Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I notice that when the pressure is on (job problems, Gulf war,
    corporate weirdness/uncertainty/tension, industry slump) that the
    notesfile does a dichotomy split - where several people invest MORE
    (get warmer, fuzzier, share more), and many people invest LESS or
    snipe/gripe MORE.  It's people's different reactions to stress.
    
    I decided I couldn't do the AIDS walk plus the walk for hunger plusthe
    walk for women's lives, so I settled for the smallest, and the
    shortest, the least heard of (I love an underdog).
    
    -Jody
    

	Hi,

	Could it just be the fact that AIDS is turning out NOT
	to be the great plague, as was so often presented in the
	previous 2 years ?

	Could it be that now that AIDS research is receiving
	more money than cancer and heart disease research each
	year, yet taking many fewer lives than these, people are 
	satisfied that what is being done is sufficient ?

	Could it be that, as sad as AIDS is, it really predominantly
	affects male homosexuals and intravenous drug abusers, and
	many people simply don't condone these lifestyles ?

	Steve H

    >	Could it just be the fact that AIDS is turning out NOT
    >	to be the great plague, as was so often presented in the
    >	previous 2 years ?

    >	Could it be that now that AIDS research is receiving
    >	more money than cancer and heart disease research each
    >	year, yet taking many fewer lives than these, people are 
    >	satisfied that what is being done is sufficient ?

    >	Could it be that, as sad as AIDS is, it really predominantly
    >	affects male homosexuals and intravenous drug abusers, and
    >	many people simply don't condone these lifestyles ?

    >	Steve H

    If so, then "many people" simply don't know the facts about AIDS.
    
    Karen
    

I don't think it is just the AIDS walk.  In general our (meaning the
US population's) generosity and activism has been really tried lately.
I was reading an article or two about this recently - it's really hard
to give and give and give (give money, give time, give energy) when it
seems the need is so hopelessly deep.

There was the war.  The cyclone in Bangladesh.  The Kurdish refugees.  
The cholera epidemic in South America.  AIDS, as always.  The every
increasing problems with the environment.  It seems so hopeless and so
DEMANDING that it is easy to just throw up your hands and say "It doesn;'t
do any good, I won't do anything!"

D!

    
    re .0:
    
    That's funny - I heard on the radio the spokesperson for AAC
    said the turnout (number of walkers, I believe) was better than
    last year.  What gives?  Was it that the per walker "take" was
    lower this year?  Were actual dollars brought in lower?
    

    In re .3
    
    1. AIDS is indeed a great plague among heterosexuals in Africa.
       it will very likely be a serious problem for heterosexuals
       in their 20s as this generation of teenagers passes the 
       incubation period.
    
    2. AIDS research is still in 'ramp up time'.... the other diseeases
       you mention have on going research projects that primarily need
       to be refunded and maintained.
    
    3. There is still no cure for AIDS, and the only *sure* prevention is
       abstentence. There are cures or treatments anyway, for many forms
       of heart disease and cancer, there are none for AIDS.
    
    Bonnie

more in re .3

Last I read, AIDS is fastest growing in the US among teenagers
(heterosexual and gay).  

AIDS is a disease, not a lifestyle, and if the people you refer to
get that confused, their children will be suffering.  

	MKV

>           <<< Note 858.5 by TLE::DBANG::carroll "dyke about town" >>>
>                                 -< burn out >-
>
>I don't think it is just the AIDS walk.  In general our (meaning the
>US population's) generosity and activism has been really tried lately.
>I was reading an article or two about this recently - it's really hard
>to give and give and give (give money, give time, give energy) when it
>seems the need is so hopelessly deep.

	Yep, I agree.  "Needs" are endless, resources are finite.
	I have a friend who worked in a really dangerous job
	in various trouble spots around the world.  She told
	me she went into a country when the bullets started
	flying.  

	When I despaired that it seemed the world was destined for
	chaos and violence, she said, "You can't save the world.  The
	best you can do is try to keep your own little corner of
	it clean."

	I think that's the best approach.  I give to organizations
	or individuals that I believe are, a) worthy (by my reckoning),
	and, b) true conservators of the money/resources that I
	give.  Usually, they're local entities, as well.  I
	am PO'd about, say, battered wives in Michigan, but I can
	keep tabs on the shelters in my area better.

	Steve H

>               <<< Note 858.8 by THEBAY::VASKAS "Mary Vaskas" >>>
>
>more in re .3
>
>Last I read, AIDS is fastest growing in the US among teenagers
>(heterosexual and gay).  
>
>AIDS is a disease, not a lifestyle, and if the people you refer to
>get that confused, their children will be suffering.  
>
>	MKV

	Yeah, OK.  But when 63-75% of the patients are homosexual
	men, and another 15-16% are intravenous drug abusers, then
	lifestyle considerations suddenly are not above scrutiny.

	Let's take the case of typhus in many third world countries.
	Using streetside latrines, dumping raw sewerage into the
	same streams where drinking and bathing water is obtained
	is probably the major culprit.  When these behaviours
	are stopped, typhus becomes quite rare, indeed.  This
	suggests that aggregate AIDS case numbers would plummet
	if certain behaviours would cease:  dirty needle use
	by addicts, and you know the story on the homosexual practice
	most associated with AIDS propagation.

	Saying that AIDS is fastest growing among teenagers may not
	be saying much.  If there was one teenage case in 1989, and
	3 in 1990, then, my goodness:  a 300% increase !  It'd
	be interesting to, again, see the breakout for the teenagers
	gay, straight, drug users, sexual partners of the above, etc.

	Please understand, I'm not pinging on AIDS research, per se.

	I'd just like to see some perspective used in presentation of
	the victim population and allocation of any resources used
	for research.

	Steve H

  Education of the intentionally ignorant -- now *THERE'S* a lost cause!

                                   Atlant

  I believe that many of these causes are lost because we were told
  throughout the '80s and now into the '90s that it's okay to be self-
  ish and, after a while, the endlessly repeated message "took".
  Really, reduced to its underlying principles, that pretty well
  summarizes the American lifestyle (oops, there's that word!) of
  recent years.

  The poor?          "They could get a job if they wanted it."

  The uneducated?    "I learned to read -- why can't they?"

  Ozone?             "The better to work on my tan."

  Nuclear waste?     "It won't be a problem while I'm alive!"

  Minorities?        "Not if it means I won't get this job."

  Criminals?         "Burn 'em all.  Remember Willie Horton!"

  The Oil Shortage?  "Hey, my BMW's tank is *FULL* -- what's your problem?"


  And so on through the entire littany of human endeavors.  So now
  its all coming home to roost and we're sitting around wondering
  what happened.  What a laugh!

  WE HAPPENED, folks.  The folks who never will allow ourselves to
  be told that we "SHOULD" do something, because that might infringe
  on our glorious personal freedom.  The folks that never put "the
  greater good" in front of our own immediate needs.  The folks
  right here.

  You asked for it.  You got it.  Get used to it.

                                   Atlant

    AIDS is apparently easily passed via normal heterosexual acts.  There
    is up to a 10 year and possibly 15 year incubation period (if that is
    the right word), so we are still seeing mostly gay men and intravenous
    drug users with active cases, because that's were the outbreak started
    10 years ago.  Prospects for the future are not bright.
    
    					- Vick

>  The uneducated?    "I learned to read -- why can't they?"
[...]
>  The Oil Shortage?  "Hey, my BMW's tank is *FULL* -- what's your problem?"

Add on...

   AIDS?   	       Hey, they engaged in homosexual sex, they deserve it.

(as per 858.3 and .10)

D!

    Priorities. I can't even give to all the groups working for 
    causes I _deeply_ support. Sigh. As for the rest...
    
    You have to put your time, effort and $$ where you feel they can
    do the most good. And say "Sorry" to the rest.
    
    Dana

>          <<< Note 858.15 by TLE::DBANG::carroll "dyke about town" >>>
>                            -< I'm gonna be ill... >-
>
>Add on...
>
>   AIDS?   	       Hey, they engaged in homosexual sex, they deserve it.
>
>(as per 858.3 and .10)
>
>D!

	Geez, folks.  This is not the point.  The point is that
	large amounts of money ( tax money ) is being spent to
	fight a disease that is:

	a) largely caused by human behaviour that can be modified
	   by the individual, and

	b) takes fewer lives each year than other diseases,

	c) so incredibly hard to contract that it requires direct
	   injection of the virus into the victim's bloodstream !

	I don't think anyone deserves a lingering death because
	of something he chose to do that was an individual choice.
	I think we need to look at the problem this way:

	First, what disease causes the largest number of deaths in
	the US ?  The next largest ?  Then, the succeeding largest
	killer ?

	Second, if it is determined that the US government and its
	taxpayer-extracted funds are the appropriate agents to
	do research on possible cures, then allocate the funds
	in direct proportion to the deadliness of the ailment.

	I believe that cancer and heart disease are truly the 
	biggest killers.  So why isn't funding allocated accordingly ?

	Steve H

	P.S. I'm not convinced that government is the appropriate 
	     entity to do medical research.  Seems like the most
	     appropriate group might be insurance companies, but
	     since government does most of it now, there's no
	     incentive. sch

    Steve
    
    you skipped my note on the very high rate of HIV infection among
    heterosexuals in AFrica...
    
    it is on the order of 40% of those in their prime reproductive years...
    
    Bonnie

As someone mentioned earlier, the latency period of the virus can be
10-15 years. There is no cure for AIDS. There are some cures available
(that work with _some_ people) for cancer and heart disease. Further,
my understanding is that research done on AIDS can also be applied to
other diseases, so that many more people will benefit.

You may be interested to know that for a while, no one knew how AIDS,
or more accurately, the HIV virus, was transmitted, so no one knew how
to adjust behaviors. New incidents amongst gay men have gone way down
as the gay community has educated itself. I suspect that the next big
population to be hit will be adolescent heterosexuals who feel invincible
to the world. Let's hope that now that we have prevention techniques,
our youth will get the message. 


Liz

Cancer and heart disease are not communicable.  There is no such thing as an
*epidemic* of cancer.

The idea is to stop AIDS *now*, before it becomes more widespread and kills
many more people than cancer, heart disease, etc.  

More people have AIDS than died of bubonic plague during the days of the Black
Plague Epidemic.

Besides, cancer and heart disease are *also* avoidable to a certain degree
through modifying behavior - you can stop eatting red meat, stop smoking,
lower your cholesterol, etc.

Guess what: did you know how they found out how AIDS works, and which behaviors
are risky and which aren't?  You guessed it: RESEARCH. yes, and you know what?
RESEARCH costs MONEY! Yeah, I bet you guessed that one.

D!

    re. proportional funding
    
    If one looks at the NIH/tax-funded grants and the monies allocated to
    research on cancer, heart disease, and AIDS, one will notice that
    research on cancer and heart disease do indeed receive more of these
    monies than does AIDS.
    
    re. life choices and life threats
    
    cancer and heart disease are also largely products of the choices on
    makes in life.  What employment one seeks, the foods one eats, the
    drugs one ingests all play decisive roles in development of these
    pathologies.
    
    In truth, the biggest difference I see is that AIDS is a _highly_
    contagious and infectious ailment and most cancers and cardiac ailments
    are not the result of contagion or infection.
    
    While I have not made any life choices that pose a high risk of HIV
    infection, the possibility that I could be infected _does_ exist. I
    might require a blood transfusion, these things do happen.  My husband
    could become infected, these things happen too.
    
    also a nit:
    
    Injection is not an absolute necessity in the transmission of HIV. 
    Absorption into the blood via osmotic means is sufficient. 
    
      Annie

    AIDS is the major killer of babies in New York and New Jersey.
    
    I think it has the potential to kill millions and be the plague of the
    90's if we don't move fast to educate, use preventive measures, and
    find a cure.
    
    -Jody
    

    Any disease that kills, maims, leaves mentally deficient, or harms any
    human being in anyway, regardless of sex, choice of sex of mate,
    transient or otherwise, race, creed, color of skin, age, or any and all
    arbitrarily set criteria that the fools in power choose to foist off on
    the rest of the public, should be fought as hard as possible until a
    cure that will not harm anyone in any other way is found. These cures
    should be made available to the public of all nations free of charge or
    obligations either on the individual, hir family, or government. All
    nations should support research and the researchers and their families,
    free of charge until such cures are found. By this, I mean, feed,
    clothe, house, school, and care for these researchers and their
    families and do not set limits on what they do or accomplish, so long
    as the testing does not cause harm to people or animals. 
    
    In other words, free them from restrictions, totally support them, and
    leave them alone.
    
    PJ

>            <<< Note 858.18 by WMOIS::REINKE_B "bread and roses" >>>
>
>    Steve
>    
>    you skipped my note on the very high rate of HIV infection among
>    heterosexuals in AFrica...
>    
>    it is on the order of 40% of those in their prime reproductive years...
>    
>    Bonnie

	Hi,

	I'll have to dig up my sources, but I read an interesting
	analysis of the AIDS roaring through Africa.  As I recall,
	in the societies where this is occurring, there is an
	incredible amount of promiscuity.  I recall that the
	men there regard having many sexual partners  ( I mean
	many.....beyond our Saturday night bar-scene Lotharios )
	as a mark of manhood.  This widespread sexual activity
	is regarded as the main cause of the spread  of AIDS there.

	I'll hunt around tonight for a pointer to the research I
	saw.

	As regards folks not knowing early on about AIDS, there
	is evidence to dispute that, as well.  A gay airline
	steward who bragged of hundreds or thousands of partners
	in the 70s, is reported to have told one of them ( after
	the partner remarked on his Kaposi's Sarcoma ), "It's
	gay cancer.  Now you'll get it too."

	Steve H

>More people have AIDS than died of bubonic plague during the days of the Black
>Plague Epidemic.

    is this really true?
    

    
>    In truth, the biggest difference I see is that AIDS is a _highly_
>    contagious and infectious ailment and most cancers and cardiac ailments
 
    what is meant by '_highly_ contagious'?
        
   

    
    This is being posted for a member of the community who wishes to remain
    anonymous.
    
    -Jody
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    Some AIDS stats heard on ABC Nightline last night:

    Over 110,000 people have died from AIDS in the last decade.

    Over 1,000,000 people are currently infected with HIV virus (and/or have
    what is commonly referred to as "full-blown AIDS.")

    In the year 1993 alone, more people will die from AIDS than were killed
    in the entire decade of the Vietnam war.
    

Steve H.

The fact is that AIDS is spread by unsafe sexual contact and not by
any group or any "lifestyle" or behavior.  Let's leave the value
judgements out of it.

john

    re.26 and '_highly_ contagious'
    
    the vector and cluster studies indicate that exposure threshhold being
    met [and that threshold is pretty high, given the known vectors] that
    the incidence of infection is considerably higher than median incidence
    from all infectious agents.
    
    this is probably near-intuitive given the nature of the retro-virus
    and the break-down of the immune system.
    
    while the exposure threshhold for typhus or measles is low given their
    respective vectors, infection is less common given the immune response
    and environmental interference.
    
    it would better have been worded 'highly infectious' [but in any event
    'highly contagious' was not meant to stand without 'and infectious' to
    begin with ...]
    
    Annie
    
    

    re .24  Steve H
    
    Gaetan Dugas died before the HIV virus was even isolated.  While he
    was sick, scientists were still speculating as to the cause of "gay
    cancer" or "GRID."  Many possible causes were being bandied about,
    including that it was caused by poppers.  Anyway, this "Patient Zero"
    stuff is a ridiculous scapegoat attempt.
    
    [Then] Surgeon General Koop presented the US government's *first*
    official announcement in October of 1985, and for the *first* time
    acknowledged that "the use of condoms MAY [emphasis -dca] help prevent
    the transmission of the virus."  However, as we all know, one
    government report does not instantly change behaviors.  Heck, it is now
    5 1/2 years later, and virtually *none* of my straight friends ever use
    condoms, even with their 'one-night stands.'
    
    deb

    re .3  Steve H

    We all know that HIV/AIDS predominantly affected gay men first here
    in the US, but there have also been women and children affected since 
    the beginning.  The earliest (so far) documented cases occured in the
    UK and Zaire in 1959.

    It has nothing to do with the fact of whether one is gay or straight - 
    the virus can be transmitted quite nicely via either form of sex, or 
    through IV needle sharing by anyone of any age or orientation.  It 
    primarily affects straight people in the African continent, Poland, 
    and many other countries; it started here mainly in teh gay community.  
    
    One of the most rational theories I've read (somewhere in the Sci-Med-
    AIDS file) is that it was introduced here via  batches of serum from
    Africa used in Hepatitis vaccines - which are routinely given to those 
    at risk: health care workers who come in contact with contaminated 
    needles (e.g., dentists and doctors), hemophiliacs, IV drug users, and 
    gay men.  If the imported serum had been used for a routinely-given
    vaccine for everyone, such as tetanus for example, we wouldn't have
    any division of your "lifestyle" factors.  

    So could you please get off your almighty judgmental horse?  

    tyvm,
    deb

    
    re: .3 (Steve Hall)
    
    Well, let's not forget, Steve, that people _choose_ to drink, 
    choose to smoke, choose to eat at McDonalds, choose sedentary 
    lives, choose to work inside offices that contain carcinogenic
    chemicals, etc.

    Clearly, then, the answer is to abolish funding for cancer, 
    alcoholism, stroke, and heart-disease cures, and instead focus
    our research on AIDS, which is not caused so much by behavior,
    as by a virus.

    Carla
    

    
    re:.26 what is meant by 'highly contagious'?
    
    i'm afraid such medical terminology has left me in the dust...
    
    it is my understanding that the common cold is caused by a virus. it 
    is also my understanding that current medical opinion holds that aids 
    is caused by a virus. in the case of the 'cold virus', i can 'catch cold'
    through 'casual contact' (e.g. shaking hands). in the case of the 'aids 
    virus', it is my understanding that, quite the contrary, i cannot 'catch 
    aids' through 'casual contact'. it seems to me that, in the way the
    word is commonly used anyway, that the 'cold virus' is rather more 
    'highly contagious' than the 'aids virus'. 
    

    
    and while i'm thinking of it, i noticed at least three replies in
    this string that took mr. hall to task for being 'judgemental',
    being on his 'high horse' and so on. i've read his notes over 5
    times and i just don't see it.
    

Well, Joe, here are some snippets that rubbed me the wrong way.

Bob

    .3:
>	Could it be that, as sad as AIDS is, it really predominantly
>	affects male homosexuals and intravenous drug abusers, and
>	many people simply don't condone these lifestyles ?

    .9:
>	Yeah, OK.  But when 63-75% of the patients are homosexual
>	men, and another 15-16% are intravenous drug abusers, then
>	lifestyle considerations suddenly are not above scrutiny.
    
    .10:
>	This
>	suggests that aggregate AIDS case numbers would plummet
>	if certain behaviours would cease:  dirty needle use
>	by addicts, and you know the story on the homosexual practice
>	most associated with AIDS propagation.

    .24:
>	As regards folks not knowing early on about AIDS, there
>	is evidence to dispute that, as well.  A gay airline
>	steward who bragged of hundreds or thousands of partners
>	in the 70s, is reported to have told one of them ( after
>	the partner remarked on his Kaposi's Sarcoma ), "It's
>	gay cancer.  Now you'll get it too."

    re .33 Joe?
    
    I wouldn't call AIDS "highly contagious," and it most definitely is not
    in the same category as airborne viruses like colds or the flu, since
    it is a retrovirus.  (For specific medicalese details, I'll have to do
    some research.)  By comparison with other viruses, it is very
    *difficult* to get.  There has to be direct contact between blood,
    semen or vaginal fluid.
    
    Having sex with an HIV+ person, or even sharing a needle with one
    (blood to blood being the most efficient means of transmission) does
    not imply a 100% certainty that you'll become infected with HIV.  It
    *could* happen with only one instance, but it's not guaranteed.
    
    Doctors and nurses get stuck with needles allthe time, but they don't
    all get infected.  (My stats on this are in another file - I'll see if
    I can find them. It was just on _HIV Journal_ on Lifetime TV recently.)
    
    Oh and btw, you can't "catch cold" by shaking hands.  It's *after* you
    shake hands and touch mucus membranes (such as your eyes, nose or
    mouth), or if the person sneezes and you inhale particles.
    
    re your .34
    
    Maybe you need some AIDS- or gay-sensitive glasses??
    
    deb

	OK, folks.  I'd like to make my point in a different way,
	using a fictional parallel:

	There's a group of people.  We'll call them carbuffs.  Their
	hobby is racing cars full tilt into brick walls.  Bob, one
	of their number, regularly participates, and after each
	crash, he is taken to the hospital for 6 months or so
	for repairs.

	The group of carbuffs nationwide notice that their number is
	dwindling.  They notice that members of their club have
	missing limbs, large scars, damaged internal organs, and so
	forth.  They call for someone to save them !  They ask that
	the government ( the taxpayers ) fund their plastic
	surgery, their medical bills, and, coincidentally, tell	
	schoolkids about their hobby.

	While I'm unwilling to condemn the carbuffs, I'm concerned
	about paying the freight for the results of their indulgence.

	This is the key:  I don't care WHAT folks do at home.  I am
	not calling for condemnation of any group.  I just don't 
	like governments ( with money extracted from my wallet )
	getting involved in something like this.  

	Please understand.  This is not  a dismissal of or condemnation
	of gay folks.  I just get stubborn when the carbuffs demand
	money from me between crashes.

	Steve H

    So if anyone chooses to smoke or drink they should still get benefits
    of research when they reap the cancer/dysfunction health problem/rewards?
    
    When they participate in stress-inducing managerial power-plays, the
    government should still fund research into heart surgery for their
    triple coronary bypass after their 8th heart attack?
    
    Oh, I forgot, AIDS is something "other people" get, not you.
    
    -Jody
    

    >results of their indulgence
    
    Huh!  They (homosexual men) are having sex.  When you have sex do you
    consider it just an indulgence?  There is a very implicit comdemnation
    in the things you say, regardless of how often you try to convince us
    that you aren't condemning homosexuals.  Are you saying that the 
    government should not fund research on any sexually transmitted
    diseases, or only on those transmitted by *NORMAL* sex?  Well, I hate
    to tell you, but even if you condemn homosexual sex practices as
    *BAD, BAD, BAD*, AIDS is transmitted via perfectly *NORMAL* missionary
    position heterosexual sex.  Fasten your seat belt, Bucko, we're 
    all heading for that brick wall.
    						- Vick

	Hi,

	re: the last two ( fund heart and cancer, not AIDS; 
	    discussion of "we're all headed for the brick wall" ).

	No, and no.

	I don't think it's appropriate for government to be
	funding medical research, it you'd like to get right
	down to it.  But, if we are stuck with this huge
	cuttlefish government, then I guess I expect the money
	to be spent with some more reasoned priorities.

	I don't think AIDS just "pops up" in heterosexual
	couples who don't use needles.  The rare accident ( like
	the woman with an infected dentist, and that sort of thing )
	should not be a basis for policy.  Rather, it appears that
	there are certain behaviours that are directly attributable	
	to the spread of this disease. 

	Folks, I think I'm getting painted with a bunch of 
	preconceptions here.
	I think I'm being lumped in with that number  of folks
	who would like to install a government policy of intolerance
	toward these behaviours.

	But stating my reluctance to support AIDS research at its
	current level of priority is NOT the same thing as:

	1) Hatred of gays
	2) Hatred of intravenous drug abusers
	3) The demand that no one participate in either of the above
	4) The demand for the cessation of funding for all AIDS
	   research !

	Please read what I write, and don't lump me into a category
	that some folks seem to have created for people who 
	disagree with their position.

	Steve H

    but you're damning them for an activity that you probably yourself
    indulge in perfectly naturally (sex).
    
    AIDS CAN be spread heterosexually, in fact one of the fastest growing
    groups who have AIDS are heterosexual teens in America.
    
    I may be painting you with a broad brush, it feels to me like you're
    covering your ears.
    
    -Jody
    

>    but you're damning them for an activity that you probably yourself
>    indulge in perfectly naturally (sex).

	No. Isn't the practice he is referring to unsafe sex? People
	of any sexual orientation can have unsafe sex. People of
	any sexual orientation can have (relatively) safe sex.

					Tom_K

    there is SAFER sex, but not SAFE sex.  condoms break.  some condoms
    protect better than others.  
    
    but what with the organ transplant fiasco recently, and the resurfacing
    of old blood transfusions (NOTE all blood given now to the red cross is
    GIVEN safely and CHECKED before it is distributed) that may have
    contained AIDS, life is a risk, eh?
    
    -Jody
    

    Steve, I hope your and none or your relatives ever contract AIDS
    because of a bad blood transfusion or because you get attacked in
    the street and get AIDS from a knife cut.
    
    I've been following this for almost 10 years now, since the days when
    amyl nitrate was considered a possible cause or factor.  Anyone who
    can lump AIDS into a lifestyle preference or negate the proportions this
    epidemic will take on is, in my opinion, very uninformed.
    
    Also very naive.  If you think that not spending money on AIDS research
    will save money, you're horribly mistaken.  That means the medical
    establishment will have to increase rates to care for these sick
    people, which means your insurance will go up.  Not to mention the
    other snow-ball affects that will occur as the health system starts to
    collapse under the weight of these people.
    
    Jim

>   (NOTE all blood given now to the red cross is GIVEN safely and CHECKED 
>    before it is distributed) 
 
   -Jody,

    Sure wish that were the case everywhere.  There are still cases popping
    up in Florida (through this year) where people are being infected with
    red cross blood - I don't think they really know their quality level.
    In fact, I just designated blood for a friend who was in an accident 
    and stridently refused a transfusion from anyone she didn't know (don't
    blame her down here).

>  	Folks, I think I'm getting painted with a bunch of 
>	preconceptions here.

    Steve H,

    In *my opinion*, you have truly painted yourself.

Barb

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        <-- Prev



 
    

    
    re:.35
    
    .3:
>	Could it be that, as sad as AIDS is, it really predominantly
>	affects male homosexuals and intravenous drug abusers, and
>	many people simply don't condone these lifestyles ?

    are these not true facts? in the u.s. at least, does aids not 
    predominantly affect male homosexuals and intravenous drug abusers
    and do not many people condemn these lifestyles?
    
    .9:
>	Yeah, OK.  But when 63-75% of the patients are homosexual
>	men, and another 15-16% are intravenous drug abusers, then
>	lifestyle considerations suddenly are not above scrutiny.
    
    .10:
>	This
>	suggests that aggregate AIDS case numbers would plummet
>	if certain behaviours would cease:  dirty needle use
>	by addicts, and you know the story on the homosexual practice
>	most associated with AIDS propagation.

    is it not true that if people stopped doing the things that spread 
    the virus, then the virus would stop spreading?
    
    .24:
>	As regards folks not knowing early on about AIDS, there
>	is evidence to dispute that, as well.  A gay airline
>	steward who bragged of hundreds or thousands of partners
>	in the 70s, is reported to have told one of them ( after
>	the partner remarked on his Kaposi's Sarcoma ), "It's
>	gay cancer.  Now you'll get it too."
    
    this is definitely creepy, but i don't see it as judgemental.
    
    i interpretted mr. hall's original remarks to be speculations on
    why support for 'from all walks of life' may have dwindled. as such,
    they merely explained factual reasons why people in general might
    not be supportive. i'm inclined to agree. i think most people don't
    really care aids because most people think, not unreasonably, that
    it won't effect them. 
    
    if we are to get their support, we're going to have to get our facts 
    straight (e.g. highly-contagious or not highly-contagious) and cut out
    the hyperbole (worse than the bubonic plague? i don't think so). 
    
    i say 'we', because i *completely* support aids research, the use of
    federal funds for that research and every other aids-, gay-, lesbian-
    bi-sensitive issue you can think of. i am asking the questions i'm 
    asking because i want our voice to be stronger, not to attack and not
    to play games.
    
    my dear ms. arch, i would have thought my stand on such matters was 
    common knowledge. i can only imagine that your remarks on my needing 
    glasses stem from either my reputation not having extended to whatever 
    obscure corner of the world you hail from or that you are in league
    with my optometrist, whom i have been too busy to see for my annual
    check-up. ;^)
    
    

    
>	and you know the story on the homosexual practice
>	most associated with AIDS propagation.

    oops. i forgot. this is clearly offensive. 
    

    
    
    I have read through all of the notes from the beginning and here is a
    brief summary of what *I* read:
    
    basenote:        Why does everyone seem to seem so apathetic about AIDS?
    
    some opinion:    Maybe people feel that AIDS is a disease that is
                     spread by avoidable means or by a means that most
                     people don't necessarily condone.
    
    some opinion:    you hate gays and don't care if they all die.
                    
    some opinion:    no. I didn't say that. I said maybe AIDS doesn't have
                     to be so wide spread if we can avoid situations that
                     have been proven to cause epidemic size problems.
    
    some opinion:    you hate gays. You'd feel differantly if your family
                     died of aids. 
    
    some opinion:    we know that you hate gays no matter what you say.
    
    
    The question asked was "why are people seemingly apathetic about AIDS?
    The question was not "do you like gays".
    
    Whether someone "like" or "dislikes" the gay lifestyle has nothing to
    do with the QUESTION. 
    it MAY however, have something to do with the answer. I think that that
    is the point that Steve was trying to make. 
    
    flame on:
    
    And you know...I AM getting sick of the "straight bashing" that I see
    time and time again in this notesfile. "Political correctness" goes
    both ways.
    
    flame off. 
    :-)
    
    

    Hey, this is a notesfile.  Don't tell us to stick to the topic.  Geeze!
    No fun at all.
    					- Vick

>    And you know...I AM getting sick of the "straight bashing" that I see
>    time and time again in this notesfile.

Straight bashing? Where?

Kathy

re: .46
>    are these not true facts? in the u.s. at least, does aids not 
>    predominantly affect male homosexuals and intravenous drug abusers
>    and do not many people condemn these lifestyles?

>    is it not true that if people stopped doing the things that spread 
>    the virus, then the virus would stop spreading?

    Perhaps I was reading between the lines too much.  I got the feeling
that the author of .3 and .10 was _implying_ that these classes of people
were being irresponsible in _not_ changing "lifestyles" or in continuing to do
things that might spread the virus.  That made me uncomfortable.

Bob

>    Perhaps I was reading between the lines too much.  I got the feeling
>that the author of .3 and .10 was _implying_ that these classes of people
>were being irresponsible in _not_ changing "lifestyles" or in continuing to do
>things that might spread the virus.  That made me uncomfortable.

    i understand. i don't read .3 and .10 that way; if i did i would
    certainly have been very upset.
    
    

re .48:
I don't see straight bashing at all in this file.

I have seen some notes that unintentionally hit hot buttons.  The responses
to such notes are often angry, but I don't regard them as "bashing" -- to
me, that word implies beating up someone who's helpless.

I do not understand your statement that "`Political correctness' goes both
ways."  I haven't seen any requests in this conference that straights or
men behave in a "politically correct" manner.  I've only seen that phrase
used to suppress the complaints of gays or women.  I don't particularly
want to see it used in the other direction. :-)

Bob

    
    I think that when times get tough, people get like anemone's - they
    pull their tentacles in when the seas (particularly financiall) get
    rough.  I think they're trying to take care of themselves, and may not
    have the time/energy/money that they might otherwise have during less
    lean times to focus on charities.
    
    -Jody
    

...as I interpret the question.

The "Every person for hirself" response does inevitably surface more
easily in hard times.  It's an ineluctable fact of biology; all species
are built with certain mechanisms of survival.  Those mechanisms are
founded onhierarchical behaviors, and for most humans the hierarchy goes
this way:

1.  Personal survival

2.  Reproduction/family unit survival

3.  Personal comfort

4.  Species survival

Note that 2 and 4 are coupled, but that coupling isn't as tight as it
could be.  The urge to propagate is genetically bound, but the urge to
eensure the survival of the species beyond one's immediate self/family
unit is more a learned behavior.

So the natural tendency in hard times is to ensure that sufficient
resources are devoted to items 1, 2, and 3, with item 4 following along
if there's anything left over.

-d

    .20>More people have AIDS than died of bubonic plague during the days
    
    Any idea what the percents are?
    
    aq
    

    re .57 aq
    
>    Any idea what the percents are?
    
    Nope.  
    
    The WHO recently reported that they estimate there are presently
    10 million HIV+ people over 13 years old worldwide, plus another 1 
    million under 13.  This does not include diagnosed cases of AIDS.
    (sorry, it didn't give that number, but the US # was 171,876 as of
    March 31, 1991)
    
    deb

    re .57, .58, well, I always thought that 50% of the population of
    Europe died during the Plague?  
    
    Not to minimize the tragedy of AIDS, but it seems obvious that 50% of
    the population of the US hasn't died of it.  (I hope that's not the
    case by the time it's over, if it ever is.)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I have no idea about the 50% plague number.  I do know it was widely
    spread by the fleas of rats and other creatures.
    
    If it is accurate, then no, AIDS has not yet reached anywhere near 50%
    of hte population.
    
    On this morning's CNN report (which I only heard part of) about
    Children's AIDS Awareness Day, they said that WHO is now estimating
    there will be 10 million HIV+ children by the end of the century.
    
    Of course, that still won't be anywhere near 50%, so WTFC??
    
    deb (who's more people-oriented than number-oriented)

    
    These figures drastically illustrate the population
    problem in the world today...sigh.
    

        I think 50% is too high for the bubonic plague.
        Scientific American had a good article on this some years
        back.  I can try to dig out some numbers.
        
        Dan

    I think there's an apples-and-oranges conversation going on here.
    As I read it, the original claim was that there were more AIDS
    victims in absolute numbers than plague victims. In the time of
    the Plague the total population was far smaller than it is today,
    so the Plague could have killed 50% of the population of the time,
    and still hit fewer people than AIDS hitting 5% today (numbers
    invented for illustration).

    I believe that the percentage typically cited for the bubonic plague is
    that it killed about a third of Europe; but that may not be accurate. 
    Barbara Tuchman discusses the possible authenticity of that figure,
    and its origin, in her book about 14th Century Europe.  I don't
    remember the details, but I seem to recall that she pointed out that
    Biblical apocalyptic imagery may have influenced the conclusion that
    one third of the population died.

    -- Mike

The information my library has is that the rate of death varied from
place to place in the 14th century, reaching as high as 2-3/to 3/4 of
the population in some areas.  In actual numbers, the best estimates
have it that about 1/4 of the population of Europe as a whole died, and
that was some 25,000,000 deaths.

Bear in mind also, please, that the Black Death appeared again and again
and is still showing up in isolated cases.  There were significant
outbreaks roughly every 300 years leading up to and following the Great
Plague, which itself struck in waves at roughly 2-year intervals as it
crossed Europe from Italy beginning in 1347.  The 1665 London plague
was the next major incidence.  Earlier outbreaks were in Asia and hence
were not recorded by European historians.

As terrifying and as deadly as it is, AIDS isn't even close yet.

-d

    Vague memory that bubonic plague decimated (killed 10% of) 
    Europe twice. Still isolated instances, but can be treated 
    with antibiotics _if_ properly diagnosed - average doctors
    not really looking for/familiar with it. 
    
    

It's been showing up in prarie dogs in Colorado for the 
past few years.  A lot of people have gotton really paranoid 
about it!  

Nanci

    The figures in .65 match what I remember from a pretty significant
    research project I undertook in college on the plague.  There have been
    recurring epidemics of bubonic plague at different places in the world
    throughout history, with the most recent epidemic outbreak in China and
    Mongolia at the turn of this century.  Plague is carried by wild
    rodents in the American western deserts (Colorado and California both
    have active plague germs present in their wild rodent population), as
    well as the high plains Mongolian deserts.
    
    Aids isn't close to what the "Black Death" in Europe did in turns of
    percentage of the population affected, or the sheer speed with which it
    deals out death.  Untreated, bubonic plague caught from blood-infection
    (via bug-bite) kills within a week or so.  Untreated bubonic plague
    passed through the lungs causes death within three days, and is highly
    virulent.  Modern epidemiologists speculate that the pneumo form of the
    disease is what cleared out entire towns and villages in the Middle
    Ages.  The resulting changes in the labor force were directly
    responsible for the decline of feudalism and much of the economic basis
    for the Renaissance.
    
    Alison

    
    re .52
    
    >perhaps I was reading between the lines too much. I got the feeling
    >that the author of .3 and .10 was -implying- that these classes of
    >people were being irresponsible in _not_ changing "lifestyles" or in
    >continuing to do things that might spread the virus. That made me
    >uncomfortable
    
    
    Well maybe I don't understand.
    
    Should Typhoid Mary have been working in a kitchen passing Typhoid to
    thousands of people knowing that she was infectious?
    
    Should prostitutes with VD continue to 'service' unsuspecting
    customers?
    
    Should someone with Hepatitus (SP?!) give blood knowing what they
    are doing to the person who gets the transfusion?
    
    What's the differance between these examples and any other example of
    anyone KNOWINGLY participating in some act that spreads any disease to 
    this great degree?
    
    Yeah, I would have to call that irresponsible.
    
      
     

    re .69
    
    This is getting very tangled.  In .34 or so, Joe White asked why folks
    were calling Steve Hall's notes judgmental.  I replied with some
    excerpts that seemed that way to me.  Joe replied, and I replied to him
    with the words that you've quoted.  I still feel that Steve's comments
    were unnecessarily judgmental.
    
    I also think they were well answered in replies before .34, so I'm not
    going to start debating with you about the questions you've posed in
    .69.
    
    I really have to agree with you:  maybe you don't understand.

<    What's the differance between these examples and any other example of
<    anyone KNOWINGLY participating in some act that spreads any disease to 
<    this great degree?
    
It is not proper for anyone to knowingly spread disease, especially a disease
which is life-threatening.  Therefore, a gay man having non-safe sex (or
perhaps ANYONE having non-safe sex) is not doing the right thing.

Steve's comments, though, seemed to indicate that he was not talking about
safe-sex, rather that he was referring to any sex at all between gay men.
This is objectionable.  Saying that people should have safe-sex is not.

Once it was known that unsafe sex could spread the virus, the vast majority
of gay men stopped having unsafe sex.  However, we still have many people
dying from the ignorance they had before AIDS research taught us all about
AIDS.  We need to help them.    

          Carol 

<           <<< Note 858.37 by CSC32::S_HALL "Wollomanakabeesai !" >>>
[...]
<	They ask that
<	the government ( the taxpayers ) fund their plastic
<	surgery, their medical bills, and, coincidentally, tell	
<	schoolkids about their hobby.

I'm bothered by this, Steve.  The fact of the matter is, that many, many, many
kids are going to engage in sexual activities with people of the same sex,
even when all they hear about homosexuality is negative.  Where do you think
we all came from?  

Instead of keeping teenagers ignorant, we should be educating them in ways
to prevent death.  

One other thing...
Since you seem to be having such a hard time understanding why people can't
just curb their activities so we don't have to worry about them dying from
infected sperm, perhaps a closer analogy would help you:  people should be able
to curb their behaviours so we don't have to worry about women becoming
pregnant from unwanted sperm, but somehow there are still many unwanted
pregnancies. Even when people *try*, they still have trouble preventing sperm
from entering their bodies.  Kids sometimes don't bother to try, or don't know
how. Adults sometimes don't bother to try, or don't know how.  Some of them
try, and fail.  Let's help them.  Let's keep our friends and neighbors and
children safe. 
                  Carol

    
    
    People with AIDS are not allowed to immigrate (to the US).
    
    Is this a good policy?  There were alot  (<--- just kiddin') a lot
    of protestors in France this weekend over it.
    

    kinda like closing the barn door after the horse is gone.  the cat's
    out of the bag. folks can probably think up plenty of other old saws to
    cover this case.
    
    point is, closing the borders won't work, any more than mandatory
    testing, exile, isolation, etc will work.  Deb Arch has the facts and
    figures at her fingertips, I don't, but the numbers (worldwide,
    including here) are too high for "make it didn't happen" to be
    realistic.
    
    Sara

    re .74

    Actually, I think the rationale (these days) behind the
    immigration policy restricting AIDS patients is more to avoid
    adding further burden to the heath-care system in the U.S. than it
    is to prevent further spread. At least that's the impression I got
    from news reports.

    Which doesn't make it good policy, of course, just a bit less
    superstitious in nature than [what I assume was] the original
    intent of stemming the spread of the disease.

    There was a good article in the Globe yesterday about the immigration
    policy.  It stated that if you randomly tested a group of people
    residing in the U.S. and a group of people immigrating, the U.S.
    resident population would have a higher percentage of HIV+ people.
    Also, there are some cases of people who became infected here and
    are not being allowed to return to the country.  The law was going
    to be revoked until a group of conservatives protested, and I guess
    the supporters of revoking the law let their guard down.
    Internationally it gives the U.S a bad image (in my opinion).  Every
    time there is an international AIDS symposium here it is boycotted
    by many experts in the science and public policy fields.
    	Linda

<    What's the differance between these examples and any other example of
<    anyone KNOWINGLY participating in some act that spreads any disease to 
<    this great degree?

There is a big difference between *knowing* you have a disease and doing
an activity that will/might transmit it to another, and not knowing you 
have a disease and doing the same acitivity.

In all the examples you cite, the person transmitting the disease *knows*
s/he has it.  That would be analogous to a person who knows s/he has AIDS
having unsafe sex with someone.

Do you cook food?  Maybe you are passing typhoid on to someone.

Do you have sex?  Maybe you are passing "VD" (as you call it) on to someone.

Do you give blood? Maybe you are passing hepatitis on to someone.

Let me put this in very simple terms...

GAY SEX DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS.

ANAL SEX DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS.

UNSAFE SEX DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS.

You can *only* transmit HIV if you yourself are HIV+.  Precautions are
certainly a good idea, but to classify people who have any of the above
forms of sex as immoral because they *might* be trasmitting the disease
is as ludicrous as classifying you as immoral for sneexing in the presence
of others.

D!

>  Every time there is an international AIDS symposium here it is boycotted
>    by many experts in the science and public policy fields.

	Now *thats* certainly going to help. I hope these so-called 
	scientists who choose to play politics instead of working
	on the problem are not receiving public money.

					Tom_K

    
    
    > Many many kids are going to engage in sexual activities with people
    > of the same sex, even when all they hear about homosexuality is
    > negative. Where do you think we all came from?
    
    Well, I doubt if any of us came from two people of the same sex
    engaging in sexual activities........
    
    

    
    Yes I think it's a good idea to NOT let people immigrate into the
    country if they have AIDS.  The burden on the health care system is
    a good enough reason. There are other reasons. 
    The burden on the tax payers is the BIG reason. 
    
    

    in re .80
    
    she was referring to lesbians and gays, who have sex with people
    of the same sex as teenagers and older inspite of a lot of negative
    publicity about homosexuality.
    
    Bonnie

    I think that if I had an incurable disease and lived outside the US, I
    would try like hell to get in. Especially, if i lived in a country with
    a repressive gov't. I would be afraid that instead of trying to find a
    cure, that gov't. would start an extermination program. What has
    happened to the American compassion we used to hear so much about. I
    know our country is filled with cynics, perhaps with good cause, but we
    should still reach out to people in need. Especially when this need is
    also our need. We have to lick this disease and we have to do it now.
    Heard last night on NBC News that the spread of AIDS, and death from
    same, in the 90's, will make the # of cases in 80's seem like an
    outbreak of measles. We have to stop this now, and not just for the US,
    but for the world. That means we cannot deny anyone asylum in this
    country. If we come up with a cure and one person dies, because that
    person couldn't get in then we will have failed. 
    
    Hell, I'm so scared of AIDS, that I have had only one sex partner in my
    life and have reamined celebate since my divorce in 1984. I don't want
    it and even more so, I don't want to spread it if I ever caught it.
    
    Let's cut the money from some of these other programs and put it into
    medical care and research. Military spending comes to mind, so does
    space exploration. How about some more. If we all wrote to our
    representatives (State and Federal) and copied the President, maybe
    something besides lip service would be paid to the issue.
    
    PJ

    
    re .83
    
    One person's pork barrel is another person's sacred cow.   I
    aappreciate your input; I don't agree with some of the points you made. 
    Cut defense spending?  Yes, I could see that...but would I rather spend
    it on education, better child care, space exploration, the homeless, more
    forward thinking ecological policies, or AIDs? 
    
    Rathole alert.. what I'd really like to see is just LESS govt spending.
    period.
    
    Jamd

>    Rathole alert.. what I'd really like to see is just LESS govt spending.
>    period.
    
And so less money for kids' school lunches, and less money for
polio vaccines and less money for gym classes and music classes and
art classes and less money for libraries and less money for public
education about spread of deadly diseases, yes, such as AIDS, and
less money for scientific research into cures for AIDS and cancer
and leukemia, and less money for fire departments and police departments,
and less money for traffic lights and highway reflectors and less money
for snow plowing and...

Personally, I'd rather see less money for tools of destruction and
more money for saving lives, yes *even* lives of those nasty people
with AIDS, who must be *bad* *evil* people, or that darn virus would
not have chosen to invade them.

	MKV

    
    Still, I'd ratherr see less govt spending... and more of the
    responsibility on local communities.  Longterm, it'd work better. 
    
    Call me cynical, but the idea of a group of primarily homogeneous
    (upper-class, white, male, career politicians) deciding what is the
    "best" use of my tax dollars doesn't fill me with trust that the "best
    solutions" will result.               
    
    Jamd
    (Who DOES pay taxes cuz it's the only game in town just now)

I am annoyed by people who advocate less total government spending out
of one side of their mouths while they cry for more government services
out of the other.  I'm beginning to think the American taxpayer's common
sense is a lost cause.  Of all the major powers, we pay the least taxes
overall, and yet we demand the highest level of service.  Pretty
inconsistent, wouldn't you say?

-d

    
    I guess I said what I thought I meant to say.
    
    I don't think that NOT letting people with the AIDS virus into the
    country is bad. Compassion? Come on. We ALL have our own causes.
    I would PERSONALLY rather see MY tax dollars used to save the planet
    or prevent cruelty to animals or abused children than to open the doors
    to everyone in every country with any disease that HIS country is
    not putting enough money into research. If that is the case, then
    everyone who's country does not supply welfare should also move here
    since we (I) will feed them. And every one who lives in a country where
    there are Volcanos or Hurricances or Droughts should move here, cause
    OUR system will shelter them.
    Compassion is one thing. Lets be realistic. Our system can only support
    so much before we cave in. I don't think that we should accept anyone
    into the country who will be taking instead of giving until we get our
    OWN problems resolved and our OWN people taken care of.
     
     
    
    Just my opinion. 
    
    

re .87

>Of all the major powers, we pay the least taxes
>overall, and yet we demand the highest level of service.  Pretty
>inconsistent, wouldn't you say?

	No, I'd call it "demanding the best value for our money".

			Tom_K (Yankee cheapskate)

    Frankly, if I were poor, and had an incurable disease, I would not want 
    into this country.  The U.S. has lousy health care for the poor.
    There are any number of countries in the world that would be better
    places to try to get into.  There really isn't much of a public welfare
    system in this country, contrary to what a lot of people seem to think.
    Now, if I had the bucks, then of course, you can't get better health
    care than here.
    						- Vick

    re .90, that is so true.  You can get anything you want in this country
    if you've got enough money.  On the other hand, if you don't have any
    money you're probably better off somewhere else.
    
    Lorna
    

>On the other hand, if you don't have any
>    money you're probably better off somewhere else.

 I can't believe people still think there's a free lunch to be had somewhere.
There is, but only if you have enough money!

 >I can't believe people still think there's a free lunch to be had somewhere.
>There is, but only if you have enough money!
    Well, Canada has free health care for everyone.  I'm not saying there
    aren't problems.  For instance, since the system is more egalitarian,
    it's much harder to get some kinds of service (kidney machines, for
    instance.  i.e., in our country, poor people whose kidneys fail just
    die.  In Canada the machines are spread around more thinly.)  But if
    I were poor and looking for medical care, Canada would look like a better 
    place to go than the U.S.  
    					- Vick

    
    re:.70
    quite right. re-reading those notes through bob's eyes i, too, was
    offended. i still don't know what the basenoter originally intended.
    

    
    Not just Canada, but Norway, Sweden, and Australia all have
    fairer health care systems. (And there are others, I'm sure.)
    

    Isn't there a difference between providing free lunches for someone
    unwilling to pay and providing free medical care for someone who
    can't afford it?  What do you tell a sick child whose parents have
    lost their jobs and insurance - hey, too bad, that's the American way?

Unless the USA decides upon a national health care policy, our health care
institutions are going to be overwhelmed and ultimately destroyed by the
probable numbers of AIDS cases of American Citizens in the next 25 years.
At the expense of taking care of just one patient, it doesn't take a full
blown epidemic to bring US health care to its knees...

That is why so many are demanding that the USA keep any AIDS infected visitors
out of the country.  They are foolish enough to think this will solve the
problem.  It won't, but it may buy time.  Even though the USA does
not have the best medical care, a large segment of the world out there seems  
to believe we do....therein lies the problem.  Right now, San Francisco
is staggering under the current weight of the expenses associated with their
very fine attempts to provide health care and support for the AIDS afflicted
citizens of the area.  Health care officials all over the bay area are now
bracing for what they believe will be the next wave - the teenagers of today
are beginning to show alarming percentages of HIV+ headcounts.  It is unfair
of us to expect the current system to be able to cope with not only the
expected/predicted cases out there, but also take care of an unknown number
of immigrant cases were we to open the borders to HIV+ imiigrants.

Is it fair to the world?  I don't know...frankly, if I had AIDS, I'd want to
get to Sweden, Holland, or Canada, but they probably wouldn't take me in
either.

re: Canada's health care 

yes, they do have a national health care plan...however, if you look at the
plan, you find very quickly that the Canadians have made some life-giving
and life-taking decisions that the American Public might not swallow so
easily.  The blunt facts are that the national health care plan that we all
want would NOT BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SERVICES to keep alive the very premature
infant, for instance, nor support cancer treatments where there is less than
10% probability of survival (both instances which are proscribed by Canadian
national health care).  Experimental treatments and many transplants would
also probably fall by the wayside.  Is the American public willing to give
up the full promise of medical research in order to keep our population at
some level of health, regardless of income?

An interesting question, no?

>Well, Canada has free health care for everyone.

 What is the tax burden on the workers in Canada? How much does it cost for
a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of liquor? The ride is NOT free. Of course,
many people don't mind other people paying...

 I personally believe that our current welfare scheme ought to be completely
thrown out the window in favor of a new scheme. Part of that scheme would 
include a minimum level of health care services for those who were not covered
under private or group policies and were unable to afford treatment. On the
other hand, we cannot afford to provide the very best medical care to everyone 
without regard to cost. Why do you think it costs so much now?

 It is trivial to find one aspect of a country that you could place in a
vacuum and say "compared to this part of the US, it is better," but when you
keep the complete context intact, you find that the second law of thermodynamics
still applies; there is no such thing as a free lunch. There are a million
trade-offs that are made. 

 There are probably some things that we could learn from Canada's health care 
system. However, it is not only impractical to adopt their system, it wouldn't
be accepted here. We only hear of the good things about Canada's health
care system. Why? Because the media is trying to shape our opinions. Of course,
were we to actually implement it here, the people who could only see bright
sunshine would finally see the clouds, and the griping would continue about
the health care system. When you only hear half the story, anything can be made
to sound like a good idea.

 The Doctah

    
    i thought that the immigration law prevented foreign HIV+ persons from 
    *visiting* this country.   you know, for the international AIDS
    conference, vacation(s), business, ect.
    
    i wasn't even thinking about it in the context of immigrating to the
    u.s.a. to burden the health care system.  what i've read in objection
    to this law is more in keeping with the above paragraph.  i wasn't aware
    that folks were trying to flock to this country because of our
    exemplary health care programs.
                                                                   

    On the health care debate.  I have major league problems with the idea
    of a "National Health System", but from a very different slant than
    most.  There is a statistically significant proportion of the US
    population which *does not want medical care* mandated for health
    problems.  No program which I have seen mentioned allows for coverage
    of non-medically sanctioned therapies and treatments (and none of the
    national health care systems of Canada and Europe cover them) for those 
    who want to pursue alternatives.  I don't care to be forced to fund a 
    program which I will never use, and where I will have to pick up 100%
    of the bill.  Current private insurance schemes *do* cover these
    alternative therapies.  And to me, it is a 1st amendment issue, as the
    choice of therapy is based on religious grounds.
    
    Alison

    Re: .100
    
    That's why we don't have the kind of government we think we do.  We are
    not represented by our lawmakers.  Permit yet another quote from the
    Curmudgeon's Dictionary:
    
    	oligarchy, n.  Government by an elite few; an evolved form of
    	representative republic, in which the representatives legislate
    	their own purposes rather than the wishes of the represented. 
    	Current governmental form in the United States.
    
    -d

	RE the immigration policy:  All of the medical experts agree that 
there is *no* prudent medical reason for banning all HIV+ people from 
visiting or emigrating to the US.  Unlike other diseases on the list (like 
TB, which can be spread by coughing) HIV is *not* spread by casual contact.

	One argument that has been presented is that our health care system 
cannot bear the additional costs of more HIV+ people.  As one of the 
speakers at the International AIDS Conference in Florence said this week, 
the additional cost would be minimal - especially compared to diseases such 
as cancer or heart disease which have very expensive treatments and 
surgeries, and where people live much longer.  We don't prohibit people with 
cancer or heart disease from emigrating here, and we absorb all their 
health costs.

	Another speaker pointed out that the number of HIV+ who would 
actually *move* here would be very small.  I think I have the numbers at 
home, but in the past several years that they've been testing the number of 
HIV+ results have been extremely low.  It seems some people fear that every 
HIV+ person in the world would want to - or could afford - to emigrate here.  
Very unrealistic.

	An article in a recent Boston Globe profiled several people who are 
being prevented from coming into the US, including a nun, whose church wanted 
to transfer her here; a woman who is married to a US citizen, was infected 
here, and is not being allowed to return.  The article is home, so I don't 
have the details here.  All had employment, housing and medical insurance 
coverage.

	The general consensus of all the experts is that the US is using 
this policy to perpetuate the irrational fears of people--that HIV+ people 
are 'dirty' and to be shunned from society, and would infect our 'clean' 
society.  If President Bush does not overturn this policy by August 3, the 
1992 International AIDS Conference scheduled to be held in Boston and 
sponsored by Harvard University, will be canceled.  Several speakers this 
week addressed this issue, calling it a clear matter of principle that a 
conference on HIV cannot be held in a country that blatantly discriminates 
against people with HIV.  They agreed that a year without sharing 
information and research would be a severe setback to the fight against 
AIDS, and placed the blame squarely on President Bush's shoulders.

deb

    
    sounds like petty blackmail to me to NOT hold a much needed conferance
    just to spite Pres. Bush. 
    
    cathy
    

  No one is saying the conference won't be held.  It just won't
  be held in our neighborhood.

                                   Atlant

re .104

cathy,

I think you've missed the point about why this conference may not
be held. At a recent conference held in the states, a Dutch man
with HIV disease was held in custody for several days when he really
needed to be contributing to the conference. And he was held merely
because he was HIV+. This is shameful and embarrassing and it must
change. Why should we hold a conference in a place where every HIV+ 
non-American must choose to endure humiliating and lengthy procedures
to get exceptions or not attend? And yes, American cities lose a little
renown and a lot of money by not sponsoring these conferences.

I don't see these threats as being spiteful but rather as using 
economic pressure to change a policy that is morally wrong.


Liz

    
    re .104, cathy:
    
    It's the American way - boycotting, picketting, peaceful protests,
    and otherwise exerting by legal means pressure on an outfit or
    organization to change its ways.  Just what on earth is wrong with that?
    
    Have you ever boycotted a product or establishment because of its
    manufacturers' or owners' practices?  If your answer is yes, please
    re-examine your reply.
    

    
    You're absolutely right, Liz (and .107 too).
    
    And btw, they say Boston is estimated to lose $20 million if the
    conference is canceled here.
    
    Going back a few...
    
    re .99 ~robin,
    
    The current law (as I  understand it) is for anyone wishing to gain
    entry to the US.  I remember the instance Liz mentioned about the Dutch
    speaker, and I have heard accounts from others' experiences prior to
    coming here on various visas.  
    
    re .83  pc,
    
    I don't know if you're male or female, pc, but in either case there is
    such a thing as an irrational fear of AIDS.  If remaining celibate for
    7 or more years is  your *choice* that's fine, but if you really *want*
    to have sex with someone but you're abstaining totally for fear of HIV 
    then becoming more comfortable with safer sex information could help you 
    make informed choices about sex partners and practices.  There are a
    variety of brochures available from AIDS organizations or hte Public
    Health offices; I also have a drawer-full if you want to write offline.
    
    deb