Maine has 1st confirmed case of measles in 20 years

[chiver78]

link

Maine has first confirmed case of measles in 20 years


AUGUSTA (AP/WGME) -- The Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention is investigating a confirmed case of measles in Franklin County that it says is related to travel.
The state says the Maine Health and Environmental Testing Laboratory confirmed the case. The last reported case of measles in the state was in 1997.
According to the CDC, measles is a highly contagious viral disease characterized by fever, rash, cough, runny nose, and red eyes.
Measles can cause severe health complications including pneumonia, encephalitis, and death.

According to the CDC, measles is transmitted when an infected person coughs or sneezes; infected people are contagious from four days before their rash starts through four days afterwards.

After an infected person leaves a location, the virus remains alive for up to two hours on surfaces and in the air. The incubation period—the period from exposure to onset of symptoms—is typically 10-14 days, but can be as long as 21 days, according to the CDC.
**********************************************************************************************

click the link for full story, including possible exposure locations (for you Mainers). looks like the Sugarloaf Mountain area, with Kingfield in that list.

ugh. for something that is so preventable, to put so many others in danger is absolutely infuriating. 

[Gardening Grandma]

I had measles as a child (before immunizations were available). I missed 2 weeks of school and was in utter misery with a fever and an awful itchy rash all over. I could not sleep. And I was lucky. A pregnant woman who gets measles can have a baby with horrific birth defects.

Parents who refuse to immunization for tbeir children because of pseudo science endanger their children as well as others. 

[mmhmm]

There are two types of measles: 

Measles caused by the rubeola virus (red measles) is the most common. It can cause encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) or pneumonia, but that doesn't happen in most cases.
Measles caused by the rubella virus (German measles) is milder, usually only lasting about three days (sometimes called three-day measles) and with milder symptoms. This is the type that can cause birth defects if contracted by a pregnant woman.

[zibazinski]

When they find patient zero, they need to press charges against whatever passes for parents of that child.

[mmhmm]

Jun 27, 2017 21:37:59 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

When they find patient zero, they need to press charges against whatever passes for parents of that child.

The portion of the article posted doesn't say the patient is a child, I don't think. It also says the case is travel-related. It could be an adult who contracted the disease while on vacation or travelling for work. I wish they'd clarified which type of measles it is. Usually, red measles are just called "measles" and German measles are called German measles or rubella.

[zibazinski]

I had to get re-vaccinated for German measles to volunteer at the hospital. I got the vaccine 27 years ago. I guess it didn't "take" for me.

[Cheesy FL-Vol]

Jun 27, 2017 21:24:13 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

There are two types of measles: 

Measles caused by the rubeola virus (red measles) is the most common. It can cause encephalitis (inflammation of the brain) or pneumonia, but that doesn't happen in most cases.
Measles caused by the rubella virus (German measles) is milder, usually only lasting about three days (sometimes called three-day measles) and with milder symptoms. This is the type that can cause birth defects if contracted by a pregnant woman.

My deafness is a result of congenital rubella from the mid-60s epidemic, before there were vaccinations for it. My mom had rubella while she was pregnant with me. Deafness, blindness, and mental retardation (I know that is not the PC term, but drawing a blank on a different way to say that) are a result of congenital rubella. Some babies were born with all of the problems that were a result. I consider myself lucky that my only issue is deafness.

Pisses me off that society is put at risk by ill-informed parents.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

The really fun part is going to come when enough people refuse to immunize that herd immunity collapses.   There aren't going to be enough people left who naturally had measles to pick up the slack. 


It will be just like when the Native Americans were first expose to European illnesses.  Eventually there will be enough people who survive that the virus will eventually attenuate because it doesn't benefit the virus to kill off all its hosts so quickly.  But the time spent getting to that threshold will be pretty horrific.

People don't get that the reason these diseases "aren't that bad" if they do currently pop up is because there are enough people either immunized or alive who developed natural immunity to protect their asses.   Once that protection breaks down and the virus gets into a population that's never been exposed it will be BAD.

I hope we don't get there but I am not optimistic.  People are too complacent nowadays.  Vaccination did its job TOO well.  My grandmother said when you've seen first hand what those diseases do you don't walk you run to the doctor to get your kid vaccinated.  She said she can't begin to describe the relief she felt when the polio vaccination became available and she could get it for my dad.

She's grateful I've never had to know that fear but the fact that a large majority of us parents nowadays haven't has left us sloppy and lazy.  There isn't anything to counter act all the anti-vaccination propaganda.   Looking at pictures of an iron lung or someone mutilated by measles is too far removed.  We are confident it "won't happen to us" but forget WHY it doesn't happen.

[Opti]

I think people not wanting to get immunized isn't all of the problem. With the potential changes in healthcare and Trump removing funding from many areas, what if the funding for childhood immunizations drops too much?

www.ncsl.org/research/health/immunizations-policy-issues-overview.aspx

According to the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, every $1 spent on immunizations saves $16 in avoided costs, but vaccines are not cheap. The federal contract price for all vaccines recommended to age 18 increased from $45 in 1985 to $1,105 for males and $1,407 for females in 2008 for programs that receive immunization grants. Factors pushing up costs include new vaccines and inflation.

Federal funds pay for approximately 95 percent of all publicly funded vaccinations. The two sources of federal funds are:

Vaccines for Children Program (VFC): This program provides free vaccines for children who are uninsured, Medicaid-eligible, underinsured (if receiving immunizations in a federally qualified health center or rural health clinic), Native American or Alaska Native.

Section 317 of the Public Health Services Act: is a federal program administered by the CDC and provides grants to states and territories, commonwealth trusts, and several cities for vaccine purchase and programs such as outreach and disease surveillance. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) reauthorizes the Section 317 grant program.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Well then we will be left with the American Utopia according to the health care thread where only good responsible upstanding people will exist and procreate.   All those no good lazy moocher people who need assistance with vaccination costs will finally be weeded out of the gene pool.   It's going to be so freaking glorious!

[Cheesy FL-Vol]

Jun 28, 2017 9:18:45 GMT -5 Opti said:

I think people not wanting to get immunized isn't all of the problem. With the potential changes in healthcare and Trump removing funding from many areas, what if the funding for childhood immunizations drops too much?

www.ncsl.org/research/health/immunizations-policy-issues-overview.aspx

According to the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, every $1 spent on immunizations saves $16 in avoided costs, but vaccines are not cheap. The federal contract price for all vaccines recommended to age 18 increased from $45 in 1985 to $1,105 for males and $1,407 for females in 2008 for programs that receive immunization grants. Factors pushing up costs include new vaccines and inflation.

Federal funds pay for approximately 95 percent of all publicly funded vaccinations. The two sources of federal funds are:

Vaccines for Children Program (VFC): This program provides free vaccines for children who are uninsured, Medicaid-eligible, underinsured (if receiving immunizations in a federally qualified health center or rural health clinic), Native American or Alaska Native.

Section 317 of the Public Health Services Act: is a federal program administered by the CDC and provides grants to states and territories, commonwealth trusts, and several cities for vaccine purchase and programs such as outreach and disease surveillance. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) reauthorizes the Section 317 grant program.

Your point is only valid at this point in time going forward, as the health care issue is only a few months old. This does not excuse responsibility for vaccinating over the last, what, 20 years of pseudo-science.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Jun 28, 2017 9:35:39 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

Jun 28, 2017 9:18:45 GMT -5 Opti said:

I think people not wanting to get immunized isn't all of the problem. With the potential changes in healthcare and Trump removing funding from many areas, what if the funding for childhood immunizations drops too much?

www.ncsl.org/research/health/immunizations-policy-issues-overview.aspx

According to the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, every $1 spent on immunizations saves $16 in avoided costs, but vaccines are not cheap. The federal contract price for all vaccines recommended to age 18 increased from $45 in 1985 to $1,105 for males and $1,407 for females in 2008 for programs that receive immunization grants. Factors pushing up costs include new vaccines and inflation.

Federal funds pay for approximately 95 percent of all publicly funded vaccinations. The two sources of federal funds are:

Vaccines for Children Program (VFC): This program provides free vaccines for children who are uninsured, Medicaid-eligible, underinsured (if receiving immunizations in a federally qualified health center or rural health clinic), Native American or Alaska Native.

Section 317 of the Public Health Services Act: is a federal program administered by the CDC and provides grants to states and territories, commonwealth trusts, and several cities for vaccine purchase and programs such as outreach and disease surveillance. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) reauthorizes the Section 317 grant program.

Your point is only valid at this point in time going forward, as the health care issue is only a few months old. This does not excuse responsibility for vaccinating over the last, what, 20 years of pseudo-science.

It's psuedoscience that fuels the justification for cutting funding.    When you got people getting sick and demanding a solution it's a easier to justify funding a massive public health movement. When your population is largely immune you now have the luxury to sit back and start questioning if you really NEED all this stuff.  And look here is all this information  to back us up!

I was reading a book about the Cholera epidemic in London and it was really fascinating because it delved into the social component of why it took so long to get it fixed.

The idea that good health is because you are a good moral religious upstanding hard working person goes back a long way.   Sickness was seen as a punishment for moral or societal failures on your part. 

People would see the poor suffering from Cholera and decided it was God's punishment for them being poor because it wasn't affect the elite.   This was before it was understood that germs spread disease.  The poor lived in ghettos with poor sanitation and close quarters which we now know is a ripe environment for illness to spread.

It wasn't until Cholera spread to the upper classes that solution was devised and our current plumbing/sewer system was invented.  

That's where we are currently headed in America.   People assume they are healthy not thanks to modern medicine, which we take for granted, but because they are such upstanding citizens.   Only poor lazy moochers need vaccinations to protect their health and why should we spend money on that?  If they would just pull themselves up they would be healthy like us.

The "vaccines cause autism" argument is pretty old too.  The disease/condition has changed over the hundreds of years since vaccines were invented but the argument has always been there with "evidence" to support it.   Human beings are programmed ot make correlations, it's actually pretty darn hard for us to look at evidence FIRST and then form an opinion.  

It really gained steam in the 1980s when a group of lawyers figured out they could make a shit load of money off of grieving parents wanting justice.   Then came in Andrew Wakefield, who was aid by the lawyers to create a study proving vaccinations cause autism so they could continue to sue.   All of a sudden now there was "scientific evidence" and we've been sliding down hill ever since.

It won't be until the situation hits critical mass that the pendulum will swing back in favor of vaccination..

[swamp]

Jun 28, 2017 9:44:11 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Jun 28, 2017 9:35:39 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

Your point is only valid at this point in time going forward, as the health care issue is only a few months old. This does not excuse responsibility for vaccinating over the last, what, 20 years of pseudo-science.

It's psuedoscience that fuels the justification for cutting funding.    When you got people getting sick and demanding a solution it's a easier to justify funding a massive public health movement. When your population is largely immune you now have the luxury to sit back and start questioning if you really NEED all this stuff.  And look here is all this information  to back us up!

I was reading a book about the Cholera epidemic in London and it was really fascinating because it delved into the social component of why it took so long to get it fixed.

The idea that good health is because you are a good moral religious upstanding hard working person goes back a long way.   Sickness was seen as a punishment for moral or societal failures on your part. 

People would see the poor suffering from Cholera and decided it was God's punishment for them being poor because it wasn't affect the elite.   This was before it was understood that germs spread disease.  The poor lived in ghettos with poor sanitation and close quarters which we now know is a ripe environment for illness to spread.

It wasn't until Cholera spread to the upper classes that solution was devised and our current plumbing/sewer system was invented.  

That's where we are currently headed in America.   People assume they are healthy not thanks to modern medicine, which we take for granted, but because they are such upstanding citizens.   Only poor lazy moochers need vaccinations to protect their health and why should we spend money on that?  If they would just pull themselves up they would be healthy like us.

The "vaccines cause autism" argument is pretty old too.  The disease/condition has changed over the hundreds of years since vaccines were invented but the argument has always been there with "evidence" to support it.   Human beings are programmed ot make correlations, it's actually pretty darn hard for us to look at evidence FIRST and then form an opinion.  

It really gained steam in the 1980s when a group of lawyers figured out they could make a shit load of money off of grieving parents wanting justice.   Then came in Andrew Wakefield, who was aid by the lawyers to create a study proving vaccinations cause autism so they could continue to sue.   All of a sudden now there was "scientific evidence" and we've been sliding down hill ever since.

It won't be until the situation hits critical mass that the pendulum will swing back in favor of vaccination..

sounds like the AIDS epidemic. 

we don't need to research it because only gay guys get it, and well, you know................

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 28, 2017 8:53:10 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

My grandmother said when you've seen first hand what those diseases do you don't walk you run to the doctor to get your kid vaccinated.  She said she can't begin to describe the relief she felt when the polio vaccination became available and she could get it for my dad.

Maybe that's the problem with the measles vaccine in particular: that A lot of people have seen the illness (generally after a child contracts it despite vaccination) and aren't particularly concerned by the symptoms.

Just a guess.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Jun 28, 2017 14:32:51 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jun 28, 2017 9:44:11 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

It's psuedoscience that fuels the justification for cutting funding.    When you got people getting sick and demanding a solution it's a easier to justify funding a massive public health movement. When your population is largely immune you now have the luxury to sit back and start questioning if you really NEED all this stuff.  And look here is all this information  to back us up!

I was reading a book about the Cholera epidemic in London and it was really fascinating because it delved into the social component of why it took so long to get it fixed.

The idea that good health is because you are a good moral religious upstanding hard working person goes back a long way.   Sickness was seen as a punishment for moral or societal failures on your part. 

People would see the poor suffering from Cholera and decided it was God's punishment for them being poor because it wasn't affect the elite.   This was before it was understood that germs spread disease.  The poor lived in ghettos with poor sanitation and close quarters which we now know is a ripe environment for illness to spread.

It wasn't until Cholera spread to the upper classes that solution was devised and our current plumbing/sewer system was invented.  

That's where we are currently headed in America.   People assume they are healthy not thanks to modern medicine, which we take for granted, but because they are such upstanding citizens.   Only poor lazy moochers need vaccinations to protect their health and why should we spend money on that?  If they would just pull themselves up they would be healthy like us.

The "vaccines cause autism" argument is pretty old too.  The disease/condition has changed over the hundreds of years since vaccines were invented but the argument has always been there with "evidence" to support it.   Human beings are programmed ot make correlations, it's actually pretty darn hard for us to look at evidence FIRST and then form an opinion.  

It really gained steam in the 1980s when a group of lawyers figured out they could make a shit load of money off of grieving parents wanting justice.   Then came in Andrew Wakefield, who was aid by the lawyers to create a study proving vaccinations cause autism so they could continue to sue.   All of a sudden now there was "scientific evidence" and we've been sliding down hill ever since.

It won't be until the situation hits critical mass that the pendulum will swing back in favor of vaccination..

sounds like the AIDS epidemic. 

we don't need to research it because only gay guys get it, and well, you know................

Yep.   Same thing different disease.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 28, 2017 9:44:11 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Sickness was seen as a punishment for moral or societal failures on your part.

It quite often is, in the sense that the predictable consequence of many unlawful acts (casual sex, refusal to quarantine, handling of human waste, open sewers, consumption of unclean foods, to name a few) is illness and disease.

[Malarky]

Unvaccinated illegal aliens contribute to the spread of diseases we once considered eradicated.  DD had a number of reactions that landed her in the ER even time she was vaccinated.  But we couldn't rely on herd immunity because of the number of cases of measles, whooping cough, tuberculosis etc, one town over in the illegal community.  

[swamp]

Jun 28, 2017 14:42:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 28, 2017 9:44:11 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Sickness was seen as a punishment for moral or societal failures on your part.

It quite often is, in the sense that the predictable consequence of many unlawful acts (casual sex, refusal to quarantine, handling of human waste, open sewers, consumption of unclean foods, to name a few) is illness and disease.

What does personal responsibility have to do with exposure to human waste, open sewers or contaminated food?

And you do realize that the innocent partners of those who engage in casual sex can be collateral damage?

[mmhmm]

Jun 28, 2017 14:36:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 28, 2017 8:53:10 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

My grandmother said when you've seen first hand what those diseases do you don't walk you run to the doctor to get your kid vaccinated.  She said she can't begin to describe the relief she felt when the polio vaccination became available and she could get it for my dad.

Maybe that's the problem with the measles vaccine in particular: that A lot of people have seen the illness (generally after a child contracts it despite vaccination) and aren't particularly concerned by the symptoms.

Just a guess.

The measles vaccine (MMR is 97% effective if two vaccinations are received and 93% effective if only one vaccination is received. It's less effective against mumps, with an 88% and 78% effectivity respectively. As this case pointed out, there hadn't been a case of measles in Maine since 1997 (I think that's the right year). It's doubtful, therefore, that "a lot of people" have seen the illness contracted despite vaccination.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 28, 2017 14:45:56 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jun 28, 2017 14:42:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It quite often is, in the sense that the predictable consequence of many unlawful acts (casual sex, refusal to quarantine, handling of human waste, open sewers, consumption of unclean foods, to name a few) is illness and disease.

What does personal responsibility have to do with exposure to human waste, open sewers or contaminated food?

And you do realize that the innocent partners of those who engage in casual sex can be collateral damage?

The statement put forth was "Sickness was seen as a punishment for moral or societal failures on your part."

Leaving waste in the open, sleeping with multiple partners, eating specific foods (e.g. monkey brains) or foods not properly prepared, etc. are transgressions against various moral codes, including statutes from the Bible and Torah. Ergo, such transgressions are moral failings per these codes. The predictable consequence of these failings is and has always been disease and illness. Hence my response.

This isn't to say people are always to blame for their own illness. Sometimes a family, a community, or even an entire society suffer collectively. For example, if the claims about vaccines being harmful really are lies (I have no position either way), our society is collectively suffering because of those lies. Ergo another moral failing leading to illness and disease.

The takeaway being that anywhere you see a lot of disease and sickness, a prudent first course of action is to look for moral failings at the level of the individual, the level of the community, and the level of the society.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 28, 2017 14:52:56 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jun 28, 2017 14:36:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Maybe that's the problem with the measles vaccine in particular: that A lot of people have seen the illness (generally after a child contracts it despite vaccination) and aren't particularly concerned by the symptoms.

Just a guess.

The measles vaccine (MMR is 97% effective if two vaccinations are received and 93% effective if only one vaccination is received. It's less effective against mumps, with an 88% and 78% effectivity respectively. As this case pointed out, there hadn't been a case of measles in Maine since 1997 (I think that's the right year). It's doubtful, therefore, that "a lot of people" have seen the illness contracted despite vaccination.

My sister got the mumps. Both of us contracted the chicken pox. I've confirmed we were both vaccinated right on schedule. But this was 30 years ago when the illness might have been more common and the vaccines weren't as effective.

[swamp]

Jun 28, 2017 15:02:24 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 28, 2017 14:45:56 GMT -5 swamp said:

What does personal responsibility have to do with exposure to human waste, open sewers or contaminated food?

And you do realize that the innocent partners of those who engage in casual sex can be collateral damage?

The statement put forth was "Sickness was seen as a punishment for moral or societal failures on your part."

Leaving waste in the open, sleeping with multiple partners, eating specific foods (e.g. monkey brains) or foods not properly prepared, etc. are transgressions against various moral codes, including statutes from the Bible and Torah. Ergo, such transgressions are moral failings per these codes. The predictable consequence of these failings is and has always been disease and illness. Hence my response.

This isn't to say people are always to blame for their own illness. Sometimes a family, a community, or even an entire society suffer collectively. For example, if the claims about vaccines being harmful really are lies (I have no position either way), our society is collectively suffering because of those lies. Ergo another moral failing leading to illness and disease.

You may want to think twice about the bible references, there.

The takeaway being that anywhere you see a lot of disease and sickness, a prudent first course of action is to look for moral failings at the level of the individual, the level of the community, and the level of the society.

I'm sure the cancer stricken kids at Love Canal are happy to hear about their moral failings.  

The amount of victim blaming in this statement is mind boggling.  Have you ever had food poisoning?  I have, and I can guarantee it wasn't a moral failing on my part, I ate something in a restaurant that apparently was not cooked properly.    Have you ever gotten, or heard of someone, getting an STD from an unfaithful partner?  I have.    Do you know of places that don't have adequate sewage treatment?  I do.  It has nothing to do with whether the residents are good people, it has everything to do with the local government not planning appropriately.  

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 28, 2017 15:09:44 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jun 28, 2017 15:02:24 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The statement put forth was "Sickness was seen as a punishment for moral or societal failures on your part."

Leaving waste in the open, sleeping with multiple partners, eating specific foods (e.g. monkey brains) or foods not properly prepared, etc. are transgressions against various moral codes, including statutes from the Bible and Torah. Ergo, such transgressions are moral failings per these codes. The predictable consequence of these failings is and has always been disease and illness. Hence my response.

This isn't to say people are always to blame for their own illness. Sometimes a family, a community, or even an entire society suffer collectively. For example, if the claims about vaccines being harmful really are lies (I have no position either way), our society is collectively suffering because of those lies. Ergo another moral failing leading to illness and disease.

You may want to think twice about the bible references, there.

The takeaway being that anywhere you see a lot of disease and sickness, a prudent first course of action is to look for moral failings at the level of the individual, the level of the community, and the level of the society.

I'm sure the cancer stricken kids at Love Canal are happy to hear about their moral failings.  

The amount of victim blaming in this statement is mind boggling.  Have you ever had food poisoning?  I have, and I can guarantee it wasn't a moral failing on my part, I ate something in a restaurant that apparently was not cooked properly.    Have you ever gotten, or heard of someone, getting an STD from an unfaithful partner?  I have.    Do you know of places that don't have adequate sewage treatment?  I do.  It has nothing to do with whether the residents are good people, it has everything to do with the local government not planning appropriately.  

All the examples you give are failings at the level of the organization, the family, the community, or the city. Impudent planning or failure to plan is also a moral failing, believe it or not.

You're twisting my argument into a straw man you can attack, but the principle isn't as objectionable as you want to make it.

[mmhmm]

Jun 28, 2017 15:05:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 28, 2017 14:52:56 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

The measles vaccine (MMR is 97% effective if two vaccinations are received and 93% effective if only one vaccination is received. It's less effective against mumps, with an 88% and 78% effectivity respectively. As this case pointed out, there hadn't been a case of measles in Maine since 1997 (I think that's the right year). It's doubtful, therefore, that "a lot of people" have seen the illness contracted despite vaccination.

My sister got the mumps. Both of us contracted the chicken pox. I've confirmed we were both vaccinated right on schedule. But this was 30 years ago when the illness might have been more common and the vaccines weren't as effective.

As I said, MMR vaccinations offer less protection against mumps than measles (which is what is being discussed here - measles, not mumps). It offers no protection against chicken pox. Vaccination against chicken pox wasn't available until 1995. Vaccines have, indeed, been improved over time.

[swamp]

Morality is a slippery slope. It's why AIDS wasn't initially addressed and it bloomed into an epidemic.

   

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 28, 2017 15:17:46 GMT -5 swamp said:

Morality is a slippery slope. It's why AIDS wasn't initially addressed and it bloomed into an epidemic.

What do you mean by "addressed"?

There's no cure for it, and (correct me if I'm wrong) none of the available treatments impact the likelihood of transmission. So what could have been done to prevent it from blooming into an epidemic?

I suppose they could have spent more time emphasizing that AIDS wasn't just limited to the homosexual community, but the proliferation was in the "free love" 1970's and 80's when nobody gave a toot what the authorities had to say about sex anyway.

[midjd]

There's no cure for it, and (correct me if I'm wrong) none of the available treatments impact the likelihood of transmission.

Here's your correction. There are medications that can reduce the risk of HIV transmission both before and after exposure (basically the HIV version of Plan B): 

www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/prep.html

[Virgil Showlion]

Jun 28, 2017 15:33:23 GMT -5 midjd said:

There's no cure for it, and (correct me if I'm wrong) none of the available treatments impact the likelihood of transmission.

Here's your correction. There are medications that can reduce the risk of HIV transmission both before and after exposure (basically the HIV version of Plan B): 

www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/prep.html

The world has gone completely mad.

It's bloody Russian roulette.

How is this not going to make the epidemic worse?

"Oh don't worry. If you use it consistently, it's like only having one bullet in the chamber each time we have sex."

This is what they've been spending their research budget on?

[midjd]

Doesn't seem to be making the epidemic worse so far... quite the opposite, actually:  

www.newscientist.com/article/2117426-massive-drop-in-london-hiv-rates-may-be-due-to-internet-drugs/

And I can think of at least 4 situations off the top of my head (mother-to-child transmission, first responders who come in contact with bodily fluids, unwitting spouse of a cheater, and rape victims) where the drug could be used to prevent transmission to someone who had no control over their own exposure... that doesn't seem like a waste of research funds to me.  

[Tiny]

Jun 28, 2017 14:42:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jun 28, 2017 9:44:11 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Sickness was seen as a punishment for moral or societal failures on your part.

It quite often is, in the sense that the predictable consequence of many unlawful acts (casual sex, refusal to quarantine, handling of human waste, open sewers, consumption of unclean foods, to name a few) is illness and disease.