No extinction – drugs are getting stronger
Andrew Sullivan, editor of The New Republic, Love Undetectable, 1998, p.8
You could see it in the papers. Almost overnight, toward the end of 1996, the obituary pages in the gay press began to dwindle. Soon after, the official statistics followed. Within a year, AIDS deaths had plummeted 60 percent in California, 44 percent across the country as a whole. In time, it was shown that triple combination therapy in patients who had never taken drugs before kept close to 90 percent of them at undetectable levels of virus for two full years. Optimism about actually ridding the body completely of virus dissipated; what had at one point been conceivable after two years stretched to three and then longer. But even for those who had developed resistance to one or more drugs, the future seemed tangibly brighter. New, more powerful treatments were fast coming on- stream, month after month. What had once been a handful of treatment options grew to over twenty. In trials, the next generation of AZT packed a punch ten times as powerful as its original; and new, more focused forms of protease inhibitor carried with them even greater promise. It was still taboo, of course, to mention this hope—for fear it might encourage a return to unsafe sex and a new outburst of promiscuity. But, after a while, the numbers began to speak for themselves.
AIDS will NOT cause extinction
Andrew Sullivan, editor of The New Republic, Love Undetectable, 1998, p.7
So I do not apologize for the following sentence. It is true- and truer now than it was when it was first spoken, and truer now than even six months ago- that something profound in the history of AIDS has occurred these last two years. The power of the new treatments and the even greater power of those now in the pipeline are such that a diagnosis of HIV infection in the West is not just different in degree today than, say, in 1994. For those who can get medical care, the diagnosis is quite different in kind. It no longer signifies death. It merely signifies illness. This is a shift as immense as it is difficult to grasp. So let me make what I think is more than a semantic point: a plague is not the same thing as a disease. It is possible, for example, for a plague to end, while a disease continues. A plague is something that cannot be controlled, something with a capacity to spread exponentially out of its borders, something that kills and devastates with democratic impunity, something that robs human beings of the ability to respond in any practical way. Disease, in contrast, is generally diagnosable and treatable, with varying degrees of success; it occurs at a steady or predictable rate; it counts its progress through the human population one person, and often centuries, at a time. Plague, on the other hand, cannot be cured, and it never affects one person. It affects many, and at once, and swiftly. And by its very communal nature, by its unpredictability and by its devastation, plague asks questions disease often doesn't. Disease is experienced; plague is spread. Disease is always with us; plagues come and go. And some time toward the end of the millennium in America, the plague of AIDS went.
Ext #2 – AIDS Inevitable
OVERLAPPING SEXUAL RELATIONS AND MAKES THE SPREAD OF HIV/AIDS INEVITABLE.
Andrew RICE, The Nation, 6-11-07 (“An African Solution,” Vol. 284 Issue 23, p25-31, 5p, Ebsco)
There is an important difference, though, and Epstein believes it explains Africa’s ex ceptional susceptibility to AIDS. Americans tend to leave one relationship for the next. Ugandans—or, rather, Ugandan men—don’t have to choose. Another way of describing this phenomenon is to say that Europeans and Americans typically have lovers consecutively, while Africans— men and women alike—are commonly involved in several overlapping relationships. Studies have found that such “concurrent or simultaneous sexual partnerships are far more dangerous than serial monogamy,” Epstein writes, “because they link people up in a giant web of sexual relationships that creates ideal conditions for the rapid spread of HIV.” In any given sexual encounter, an HIV-positive person has around a 1-in-100 chance of passing on the virus. That’s a long shot in the context of a one-off tryst with a prostitute, but extended over the course of an enduring relationship, the chance of infection rises to near-certainty. Also, in many African cultures, men are not circumcised, which considerably increases their vulnerability. (Recent studies suggest this simple procedure cuts in half a man’s risk of infection.) Epstein produces a series of charts that the reader can view like a flip book, showing how a single case of HIV can spread through a network of concurrent relationships in just a few months.
HUNGER IS THE MAIN PRIORITY – AIDS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS INEVITABLE UNDER TRADITIONAL BEHAVIOR.
GLAUSER, AND BLAKE, 07 (Wendy, Blake, “With the Best Intentions” Canadian Business; 4/9/2007, Vol. 80 Issue 8, p21-26, 5p, Ebsco)
Why? For those living in the poorest parts of sub-Saharan Africa, where many people don't live past 40 and avoiding hunger is the main priority, the pandemic is not necessarily a major concern, according to Mwenda. "The NGOs assume that people are stupid, that if you just give them the information, the next day they'll be lined up buying condoms," he says. "But it doesn't work like that. Only if NGOs can sort out the mortality rates will peoples behaviour change." Mortality rates, however, will be solved only with improved transportation, better health care, proper medicine and the money to pay for it.
Share with your friends: |