Actually, the more I think about it the worse an HIV vaccine sounds. It would just give people the impression that unprotected sex with strangers becomes okay and stops being dangerous.
Dear god, HIV vaccines are the dumbest thing in the world.
That can't be like, an actual thing you think is true
Can it?
This is definitely a thing I can see happening in the west. "Oh yeah no, it's not like I can catch HIV so who gives a shit any more"
I mean, people are dumb as shit - otherwise HIV wouldn't spread and gonorrhoea wouldn't be so painfully abundant.
People are dumb as shit already
I fail to see how removing HIV from the equation is going to cause some kind of crazy rise in unprotected sex. Like I don't see people going "Oh well I can still get a huge number of STDs but as long as HIV isn't on the list anymore I better get on the fucking strangers without protection train!"
Actually, the more I think about it the worse an HIV vaccine sounds. It would just give people the impression that unprotected sex with strangers becomes okay and stops being dangerous.
Dear god, HIV vaccines are the dumbest thing in the world.
That can't be like, an actual thing you think is true
Can it?
This is definitely a thing I can see happening in the west. "Oh yeah no, it's not like I can catch HIV so who gives a shit any more"
I mean, people are dumb as shit - otherwise HIV wouldn't spread and gonorrhoea wouldn't be so painfully abundant.
But the idea of not vaccinating people from dying a potentially horrible and painful death just in case they happen to be more promiscuous than you morally think they should be is seriously kind of fucked up, dude.
Real confused with [chat] now. Tbh, I don't know how Africa works - assuming I do is non-sensical. It's just that the possiblity of a HIV vaccine is so incredibly slim that by a pure balance of probabilities I think it'd be better if the money spent on trying to achieve a vaccine would be better spent on water supplies and the like in the poorest regions of the world.
Sure, you can spend both, but I like solving problems one at a time with the most attainable being the highest up on the list.
Daxon on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
Real confused with [chat] now. Tbh, I don't know how Africa works - assuming I do is non-sensical. It's just that the possiblity of a HIV vaccine is so incredibly slim that by a pure balance of probabilities I think it'd be better if the money spent on trying to achieve a vaccine would be better spent on water supplies and the like in the poorest regions of the world.
Sure, you can spend both, but I like solving problems one at a time with the most attainable being the highest up on the list.
But it doesn't work that way. There isn't a big pot of money somewhere in the world that gets divvied up. It's all separate. The people who are researching vaccines are separate from the people who build infrastructure and each has their own budget.
Real confused with [chat] now. Tbh, I don't know how Africa works - assuming I do is non-sensical. It's just that the possiblity of a HIV vaccine is so incredibly slim that by a pure balance of probabilities I think it'd be better if the money spent on trying to achieve a vaccine would be better spent on water supplies and the like in the poorest regions of the world.
Sure, you can spend both, but I like solving problems one at a time with the most attainable being the highest up on the list.
But it doesn't work that way. There isn't a big pot of money somewhere in the world that gets divvied up. It's all separate. The people who are researching vaccines are separate from the people who build infrastructure and each has their own budget.
Yeah but seriously give all those people the AIDS money is what I think he's saying.
I don't agree with it but I think that's what he's saying.
Actually, the more I think about it the worse an HIV vaccine sounds. It would just give people the impression that unprotected sex with strangers becomes okay and stops being dangerous.
Dear god, HIV vaccines are the dumbest thing in the world.
That can't be like, an actual thing you think is true
Can it?
This is definitely a thing I can see happening in the west. "Oh yeah no, it's not like I can catch HIV so who gives a shit any more"
I mean, people are dumb as shit - otherwise HIV wouldn't spread and gonorrhoea wouldn't be so painfully abundant.
But the idea of not vaccinating people from dying a potentially horrible and painful death just in case they happen to be more promiscuous than you morally think they should be is seriously kind of fucked up, dude.
Nothing to do with morals - just think people would end up having more unprotected sex meaning a greater spread of all the other STIs which is just bad.
Also, happylilelf, people are dumber than you think - they can quite easily interpret a vaccine for HIV as a vaccine "for all STIs" even if you specifically tell them that it is for one disease and one disease only and that they remain susceptible to all the others and should still practice safe sex.
It can be difficult enough getting patients to just take a pill a day that doesn't make everything instantly better because they "think it's not working so they didn't bother" when all it does is take time to work.
First HIV isn't just a problem in the undeveloped and underdeveloped countries like most of Africa. It is on the rise in Asia including the developed countries and places like China. Working on a cure does not drain resources from developing water supplies, other medical aid and food aid to developing nation. The world does not run on this zero sum game. And that fallacy is what I think you are missing.
Also researching HIV and how it functions to try to develop vaccines help other areas of research.
I think that its you are looking this in a bubble but it isn't.
First HIV isn't just a problem in the undeveloped and underdeveloped countries like most of Africa. It is on the rise in Asia including the developed countries and places like China. Working on a cure does not drain resources from developing water supplies, other medical aid and food aid to developing nation. The world does not run on this zero sum game. And that fallacy is what I think you are missing.
Also researching HIV and how it functions to try to develop vaccines help other areas of research.
I think that its you are looking this in a bubble but it isn't.
I know it's not a zero sum game. I know it's more complex.
I still think the biologists or organisations receiving the money for HIV research should just be like "well, y'know what? we're just gonna waste this soo.. we could give it to the well building people instead, right? that'd be handy, yeah."
I know it's not going to happen.
Also a vaccine for the common cold would be a billion times handier than a HIV vaccine but we won't ever have one for the same reason that we won't have a HIV one. They've been trying common cold ones for years and years, and HIV mutates even faster.
It's ridiculous is what I'm saying.
In other news, research that sounds interesting and could be incredibly handy is a method of detecting lung cancer from a person's breathe. It's based on the fact that dogs can smell lung cancer, something I think incredibly interesting.
I guess I'd rather have HIV and be able to have a baby who also has HIV
Actually HIV isn't transmitted in the womb, the baby gets it during birth from the mother's blood so assuming you're careful you can totally chillax and have a perfectly healthy baby as many HIV+ mothers do.
So, you wrong. Also with HAART you can basically have an entirely normal life expectancy so you get to do all that fun stuff with your kid!
Common cold is a collection a lot of different viruses. And it isn't killing anyone. Big difference. Cold makes your life annoying as hell, but unless you have some other underlying condition probably won't even get you near being dead. So I think that comparison is not the greatest.
And I don't think the researchers see it as wasteful. In fact I think they see their research as important. And it is. Will be successful here soon? Probably not. And you can say that the research have given us a lot of information on how the viruses work.
The lung cancer thing is interesting. But could be just as much as a dead end as the AIDS vaccine in your view.
daxon is a pretty weird guy when it comes to medical matters and video games
Yeah, I guess. Just find a lot of stuff useless.
I am also highly suspect of medications that a prescribed especially ones where the mechanism of action is basically "fuck knows - but it seems to do something in the general direction of what we're trying to achieve".
I mean, it's probably valuable to research retroviruses in general. Gives processes of how to get your cells to accept DNA that isn't there's and not triggering defence systems and all that. It's just a "vaccine for HIV" seems like a useless struggle for something that's just not happening ever.
Unless we get magical nanobot vaccines that you can reprogram to target new versions of the virus at will.
I'm just not as optimistic as you guys all are when it comes to what science will discover. Like you folks that were insistent we might find the Culture - sorry guys, that's never fucking happening. Nor is scifi type FTL travel or any of that.
Video games I don't know what you're getting at.
edit: bob, that's a gross simplification if anything that approaches the truth. I believe that a vaccine for HIV (or any STI for that matter) will easily be interpreted by any and all patients as a simple "vaccine for all STIs ever" leading to more unprotected sex and increased STI spread.
Because patients are dumb and interpret one medication as kind of a magic thing that treats everything wrong with them ever. The number of times I've had people tell me that an inhaler for their asthma also alleviates their gastric reflux or whatever other imaginary symptoms they have is ridiculous. It just has to do with a poor understanding of biology in general.
daxon is a pretty weird guy when it comes to medical matters and video games
Yeah, I guess. Just find a lot of stuff useless.
I am also highly suspect of medications that a prescribed especially ones where the mechanism of action is basically "fuck knows - but it seems to do something in the general direction of what we're trying to achieve".
I mean, it's probably valuable to research retroviruses in general. Gives processes of how to get your cells to accept DNA that isn't there's and not triggering defence systems and all that. It's just a "vaccine for HIV" seems like a useless struggle for something that's just not happening ever.
Unless we get magical nanobot vaccines that you can reprogram to target new versions of the virus at will.
I'm just not as optimistic as you guys all are when it comes to what science will discover. Like you folks that were insistent we might find the Culture - sorry guys, that's never fucking happening. Nor is scifi type FTL travel or any of that.
Video games I don't know what you're getting at.
This has nothing to do at all with what you were saying earlier. You're saying "we probably wont ever have the technology to develop a cure for AIDS" now whereas before you were saying "all a cure for AIDS will do is promote promiscuity and multiple partners and that's bad so we shouldn't even bother solving AIDS"
Posts
People are dumb as shit already
I fail to see how removing HIV from the equation is going to cause some kind of crazy rise in unprotected sex. Like I don't see people going "Oh well I can still get a huge number of STDs but as long as HIV isn't on the list anymore I better get on the fucking strangers without protection train!"
But the idea of not vaccinating people from dying a potentially horrible and painful death just in case they happen to be more promiscuous than you morally think they should be is seriously kind of fucked up, dude.
Sure, you can spend both, but I like solving problems one at a time with the most attainable being the highest up on the list.
But it doesn't work that way. There isn't a big pot of money somewhere in the world that gets divvied up. It's all separate. The people who are researching vaccines are separate from the people who build infrastructure and each has their own budget.
Yeah but seriously give all those people the AIDS money is what I think he's saying.
I don't agree with it but I think that's what he's saying.
then I guess water and an HIV vaccine and stuff
Nothing to do with morals - just think people would end up having more unprotected sex meaning a greater spread of all the other STIs which is just bad.
Also, happylilelf, people are dumber than you think - they can quite easily interpret a vaccine for HIV as a vaccine "for all STIs" even if you specifically tell them that it is for one disease and one disease only and that they remain susceptible to all the others and should still practice safe sex.
It can be difficult enough getting patients to just take a pill a day that doesn't make everything instantly better because they "think it's not working so they didn't bother" when all it does is take time to work.
People are just dumb. Real fucking dumb.
people are dumb yeah but we could be doing a lot more on that front than we are now
On the black screen
Also researching HIV and how it functions to try to develop vaccines help other areas of research.
I think that its you are looking this in a bubble but it isn't.
we could get gonorrhea
I know it's not a zero sum game. I know it's more complex.
I still think the biologists or organisations receiving the money for HIV research should just be like "well, y'know what? we're just gonna waste this soo.. we could give it to the well building people instead, right? that'd be handy, yeah."
I know it's not going to happen.
Also a vaccine for the common cold would be a billion times handier than a HIV vaccine but we won't ever have one for the same reason that we won't have a HIV one. They've been trying common cold ones for years and years, and HIV mutates even faster.
It's ridiculous is what I'm saying.
In other news, research that sounds interesting and could be incredibly handy is a method of detecting lung cancer from a person's breathe. It's based on the fact that dogs can smell lung cancer, something I think incredibly interesting.
Yeah it can cause sterility in men and women.
Doesn't seem so damn harmless now, does it?
So we can't get pregnant? MORE SEX!
sigh
y'know what? fuck it.
Everyone can have the AIDS.
I guess I'd rather have HIV and be able to have a baby who also has HIV
Actually HIV isn't transmitted in the womb, the baby gets it during birth from the mother's blood so assuming you're careful you can totally chillax and have a perfectly healthy baby as many HIV+ mothers do.
So, you wrong. Also with HAART you can basically have an entirely normal life expectancy so you get to do all that fun stuff with your kid!
Not even joking here.
Hooray!
And I don't think the researchers see it as wasteful. In fact I think they see their research as important. And it is. Will be successful here soon? Probably not. And you can say that the research have given us a lot of information on how the viruses work.
The lung cancer thing is interesting. But could be just as much as a dead end as the AIDS vaccine in your view.
Daxon is a shit human being.
What the fuck
Yeah, I guess. Just find a lot of stuff useless.
I am also highly suspect of medications that a prescribed especially ones where the mechanism of action is basically "fuck knows - but it seems to do something in the general direction of what we're trying to achieve".
I mean, it's probably valuable to research retroviruses in general. Gives processes of how to get your cells to accept DNA that isn't there's and not triggering defence systems and all that. It's just a "vaccine for HIV" seems like a useless struggle for something that's just not happening ever.
Unless we get magical nanobot vaccines that you can reprogram to target new versions of the virus at will.
I'm just not as optimistic as you guys all are when it comes to what science will discover. Like you folks that were insistent we might find the Culture - sorry guys, that's never fucking happening. Nor is scifi type FTL travel or any of that.
Video games I don't know what you're getting at.
edit: bob, that's a gross simplification if anything that approaches the truth. I believe that a vaccine for HIV (or any STI for that matter) will easily be interpreted by any and all patients as a simple "vaccine for all STIs ever" leading to more unprotected sex and increased STI spread.
Because patients are dumb and interpret one medication as kind of a magic thing that treats everything wrong with them ever. The number of times I've had people tell me that an inhaler for their asthma also alleviates their gastric reflux or whatever other imaginary symptoms they have is ridiculous. It just has to do with a poor understanding of biology in general.
yes, I know, I know, I have too much dialog as it is, but I think it's interesting
also her roommate is going to want her to dish as it is, and having that plus watching the date as it happens would be rather boring
This has nothing to do at all with what you were saying earlier. You're saying "we probably wont ever have the technology to develop a cure for AIDS" now whereas before you were saying "all a cure for AIDS will do is promote promiscuity and multiple partners and that's bad so we shouldn't even bother solving AIDS"
haha
(i took this as a joke)
On the black screen
everyone knows you don't a show a lady fish
Awesome date if she's into fish. If she isn't, terrible date.
elendil is all about japanese woodcuts
2 hours ago:
"It'll be late tonight"
2 seconds ago:
"Get ready for a late one, kids."
Does that mean later than previously thought? Or the same?
h-