The problem with that is a lot of people who are undiagnosed HIV carriers would say the exact same thing about why they don't need to be tested. The only way to be sure is to test everyone. What is the problem with that? I hate needles and I'd have no problem with mandatory testing. Benefits to society far outweigh the minor annoyance to me. I also hate the idea of the government having databases on people for any reason, but this is one case where I'm willing to make an exception. Privacy my ass. Tell that to the 40k+ newly infected HIV patients every year. It's certainly not fair to them to continue with the status quo.
If there is any public threat that we should be fighting a "war" against, it's the few serious, widespread, detectable, treatable infectious diseases we know about.
Then you are at so little risk that for all practical purposes you know your HIV status without being tested. But being tested won't hurt you. See the first paragraph above. You are aware that HIV does not discriminate against the unmarried, right?
I was not trying to make an overly complex statement there with the "socially acceptable" comment. I simply do not think it's acceptable that 200k (CDC estimate) people in the U.S. are living with HIV and don't know it. If you have a better idea than mandatory testing I'm all ears. I would much prefer that people who had any inkling that they might be at risk would go get tested tomorrow. Since that isn't happening, I'm in favor of mandatory testing. Any of those 200k people could be in marriages spreading HIV to their spouses for all you know.
Assuming the number of psychopaths with HIV is within epsilon of 0, no public outings are necessary (someone might leak the government database at some point but there's not much that can be done about that). Mandatory testing and informing everyone of their HIV status should cut the accidental infection rate to zero. If that does not drop the rate of new HIV infections to near zero (it's roughly 40-50k per year), it's because of jackasses intentionally or negligently spreading HIV, and they need to be quarantined (I think we call it prison).
Alright. I'm in healthcare, and yeah, I agree that HIV/HepC/TB/never-get-overs-of-the-day are all *really* bad things.
HOWEVER.
I will never agree to mandatory testing for everyone.
And while I do agree that you make some excellent points, Tyme, I'm gonna say that you're wrong. I believe it's Benjamin Franklin's words that sum it up best: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". I think that applies in this scenario. Yes, I agree that HIV/AIDS is a Bad Thing... But that doesn't mean that I'm willing to force people to take a risk (Yes, a blood test is a risk... It's a small risk, but it's a risk nonetheless.) in order that we may have a "benefit to society".
And just so we're clear, the examples of the VA are only some of the risks associated with blood tests. Lets say someone decided to "save the gov't a little money" while doing all this testing and started re-using needles. Or better yet, lets skip the hypotheticals and go right to the physical risks of venipuncture, starting at minor and working our way up to major: inflammation/bruising; excessive bleeding; infection (depending on the infectious agent, this can be very minor all the way up to fatal); tendon/ligament damage; nerve damage (to include numbness/decreased sensation up to paralysis below the venipuncture site).
So no. I'm not willing to say that everyone in the country (300+ million people) has to undergo a risk just so that a relatively small minority of the population (40,000/year, per your numbers) can avoid an infection. Especially when I wonder what percentage of those new infections is self-inflicted due to high-risk behavior.
