Thailand develops HIV vaccine

wordy said:
If they get it then they've no one to blame but themselves. But to say they actually deserve it, wow.
Click to expand...
If you ran naked into a fire on a daily basis, I think everyone would say you deserved to get burnt.

"deserve - do something or have or show qualities worthy of reward or punishment."

dirtydog said:
Haha :D Is that your contention, that having sex gives you HIV? Well having promiscuous, unprotected anal sex with multiple partners might. But condom usage lowers the risk of transmission to near nil. Likewise sharing drug needles isn't very clever either.

How many people in the UK suffer from HIV, compared to things like cancer or heart disease? IIRC the numbers are tiny.
Click to expand...
0.2% of the population. Levels have rocketed since the 1990s and is blamed on promiscuity (gays). However, global population migration, i.e. immigrants, are a much greater cause. This has been the case with TB too.

Heterosexual sex is MUCH more likely the source of acquired infection the UK from new diagnoses. HOWEVER, the overwhelming majority (~79%) of HIV infections are, nicely worded: "acquired overseas". Of the UK based transmissions, gay men account for about 2/3 of cases. Black Africans account for around 45% of HIV diagnoses.

Shocker their isn't compulsory testing of all immigrant categories to be honest. Especially given the cost of drugs and the risk of spread. It's ******* sickening.

Conversely, injecting drug users account for about 1% of infections.

Finally, HIV treatment is around £20,000 a year per patient. Still love global population movements?
 
Last edited:
meghatronic said:
0.2% of the population. Levels have rocketed since the 1990s and is blamed on promiscuity (gays). However, global population migration, i.e. immigrants, are a much greater cause. This has been the case with TB too.
Click to expand...

Indeed :( If only we screened immigrants from countries with high incidences of those diseases, to prevent its spread in the UK. I suppose that would be racist though.
 
seek said:
Yes, **** it. Lets laugh at everyone who has AIDS because they deserve it. lol!
Click to expand...


i don't think thats what any one is saying. if through your lifestyle you are upping your risk profile then thats your lookout.
 
dirtydog said:
Indeed :( If only we screened immigrants from countries with high incidences of those diseases, to prevent its spread in the UK. I suppose that would be racist though.
Click to expand...
There were plans (spear headed by the Tory's and Michael Portillo), but they were dropped when it was feared compulsory testing would increase illegal immigration and "drive the disease underground". What a pathetic excuse. Bravo Labour! Again.

Malakite said:
I am sure a few million african children that are born with the disease may contest that statement.
Click to expand...
"Sins of the fathers".
 
dirtydog said:
Indeed :( If only we screened immigrants from countries with high incidences of those diseases, to prevent its spread in the UK. I suppose that would be racist though.
Click to expand...

All countries would be a much better approach, because no country has a zero incidence rate that I'm aware of.
 
I'm curious, it says that it cuts the risk of contracting HIV by 31%....how did they discover it? were they giving people the vaccine and then jabbing them with HIV and seeing who got it and who didn't? :confused:
 
Dolph said:
All countries would be a much better approach, because no country has a zero incidence rate that I'm aware of.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Blanket test everyone for the major public health risks: TB, HIV and other STIs. Then simply refuse them entry on the grounds of risk to public health. Why should we pay £1/2mil+ for their life treatment, when they have contributed nothing to our country, and most likely will not. At least not quid pro quo. **** em all.
 
mac1st3 said:
I'm curious, it says that it cuts the risk of contracting HIV by 31%....how did they discover it? were they giving people the vaccine and then jabbing them with HIV and seeing who got it and who didn't? :confused:
Click to expand...

Completely useless stat basically, most likely the average amount of people getting the infection is say, 7% of the population, so they just assumed 7% of that 16k people tested would get it, when only 4% ended up with HIV 3 years later, boom, its a miracle.

More than likely simply being picked for the trial led to them to learn more about HIV in the first place, how to prevent it and stopped more people getting it.

The fact is a great vaccine, is knowledge, too many people in africa simply do not know you get it from unprotected sex and that condoms can prevent you dying from it.

Then you get the god damned Catholic missionarys over there, refusing to tell people about condoms, because procreating is what god damn well wants.

They go to Aids ravaged area's to help, but then go around refusing to tell them what would save them all, because their god wants them to apparently, have lots and lots of sick kids with HIV who will die before they reach adulthood. Religion really does need to be abolished.
 
In this thread: people getting incensed over figures and estimates that mean absolutely nothing.

Nice to see Thai land making progress on this though, let hope we are close to a 100% effective vaccine.
 
meghatronic said:
Indeed. Blanket test everyone for the major public health risks: TB, HIV and other STIs. Then simply refuse them entry on the grounds of risk to public health. Why should we pay £1/2mil+ for their life treatment, when they have contributed nothing to our country, and most likely will not. At least not quid pro quo. **** em all.
Click to expand...

All the more important that we do this, when we have an NHS which is free at the point of use, regardless of your nationality or immigration status.

If we aren't careful, people with serious diseases and illnesses will come to the UK just to get free health care... oh wait...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom