AIDS Propaganda

“Approximately 40 million people have AIDS.”

OK, that’s cool. Right, right. Lots of people. Yep. Oh, wait, I’m sorry, how many people have cancer again?

“Approximately 50% of all adults with AIDS are women.”

Phew! Ho ho ho! Jesus Christ, man, that’s a lot of women. Much more women than men. I mean, that’s like 30% more women than men, because we all know there are lots of robots with AIDS. Yeah, you didn’t know that? The robot community has been struck quite harshly, and that’s why they always steal old people’s medicine. They hope it will help. Those poor, poor, misguided robots.

“Approximately 1 in every 100 adults aged 15-49 is infected with AIDS.”

Okay, this is just wrong. Just plain wrong. What are you, fucking kidding me? You go on to stay that 1 in every 100 adults aged 15-49 is infected with AIDS? OK, OK, sure, right. Let’s just assume that there are a billion people below 15 and over 49, you wanna tell me that still equals to 1 in 100? No, that’s more like 1 in every 125. A billion and a half? Still only 1 in every 112.5.

God damn statistics. Fucking useless.

Worldwide or here in the US? It’s a much larger problem in Africa, for example, than it is here.

Wumpus is right. India is another with a huge AIDS problem. I’m not sure where Met_K got the numbers he is quoting, but none of it sounds terribly offbase.

Met_K, I think think they mention the female numbers like that, because most people still consider it a gay men’s disease and that women are unaffected.

Chet

Got them off Yahoo. One of their monthly “we care” advertisements.

The 40 million thing sounds off for worldwide, and I found the women comment funny. “50% of all people with aids are women. Guess who the other 50% are?” That kind of thing.

The last comment is what got me the most, though. It’s not terribly off-base, no, but I thought the idea of statistics were to inform the person reading them, right? And to inform them, you kind of need to be exact, not ballmark.

Perhaps I’m just being nitpicky and splitting hairs again, but it really annoys me to see how much -stupid- attention AIDS gets. I’m all for education on it, but really, do they need to do it in a DARE-commercial-esque way?

Is your reaction to public health statistics to always be offended?

Just yawn and move along.

AIDs is an incredible plague in parts of Africa. There are some smaller communities where most of the people have AIDs, where it is by far the leading cause of death, and it is a heterosexual issue (even with it being so much more difficult to contract that way.) AIDs in the U.S., where it is arguably largely preventable, is a tiny issue relative to some other parts of the world, where it is completely out of control.

Who, exactly, would benefit from propagandizing the plague of AIDS? Are you suggesting that it’s not really a big deal that needs to be addressed, like now? Or are you just upset that people are drawing your attention away from the scourge of Iraq?

No, you bumblefuck. Instead of pampering the victims, I’d rather see them be pro-active in preventing people from becoming one.

Christ. You folks really are a riot sometimes. Adam assumes that I actually care about Iraq, when I haven’t posted anything in that thread in a while; Jason says that I’m offended by public health; Wumpus responds, then tells everyone to ignore me. Hell, Lackey, Tim, and Chet are the only ones who’ve had any sense to make.

Let me draw it out for all of you who were bathed in lead and mercury as children: AIDS propaganda to me is the “pity the victim” advertisements we always see around. You think anyone with aids wants to be called a victim? No fucking way, because they’re not. You become a victim of cancer, not aids. Aids is because somewhere along the line, you fucked up. Whether through ignorance, or through stupidity, or through an accident. In any way, shape, or form, you got aids because of you, or someone else. Instead of wanting pity to be taken on you if you had aids, I’m sure you’d much rather have other people know what not to do, and how not to contract it.

Fucking morons.

Well, that clears up any outstanding questions.

Isn’t advertising the dangers of AIDs being proactive?

snip

I dunno – if I got AIDS through a blood transfusion, through being born to an infected mother, through engaging in protected sex that didn’t protect enough, through trusting a sex partner’s honesty, etc., I’d feel like a victim. And even if I took risks and got AIDS, I’d still appreciate sympathy.

The commercial is designed to raise awareness, which is a first step towards prevention.

Speaking of, Clinton has an editoral in the NYT time about AIDS.

I can’t believe we’re actually arguing about whether or not to charge the third world for AIDS treatments.

That’s capitalism. You expect pharmaceutical companies to willingly hand over drugs at discount prices and lose hundreds of millions of dollars in profits?

Furthermore, to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in profits to hand out medication for an incurable disease that will, at best, marginally increase an anonymous person’s life expectancy thousands of miles away, so he can herd goats one day longer. And create a self-perpetuating demand for a free medication that costs these companies huge amounts of resources to produce.

If it were a cure, that would be one thing, but expecting people to throw away billions of dollars in what basically amounts to a totally useless gesture is pretty stoopid.

I was being sarcastic. Personally I find the practice revolting, and I’m glad that the PR issues is forcing the pharmaceutical companies to grow some morals.

Life expectancy wont increase “marginally”, we’re talking decades of extended life. Is this a “useless gesture”? Hell no! Putting off a death sentance like this will be greatly appreciated by the people whose lives are saved, and it will ensure that infected people can continue to contribute to society instead of dying off while they should be in their most productive years.

That the person in question might be a goat herder thousands of miles away is utterly inconsequential. Morality don’t vanish over distance, killing a person two thousand miles away is just as bad as killing your neighbour.

The production costs of AIDS medication is very low compared to the selling price, if it wasn’t countries like Brazil and Thailand wouldn’t be able to produce their own generic drugs for distribution. The costs come from research and development, not production.

While I certainly understand the need for pharmaceutical companies to turn profits in order to be able to research new medicines I am utterly revolted when greed is used as an excuse for letting people die prematurely. Morally I think standing by and watching a person drown without coming to their aid is almost as bad as throwing that person in the water yourself.

Hey, how about that, some people finally started getting what I had to say, and it’s all because Jason posted a link. Thanks, Jason!

Continue resuming the good talk about AIDS—whether or not the pharm companies will actually end up helping the people who need it, or whether or not we’ll continue to sit idly by, watching our AIDS tv and mending our AIDS quilts, hoping for the best.

While I certainly understand the need for pharmaceutical companies to turn profits in order to be able to research new medicines I am utterly revolted when greed is used as an excuse for letting people die prematurely. Morally I think standing by and watching a person drown without coming to their aid is almost as bad as throwing that person in the water yourself.

Kalle, how dare you buy one video game, spend money on one magazine. That money could be used to feed a starving child in Africa.

YOU SICKEN ME!!! Is a child’s life not worth more than BF1942 or AC2?
Here is a link for you. I now expect you to never waste valuable energy and time by posting here - YOU HAVE WORK TO DO!

Chet

I don’t give to STC because it’s British, and we all know what the British are.

…or do we?

First - there’s a lot of propoganda about how immoral and greedy the pharma companies are because it’s a great political ploy. You’d be surprised, if you did some research, at some of the things some of the big pharma companies have done and are doing either at cost or at a loss, because it’s the right thing to do.

As for their evil desires to make money - it cost billions to research, develop, and then run a new drug through the regulatory testing, when you figure in the cost of how many never make it versus the one that does. Europe used to have some of the most productive and innovative drug research and development in the world, until their profits were limited by governments. Now their innovation is practically nil. We can do the same to U.S. companies if we like.

Secondly, it’s always easy to say that someone else should pony up and give until it hurts because it’s the right thing to do. I’m not at all saying that somehow AIDs drugs and treatments shouldn’t be accessible to those who need them, but why should private companies be forced to bear the costs? That cost will ultimately result in their being unable to employ as many researchers; being unable to invest in as many research programs for new and improved treatments; etc. How about instead we require every American to contribute, say, $1000 towards this? Not a tax increase, that just gets lost in the bureaucracy, but each American has to actually put a check for $1000 in the mail for this specific cause? How many here expressing righteous indignation have given until it hurts specifically to help the people they are expressing such concern over?

Next - why don’t we do the same for cancer treatments? There are people in a lot of poor countries who don’t have access to the surgery, the chemo and radiation therapies that could cure their cancer or prolong their life. What’s the curve look like - where do we say “OK, for this disease we should provide the world with free treatments, with private companies picking up the tab, but for these diseases they should be allowed to die”?

AIDs is a horrible disease, something that we in America just don’t have a handle on because it is so preventable in our country. I’ve talked with social workers and missionaries recently that have specifically volunteered to work in some of these villages where almost everyone is effected by the disease, and it’s so sad as to be almost unbearable. Places where the majority of the children are either already orphans or will be orphans - the MAJORITY of the children.

Which makes me that much more angry that AIDs is so politicised in this country. BOTH sides use it as a cynical PR ploy, with crocodile tears.