Conference 7.286::digital

Well, how about this for starters:

1)  AIDS has no cure and is 100% fatal.

2)  In Africa, one in four babies are born infected with HIV.

3)  HIV affects people from all walks of life, no one is immune.


-Patrick

    I believe that it's part of Digital's responsibility to its own
    employees to provide a safe and healthful environment at work.  If that
    rubs off on other companies and gov't., then Digital has exceeded its
    own goals.
    
    Mark

    Answer the question.....why only AIDS? Is this also one of our
    core compentencies?

>>    Answer the question.....why only AIDS?

Because the company cannot contribute in a significant way to every need.  So
AIDS was selected.

    
    I, too, ask "why AIDS?".  Far more people die every day from heart
    disease than AIDS, and yet we champion something like this.
    I'd venture its more "glamorous" to "take the lead" on this issue
    than any other disease that may affect the human population.
    I have compassion for the folks with AIDS, but given the facts,
    PREVENTION with lifestyle changes can have the biggest worldwide
    impact in preventing this deadly disease.

    Digital no longer sponers/supports AIDS Walks.

    

    AIDS is the number 1 killer of people in the 18-35 age group in North
    America. Reason enough?

    Why are we a leader in AIDS awareness?
    
    Perhaps it's because for this effort, we have put in place an individual
    who, with limited resources, can represent Digital in such a way that it 
    is viewed as a leader in an area where there is no "core competency".  
    Maybe this person, team, whatever, could represent us well in "core 
    competency" areas too!

    No, I believe PEOPLE are the number one killer of people 18-35.
    re .1...you forgot aids is 100% preventable. Anyway...this is just a 
    jump on the PC bandwagon. Aids research and prevention is a very
    noble venture, however, I don't think all else should be forsaken.
    When the next "package" comes around should it be YOU, i'll assume
    you make a significant contribution to DEC, or the Digital Aids
    group funding?? 

    I think it's good to put effort into research into AIDS but it is also
    important to spend money in other areas of research too.  A lot
    scientific discoveries and inventions are the result of accidents while
    investigating something else.  Who knows, someone investigating some
    other disease may discover something relevant to AIDS.
    
    At the same time, I find it rather ironic that at the same time we are
    pushing Congress to spend more money on research, we are cutting back
    research and engineering - not necessarily a good thing for a
    technology company where new products are a must for continued growth:
    
    From the March 20, 1995 issue of Digital Today:
    
    "Digital to cut costs to meet financial model"
    
    ...
       He cites significant progress to date in the company's turnaround,
    including:
    
    ...
    o Significant cuts in research and engineering.
    
    
    								Michael
                                                          

    I read an article recently that referred to a Digital Rectal Probe, so
    it would appear that AIDS isn't the only medical issue we've got
    our finger on.
    

Re .5: 
>>    I, too, ask "why AIDS?".  Far more people die every day from heart
>>     disease than AIDS, and yet we champion something like this.
>>     I'd venture its more "glamorous" to "take the lead" on this issue
>>    than any other disease that may affect the human population.
>>    I have compassion for the folks with AIDS, but given the facts,
>>    PREVENTION with lifestyle changes can have the biggest worldwide
>>    impact in preventing this deadly disease.

.9:
>>    re .1...you forgot aids is 100% preventable. Anyway...this is just a
>>    jump on the PC bandwagon. Aids research and prevention is a very
>>    noble venture, however, I don't think all else should be forsaken.

Heart attacks are largely preventable with life-style changes (e.g. low 
fat, high fiber diet, regular exercise.)  Yet as you point out more people
die from heart attacks than from AIDS.  So in spite of themselves a lot 
of people are making bad choices.  People still have the desire/need for
food.  

People also have the desire/need for sex.  People are going to have sex.
To suggest that people only have monogamous sexual relationships is, perhaps,
a desireable goal but does not reflect reality.  Witness the high teenage
pregnancy rate in the US.  Casual sex is a reality and not likely to change
soon.

*That* is why there is a strong need for AIDS awareness and research  
    programs.  To make
people aware of the disease and ways of minimizing (or eliminating) the 
risk.  If one is over weight and is at a high risk of having a heart attack
they are not going to transfer the risk of having a heart attack to whomever
they have sex with.  However, an AIDS infected person can spread the disease
to hundreds of other people.  

Just my 2 cents,

Carl
     

    re:
>>    AIDS is the number 1 killer of people in the 18-35 age group in North
>>    America. Reason enough?
    
    I thought Automobile accidents were the number one killer in this age
    range in North America. 

re: .13

Not anymore.  Automobile deaths have been declining for the past several years.

Bob

         This is taking an ugly turn.
    
                                      Greg

    
    
    for the worse......

    Where, when and whether or not this company chooses to support certain
    research is the company's business, not our's. We can disagree with
    what it does and try to convince the people who make these decisions or
    their superiors that efforts would be better expended elsewhere. Beyond
    that, as long as the company is doing nothing illegal, we really can't
    do anything about it. I fully support the corporation's decision to
    support AIDS research. Whether it's PC or not, it's the right thing to
    do IMHO. If they choose to support research on other diseases and
    viruses, then that's fine also. If they don't, that's their business.
    
    We can agree and disagree. I don't happen to agree with the current
    lack of matching contributions policy. That is my right and so long as
    I don't libel the corporation or write scathing letters to local
    papers, then my disagreement is not an issue. A "keep it in the
    family" type of thing. I can try to find out who is responsible to
    change this and make attempts to politely influence them into
    reinstating the policy or changing other policies and try to give good
    solid reasons as to why, but I still have to abide by the decisions
    made by people who fully believe they have the best interests of the
    company in mind.
    
    So live with the company's decision to support this research or try to
    change the decision makers' minds, but don't go into a diatribe about
    how wrong it is and how it discriminates against other worthy causes to
    support this one. We all have only so many dollars to contribute to
    charity and we allhave to make decisions on which charities will get
    those dollars.
    
    Bright Blessings,
    
    PJ

Still, I'm led to ask - what exactly does DEC do in this sphere?  We could
support AIDS research by making a corporate contribution to some suitable AIDS
research organisation (i.e., we'd be outsourcing the AIDS research :-),
or we could be running our own little epidemiology research project,
for all I know.

There's no hint in the base note as to what our involvement really is,
and I for one don't know a whole lot about it.

    Then send E-mail to Paul Ross or his office and ask just what we do.
    I'm sure it's no big secret. Then if you support it fine and if you
    don't, then fine. Try to change it. 
    
    Bright Blessings,
    
    PJ

    Paul Ross educates...a group who finds they have an employee touched
    by this disease, the SLT in how to deal with the impact on the
    business as a whole, employees in general, the policy-makers in 
    Washington as well as other companies who look to Digital (ie Paul)
    because the lead we have taken in this work.
    
    Don't forget, Digital's work in this area began when we had a lot
    more money to spend on programs like this.  Also, the Digital
    population (at one time) was considered to be a microcosm of the
    general population.   
    
    There was, and as is evident by this string, still is, the need 
    for education.  Paul's "intervention/seminar/program/training"
    that he presents is invaluable and something every employee should
    experience.  It is something you will never forget...and hopefully,
    will leave you a little richer in understanding, compassion, and
    empathy.
    
    To my mind, Paul leads this effort and Digital gets the good press.
    Also, to my mind, he should continue this work because the benefits 
    far out-weigh the costs.
    
    Sue 
    

    I figure Digital is smart if they are supporting AIDS research and it 
    gets us more business.  I figure what's probably happening is that there 
    are research organizations with money for doing AIDS research.  They are 
    probably sensitive about who they choose to spend their money with.  If 
    they are looking to spend their money on a company that promotes AIDS 
    research, then I hope Digital's involvement will pay off.
    
    Similarly, if we start to see a lot of our customers suddenly funded to
    do heavy research on genomes, breast cancer or cow flatulence I expect
    Digital to grab the bull by the tail, as it were.
    
    Steve

    .21 and .22 are both correct. A few years ago, when Paul's program
    office was first started up, he came to our facility and talked about
    AIDS and used the latest and best research. He brought along guest
    speakers who were living with HIV+. They were able to tell us just what
    it was like to deal with this from a first hand experience. I was
    extremely moved and very impressed that the company, through Paul would
    go to such lengths to eduacate us on this killer virus. Paul and his
    organization are to be commended for the job they continue to do in the
    face of continuing adversity from people who choose not to understand
    or make up their own mind without benefit of all the facts.
    
    The company is doing what any good corporate citizen or private
    individual should do. It's obvious our tax dollars (in the US anyway)
    aren't enough at the moment. They do have to be spent on so many
    things. Some necessary and some not. The private sector must do more
    where it can and if that translates to some business further down the
    road, then great.
    
    Bright Blessings,
    
    PJ

    re .18
    >where, when and whether or not this company chooses to support certain
    >research is the company's business and not our's.
    
    really? and what about the opinions of the stockholders? 

    re .18
    You ARE the company.Or has Digital taken the final step in employee
    alienation?
    I happen to disagree with the AIDS program-looks like a bit of
    political correctness.Why not start with something which *arguably*
    affects more people-like road safety.And why the signficance of the
    18-35 age group?Did you know that 99% of hedgehogs that cross highways
    get killed?Using 'statistics', we should be pouring money into this and
    not AIDS.Or more seriously,cancer or disabled kids?
    

    If you have to ask why Digital is active in the AIDS awareness arena,
    then you yourself are the answer to your own question.
    
    It may not be killing as many people has heart disease now, but in about 
    five years it will be.  Political correctness has nothing to do with
    fighting ignorance.  If you argue that it's a lifestyle choice, then
    awareness and education are the answer.  I don't find this difficult to
    understand at all.  It's just common sense.
    
    tim
    

    Here's another statistic.  It's not only the biggest killer in the
    18-35 group but also in the 25-44 yr old age group and I'll bet you 
    that the majority of Digital employees fall into that particular range.
    
    As an aside, I want to say that with some of the attitudes expressed
    here, I'm glad I'm not related to some of these noters and find myself
    HIV+.  Too many people die alone and alienated from their families and
    loved ones because of attitudes similar to those expressed here.  Would
    you do that to someone you loved?  Drive them away to face death alone?
    
    I've seen it.
    
    It's caused by judgmental behavior and closed-mindedess, instead of 
    loving someone when they need you most.   To a lesser extent, it is 
    this kind of support and at least some level of understanding for 
    someone in need, a fellow employee, that Digital is trying to foster 
    with this work.
    
    Sue

    My reaction to seeing the announcement about Corporate support for AIDS
    education was tinged by knowing that a co-worker was terminated upon
    return from Short Term Disability due to a different type of health
    problem.  I wonder if the Corporation would be so callous toward an AIDS
    sufferer who was able to return to the workplace during a remission of
    symptoms.  The announcement struck me as a public display of
    benevolence while a private action of callousness was playing out.  The
    old DEC was compassionate toward _all_.

    /dlw

    
    
>The old DEC was compassionate toward _all_.
    
    I really don't think so.  It might have done a better job of hiding it,
    but in my 18 years of experience, 16 of it as an employee, the image of
    DEC as a benevolent, family-oriented business in the past was and is a myth. 
    It was never really like that.  Employees aren't as naive now, that's
    all.
    
>The announcement struck me as a public display of
>    benevolence while a private action of callousness was playing out.  
    
    That's the DEC I've always known.
    
    tim

	Maybe this is a storm in a glass of water. But it sure sounds
	irrational to me to charge ahead to solve a non DEC specific
	problem when we do not even have our own house in order.

        Spend the money and energy on treating our TFSO candidates better
        instead. I bet more former and current DEC employees have died
        from stress induced by TFSO or the threat of it than from AIDS.

	>Per

    I would like to know where all these statistics are coming from. Are
    they government stats? Or, are they stats from some AIDS organization
    that may skew the numbers. 

re: .28

The corporation is terminating so many people when they return from short-term
disability that it appears to be an unofficial policy regardless of the nature
of the disability.

Bob

I guess some kinds of STD are more equal than others.

    Sometimes a bit of historical context is important to 
    illuminate an issue.
    
    When the company and Paul Ross both took a very courageous stand in
    1988 to establish the Aids program office at Digital, the face
    of Aids in industry and society in general was very different from
    today.
    
    Aids was not talked about in polite company, people did not feel 
    they could tell employers, family members or friends about their
    health status for fear of discrimination, losing jobs, housing, etc.
    There were very few programs available to help people manage through
    the illness, which is tremedously costly in terms of medical
    treatment and overall case management.
    
    The disease is also costly to employers in terms of absences, lost
    productivity and ER issues if the issue is not handled well by well
    informed people.  It was found that effective case management could
    greatly reduce the cost of medical care and other support services and
    disability costs for employers.
    
    Unlike heart disease, cancer, muscular dystrophy or other
    maladies,there was no national organization supporting research,
    patient care, societal education or support for Aids.  Our country's
    presidentat the time would not even mention the word Aids, and other
    uninformed leaders were calling for isolation or quarantine.  
    In addition, unlike other diseases that have a relatively 
    constant occurance rate in the population, the rate of Aids
    infections was exploding.  The only real prevention for Aids
    is education, and our government was doing little at the time
    in education and prevention. 
    
    Rather than doing something POLITICALLY CORRECT, I think the company
    and Paul did something that was right for the company and its employees
    at a time when it was not popular, demanded, or comfortable.  I think
    our work in this arena was and is something we can all be proud of and
    we should be grateful to the company for its stand on this issue.  
    
    Now that we are better informed about the disease, we know that all of 
    our friends and family may potentially be impacted, either directly or 
    through the impact of losing people we live with, work with, work
    for or care about.  I think if you were able to check with the
    people at Digital who have been impacted by Aids and who have been
    helped by the work Paul does, you would have a whole new understanding
    and level of support for the Aids program office, the work that it does
    and how it helps us as a company.
    
    I hope this note is helpful. 
                            

    There are individuals, both within this company and in our society in
    general, that will always be blinded by their own self-induced or
    religious-induced ignorance. I've learned that they are a lost cause,
    and for the most part, will never listen to reason. (I live in
    Colorado).
    
    Fortunately, there are also individuals that 
    are careing and compassionate and willing to try to educate those not
    in the know, but willing to learn. I have nothing but respect for those
    individuals. 
    
    deadhead

    The following entry has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::MODERATOR, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

				Steve






    God help all who will not, cannot understand this killer virus; those
    who believe they 'know it all,' those who remain uninformed and
    passive, sit around and complain that "our" company isn't doing what
    they "should" be doing!  I hope to GOD your family stays safe  from
    this disease.  Because, if it ever happens to someone  you love,
    yourself, you will be spouting a different tune,  believe me.  
    
    I've known Paul Ross for years; he's a wonderful, caring, compassionate
    man.  I thank Digital for giving us a person such as Paul to manage the
    Program Office.  
    
    Chill out and learn, learn, learn.  Trust me, you will know someone who
    is living with AIDS one day, if not today then tomorrow.  A
    devastating, frightening disease, yes.    However, remaining
    unenlightened, passive and unwilling  to learn is even more
    frightening.
    
    There continues to be people who believe that this is a gay disease;
    face up to it you people.  It takes only ONCE, one time, one
    unprotected encounter with the wrong person and  you got it.  This
    virus does not pick and choose the people it infects.  It knows no
    mercy.   Doesn't matter what your life choice is, gay,
    heterosexual...it DOESN'T care.
    
    We _need_ awareness such as the Program Office has to offer. Otherwise,
    I'd be able to enter this note without asking for my note to remain
    anonymous.  Stigma you say?  Discrimination, you say?  You're damn
    right.  Why?  Because people remain  uninformed, close-minded and sit
    in judgement. !

    I too have known Paul for a very long time...He's a wonderful person!
    Thanks for writing this compassionate note.
    

    I've wondered.
    
    Way doesn't DIGITAL allow it's employees to give some
    of their vacation time to someone suffering with AIDS
    or any other tolling diease?

I don't understand the person that said AIDS was 100% preventable.  Hopefully
you don't receive a tainted transfusion, get raped, or have a spouse who is
cheating on you behind your back.  But i guess that's a discussion for
SOAPBOX, huh?  At any rate, i suspect the money Digital spends on this is
pretty miniscule, and it both addresses a real workplace health concern and
garners some good publicity for us.  Any one of our "supply chain" problems
probably costs this company far more.  Why not fix something that's broken
before we go around breaking any more things that work?

- paul

    
    
    So, what is it, 90% preventable, 95% preventable?  Truth is, if
    behaviour was modified, the disease would go by the wayside unless it
    mutates into something that can be transmitted through another medium.
    
    As far as the anonymous note goes, you chastize people, judge people
    you do not know and preach, but you are unwilling to sign your name. 
    That puzzles me.  It seems to me that you are doing the same thing you
    accuse others of.
    
    And FYI, yes I know some people who are infected with the disease.  I
    do feel for these people, I wouldn't wish this suffering on anybody.  
    
    
    Mike
      

    
>    So, what is it, 90% preventable, 95% preventable?  Truth is, if
>    behaviour was modified, the disease would go by the wayside unless it
>    mutates into something that can be transmitted through another medium.
    
    Well, bad news, companero~.  The virus mutates constantly.  Current
    research tends to indicate it originally leapt to humans via
    poorly-prepared vaccines made from monkey products and distributed in
    Africa.  Resourceful little son-of-a-b*tch, isn't it?  And, as a virus,
    it's almost impossible to kill the bugger without whacking the host at
    the same time.
    
    And behaviour modification *would* eradicate it entirely, as well as
    broken arms, syphilis, poison ivy rashes, etc.  Historically speaking,
    we've made a lot of progress in most of these areas through education.
    Also, historically speaking, we haven't eradicated a single disease I'm
    aware of solely by this, and it's little comfort to the dying.
    
    Saddest case I knew of was a guy that got a transplant and (whoops!) it
    was HIV+.  Guess his behaviour modification would be to have rolled
    over and died first, 'eh?  And those damn hemophiliacs!  Plus the ER
    personnel could get *real* jobs and lower their risk, huh? :^]
    
    Heads out of the sand, kids, we've got the new epidemic (heading
    towards pandemic) here and sayin' "shoulda" is like whizzin' in the
    ocean.  You may feel better, but y'all ain't changin' the water level
    one bit.
    
    							Tex

>3)  HIV affects people from all walks of life, no one is immune.

Unless they have misinformed me, I have a near ZERO percent chance
of becoming infected.  Either (a) HIV is not highly communicable
except for "high risk behaviors" and therefore poses a near ZERO risk
to me (read can plot space travel with the odds of me contracting it)
or (b) it is more communicable than we've been told in which case we
need to talk about preventative measures.  

Option (c) anyone?

Mark

    RE:Truth is, if behaviour was modified, the disease would go by the 
    wayside unless it mutates into something that can be transmitted through 
    another medium.
    
    
    better check the "truth" a little closer
    
    and "truth is" You nor anyone else can modify the worlds behaviour
    except through education....

>>    So, what is it, 90% preventable, 95% preventable?  Truth is, if
>>    behaviour was modified, the disease would go by the wayside unless it
>>    mutates into something that can be transmitted through another medium.

What do you think the purpose of the HIV/AIDS program office is?  According to
the info on VTX, one component (indeed, the first one listed) is education. 
Any responsible HIV/AIDS education effort emphasizes modification of behavior. 
Isn't that the point?

And if the disease went by the wayside partly as the result of education
efforts supported by Digital and other companies, wouldn't that be worthwhile?

						Brian

Near zero is not zero.  Risk factors do not equate to immunity.  No one is
immune.  Not you, not I, not anyone.

For now, you're lucky enough to be in a low risk group.  So am I.  As the
transplant example shows, we may not always be.

Where is that compassion that DEC was supposed to be so famous for?   Where
does that begin?

tim

>    The only real prevention for Aids
>    is education, and our government was doing little at the time
>    in education and prevention. 

How will "education" *prevent* AIDS?  "Education" doesn't *prevent*
teen pregnancies.

Secondly, what judgments have been leveled in this note?  Is this
a presumption?  How are people uninformed and closed-minded?
Are these assertions valid, or are they rhetoric?

Preventing AIDS is proactive and not merely receiving information
such as it being the number 1 killer of a selected category.
Of the newly infected persons, how many were uninformed
and how many knew the risks but went ahead and took the risks
anyway, either choosing to ignore their education or disbelieving
it altogether.

Digital fund AIDS?  What do I care.  May as well as not.  Government
funding?  I'd like to see proportionate funding for other killer 
diseases.  I read recently that breast cancer kills 14% more women
than prostate cancer kills men, yet breast cancer received 660% more
funding than prostate cancer.  Men and women have roughly equal
population distribution so these percentages seem to indicate that 
something is askew.

Fund AIDS research?  You betcha.  Compassion for the victims?  Most
certainly.  Accord it more funding than things that kill more?  WHY?
Why should disproportionate funding be applied to ANY research?
("Because we want to" is a valid answer, but forcing others to 
want to isn't.)

Mark

>    and "truth is" You nor anyone else can modify the worlds behaviour
>    except through education....

...and the desire to change.

Incidences of teen pregnancy increased with a "safe sex" (condom)
message in high schools because a false sense of security was given
to kids and incidence of teen sexual activity was increased.
(Increased over no "education.")

Incidences of teen pregancy and activity decreased (not eliminated)
with the empowerment given to teens to say no (abstinence message)
and blunting the teeth of peer pressure.

"Education", yes but educate what and how?  And regardless of what is
taught, the desire to modify one's behavior must be there.

Mark

>> Unless they have misinformed me, I have a near ZERO percent chance
>> of becoming infected.

That is probably true, if you do not engage in certain high risk behaviors. 
You have control over many of these behaviors, but also don't get raped, don't
get a tainted blood transfusion, don't get stuck by an infected needle, and
make sure your spouse doesn't get infected.  Near zero is not zero.

You have zero chance of getting a birth defect (given that you've already been
born), but that doesn't mean that no research should be done to prevent them.
Ditto for cervical cancer and probably sickle cell anemia.  I suppose those
would have been better choices?  If so, why?

						Brian

>Near zero is not zero.  Risk factors do not equate to immunity.  No one is
>immune.  Not you, not I, not anyone.

I have a greater chance of being struck by lightning, but I don't live in
fear of getting hit by it, nor do I wear surge suppressors in my trousers
when it rains.

>For now, you're lucky enough to be in a low risk group.  So am I.  As the
>transplant example shows, we may not always be.

Transplant victims make up a minute portion of infected persons.
Tainted blood makes up a diminishing minute portion of the ability
to be infected through this means.

>Where is that compassion that DEC was supposed to be so famous for?   Where
>does that begin?

Where is compassion diminished by seeing things as they actually are
instead of showing characteristics similar to a person who is afraid of 
flying because some planes crash?  We know that flying is safer than
driving, statistically, and yet some people have no trouble driving
but will never set foot on a plane.  Same thing with HIV.  The near zero
odds is a VIRTUAL ZERO odds, unless what they've told us about transmission
is wrong, and I'd have a very difficult time with it if this fact was
intentionally kept from the public.  Wouldn't you?

Mark

>You have zero chance of getting a birth defect (given that you've already been
>born), but that doesn't mean that no research should be done to prevent them.
>Ditto for cervical cancer and probably sickle cell anemia.  I suppose those
>would have been better choices?  If so, why?

This is true.  It does not mean that no research should be done.
But what I have said was to fund things in proportion to their
impact on society.  This includes rate of infection and the
communicability of the disease (which would pose a greater threat
to society, for example).

When you look at sheer numbers, fund is disproportioantely high to
other killer diseases.  (Again, strict victims/funding ratios are
not proper ratios because of the other factors I mention, but just
what is an appropriate funding ratio?)  

I contend that hysteria is promoted to inflate funding.  Declaring
that my near zero risk is not zero risk seems to want to fuel the
fears of many people to get them to kick in some dough in case
the killer comes to their doorstep.  This isn't funding because it
should be funded but funding because I'm afraid I'm going to get it!
It's a tactic that works, unfortunately, and information is the enemy
of such a tactic.  As an enemy of the agenda, people are called 
close-minded and uncompassionate.  Certainly these people are unfeeling
and ignorant or they would be kicking in their dough.

Back to proportional funding.  Take out the hype and the politics and
let's look at the facts.  Getting HIV is very largely the result of
"high risk behaviors" and highly preventable through education and
behavior modification.  You can get HIV through other mechanisms 
and education shows that these other mechanism make up a diminishing
portion of new infections (as blood screening improves, for example).
Next, we look at communicability.  How infectuous is it (very) and
how communicable is it (not very).  We also look at the rate of victims
and the henious aspect of the disease (also a factor!) and place a value
on this.  Compare this to other diseases, their communicability, 
their infectousness, their henious qualities (I understand bone cancer
is an unparalleled pain, for example) and the numbers of people it 
affects and we can come up with some fair and equitable funding for
research on these diseases that affect our society.

Fairness is not often what people want, though.

Mark

>>Where is that compassion that DEC was supposed to be so famous for?   
    
    Good question.
    
    Same one I asked when DEC canned the matching gift program.
    
    Dave

Re: .49  

This isn't just about the present.  It's about the future.

If you take a look at the world around you, you'll note that although AIDS
does not yet kill more people than a few other illnesses, like heard
disease and cancer, the growth rate in AIDS cases and AIDS deaths will
inevitably exceed all other causes of death combined.

"Heart disease" is actually a collection of illnesses, as is cancer, while
AIDS is a single virus.  We've been battling cancer and heart disease for
decades.  AIDS was unheard of fifteen years ago, yet now it is in the top
three.  Think about what that kind of growth rate means.  It is readily
predictable that it is highly likely to become the worst plague in the
history of mankind.

That is a good enough reason to do something about it now.

tim

    
    
    Well put, Mark.  I couldn't have said it better.
    
    
    Mike

Re: .50

>I contend that hysteria is promoted to inflate funding. 

Incredible.  Just incredible.  Back that up with even a single shred of
hard evidence, or retract it.  Without concrete support for such a
statement, it stands as the single best example of why education of the
ignorant is so vitally important right now.  The rest of the note simply
follows suit.

Incidentally, the word is heinous.  Like your attitude.

tim

>    Well put, Mark.  I couldn't have said it better.

No doubt.

>This isn't just about the present.  It's about the future.

You'll note that in my reply about proportionate funding, I have addressed
the rate of change as a factor to be considered.  Still, (and there are
other killers besides "heart disease"; and there are numerous manifestations
of how AIDS kills its victim, too) has anyone looked a proportional 
funding in an objective and rational manner, devoid of hype, hysteria,
and skew?

>Think about what that kind of growth rate means. 

Double a penny and you've increased it by 100%.  I have heard that women
are the fastest growing population of HIV infected persons.  This is
how statistics can skew the picture.  Other categories may have reached
a saturation point where growth of 5% may actually be thirty times
more people than the 100% growth among category B.

Overall, what is the growth rate?  I heard it was leveling off (which
only means that the rate of infection is increasing only slightly higher
than the rate of death.  When the rate of infection is less than the
rate of death, you can call it a disease in remission.  AND THAT'S THE
TIME WE WILL NEED THE MOST COMPASSION!  Because even if the rate of
infection and the rate of death were equal, making it a zero growth disease,
people are still being infected and dying.  And research needs to be done!

Nevertheless, what about fair and proportionate funding based on an
objective formula?

Mark

>>I contend that hysteria is promoted to inflate funding. 
>
>Incredible.  Just incredible.  Back that up with even a single shred of
>hard evidence, or retract it.  Without concrete support for such a
>statement, it stands as the single best example of why education of the
>ignorant is so vitally important right now.  The rest of the note simply
>follows suit.

Shred #1.  My near zero risk contitutes a risk to be concerned about.
My near zero risk is far safer for me than me getting killed on a
plane trip.  Do you fly?  Why or why not?  It is unsubstantiated
hysteria.  The odds do not warrant my being concerned about being
100% immuned (with absolute 0 risk).

This is fact which is what should be the information of education.
The other is hype or worse, misinformation.

>Incidentally, the word is heinous.  Like your attitude.

Now you're getting personal.  Pardon my misspelling, but it has nothing 
to do with the issue.  And what attitude do you see being presented?

Mark

I have a problem with the argument that, because other diseases kill more
people, Digital should fund research for them and not AIDS.  People contribute
to various charities and causes because they consider them serious enough. 
AIDS is serious enough.  If you wish to lament the proportion of funding for
various medical research areas, that's your prerogative, but I don't think that
simple proportionality must be the guide for Digital charitable efforts.

I also have a problem with what appears to me to be an attitude that Digital
*shouldn't* fund AIDS work *unless* it can be shown to be the highest medical
priority.  It's a horrible disease, affecting many people, isn't that reason
enough?  If Digital were funding research on heart disease, or diabetes, or
ALS, or whatever, I wouldn't have a problem with that, even if more people were
killed by or suffered more with some other diseases.  However, I strongly doubt
that there would be an enormous hue and cry denouncing the choice.

						Brian

.58  Brian

>I have a problem with the argument that, because other diseases kill more
>people, Digital should fund research for them and not AIDS.

Digital should.  (I never said they shouldn't, btw.)

What about proportional government funding of research?

MM

    re: .52 
    
This isn't just about the present.  It's about the future.

If you take a look at the world around you, you'll note that although XXX
does not yet kill more people than AIDS, the growth rate in XXX deaths will
inevitably exceed all other causes of death combined.
    
    Substitute "Global warming", "Ozone depletion", "Pollution", and others
    for XXX (which have far more dire future consequences for _all_ life on 
    this planet), and justify to me why AIDS should be selected for special 
    attention. I agree with Mark, there needs to be a reasoned approach...
    
    Dave

    
    
    RE: .55  Too bad you aren't able to discuss this in a rational manner.  
    
    
    Mike

    Um, .40?  Obviously you didn't "hear" what I was trying to say.
    I am the last person who would chastize or judge anyone nor
    would I preach at them.  
    
    Unwilling to sign my name?  This puzzles you?  Has it ever
    occurred to you I might be trying to protect someone?  Protect
    _someone_, not myself?
    
    People were questioning the Program Office.  I was giving an example
    of why the Program Office is so important here at Digital.  That
    the more people who are informed, the less likely one would have
    to write a note anonymously, Mike.  Why should I let the public
    know who I am?  Who I am isn't important.  What I had to say was.
    
    If it is/was so important that you know who I am, then you could have
    sent mail to anon. 

    FIrst - get straight on facts.  Digital is not doing any significant
    funding of medical research on aids - though in the past we have made 
    some equipment grants.
    
    Digital is funding a program office to help educate its employees and
    its managers so that they will know how to prevent the spread of the
    disease and know how to manage the impact of the disease in the
    workplace and in other parts of their lives.  This was done to fill
    a vacuum.  There was no American Cancer Society, or AA, or
    American Heart Assoc.  to do this work for AIDS.  Because of the
    stigma, and discrimination, surrounding this disease, our government did
    not provide the research and support resources that it did around,
    say, legionnaires disease!!  Not until thousands had died and 
    millions were affected worldwide.  
    
    In addition, as a fairly large employer around the world and a good
    citizen, we as a company do what we can to further the progress that is
    being made to help end the spread of the disease and educate others
    about how to manage the medical and social impact.
    
    My final comment is that I think the dialogue in the notes has
    be pointless.  I have never found value in comparing pain - 
    who is worse off, which disease is more painful, needs more
    funding.  I have found it more helpful to look at discrete
    human problems, try to understand them and try to find 
    appropriate solutions and show compassion.  Needless to say, 
    we are not learning this approach in this conference, in the 
    current congress, or many places these days.  How do you compare pain?
    Is a woman dying of breast cancer in more or less pain than one dying
    of Aids?  Is one more or less responsible for her illness?

	I believe your risk of getting AIDS or one of it's related diseases is 
much much higher than 0% and is growing daily.  Resistant TB is airborne, the 
flue is airborne, pneumonia can be airborne.  Any number of people you come into
contact either volunarily or involuntarily may have the disease and your risk is
proportional to their responsibility.  I assume you don't believe ALL people are
responsible.  And, as was said in an earlier note, this thing mutates often.

	There are a lot of things that we need to work on as was stated in <.60.
I also agree that there needs to be a reasoned approach to spread the funding
around.  But AIDS is serious, new, growing fast and is costly to treat.  It is
NOT a statistically driven scare tactic to get money.  Education and behavior
modification CAN NOT ERRADICATE this disease or any disease.  Even with
effective vaccines and education Polio, Mumps and syphilis never were
erradicated.  I am happy that DIGITAL is helping with the effort to fight this
disease and I feel it is worth the effort.

Jim

Re .64

Jim,

I wish I'd said that.  Viruses and bacteria are rapidly becoming our number
1 concern.  (Go see Outbreak; it's "Hollywoodized" but contains much to 
scare us if the magazine and newspaper articles I've been reading are 
accurate.)

I'm amazed at how rapidly this thread has grown.  People who think this is
only an STD are really out of date.  Blood transfusions are safer now that
the blood is heat-treated, but with mutations of the virus, who knows?  The
one thing that really singles this virus out from the other diseases that
have been mentioned is that we can ALL get it from someone.  I can't get 
breast cancer or heart disease from someone else.  I'm glad Digital is 
involved.  I'm also glad I'm doing consulting for one of our Pharmaceutical 
Research customers that is doing AIDS research and treatment.

			SQ

| If you take a look at the world around you, you'll note that although AIDS
| does not yet kill more people than a few other illnesses, like heard
| disease and cancer, the growth rate in AIDS cases and AIDS deaths will
| inevitably exceed all other causes of death combined.

That is pure speculation. A few years back they said that Africa would soon
be largely contaminated. Guess what .. it didn't happen. Instead the real
explosion is in Asia. Is that because someone went and educated the population
of Africa? Hardly. At the same time it was said that pretty soon Frisco would
be mostly contaminated. Didn't happen either, albeit the numbers are very
high. Last I heard it had even stabilized (thanks to education).

| "Heart disease" is actually a collection of illnesses, as is cancer, while
| AIDS is a single virus.  We've been battling cancer and heart disease for
|  decades.  AIDS was unheard of fifteen years ago, yet now it is in the top
| three.  Think about what that kind of growth rate means.  It is readily
| predictable that it is highly likely to become the worst plague in the
| history of mankind.

I thought the latest thoughts were that AIDS and HIV are two different, but
related, things. The former being the symptoms and the latter a family of
viruses often leading to AIDS. Perhaps I misunderstood that part?

Even though AIDS was unheard of 15 years ago, it may have existed 10,000 years
for all that we know and that, perhaps, it is entering its 1,000 year cycle
of bloom. Predicting a growth rate from available data is risky at best. Its
almost like the ozone holes, depleation of our oil reserves and global warming.

>Per

Re: .57 (METCALFE)

>Shred #1.  My near zero risk contitutes a risk to be concerned about.
>My near zero risk is far safer for me than me getting killed on a
>plane trip.  Do you fly?  Why or why not?  It is unsubstantiated
>hysteria.  The odds do not warrant my being concerned about being
>100% immuned (with absolute 0 risk).

I said hard evidence, not simplistic conjecture like this.  Name some
individual, organization, or entity that has been proven by anyone, anwhere
to be using hysteria to promote inflated funding. That's what you said, so
prove it, or retract it.  This isn't proof.  It's just more hot air.

Re: .60 (LENNIG)

Global warming?  Ozone depletion?  Are you kidding?

Re: .61

>Too bad you aren't able to discuss this in a rational manner.

I assure you I am quite rational, and quite insensed by the dangerously
ignorant attitudes expressed about this horrible disease.  Yes, I'm
emotional about it, but I'd rather be emotional than just plain ignorant.

Re: .66

First:

>That is pure speculation.

Followed shortly thereafter by:

>Even though AIDS was unheard of 15 years ago, it may have existed 10,000
>years for all that we know and that, perhaps, it is entering its 1,000
>year cycle of bloom. 

Right.  Who's speculating?

>Predicting a growth rate from available data is risky at best.

Go look up the numbers.  Reported cases, and deaths due to AIDS are rising
geometrically.  These predictions aren't anywhere near as risky as ignoring
them is.  It's not just PC, it's a real threat.

>Its almost like the ozone holes, depleation of our oil reserves and global
>warming.

You're joking, right?  Drawing a corelation between hard numbers about the
spread of AIDS, and theoretical environmental issues like these is
dangerously misleading.  It goes beyond simple ignorance to actual
misinformation...and that's dangerous.

tim

    I'm really ambivalent about the whole Digital-funding issue, since both
    sides have points.  However...
    
    Your risk is *not* zero, even if you're a celibate hindu monk.  If
    you're mugged by a junkie, bitten by a child, work with blood
    products, handle trash (yep, even your own, unless you never have
    guests), ever receive blood, would help your neighbor if he got hurt,
    ad infinitum, then you're at risk.  Sure, it's small compared to being
    a heroin-addicted male gay hemophiliac porn star, but it's there.
    
    Ever do something like push the trash down in a public restroom to make
    more room?  Y'all know where used needles go?  Harmless little act of
    public neatness or increasing your risk?
    
    Your child get a boo-boo and you kiss/lick the wound?  Where's Johnnie
    been lately?  Experimenting with drugs or sex, possibly? (God knows, *I*
    never did!)  Entering a blood pact with the kid down the street (that's
    probably a Southern thing, but there's probably a Yankee version).
    
    C'mon, even paranoids have real enemies!  How 'bout that sweet little
    girl in Florida that contracted it from her dentist?  She *also* had a
    "zero" risk factor, a fact which didn't escape her family at the
    funeral.  Knowing she wasn't at risk, would her fiance/husband insist
    on protected sex?  Anyone in your family ever have dental work?  An
    operation?
    
    NO ONE HAS A ZERO RISK FACTOR.  This thing is here to stay for a long
    time and it ain't goin' away for a long time.  They say 80% of the
    population now has the herpes simplex virus in one form or another (one
    of the AIDS viruses li'l cousins, I believe).  The big diff here is
    that AIDS patients live with it a lot shorter time.
    
    I lost four bucks gambling in the Bahamas in '84 and won it back
    gambling in Puerto Rico in '90.  That makes me even and my days of
    bettin' on the percentages are over.  They're stacked in favor of the
    house.
    
    								Tex
    
    (And my sympathies to all my fellow Digits who are HIV+ or have lost a
    loved one or friend.  It's a lot easier to deal with it all in
    statistics and slogans than close up, I'm afraid.)

It may not be relevant to .0, but recently, tissue samples taken from a British
sailor during an autopsy were analyzed using a relatively new technique and
were found to contain the virus (HIV) believed to cause aids.  The patient in
question died from pneumonia-like symptoms, stemming from an illness that did
not respond to antibiotics, or a host of other therapies and confounded leading
physicians of the day.  The pathologist performing the autopsy had the fore-
sight to preserve unusually large quantities of tissue and organ samples making
these test possible.  As one may have suspected by now, this sailor died many
years ago... 1959, in Great Britan.  An extensive investigation yielded no 
clues as to how the patient might have contracted the disease.  However, review 
of still older unsolved cases has resulted in many experts contending that the
virus has existed for 100 years or more, and the conspiracy theory is all but 
dead.  

Regarding funding, give to the charity of your choice, take your tax deduction
and any other benefit you can glean.

Regarding proportional funding, last count was more people working in cancer
research than people with cancer. (I am aware stats can support any argument.)
This is fine, if I am hospitalized for any reason, (save mental disfunctions) 
I would not want 1/2 a doctor or less treating me, but rather a team, perhaps
one of the most brilliant will be among them. ;^)  

I think the more important question regarding research is; should we attempt to
coordinate  efforts to get the most bang for the buck?  How many labs in this 
country are duplicating efforts and keeping results confidential in hope of 
being the first to find the cure?  I know there are joint vetures among many 
pharmaceutical firms, but this is not enough to offset the cost of duplicating
research 10, 20 or 30 times over.  I would like Digital to support a more cost 
effective system that would better orchestrate efforts that are funded by public
money, including that which is funded through tax deductions.  Perhaps this 
would spur some sort of cooperative in the private sector, which might pay 
untold dividends in lower costs for countless medical products and drugs.

Soapbox comments and tangents:

Regarding education, the AMA is a closed shop union with tremendous influence.
In the past things such as alternative medicine, have been rejected out of hand
by the majority of medical professionals.  Only recently have some of the more
controversial theories and therapies been considered.

Stats from 3-4 years back if memory servs; 1 in 300 persons passing the boards
are accepted to medical school, 1 in 30 if parent is medical proffessional.
If the above stats seem off the wall consider this:

	number of doctors in U.S.	501,200	  (21.4 per 10,000 persons)

Source: 1995 World Atlas 
	
If this is supply and demand then I am a monkey's uncle!  Imagine an epidemic
striking this country, there would be fewer than 2 doctors to administer to 
1,000 people.  Although it is unlikely that all 1,000 would suffer the disease
at once, many would still incurr the normal serious health problems. In addition
a percentage of the doctors would become too ill to "practice".  This would be
a disaster, since it is already difficlut to get an appoinment with a physican
or worse, a specialist.  Hospital staff and interns already complain of over-
work, as do private physicians.  However, I believe the "shortage" is more by
design than market forces or happenstance, and serves to keep the cost of dying
higher than the cost of living.

When I consider these and other factors, (insurance,pharmaceuticals,etc)
I think serious consideration should be given to how "we" spend every dollar
in the field of medicine, and supporting or not supporting "aids research"
will have only a marginal effect on the lives of the average american in the
next century.  Imo, there are many more immediate problems that will crush us
first.

In case it has some signifcance, I consider myself to be at minimal risk for
contracting hiv.

...my two cents turned into two bucks! ...but with the declining dollar...?


steve

    This part bugs me ALOT:

    >Predicting a growth rate from available data is risky at best.

    Go look up the numbers.  Reported cases, and deaths due to AIDS are
    rising geometrically.  These predictions aren't anywhere near as risky as
    ignoring them is.  It's not just PC, it's a real threat.
    
    ---

    There is no way you can extrapolate the past numbers to predict (with
    ANY accuracy) the future.  It is at best a guess, and at worst,
    something to scare people with.  (If you don't believe me, why don't
    all the stock market technical guru's get it right?  They use the
    numbers to predict highs/lows/levels of resistance/levels of support
    and all that other gobbldy-gook. [Not intentionally tying this topic
    into the 'why is our stock rising' note 8-)])

    I'm sure if you drew the curve big enough, EVERYONE in the the ENTIRE
    world will become infected.

    If I can put on my cool clairvoyant hat with the stars and planets on
    it, my guess is the base note author is wondering why Digital chose
    AIDS to donate its money to?  Why not the eleventy billion other
    worthwhile causes in the world?  Sure, it's killing people everyday,
    but what makes it so special as compared to cancer,heart disease or any
    of those others?

    Is it because the AIDS lobby is the loudest?  Sure seems like it to me,
    I hardly ever hear of any of the other groups.  The prevailing attitude
    seems to be "If you don't agree with us that AIDS is going to kill us
    all, and we need more money to fight it, then you are a inconsiderate,
    uncompassionate ignoramus who needs to be educated."  Well, if that's
    the attitude of the people who want my money, they can go pound sand,
    I'll donate to someone else, thank you very much.  Someone who won't
    insult me or make judgments on my education about the topic if I
    choose not to participate.
    ---
    There sure is a lot of judging going on here.  And, if I may be so
    bold, it all seems to be coming from the side that wants more money.  I
    have not read any personal attacks by anyone who is questioning
    the funding, but there have been unprovoked insults from the other
    side.

There was some good news on this morning's BBC Radio 4 broadcast.

A doctor in San Francisco has found that a baby born with the Aids virus has
made a complete recovery ( no sign of the virus or any symptom ) - she was
cautious but very enthusiastic.

Maybe there is hope for us all, given time, evolution, and God on our side.

I, for one, agree with Digital's contributions to all causes - we need to
show, by example, that the world needs to be more sharing and caring!  

    As it often goes, few people remembered the question. Of those that
    did, especially .34 put my mind at ease: Someone interpreted his job
    responsibilities to include addressing a problem that impacted Digital in
    various ways. Add a healthy sense of social reponsibility (supported
    by Digital) plus a successfully executed program and here we are. I agree
    with some noters that we should be very proud of this.
    
    I still suggest that we review our (Digital's) responsibilities here,
    in the light of what was accomplished and our continued responsibilities
    towards stockholders, employees and society. 
    
    Al
     
    
     

	What bothers me most about this thread, besides the psuedo-scientific
	AIDS pro/con babble, is the basic assumtion that AIDS is the *only*
	humanitarian cause to which Digital is contributing. It is not.
	Please also note that direct monitary contribution is only one
	of many vehicles at Digital's disposal in this area. As an example,
	I offer the project on which I am currently working. With the
	assistance of Digital, Joslin Diabetes Center is attempting to
	address the problem of blindness due to diabetes, which is the
	leading cause of blindness in working age Americans (and all
	indications are that it is more pervasive worldwide). Digital's
	help on this project has taken the form of matching contributions
	for the Digital hardware being used to obtain and view stereoscopic
	images of the retina. Currently we have over 30 Alpha workstations,
	a server with over 700GB of optical storage, and an FDDI network
	all obtained with this assistance.

	So those of you like the idea of Digital helping in the fight
	against AIDS should be happy that we have launched such a
	high-visibility campaign. For those of don't, be satisfied that
	Digital is also involved in many other humanitarian and
	scientific efforts.

	And those who think we shouldn't do such things while still
	"in trouble", GET REAL! (hard for me to be objective here ;-)

	_kelley Gardner
	Senior Technology Consultant
	Joslin Vision Network

    
    RE: .63 (I think)  Mr/Ms Anon,
    
    That's fine that you have reasons that you want to be anon.  I guess my
    problem was that you came out with a somewhat scathing note which was
    judgemental to some of the noters.  That's what bothered me. 
    
    RE: .67 So now it's ignorant.  You fly off the handle and you do not
    say why.  You claim people are espousing ignorance, but you don't say
    what part of what they are saying is ignorant.......
    
    
    RE: The topic-I think DEC should have an involvement in the community
    and with things such as AIDS.  What I would like to see however, is all
    the major diseases treated equally.  People are compassionate about
    this disease because it's hit close to home.  I said that, although I
    do know a few people who have AIDS, cancer has hit people I know more
    often, the most recent was a 10 year old boy that was the son of
    friends of ours.  Are we involved in helping out cancer patients as
    well?  
    
    I will bow out of this discussion now.  I don't believe that it
    will accomplish much of anything.  You can lable me incompassionate if
    you like, you really know nothing about me.  I don't understand why
    this cannot be discussed rationally, people don't agree on everything. 
    Just because someone doesn;t agree with you (generic)  on a subject does 
    not automatically make them or their views ignorant, just not the same as
    yours.  Perhaps you (generic) could learn something as well if you left
    the name calling at home and tried to see where the other person is
    coming from.
    
    
    Mike

    
    	Thank you, Kelly for .73 You and I are in complete agreement.
    
    	
    		the Greyhawk

    Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, not stupidity.  It is ignorant to
    believe that projections of the spread of this disease, based on hard
    numbers collected for over ten years, are only guesses, risky, and
    inaccurate.  That ignorance is dangerous, because it promotes
    complacency about the seriousness of the risk that is posed to the
    general population, and complacency is the one factor that best
    promotes the spread of the disease.  It's a simple matter of math.  I
    question why some would believe that the numbers don't matter if they
    believe they aren't effected...yet.
    
    It is also ignorant to believe that simply because AIDS hasn't yet
    surpassed all other categories of diseases that it doesn't warrant an
    extraordinary effort, when there is powerful evidence to indicate that
    the disease WILL surpass all others in mortality figures, very soon.
    
    Stupidity is the inability to recognize one's own ignorance and learn
    something new, such as knowing the difference between ignorance and
    stupidity.
    
    tim
    

    re: .71
    
    That story impresses me that we really don't know very much, but that
    we're willing to extrapolate alot.  Maybe it's good news, but there has
    to be more research.
    
    Here, a baby was born to an HIV-positive mother.  At birth, the baby
    was HIV-positive, now he is not.  Neither mom nor child exhibited signs
    of AIDS.
    
    Mark

.64  Jim Stacy

>
>       I believe your risk of getting AIDS or one of it's related diseases is
>much much higher than 0% and is growing daily.  Resistant TB is airborne, the
>flue is airborne, pneumonia can be airborne.  Any number of people you come in
>contact either volunarily or involuntarily may have the disease and your risk 
>proportional to their responsibility.  I assume you don't believe ALL people a
>responsible.  And, as was said in an earlier note, this thing mutates often.

    If the risk becomes that of a highly communicable disease, then we
    should take measures as we would any highly communcable disease,
    correct? If not, why not?


>Education and behavior modification CAN NOT ERRADICATE this disease or
>any disease.  Even with effective vaccines and education Polio, Mumps
>and syphilis never were erradicated.

    According to current data, behavior modification can significantly
    curtail the spread of this disease so that it takes on the
    sporadic nature of instances that polio now has.  Of course, this
    all flies out the window if you're right about HIV becoming
    airborne and highly communicable.  Which is it?

Mark

By the way, I think it is wrong to pump up hysteria about the virus
mutating, too.  We don't need a lot of people calling for quarantine
if the virus is in fact what they say it is: highly transmittable
but not easily transmitted.

Facts are often the enemy of special interest groups: all SIGs.

Mark

Tim (.67), I won't and I won't (to your satisfaction) but I did anyway.

>    NO ONE HAS A ZERO RISK FACTOR. 

You're absolutley correct, and someone hits the megabucks despite a
1 in 3 million odds against winning the jacpot.  But my chance of
contracting HIV (according to what they say about its communcability)
is even greater odds statistically than megabucks.  Like I said, 
I could plot space travel with it.

We live with odds taking every day.  There is a chance that you will
die in a fatal car accident on your way home from work today.  Anyone
worried about it?  If you are, what will you do to minimize the odds?
You'll drive more safely.

If you're worried about "stuffing the trash in a public restroom" you can
minimize your risk by not stuffing it, and thereby reduce your odds of 
becomingh infected by a hidden needle.

You can play these odds games until you become dysfunctional (like Howard
Hughes and germs) and reduce your odds from .0000000001 to .00000000001.
I choose to live life with my eyes open and accept the .0000000001 odds
(cooked up for illustration purposes) knowing that my odds of getting
hit by a truck leave me much more to be concerned with and yet I remained
unconcerned in my day to day life about trucks and me.

It also helps me to understand this when I am dealing with known HIV+ 
persons, that if the virus cannot be transmitted (unless I engage in 
some high risk behavior (Basketball???)), I can remain unconcerned in 
my day to day life about HIV+ persons and me.

So instead of seeing this information as hurting the information regarding
those who suffer from HIV and AIDS, I think one should see this as a means
to bring people together and understand the facts about their risks (or
lack thereof).  As for funding, I remain convinced that we should seek a
rational means to proportionally fund research for WHATEVER plagues our
society.

Mark

.79 Mark Metcalfe

>    If the risk becomes that of a highly communicable disease, then we
>    should take measures as we would any highly communcable disease,
>    correct? If not, why not?


	AIDS is highly communicable and what I said in >.64 was that some of the
host of other diseases that give it it's name are even more communicable.  I
never meant to infer that HIV could become airborne, and do not think I did. But
then I don't know that much about biomolecular physics and epidemiology. 
However, some of the diseases that come to exist when there is a reduced
immunology in the host are airborne. TB is one that comes to mind.  Boston is
one of the few cities in the USA with a long term quarantine ward for this kind
of TB.  So I do agree with you that we need to fight each good fight as they
appear.



>    According to current data, behavior modification can significantly
>    curtail the spread of this disease so that it takes on the
>    sporadic nature of instances that polio now has.  


	WOW THAT IS GREAT!!  Where is this data??  The last I knew was that
education and behavior modification was decreasing the number of new infections,
and that some sort of vaccine would be required to reduce it's incidence to that
of polio. Where was AIDS ever prevelent and reduced to sporadic instances?  I am
serious, if you or anybody has this kind of data, then please produce it.


Jim

>>    According to current data, behavior modification can significantly
>>    curtail the spread of this disease so that it takes on the
>>    sporadic nature of instances that polio now has.  
>
>	WOW THAT IS GREAT!!  Where is this data??  The last I knew was that

The data is that the spread of HIV can happen through the passing of
bodily fluids, or transmission by blood (birth, transfusions, and needles).
The data suggests that it CANNOT be spread by casual contact.

Behavior modification probably means something different to you than 
it does to me.  Condoms provide only some measure to reduce the risks
for HIV being passed through sexual exposure.  I think they may even 
increase people's risk **BY** giving some people a false sense of 
security.  Condoms only reduce the risk of contraction of HIV from
no protection to some protection.  Full protection is the behavior
modification to monogamy between two HIV- persons.

Consider: HIV- plus HIV- means you DON'T NEED A CONDOM to prevent the spread
          of HIV.

          HIV+ plaus HIV+ means YOU DON'T NEED A CONDOM also.

          HIV+ plus HIV- is a dangerous combination.  And risks significantly
          escaltae.  A condom will significanlty reduce the odds of 
          infection, but are these ACCEPTABLE odds to you or someone who
          is considering sex?  These are odds, I'm unwilling to take.

Do you dispute any of this data about the risk of infection between HIV- couples,
HIV+ couples, or HIV+/HIV- couples?

Of course, sex isn't the only way.  Intravenous drug use is another significant
cause of transmission (sharing needles).

In both of these instances, behavior modification could wipe out a major
portion of new cases.  The standard objection is that we can't expect
people to modify their behavior.  Why not?  Certainly, we should inform
them with the known risks of their behaviors and then let them make the
intellegent choice to assume the risk or not (or should we be in the
business of telling people what to do?).

HIV is only highly communicable in certain circumstances.  In other 
circumstances, according to data we have today, it is not easily 
transmitted and near zero with casual contact.  If this changes, 
so does the need to deal with the virus.

Mark

To the point:

What is the non-zero risk of becoming infected in society?

We all agree that no one is immune (in absolute terms).

However, a .00000001 percent risk factor is a whole lot more acceptable
than .6 percent risk factor.  (sample numbers for illustration)

We accept risk every day of our lives.  My non-zero risk of becoming
infected with HIV (according to current data; that is, casual contact)
is so low that I could easily be devastated by a host of other maladies
before I would be at significant risk by infection.

In recognizing this, it REMOVES THE HYSTERIA surrounding this virus
and disease.  By removing the hysteria, one can function properly and make 
choices to further reduce the risks to ourselves, such as driving more
slowly, eating foods that are low in cholesterol, avoiding promiscuous
sexual encounters, using clean needles or no needles at all, and
living in an upscale neighborhood.  Granted, not everyone gets a fair
shake in life, but whatever roll of the dice we get, we bear some
responsibility in minimizing the risks to ourselves and safeguarding 
society.

Looking for a vaccine is all well and good, and I think that we should
do the research to quell this heinous killer, but prevention is far 
better than cure, and prevention (through education, especially of the
risks and consequences) is easily attained.  (Easier for some than 
others, and that requires our help as well.)

Blowing the actual risk factors out of proportion and saying that no one
is immune as if to imply that this virus is going to get each and every one
of us eventually is simply not true and it fuels hysteria and fear.  
Ultimately, it hinders the cause and research and does not help it.

Mark

    Forget going to see "Outbreak", I think a lot of you need to read the
    book it was based on called "THE HOT ZONE".  Can't remember who the
    author is.  It is a factual account of these types of viruses, where
    they came from (it some instances they never know), etc.  It will help
    clear up the mutation issue, etc.
    
    Please read it, I would love for someone to start a string once they
    do!
    
    (I'm staying out of this issue!)
    
    jw
    (A "read only" normally!!)

>    book it was based on called "THE HOT ZONE".  Can't remember who the

Post the publisher and author, or is this enough to find it at B&N and the
like?

MM

Hot Zone is discussed in note 1624 in the KOLFAX::BOOKS conference.

Dan

    RE:  -.1 
    
    Thanks!
    
    Richard Preston is the author.  Most people I know read it in one
    night!
    
    jw

>    Forget going to see "Outbreak", I think a lot of you need to read the
>    book it was based on called "THE HOT ZONE".  Can't remember who the
>    author is.  It is a factual account of these types of viruses, where
>    they came from (it some instances they never know), etc.  It will help
>    clear up the mutation issue, etc.

Went over to BOOKS to read the summary.  Some scary stuff listed there.

What are the risk factors to the general public?  How concerned should
I be, for example, to hop a commuter plane?  (See 1624 of KOLFAX::BOOKS).

Again, proportional funding should take into consideration deadliness
and dreadedness as a factor.  Another example: anti-venom research.
Snake A bites 2000 people a year usually resulting in severe health
risks and some deaths; Snake B bites 200 people per year and kills them
within minutes.  If the severe health can be treated (not the case in
the HOT ZONE), then it may be that anti-venom research on Snake B is 
more urgent.  But if Snake A is killing more people each year...

In a lovely world, there would be money to spend on all research.
I agree with .69 about the coordinating of efforts instead of competing
interests.  "More bang for the buck."  (Caveat: sometimes a single
bureaucracy can stifle progress.)  Share in the research and share in 
the glory.  Don't make greed the reason to do research.

Compassion for research; behavior modification for prevention;
proportional funding for all that plagues society.

Mark

I have a problem with the discussion about proportional funding.  It's a fine
concept, and I support the idea at the level of government funding.  But
Digital is not the government.  We as individuals are not the government.  Do
you go through an analysis of funding levels and severity when deciding what
cause to contribute to?  I strongly doubt most people do.  I don't think
Digital should be required to do that, either.

AIDS is a serious issue in need of funding, regardless of where it falls in the
grand list of worthwhile causes.  Digital has found a way to make what they
consider a decent contribution to a worthwhile cause, and I consider that
laudable.  There is no reason I can see for Digital to worry whether AIDS is
the *most* needy cause, or even one of the top ten; just being needy is enough.

One problem with this discussion has been that opinions expressed in opposition
to AIDS efforts by Digital have been interpreted to mean opposition to all AIDS
efforts.  Maybe some of the noters do feel that way, I don't know.  But AIDS is
such a volatile topic, there are so many issues tied up in it, that it is
pretty easy either to come across that way or to be perceived that way.

But assuming that the noters here do not actually oppose all funding for AIDS
research and education, then why oppose Digital contribution?  Would you prefer
all company charitable efforts to be reviewed by stockholders?  Do you require
that Digital act like the government and spread its charitable efforts across
all worthy causes in a reasonable proportion?  Is there something about AIDS
that allows you to support funding only by others?  Do you think that everybody
should work on the principle of proportional contribution?  Or what?

These are not rhetorical, I'm trying to understand the furor here.  Thanks.

						Brian

re .86

>   Forget going to see "Outbreak", I think a lot of you need to read the
>    book it was based on called "THE HOT ZONE".  Can't remember who the
>    author is.  It is a factual account of these types of viruses, where
>    they came from (it some instances they never know), etc.  It will help
>    clear up the mutation issue, etc.
    
Why not do both?  Books are great; I made a career out of them in school and
love reading, but film can't be beaten for the visual impact.  Watching 2 
very well trained experts accidentally expose themselves to a deadly virus
definitely makes an impression.  Even when we know better, we make dumb
mistakes.  And, yes, risk is a part of life.  I just become very concerned
when I hear people claim zero risk factor for something like HIV/AIDS.

Subject shift:
This morning's San Jose Mercury News says that the baby who is now HIV 
negative definitely was positive at birth.  They have done DNA tests to 
verify that the blood that tested positive came from the same baby as the
blood that tested negative.  Speculation by the experts: the mother could
have passed antibodies to the baby which weakened the virus enough for the 
baby to fight it, or the virus that the baby had could have been defective
and unable to grow.  They are also now questioning whether some of the other 
babies who went from positive to negative and were dismissed as lab errors
could also have actually fought it off.  This is really great news even 
though there's lots of work left to do.

			SQ

    There's another side to the AIDS research effort and dollars:
    AIDS is a disease of the immune system. The billions of dollars
    currently poured into AIDS research will benefit all diseases
    and disfunctions of the immune system -- like lupus, arthritis, 
    certain cancers, etc. The research will benefit more than just
    AIDS and HIV+ victims. The more we learn in research, the more
    the information can help a wide circle of people.
    
    One more thing. Years ago, Digital had on staff a futurist, whose
    job it was to interpret a variety of statistical data. I do not
    remember his name, but he was a speaker at a staff meeting I
    attended. This was in the mid-80's. I will never forget him showing
    us life expectancy tables and other data, and telling us that the
    90's would be a decade of grief -- with baby boomers' parents
    dying, and AIDS. He said it would be nearly impossible for a week
    to go by without someone in our office area being affected by
    the death of a parent or other relative or friend, whether from old
    age, AIDS or other accidents/illnesses. He thought it critical for
    the corporation and its employees to recognize that this would be
    part of life, and be educated/informed/sympathetic/empathetic to what
    was going to be happening in our own and our fellow employees' lives.
    I personally think that the AIDS program office is part of this
    effort, and, having heard Paul Ross and his guests at 3 or 4
    meetings, I think it is commendable.
    
    Just my 2 cents.
    griz

    whew! had to go back to the basenote, to remind me of the
    subject...
    
    Somebody mentioned that Digital is not funding more than just a "program
    office" to educate the Digital community ... that in itself is a 
    curious statement for me. How far does this education program reach?
    By what medium? What's the curriculum? I would like to see actions and
    activities. Has anyone outside of Maynard/Marlboro actually see the 
    fruits of these investments? As an aside, I do not look for Digital, 
    or any employer to teach me about AIDS or any other disease. I am
    capable of doing that myself.
    
    
    Ross was to enlighten our lawmakers on the "impact of AIDS in the
    workplace". This implies there is content, presumably based on actual
    impact in the Digital cummunity, which begs me to ask - what are we really
    talking about here? What % of Digital employees are affected directly
    (ie sick with AIDS) or indirectly (taking care of sick family/friends)?
    What is the quantifiable impact on the company? How is that determined?
    Number of sick days consumed? Product delays? Absenteeism? What else? 
    What does the Program anticipate as future impact and costs?
    
    If indeed the AIDS program office has been effective in research and
    analysis (especially beyond that of the Digital community) and is able
    to quantify their findings to Digital in financial terms, I would say
    this with respect, that knowledge/skill MUST be applied to other parts 
    of this company that requires fact-based research with effective and
    meaningful analysis for decision support such as  product forecasts,
    marketing campaigns, product announcement, pricing, formation of
    alliances, investment/divestment go-nogo, etc, etc.  
    
    Otherwise this exercise is merely Digital being PC. The intent might be
    noble but it is quite out of place.
    
                                 

re: .91
> But assuming that the noters here do not actually oppose all funding for AIDS
> research and education, then why oppose Digital contribution?  Would you prefer
> all company charitable efforts to be reviewed by stockholders?  Do you require
> that Digital act like the government and spread its charitable efforts across
> all worthy causes in a reasonable proportion?  Is there something about AIDS
> that allows you to support funding only by others?  Do you think that everybody
> should work on the principle of proportional contribution?  Or what?

I'm not opposed to Digital's support of AIDS research, education, etc.,
but, in general, I would prefer the company's contributions be
distributed through matching it's employees' contributions.  That way,
Digital's funding is proportioned exactly in line with it's employees'
interests.  To the extent that Digital employees support AIDS research,
so will Digital, and the same for cancer, the Boy Scouts, and every other
cause we employees believe enough in to contribute our own money towards.

	   One of the problem I have with the tone of some of this 
	discussion is the narrow view many people have of funding
	and research in general. Some, including many public figures, believe
	that funding begins and ends with the federal government. 
	Before anyone flames me please read completely.
					    ----------

	   Three years ago a friend of my father, who was on the board
	of a charity foundation, was explaining how one organization
	had come to the foundation "complaining" that they weren't given
	enough. According to may father's friend, the information this 
	group was using was not only factually incorrect but conceptually
	wrong. The comment (as accurately as I can remember it) was: 
	"Because the government [US] was spending less than 20 million
	they [the US government] had neglected it's obligation, it was
	the responsibility of the these foundations to make up the 
	difference". I have heard, first hand, similar comments (though
	not as blunt) by various groups. (note by various groups I am
	also referring to non-AIDS groups.)

	   What is wrong with this view is the following:
	   (any inaccuracies are due to the fact that I am doing this
			from memory)

	- US is not the only country involved research. The figures I
	  had seen suggest that less than 1/3 of all the worldwide
	  medical research expenditures originate in the US. (Source
	  World Health Organization 1991).

	- US funding comes mostly not from government but from one of
	  five other sources (I list them in a minute). In the past
	  few years, about 12% of funding and less than 2% of the medical
	  research comes from or is done by the US government. 
	The following is a list of the sources for funding in order of
	most funding to least: 
		(Source: Cornell Foundation white paper on fund-raising)
	   1.  Corporations (mostly drug and medical instruments & devices)
	   2.  Foundations (including Heart Assoc, Jimmy fund...)
	   3.  Government
	   4.  Health care providers (Hospitals, ...)
	   5.  Colleges and Universities
	   6.  Individuals

	In terms of where most of the medical research is performed
	   1.  Corporations 
	   2.  Reaseach Foundations 
	   3.  Colleges and Universities
	   4.  Health care providers 
	   5.  Government

	- The final point of inaccuracy was the dollar amount. The 20 million
	was the amount direct funding to the only program in the federal
	budget for 1990 that had the word "AIDS" in it. Depending on one's
	interpretation (and trust in how funds are spent) in 1990 there was
	any where between 100 and 600 million available for AIDS research 
	in the federal budget. At the same time total amount of AIDS research
	spent annually by the drug companies worldwide in the early 90's was 
	several billion dollars. (it should be noted that these companies
	were driven by the "hope" of profit from an early cure. Since then,
	I believe there has been reduced research in this field). 


	WHAT IS THE POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKE?

	-----	We (Western civilization) believe any problem can be solved
	        if we throw enough money at it. Sometime solutions take time
		and no amount of money can change time. Sometimes the only
		cure is education and a changing society.

	-----   Learn where the sources of money comes from. The federal
		government is not the only source ( and in many cases not
		the most important).

	-----	Spend the money wisely. It makes more sense to spend one
		dollar wisely (such as in education) then waste five dollars
		chasing "hope".)

>I have a problem with the discussion about proportional funding.  It's a fine
>concept, and I support the idea at the level of government funding.  But
>Digital is not the government.  We as individuals are not the government.  Do
>you go through an analysis of funding levels and severity when deciding what
>cause to contribute to?  I strongly doubt most people do.  I don't think
>Digital should be required to do that, either.

  Sorry not to have been clear on that (I thought I was).  I am talking
  only about government (i.e. tax dollars) funding.  Digital should 
  expend its money in any fashion it wants to just like any private
  citizen and his or her chosen charities.

>One problem with this discussion has been that opinions expressed in opposition
>to AIDS efforts by Digital have been interpreted to mean opposition to all AIDS
>efforts.  Maybe some of the noters do feel that way, I don't know.  But AIDS is
>such a volatile topic, there are so many issues tied up in it, that it is
>pretty easy either to come across that way or to be perceived that way.

  Complete agreement, Brian.  I'd like to see a discussion of the issue
  without the political and propaganda and see it for what it is and  
  not how it comes across or is perceived.

>These are not rhetorical, I'm trying to understand the furor here.  Thanks.

  I hope I clarified by my first paragraph.  Again, Digital is under no
  behest to proportionally fund all ailments to society.  I think the 
  issue turned to other tangents (as is often the case in notes).

Mark

  P.S.  If I am part of the choice to choose funding (as a stockholder,
  for example), then I would hope that I would get a proportional vote 
  as to what we, as a corporation, want to do.  And if I find that the
  vote goes against my choice, I either live with it or separate myself
  from the organization.  

.96  ROCCER::LIFLAND

Excellent!  Thank you.

.??  ????::????

I also thought the matching gift process was also sensible.
However, in >addition< to matching gift, the corporation should
also be free to champion a cause (any cause) it wants and those
of us who might not agree with the cause can make choices of our 
own.  For example, what if Digital wanted to champion the free speech
of a neo-nazi fascist group.  Absurd, but allowable in America, and
we'd have a choice to not support it with our feet.  Their money;
their choice.  And they will live with the consequences of the 
marketplace (good or bad).

MM

    Re .68
    Tex, Thank you.
    Sue
    

    
    So, how come Digital has an HIV/AIDS Program office, and
    no Domestic Violence Program office?

    It seems to me that given Digital's financial situation, it
    doesn't have much money to spend  -- a few years ago, the
    company had $3billion in cash-on-hand, now it has both bond
    and preferred stock debt, and very little cash.

    It's going to take lots of money to help a single AIDS/HIV
    individual.  If that same money were spent on Domestic
    Violence, how many women could be helped?

    Why are folks with AIDS/HIV more important than battered women?

  Sounds like bait to me, Lee.  You wouldn't supportive of that
  one either, and you know it.
                                   Atlant