It's great that modern medicine can reduce HIV viral load to undetectable levels. However, I'm pretty opposed to their campaign

 

of "U=U means you can't transmit the virus to your partner (...or partners *mind slowly begins to implode*)".

 

 

 

This to me is the last thing you should be "OKing" with someone who is still HIV POSITIVE.

 

 

IAPAC revealed a study that within 48 hours of not taking anti-viral medication, viral load rises to detectable levels. Whose to say that SOME people won't forget to take

 

their medication for a duration of time. Why do you think we have MERSA AND VRE?

 

Make sure you take your birth control EVERYDAY. Meanwhile thousands of babies are born because,"oops..forgot to take my birth control".

 

I'm sorry, but they're treating the stigma, not the disease. You give these people their anti-viral's and say, "still, NO SEX".

 

 

your thoughts?

Edited June 12, 20178 yr by Elite Engineer

Just because some people are dangerous drivers and some of those will kill someone, should everyone be barred from driving because of those people who are irresponsible?

Edited June 12, 20178 yr by StringJunky

I think the person's potential partners should be fully informed of the situation, and then it's down to mutual consent. So it's even stronger than StringJunky's driving analogy.

I think the person's potential partners should be fully informed of the situation, and then it's down to mutual consent. So it's even stronger than StringJunky's driving analogy.

In reality, people that engage in specific activities generally tend to socialise tightly together, so HIV, Hep C etc is part of their landscape and the stigma will be less, so personal secrecy won't be so common. The statistics and studies seem to support that. I know from my substance-using days that fellow users were pretty open about having hep and I imagine it's the same with the gay community and other high-risk groups. i can't speak from experience about HIV with drug users because I was out of the IV scene just as HIV was coming to public consciousness in the mid-eighties. There will always be a few renegades and you can't legislate for them... nothing's 100%.

Edited June 12, 20178 yr by StringJunky

Right - ultimately if someone chooses dishonesty, there's very little that can be done.

Right - ultimately if someone chooses dishonesty, there's very little that can be done.

That's it and, statistically, it's obviously not significant enough for the experts to advise any different to what they are now or else they wouldn't give that advice.