From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 01:18:01 GMT

In article <3674@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.202620.28464@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>1) Locking people up who are HIV+ would have virtually no effect on
>>   the spread of the epidemic,
>
>Are you trying to claim that the epidemic isn't spread by people who are HIV+?
>Only people who have the virus but do not yet test positive?

I should have said people testing HIV+ any one with common decency who has
tested HIV+ is going to do there best not to spread the virus to others. Yes
there are counter examples, but in general HIV+ people are careful not to
infect others. However I think a person who purposely endangers someone
is already guilty of a crime, and there is no reason to add additional
laws. Punishing all HIV+ people for the crimes of a few is no better than
punishing all blacks because a black person robbed a liquor store.

>> people who know they are HIV+ arn't the
>>   problem, its people who don't know.
>
>Does ACT-UP advocate that everyone who is engaged in a risky life-style
>get tested?  

Yes. Not only that but ACT-UP and local AIDS groups arrange for free
testing and counseling. As well as safer sex talks and workshops.

>If not, are they contributing to the problem?

If the government doesn't provide access to this service...

>>2) Locking people up who are not a hazard is unethical. Unlike TB a
>>   person who is HIV+ can easily avoid passing the virus onto anyone
>>   else.
>
>I agree.
>
>"Locking people up" are your words.  I used "isolation".  The attempt
>to use a single word in quotes to try to convey the idea that a person
>who is HIV+ can stop the spread of the disease by not coming into
>inappropriate contact with others was an error on my part.

Whats the difference between locking up and isolation?

>>3) Contact tracing will not work, by the time a person comes down with
>>   AIDS the people they gave it to will have already been HIV+ for
>>   years.
>
>I think you've tried to change the argument.  Are we tracing contacts
>of those who have tested HIV+?  Then this argument is based on a false
>premise.

This assumes that people are getting tested, those who are the most
careless are also the least likely to get tested.

>>In the case of IV drug users or people who get HIV from anonymous
>>   sex there is no way that it can be traced since they don't know
>>   who they shared needles or had anonymous sex with.
>
>That's certainly a problem.  Does that mean we should not try?
>Contact tracing would never be of use?

The question is if the finite resources available are best spent on it,
and if contacts are going to consent to testing knowing the risk the face
by being publicly identified as HIV+.

>>Now what would help is locking up all those people with the contagious
>>mental illness called fundy-mentalism so that something can be done about
>>AIDS without them fighting it at every step.... 1/2 :-)
>
>What do you advocate doing?

As far as AIDS real education without "beating around the bush", real
facts, real statistics, real demonstrations of proper condom usage,
real discussions of alternative forms of sex which are safer than
penetrative sex.
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic