If HIV became airborne

[Balstrome]

No offence but that "you first" argument or comment is old and holds no value at all. It's like saying a CEO must be retrenched first and can't retrench workers as he needs to cut costs of a company.

You not a CEO in the human corporation, so step up...

 

[Sly21C]

We are more important than the environment, but without the environment, there is no us, and much less reason to enjoy life. So we would simply need a responsible and ethical system, nothing like this.

Well I disagree, the environment is more important than us. We absolutely cannot live without the environment while the environment can do just fine, actually better, without us.

 

[Sly21C]

..but then if there is no us why would we need to protect the environment?

What im saying is that BOTH are important, equally.

There would be no need for the environment to be protected if we didn't exist, we (humans) protect the environment from us (humans).

 

[Sly21C]

And there would be no need for an environment.

Sure somewhere else in the universe one could exist, but even so, it wouldn't matter.

So you are saying that without human beings, the environment would be a useless place with no use at all and would be just a waste?

 

[The_Pumpkin_King]

bwahahahaha!

who got freaked out and ordered a title name change?

 

[eaglebeaver]

Have you guys not heard of HAART(highly affective anti-retroviral therapy)?
Basically if you have hiv you can live just as long as the next person by taking meds.

 

[angelik]

I would be way more terrified if Ebola became airborne.

Agreed, or something like the avian bird flu rapidly spreading across the world. Assuming HIV could become airborne, at least you'll have a few more years to live life, whereas the former attacks and kills quickly.

And spend life with most of the reasons to live gone, wile spending thousands every month, while very few people would actually consider employing somebody with the hiv.


??

More like a giant mosquito, than a life saver.

On the assumption that it becomes airborne, then most likely everyone...or close to everyone will have it and the employing part will become less relevant.Plus you don't HAVE to disclose your HIV status, so how will a prospective employer know?

Also if government does the job properly, then anti retroviral drugs will be free so you won't have to worry about spending thousands every month (not directly anyway)

 

[pug306]

What about TB? Isn't it similar to HIV?

No TB is a type of bacteria, not a virus

 

[pug306]

I beg to differ. Simian ebola has mutated and become airborne, and all this in Washington, D.C. - within site of the White House!

The human equivalent, has fortunately, never made that mutation.

You guys should read Tom Clancy's novel Executive Orders. In the novel, there is a fictional subtype of Ebola that is spread by aerosol. Some Iranian terrorists took the virus and spread it on American soil.

BTW Tom Clancy wrote another novel (before 9/11) about a kamikaze airline jet rammed into the Capitol building, killing all the top US government officials inside.

 

[eaglebeaver]

And spend life with most of the reasons to live gone, wile spending thousands every month, while very few people would actually consider employing somebody with the hiv.


??

More like a giant mosquito, than a life saver.

The government pays for the medications and if you had to pay its about R500 a month. Its illegal not to employ you because of hiv.
What are your reasons to live ?

 

[scotty777]

Have you guys not heard of HAART(highly affective anti-retroviral therapy)?
Basically if you have hiv you can live just as long as the next person by taking meds.

Do you have any idea on how kark those meds make you feel???? they usually only give them to people with a white cell count of 200 (which is really low) because those people feel shyte already and are more likely to complete their treatment.

 

[eaglebeaver]

Do you have any idea on how kark those meds make you feel???? they usually only give them to people with a white cell count of 200 (which is really low) because those people feel shyte already and are more likely to complete their treatment.

They can make you feel very ***ky , but that usually passes and you are on them for life. The people who struggle are those who feel they cured , stop taking the meds and then the virus becomes resistant to those meds and they have to take a new set of meds with more side effects.
After taking the meds for 3 months you can expect the virus to be virtually undetectable in the blood . (It is still hidden in white cells though so you never cured)

 

[eaglebeaver]

And then the virus mutates, and meds are completely useless.

No, this sounds worse than even what the Nazis have done. Are you seriously suggesting this?


Why can't we simply use a win-win solution?

The virus only mutates if you stop taking your meds

 

[PeterCH]

The virus only mutates if you stop taking your meds

Not only, it's less likely but can still occur. Also it's not stopping the meds, stopping the meds entirely is not nearly as bad as taking them intermittently,
in order to allow on partial suppression of HIV. If you stop HIV meds and have been suppressed thus far, you'll most likely be able to restart later, it's when you skip a day, then take for a couple, then skip a day or two, then take again for a few days - that is the golden formula for HIV resistance.

 

[PeterCH]

What i hear is that it could become resistant to the meds too, then when spread to somebody else, the medication would also be rendered useless.

That's happening all the time.

 

[Picard]

Honestly, I would be happy if in some way HIV became airborne and dramatically decreased world human population, not a nice thing to say but I think the environment would get a break from our destructive ways of living our lives.

If you want to put the world right, start with yourself!

So, if you combine that with your sig, you need to go and end yourself...

Quickly now, get someone to send pics.

Rofl

 

[PeterCH]

Do you have any idea on how kark those meds make you feel???? they usually only give them to people with a white cell count of 200 (which is really low) because those people feel shyte already and are more likely to complete their treatment.

There is an emerging trend now to start much earlier, which is being evaluated at present, and in the case of pregnant women start at pregnancy and continue, this is not yet a guideline in SA. The meds can feel kark, correct but most people become stabilised and experience no or very few side effects - of course this may require changing the meds sometimes. The meds do have side effects - but not all to the same degree and some are quite innocuous in their severity and liver, bone marrow, kidney, body fat and nerve toxicity.

 

[PeterCH]

The thing to also realise in the differences between HIV and Influenza is that influenza is a respiratory virus, it's droplet spread and it invades the cells lining the air ways - nose, trachea and sinuses while HIV does not target those. It would take fundamental redesign of the virus for that to happen - HIV targets immune cells in the linings of the membranes and it could target these cells in the nasal passages too - they are far fewer in number than the default cells which line the airways - also the amount of virus needed to lead to infection is quite large. You'd drown from the amount of fluid entering the airways before getting HIV this way. The virus also does not occur in secreations from the respiratory tract so you can't sneeze out HIV, it is secreated into saliva but you need a large amount to transmit it via kissing (having wounds in the mouth or inflammation reduces this amount). Someone with a high viral load in the body could spit
on a fresh would and possibly transmit HIV that way but that hasn't been documented yet. Neither has any insect vector transmission as the inoculum is too small and conditions in the mosquito HIV unfriendly.

However, when people say 'airborne' we must clarify what that means. Usually viruses spread in droplets, not dried out airborne spread like say anthrax. Anthrax is not a virus but a bacterium and can survive in the dry environment, it is inhaled into the lungs and replicates there. Ebola can spread via droplet spread but not through release into the atmosphere - someone very ill with ebola in the airways would need to sneeze or cough up at you.

 

[scotty777]

The thing to also realise in the differences between HIV and Influenza is that influenza is a respiratory virus, it's droplet spread and it invades the cells lining the air ways - nose, trachea and sinuses while HIV does not target those. It would take fundamental redesign of the virus for that to happen - HIV targets immune cells in the linings of the membranes and it could target these cells in the nasal passages too - they are far fewer in number than the default cells which line the airways - also the amount of virus needed to lead to infection is quite large. You'd drown from the amount of fluid entering the airways before getting HIV this way. The virus also does not occur in secreations from the respiratory tract so you can't sneeze out HIV, it is secreated into saliva but you need a large amount to transmit it via kissing (having wounds in the mouth or inflammation reduces this amount). Someone with a high viral load in the body could spit
on a fresh would and possibly transmit HIV that way but that hasn't been documented yet. Neither has any insect vector transmission as the inoculum is too small and conditions in the mosquito HIV unfriendly.

However, when people say 'airborne' we must clarify what that means. Usually viruses spread in droplets, not dried out airborne spread like say anthrax. Anthrax is not a virus but a bacterium and can survive in the dry environment, it is inhaled into the lungs and replicates there. Ebola can spread via droplet spread but not through release into the atmosphere - someone very ill with ebola in the airways would need to sneeze or cough up at you.

well, if the virus could find it's why into the lymphatic system, then it's just a free-for-all... the problem is that the virus would have to be extremely lucky to get into the lymphatic system with out detection.

There is a possibility that the virus could infect other cells and not just the white cells (i can't remember the specific cell it most enjoys attacking, i think it's the CD-4 helper T cell, but i can't be sure), where it could infect avioli epidermal cells, if that happens, then the virus could be coughed up, and spread like that... however, that is quite unlikely because the virus just doesn't have a large enough infection base for such a mutation to take place anytime soon... however, if the number of those infected suddenly rose ten fold, there is a possibility...

But like most things in nature, mutations are highly erratic and the chance of HIV becoming an airborn disease are extremely low... So in that sense, you can rest easy...

 

[scotty777]

well, even if it is extreemly low for an individual. With 100 million people iffected, animal strains too, and even every person having a strain a bit unique from even te person they have caught it from, and with years of progression. Considering those factors, really how low is 'extreemly low'

Still pretty low, ha ha. Mutations are funny things... you see, they could either not take place at all for many years or they could suddenly go crazy and just mutate and mutate and become almost unrecognizable to the original virus. The problem is that we don't know enough about genetic mutations to come to any sort of rational conclusion... and until we know enough, we still just gonna be playing life by natures rules.

The fact remains that HIV isn't known for it's massively mutating RNA. I'd be more worried about the flu virus mutation into something a little more deadly as that virus mutates drastically every year, that's why you fall sick with it every year as it's marker proteins change so often that your body doesn't recognize it...