-
OK, it's on.
AIDS
- Thread starter WALKYRIA
- Start date
Lostwitheal
Mr. LoveRobot
- Local time
- Today 9:49 PM
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 562
Trolls. Real or fake? Do you believe in them? Why should we believe in them?
SpaceYeti
Prolific Member
Shit. I thought this thread was going to be serious, and I was gonna be all whimsical and tell everyone to stop goofing off and take it srsly, because people actually have it and die from it... but it's just this. Now I kinda wanna make a huge-long post for srs, but I'm already posting this.
In conclusion, we're all jerks.
In conclusion, we're all jerks.
Hawkeye
Banned
This thread is amusing
(my opinion)
True or fake? Do you believe in it? Why should we believe it ?
(my opinion)
True or fake? Do you believe in it? Why should we believe it ?
Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a disease in humans that is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
Wear condoms if you fuck strangers in theaters.
Actually, wear condoms for all analization.
The HIV virus does not survive for long outside its host so being pricked by a latent needle can not/will not cause HIV infection; that shit is a myth. This is not the same as sharing needles, which can and will cause infection.
The most efficient - nay - effective, means of transmission is simply via blood>blood contact. Although most blood donations are screened worldwide, a significant percentage are not screened (properly) and unfortunately many infections happen via blood transfusions.
Wear condoms if you fuck strangers in theaters.
Actually, wear condoms for all analization.
The HIV virus does not survive for long outside its host so being pricked by a latent needle can not/will not cause HIV infection; that shit is a myth. This is not the same as sharing needles, which can and will cause infection.
The most efficient - nay - effective, means of transmission is simply via blood>blood contact. Although most blood donations are screened worldwide, a significant percentage are not screened (properly) and unfortunately many infections happen via blood transfusions.
WALKYRIA
Well-Known Member
- Local time
- Today 8:49 PM
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2013
- Messages
- 505
I just think there is a certain exaggeration of risks/ overmediatisation... It seems correct to assume that anal sex or needles sharing have risks, but other sexual means 
?
There is less than ~0,05%( 1/2000 th) chance to get HIV if sex with HIV +tive person; added to that, occidental countries have a rate of more or less 0,2%( 1/500)of HIV seropositives, rates of less that 0,1% if you are heterosexual.
This means that if you want to get HIV by heterosexual intercourse in our countries you should pray very hard and:
1°have the honor to meet a Hiv+ carier, not under tritherapy(becoz if treated, chances of transmission= zero).(1/500). Most AIDS carier being males(homosexuals, drug users , don juans); heterosexual men have less chances to meet a girl with Hiv.
2°Then if you are that lucky, pray again and maybe you'll get Hiv transmission by having unsafe sex.(1/2000 chances)
3°Thus 1/2000 x 1/500=1/1000000.
This means that you have less than one chance in a million(each time) to get HIV by having unsafe/unprotected sex with a stranger from opposite sex; chances are almost inexistant if you are a man, no drugs, heterosexual and have classical sex(no anal).
So why do people get HIV though? Becoz there are several billions of unsafe sex a year... few people lack luck and earn it. Just as some lucky people win lotery.
The conclusion is that information is distorted by health policies and collective fear does the rest(as about the same with religion few centuries ago)...but again I'm not the only INTP on this forum so wanted to have some feedback and some insight about it.
WHat would a real statistician think of this simple but speaking calculation ?
I agree with that of course.
?There is less than ~0,05%( 1/2000 th) chance to get HIV if sex with HIV +tive person; added to that, occidental countries have a rate of more or less 0,2%( 1/500)of HIV seropositives, rates of less that 0,1% if you are heterosexual.
This means that if you want to get HIV by heterosexual intercourse in our countries you should pray very hard and:
1°have the honor to meet a Hiv+ carier, not under tritherapy(becoz if treated, chances of transmission= zero).(1/500). Most AIDS carier being males(homosexuals, drug users , don juans); heterosexual men have less chances to meet a girl with Hiv.
2°Then if you are that lucky, pray again and maybe you'll get Hiv transmission by having unsafe sex.(1/2000 chances)
3°Thus 1/2000 x 1/500=1/1000000.
This means that you have less than one chance in a million(each time) to get HIV by having unsafe/unprotected sex with a stranger from opposite sex; chances are almost inexistant if you are a man, no drugs, heterosexual and have classical sex(no anal).
So why do people get HIV though? Becoz there are several billions of unsafe sex a year... few people lack luck and earn it. Just as some lucky people win lotery.
The conclusion is that information is distorted by health policies and collective fear does the rest(as about the same with religion few centuries ago)...but again I'm not the only INTP on this forum so wanted to have some feedback and some insight about it.
WHat would a real statistician think of this simple but speaking calculation ?
I agree with that of course.
Absurdity
Prolific Member
- Local time
- Today 12:49 PM
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 2,359
wat
Vrecknidj
Prolific Member
Go the the UNAIDS website: http://www.unaids.org/en/dataanalysis/datatools/aidsinfo/
Click on every link, read every PDF, learn about HIV, and then let us know what's what.
Click on every link, read every PDF, learn about HIV, and then let us know what's what.
redbaron
irony based lifeform
You're discounting the fact (or at least, it's not included in your post) that part of the reason there's such a low incidence of HIV/AIDS transmission in the population could be due to the very prominent stigma surrounding it.
I don't really see a problem if something like this IS given a (seemingly) ridiculous amount of attention.
There's dogma attached to many of the messages we're exposed to regarding sexuality (among many other topics), but I'd rather the information is put out there, even if done somewhat ostensibly.
Many things that are dangerous are statistically highly improbable in their chances of affecting one specific individual, however it's better that people are provided information than not.
I know it's not what you're necessarily saying or even implying, but if you ask me it's not a bad thing that people are informed and educated about the potential dangers of their activities (unsafe sex).
Also just want to point out that the campaigns you generally see about the, 'dangers of this or that' are usually aimed at the lowest common denominator in the target audience (the stupid people having unsafe sex), so it's not that unreasonable the campaigns would appeal to simpler principles and take a kind of, 'scare tactic' approach - which I think is what you're referring to?