Heterosexuals have modified their behavior to a greater extent and the new infection rate is much less.
By my understanding, homosexuals have done it even more; but they're starting substantially 'behind the curve', so to speak.
Not to distract from the point too much, but wouldn't gay marriage, with the whole 'exclusivity' clause help?
If you have an STD, unknowingly and knowingly, then pass it on to someone, should it be treated the same as say... a negligent discharge and hitting someone? Or something along those lines?
Unknowingly, I'd require proof of negligence; that a reasonable person would have suspected and gotten tested.
Knowingly? With HIV I'd go for attempted murder, at the least. Heck, make a NEW law regarding it. Assault with a deadly weapon?
The difference between and STD and other communicable diseases is that one is involuntarily contracted, one is generally not. Preventing people with drug resistant forms of TB from wandering around infecting everyone you pass is different than people who engage in stupid and risky behaviour (unprotected sex, sharing needles etc) taking the consequences of their actions.
Uh, I don't think many people 'voluntarily' contracted HIV. You're also coming close to the line of treating HIV and STDs as
punishment, not a
disease. After all, you can avoid TB by wearing a breathing system(masks are better worn by the TB patient to prevent spread then worn by non-infected to prevent infection). There are people out there who became infected because their spouse was the one who engaged in 'risky behavior', whether drug use or an affair, then spread it.
Are you referring to my stats? CDC estimates slightly over 1 million infected in the U.S., with an estimated 20% unaware (link to the data which was in my first post in this thread). Globally, I'm sure far more than 1 million people are unknowingly HIV+. Global incidence of HIV is like 35-40mil, with over 10mil on the African continent, and millions more in Asia. Certainly well more than 1mil are undiagnosed in Africa and Asia alone. http://globalhealthfacts.org/topic.jsp?i=1
Interesting.
So we're looking at a .3% infection rate, around 200k unaware(.06%), out of a country of ~300M.
Just as an exercise: Let's say we get a cheap test that has a 1% false negative and false positive rate. We test all 300M people.
We'd be able to inform 198k of the estimated 200k people that they have HIV.
We'd have to retest, using better, more expensive methods, 3M people who we get a false positive on.
Still, assuming that each infected person we catch prevents somebody else getting infected, that's 198k lives 'saved' because HIV/AIDS is still considered lethal, right?
If the test costs $10ea, that's $3B for primary testing, another $302M on retesting($100/pop). We'll consider additional money on treating those ~200K people medically beneficial.
Though now that I looked into the costs, it seems my figures are a bit off:
Making HIV Testing Cost-Effective.
$7 for a 'rapid test'
$40 for confirmatory
$37,100 estimated per 'quality-adjusted life-year' gained via successful treatment of those found via a 100% testing of all adults.
Per their studies; the military's tendency to test annually is excessive; every 3 years is considered just as good.
They list .2% as the break even point for mass adult testing vs other strategies. Given that they're estimating the US's infection rate at .3%, it seems a mass screening of the USA would be a net positive affair.
