoretical and there is no way of knowing how well they might work.
- Covid doesn't exist in this reality
What do you do?
- Free condoms, and ad campaigns to support their use.
- Free testing, and ad campaigns to encourage people to get tested regularly.
- Free needles and disposal of old needles for IV drug users.
- Testing and treating of all donated blood.
- Procure funding for research by stating that there is an incurable and deadly disease that is going to cost society in both human and financial terms if left unimpeded.
Posted:
Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:59 amby Ethel mermania
The Alma Mater wrote:Unstoppable Empire of Doom wrote:His post still stands. If the government started telling gay men "wear condoms so you don't die from this new disease which we have discovered is most often transmitted by gay sex and reusing hypodermic needles." The response of modern society would be to ostracized the scientists, call them homophobic, demand they lose their jobs, and claim condoms cause hiv.
Do note that nowadays gays are not the main spreaders of HIV anymore. It is unclear to me if that is the same in the hypothetical.
My assumption was it was the same and would come to public attention the same way. In the states anyway what you would hope for is the federal response would have been a hell of a lot quicker.
Gay males are no longer the primary source of the disease as we learned what we could do to stop transmission. Intravenous drug addicts unfortunately are not as likely to learn the lessons.