HIV Tracking Technology Could Pinpoint Who's Infecting Who

Daniel_Stuckey writes "No man is an island, but evolutionarily, each person functions like one for the HIV virus. That's according to Thomas Leitner, a researcher working on a project aimed at creating technology for tracking HIV through a population. The technology, which is being studied at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, may allow people to identify who infected them with the virus, a development that could have major implications in criminal proceedings. "If you're familiar with Darwin's finches, you have a population of birds on one island and they keep moving and evolving as they spread to other islands so that each population is a little different," Leitner said. "With HIV, it's the same. Every person infected with HIV has a slightly different form of the virus. It's the ultimate chameleon because it evolves this way.""

Comments

Sorry, but...

[broginator]

whom*

Re:Sorry, but...

[Talderas]

Yep.

Who's infecting whom.

Re:Sorry, but...

[jasper_amsterdam]

This. Damn you ninja! http://theoatmeal.com/comics/who_vs_whom

Re:Sorry, but...

[Thanshin]

Unless they were talking about identifying who infected The Doctor.

Re:Sorry, but...

[mythosaz]

Almost as bad as this in the body:

Every person infected with HIV has a slightly different form the the virus. It's the ultimate chameleon because it evolves this way.

Re:Sorry, but...

[yurtinus]

You can't infect The Doctor.

Re:Sorry, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

At least they didn't say "whom is infecting who." I'd much rather see "who" when it should be "whom" than "whom" when it should be "who"; you see faux intellectuals make that mistake here all the time.

Re:Sorry, but...

[minstrelmike]

Unless they were talking about identifying who infected The Doctor.

Who are y'all talking about? Doctor Whom?

Re:Sorry, but...

[NatasRevol]

Whom are you to be so condesenting?

Re:Sorry, but...

[rossdee]

He is probably immune, the H in HIV stands for Human, and while it might have originated in other terren primates, it would not be suited to a Gallifreyan's DNA

Re:Sorry, but...

[Talderas]

The sentence 'him is infecting he' makes perfect sense to some people.

Re:Sorry, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the case of the Doctor in Star Trek, the H in HIV would be "Hologram".

Re:Sorry, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. In the case of the Doctor in Star Trek, the H in HIV would be "Human"... As in "I'm a human doctor - not a hologram!"

Re:Sorry, but...

[Sperbels]

Whom is an endangered species. I have a feeling it will be considered archaic within a hundred years.

Re:Sorry, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't The Doctor half human?

Re:Sorry, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Peter Townshend.

Re:Sorry, but...

[cayenne8]

Or Peter Townshend.

Aww....Who the fuck are you?

Re:Sorry, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hologram doctor? You mean Dr. Watson from when Data and LaForge would do their Sherlock Holmes thing?

Re:Sorry, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

EXCUSE me, you have must have read the references...
BECAUSE in the simmary as posted does not exhibit this grammar problem of who(nomative) /whom(objective)

and don't get us started about that * w/o a proper footnote... please

WHOM (trolling) made "Sorry, but..." a 5 Informative ??? OMG

Re:Sorry, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean summary not simmary - although lexically I could follow

Re:Sorry, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

the tit er title

Re:Sorry, but...

[tragedy]

The Doctor is half human in the same way that the immortals from Highlander are alien convicts from the planet Zeist. In other words, why did the Highlander movies skip right from 1 to 3 with no part 2?

Re:Sorry, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

"HIV virus"? What's that? Is HIV ill again?

HID Tracking

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I first read that wrong. I saw "HID Tracking Technology Could...". I looked down at my company badge (which uses HID) and started thinking about tinfoil...

Hopefully

[i kan reed]

I really do hope we're past the point that any major governments are populated with people that view AIDS as a "gay plague", because otherwise, I can easily see petty local leaders using this research to arrest sick people and charge them with murder.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

It would primarily open up the option of a person who was infected to sue (or maybe even get a criminal charge against) the person who they caught it from.
Even with the current levels of treatability, most people don't like the idea of having to take a dozen immunomanipulative drugs daily with the knowledge that each day the expensive bundle of exotic chemicals grows slightly less effective at keeping them reasonably healthy.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a crime in the US to knowingly infect another person with HIV. That has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Re:Hopefully

[i kan reed]

Yeah, I know that. But unknowingly doing so can still be a target for the bigots out there.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

It IS a gay plague.
Face it.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course those who infect others should be penalized if they know they are ill.
It should be almost equal to murder.

Ill person should be obligated to inform others about it.

Re:Hopefully

[Charliemopps]

Pretty sure its a crime to infect anyone with anything intentionally.

Re:Hopefully

[Shakrai]

But unknowingly doing so can still be a target for the bigots out there.

How do you "unknowingly" give someone HIV? It's the most studied disease of our times, the mechanisms of transmission are well known even to the layman, as are the risk factors. The best you can say for someone who unknowingly transmits the disease is that they were criminally negligent.

I don't engage in any high-risk behaviors, never have unprotected sex outside of long-term monogamous relationships, and I still get STD tests before starting new relationships. This isn't rocket science people.

Re:Hopefully

[interkin3tic]

I'd argue the benefits outweigh the risks with this particular development. If your version of HIV is found spreading, then, yeah, you should probably face some legal consequences. Meanwhile, if there's a politician and voters out to just go gaybashing, they can and do do that already, they don't need to bring complicated things like scientific facts into it.

Re:Hopefully

[i kan reed]

Startling fact: many people haven't had access to affordable healthcare and have to take gambles with their lives sometimes.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all,

HIV is more manageable these days than diabetes in the vast vast majority of cases. The medications work. That's why we're using them.

Second of all,

Someone with HIV is not necessarily "ill" and doesn't necessarily know that they are HIV+ in the first place. Which would make it rather more difficult to tell other people that they're positive, too.

Third of all,

Anyone who has unprotected sex these days should be considered to be implicitly or even explicitly acknowledging their risk by even engaging in the act in the first place. Which essentially means that you cannot blame anyone but yourself for being infected unless you can prove that you were coerced or infected through violence of some other sort.

Only you can stop stigma.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently it may as well be if you think that believing your "long-term monogamous relationships" are monogamous means that they are, or that your partner couldn't have been positive when you got together. Just so you know, there's a window period during which no test can detect the virus, but the person is still very much able to pass it to you.

Essentially, it isn't just "high risk" behaviors that put you at risk. We are all of us at risk. Period. Just like you can't say with certainty that you'll never get a headcold for the rest of your life because you wash your hands. Or that you will never be killed in a car wreck because you know you're a good driver.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

Preemptively calling me a bigot (or as you more accuratly mean, given you original post, homophobe) because I view giving someone AIDS unknowingly as wrong, only goes to show your own personal bigotries; i.e. you're intolerance for something that can be construed as anti-gay, despite the authors intent.

When I say unknowingly giving someone AIDS makes you a douche bag in 99% of cases I mean it because:

If you're going out and sleeping with multiple partners (be they male, female, homo or hetro relations) without protection and having yourself tested for VD/STD/STI/etc inbetween... YOU ARE WRONG and no different from a plague bearing rat.

I see nothing wrong with that statement... well I guess you could call me a bigot for my intolerance of dangerous sexual practices, if you must...

Please understand that I only speak up to educate and encourage safe sex. Please, enjoy your body as you see fit but don't become a victim when you don't have to.

Caveat: I'm not American, I understand you guys have a lot of issues around sex and I'm sorry if you suffer because of it.

Re:Hopefully

[Shakrai]

Startling fact: You can get a free HIV test virtually anywhere in the United States.

Second startling fact: You're free to take gambles with your own life. You're not free to take gambles with the life of another, which is exactly what you're doing if you're having sexual intercourse with someone while you have an unknown HIV status.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

It's almost like you didn't read the GPs qualifier.

if they know they are ill

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

Just so you know, there's a window period during which no test can detect the virus

That window period is down to ~12 days with modern technology. Here's a novel concept: Wait a few weeks between sexual partners. It won't kill you.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

It's almost like you assume that immediately after being infected that you're able to tell that you're infected. Instead of possibly years later. Or that partners don't cheat on unknowing partners.

AKA a douche.

Re:Hopefully

[i kan reed]

A tremendous, short-sighted douche.

Re:Hopefully

[ShanghaiBill]

Pretty sure its a crime to infect anyone with anything intentionally.

My mom intentionally infected me with chicken pox. Her friend's kid had chicken pox, so she took me there so I would get it too. There was no vaccine at the time, and since chicken pox is generally mild in children, but can be a serious disease for adults, it is better to "get it over with" while you are young.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

so it is still 12 days where it goes undetected which means your argument is moot.

Re:Hopefully

[jellomizer]

Not in the US. Why HIPAA. We have so much privacy especially in HIV cases, that it will take an act of congress to allow sharing of data.

The extra regulations for HIV is due to the public and governments view of AIDS as a disease for the bad people in the world.
Due to its initial high rates among Gay, and Drug users, then spreading to Sexual promiscuous people... All the stuff that your local minister tells you is quite evil and you are going to have to deal with the wrath of god for.

Now this is a public health problem, and it expends beyond just the normal "Sinners" of the world.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course those who infect others should be penalized if they know they are ill.
It should be almost equal to murder.

Ill person should be obligated to inform others about it.

If the penalty is worse if you KNOW you're ill, then poor people who can't afford medicine have an incentive to NOT get tested. Or they'll use a less effective black market test just to protect their medical privacy.

There should be no law which punishes knowledge. Take for example some patent laws which punish infringers more if they knew about the patent... it encourages might-be infringers to do less research.

Re:Hopefully

[AlphaWolf_HK]

That argument makes no sense at all because HIV tests have been easy to get for free for a long time now.

Re:Hopefully

[MozeeToby]

I think what they will find if they do this research large scale is lots and lots of people who infect one or two others, and a relatively small ( 5% ) number who infect lots and lots of people. Either because they don't know they're infected or they don't care. Showing how the network of infections is laid out can lead to better prevention, better diagnosis, and even better treatment since some strains of HIV respond better to some drugs than others.

Re:Hopefully

[skine]

I'd suggest watching Stephen Fry: Out There and Stephen Fry: HIV and Me. They give a lot of information about both homosexuality and HIV/AIDS around the world.

One startling point is that South Africa does not believe that there is a connection between HIV and AIDS.

Re:Hopefully

[righteousness]

We are all of us at risk. (sic)

Speak for yourself. I'm not at risk.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

Startling fact: You can get a free HIV test virtually anywhere in the United States.

Where? Even wonderful places like Planned Parenthood charge impoverished people without health insurance $50.

Re:Hopefully

[SleazyRidr]

How would you go about proving that they knew?

Re:Hopefully

[SleazyRidr]

Maybe, instead of sticking your dick in everyone who will let you, you get to know them for a couple of weeks, then get tested, then start getting it on.

Re:Hopefully

[SleazyRidr]

Responsible people always get tested in between partners. They don't magically know that they're infected, but they take action to find out.

If you cheat on your partner and bring a disease back, then you're a douche for cheating and a douche for infecting your partner. For the partner who was cheated on, please refer to the first point.

Re:Hopefully

[i kan reed]

And if I didn't know that(even assuming it's true because I have no reason to doubt you), why would you assume everyone else does?

Re:Hopefully

[Shakrai]

Here's one in my area, funded by your tax dollars. Similar institutions can be found across my State.

There is no charge to Broome County residents for STD testing and treatment.

"I'm poor" is not an acceptable excuse to engage in sexual intercourse while having an unknown HIV status. "I'm a selfish asshole who only thinks about my own gratification" is the most likely explanation.

Re:Hopefully

[cayenne8]

Startling fact: many people haven't had access to affordable healthcare and have to take gambles with their lives sometimes.

Hey...if you can't afford the activity...then don't participate in it.

Re:Hopefully

[cayenne8]

Maybe, instead of sticking your dick in everyone who will let you

But, that's the fun of having a dick!!

Re:Hopefully

[i kan reed]

Hey if you can't afford to not be a self-righteous ass, then shut-the-fuck-up.

People are going to have sex, and your complaints about it just make you a bad person.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if they ever took a test that came back positive, they know. The test results should be kept and accessible by court-order shouldn't they?
Unless the "which clinic did they go to" mess starts, I don't know how it works in the states exactly in terms of how different healthcare providers share data... worst case you'll have to look for the person's records at a variety of clinics.

Re:Hopefully

[cayenne8]

People are going to have sex, and your complaints about it just make you a bad person.

Well, if people are going to act in irresponsible ways, I guess that makes them bad people too?

If you can't afford to have sex responsibly...and be able to pay for and care for the offspring it may result in (if hetero)...they don't do it.

Why should I or anyone else pay for someone else to fuck?

They may have to the right to do it, but they also have the responsibility for the repercussions of it, and in this day in age, that includes the problems and risk of AIDS or other diseases as well as possible offspring.

Not sure how stating fact makes me a bad person.

Re:Hopefully

[SleazyRidr]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1869#comic

Seriously though, there are places where you shouldn't be putting your penis.

Re:Hopefully

[RocketRabbit]

I guess you, like most Obamacare supporters, never heard of Medicaid. We have had a free health plan for people who can't afford insurance for decades.

We could have simply opened the program to more people, and raised corporate taxes by a percent or two, but the goal of Obamacare isn't affordable health care - it's government control.

Re:Hopefully

[locopuyo]

You should seek revenge by infecting her toothbrush with herpes.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

"You're free to take gambles with your own life."
It's not like this happens in a vacuum. There are two parties involved. In essence the recipient is taking a risk for their own health too. Try not to forget that.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

> They may have to the right to do it, but they also have the responsibility for the repercussions of it, and in this day in age, that includes the problems and risk of AIDS or other diseases as well as possible offspring.

Someone who is forced to have kids they do not want is rarely going to give them a quality upbringing.
This kid is more likely to be doomed to a life of crime or poverty. You as a taxpayer will end up paying far more for this than if you paid for contraceptives.

Re:Hopefully

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Sick people who know they are sick with a sexually transmitted disease, and then have sex anyway, ARE GUILTY OF MURDER. Doesn't matter if they are homo or hetero.

Re:Hopefully

[climb_no_fear]

You may hate your mom when you reach 70 or so, chickenpox is a lifelong latent infection that can reactivate in older individuals, causing shingles and postherpetic neuralgia, or PHN.

Re:Hopefully

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Or, gasp, they shouldn't be sexually active in the first place.

Re:Hopefully

[Marxist Hacker 42]

If you can't afford healthcare, then you can't afford sex.

Re:Hopefully

[Marxist Hacker 42]

People who behave irresponsibly are worse.

Re:Hopefully

[Marxist Hacker 42]

If they don't want kids, why are they having sex? Are they criminally ignorant?

Re:Hopefully

[i kan reed]

And yet people have sex anyways. Congratulations. You've solved zero problems, but you've felt superior to some poor people.

Re:Hopefully

[i kan reed]

Sick people who know they are sick with a sexually transmitted disease, and then have sex anyway, ARE GUILTY OF MURDER. Doesn't matter if they are homo or hetero.

HIV is famously stealthy. A test won't even come up positive right after you get it.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

> We are all of us at risk.

That's bullshit. I have never and the vast majority of my friends have never had sex so we are not at risk. We're not like the promiscuous baby boomers or the following generation. We recognize our centers. We know we are more important than what others think of us. You insecure people may think you need sex for validation, but adults know we don't need either the validation or the sex.

Plus the people that are the exact opposites who are the xtians. They don't believe in having sex so they are obviously not at risk. xtianism has really slowed the spread of AIDS.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

As a male, where and how? My doctor wanted over $1k for one. My wife has had two for nearly free from Planned Parenthood, but of course that doesn't help males. Since it's illegal in this state (CA) to get a blood test done without a doctor's order and also to receive the results directly, how do you propose a male can possibly get it done for less than hundreds of dollars at the minimum?

Re:Hopefully

[Charliemopps]

What she did was illegal. There have been instances where mothers have been arrested for so-called "pox parties"

Also, the adult version is called "Shingles" and it doesn't just affect adults. When I was about 10 I got shingles, it's rare but not that rare. It SUCKED.

Re:Hopefully

[Velex]

No, cayenne8 has a point. As a homosexual, I am fucking sick of being considered AIDS/GRID-infested because straight folks like you can't think fucking twice before fucking. Some of us have control over our urges.

Re:Hopefully

[Velex]

You know, some of us homosexuals who are destroying America and marriage and caused 9/11 actually believe in.. you know... NOT CHEATING.

I know you straight fucks can't understand that with all the sex you have. It's called a committed relationship.

Idiots. No wonder marriage is falling apart. You straight fucks are all to blame.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, in the west the life expectancy of people who are infected with HIV can be as long as a non infected person. This isn't 1985 so a murder charge may be pushing it.

Secondly, a person infected with HIV has no obligation to reveal their status especially since they don't know how the next person will react. Some people are still quite ignorant on the subject and may over react.

Thirdly, we are all responsible for our own health. Despite what some people believe it is not that easy to get infected with HIV and the chances that you will catch HIV while having sex with a condom are extremely slim. So, if you don't ask the right questions of the people you are sleeping with and choose not to wear a condom or don't ask the person you are sleeping with to, then you must face the consequences for your decisions.

Yes, someone could knowingly and purposefully infect someone else, but HIV is not a bullet. We are all aware of the dangers of unprotected sex and there are barriers we can put up to protect ourselves. We have to treat every person we come into contact with as ignorant of their sexual health. In fact most people are ignorant of their sexual health.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the personal responsibility? You act as if HIV is spread through the air. It takes two or more people to have sex. Also there are many factors involved when it comes to getting infected with HIV. The chances you will get infected while having sex with a condom are extremely slim and factors like the infected persons viral load comes into play. My point is you need to take care of yourself. You need to ask the people you are sleeping with about their status and if they don't know you have the choice to walk away. No one else can gamble with your life. if you are having sex with different partners you are gambling with your own health. If you are having sex without a condom, you are gambling with your own health. If you don't ask the people you are sleeping with about their status, you are gambling with your own health. In fact, the only way to be sure is to get tested together.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is forcing you to have sex with people who don't know their status. What are you doing to ensure your own health? Do you ask the right questions? Do you try not to sleep around? do you always wear a condom? Don't blame other people for your risky behavior.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

If we can assume they're going to do the responsible thing in the first place, then what's the point of a law? What matters is how these laws influence people who are otherwise unwilling to make personal sacrifices like abstinence or loss of privacy.

Just like a Marxist to smugly trivialize both economic incentives and other people's suffering.

Re:Hopefully

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Depends on the condom. Anywhere from 2-40 sexual encounters out of 100 will result in infection.

Re:Hopefully

[Marxist Hacker 42]

So the safe thing to do, is don't have sex.

Re: Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

Every county in California has at least one free, anonymous testing route. Most of the cities have several. San Diego has roughly a dozen.

Re:Hopefully

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Thus evolution in action, right? The stupid ones will die.

Re:Hopefully

[i kan reed]

Then why are you still breathing?

(Also, social darwinism isn't evolution, it ignores the reality of how extreme poverty increases reproduction rates, and it makes you look like an asshole, all the same time)

Re:Hopefully

[i kan reed]

I would be all for Marxist Hacker 42 having no sex. Please don't.

Re:Hopefully

[Artifakt]

Because you know for an absolute fact that no one will ever rape you?
Because no one will ever expose you through blood or other fluids? It must be nice to have God's personal assurance nobody that's HIV positive will ever get stabbed near you (or just get nicked on something).
Because you are such an infallible judge of character that that person you enter into a long term monagamous realationship with will absolutely never lie to you?

Re:Hopefully

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Extreme poverty increasing reproduction rates is a feature, not a bug. It increases the chances of the entire family being removed from poverty by maximizing the chances of having an extraordinarily successful member of the family. Which is exactly why wealthy people want to use draconian population control techniques on the poor.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the informed consent part.

Sick people who know they are sick with a sexually transmitted disease, [[ and neglect to inform their partner ]] and then have sex anyway, ARE GUILTY OF MURDER.

Re:Hopefully

[TaoPhoenix]

Hallo Ikanreed, I have to smash a couple of your notes together...

  by i kan reed (749298) Alter Relationship on 10:11 AM November 21st, 2013 (#45481327) Homepage Journal

I really do hope we're past the point that any major governments are populated with people that view AIDS as a "gay plague", because otherwise, I can easily see petty local leaders using this research to arrest sick people and charge them with murder. ...
"Yeah, I know that. ((Editorial ... To knowingly infect another person with HIV)) ... But unknowingly doing so can still be a target for the bigots out there."

Let's stop there.

I'll say this in my best PG-13 form. TSA has made us ... terrified... that five ounces of baby milk are a hazard risk. But ... millions of people ... can (slowly!) end your life... in thirty minutes.

This is one of the best examples that "divisions are separated". "Someone" (who deserved their paycheck!?) managed to separate 5OunceApplejuiceBearing terrorists, from the EndYourLifeIn30Min ... non-tracked entities.

So now this ... is ... news. Oh to be sure, parts of it were lingering. But because it's now News, it's Official.

So here we go! Are we "socially ready for this"!?

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

Sick people who know they are sick with a sexually transmitted disease, and then have sex anyway, ARE GUILTY OF MURDER. Doesn't matter if they are homo or hetero.

STDs don't necessarily kill. But if you think so, then the person who spread it already has a life sentence, so what's your point?

Re:Hopefully

[Marxist Hacker 42]

My point is that they have become a weapon. And as such, they need to be locked away, no different than a gun in a gun cabinet.

Re:Hopefully

[RockDoctor]

If they don't want kids,

I do not want kids now and never in my whole life have I ever wanted kids. Nor do I expect to ever change that opinion. But having said that, I can still answer your next question.

why are they having sex?

Because fucking is fun. (Incidentally, my significant-other-of-the-other-anatomy likes me to fuck her up the arse, which is a fine example of a heterosexual non-reproductively-targeted sexual activity. And great fun for both of us.)

Are they criminally ignorant?

Neither of us are ignorant nor criminal. Despite what you seem to think.

Your division of the world implies that you think that the only reason for having sex is to get pregnant, and that anyone who has sex for any other reason is a criminal.

It must be real fun in your house with the thermometers and other paraphernalia. Do you at least swing the female half of the couple from the chandelier to encourage the cum to soak into her cervix. Or is it a (pre-warmed) turkey baster all the way? To avoid having any of that evil "fun".

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

I chatted w/ a gay friend, and he said he gets tested (for free) every 6 months, doesn't date anyone who isn't tested, doesn't date black guys (he's black so that's at worse personal preference, not prejudice, but also much higher rate of infection among blacks). He says Oralquick is the test of choice. Oral test, results in less than half an hour.

http://www.cvs.com/shop/product-detail/OraQuick-In-Home-HIV-Test
Lists it as $40 which is about 2-4x the price of the condoms they sell.

But he noted that free tests are offered throughout the city by AIDS groups.

Re:Hopefully

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Fucking when you don't want kids is criminal negligence, period. It's no different than getting high.

Re:Hopefully

[RockDoctor]

And on that point, we'll have to agree to differ. I hope that you enjoy having the proctors rip you off your (person of reproductively-appropriate-anatomy) once the gametes have transferred, because having that extra wiggle is just for fun, and banned in your mindset. Actually ... considering that you use the word "period", I take it that you only fuck (penetrative or penetrated, I think you're still ambiguous) during the couple of days of maximum fertility. Otherwise, you're like evil, y'know. "Every Sperm is sacred / Every Sperm is good.

Masturbation must be a sin (in your book. But it's hardly Original.

Re:Hopefully

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Being original is what causes error. I'd rather be right.

Re:Hopefully

[RockDoctor]

Excuse me, but I've just been discussing quantum reality in the bar. As I do, but I doubt you do.

Being original is what causes error. I'd rather be right.

As Douglas Adams' script told Peter Jones to say, "The secret is to keep banging the rocks together, guys!"

Enjoy your Paleolithic. say 'hello' to malnutrition, uncontrolled disease and death-by-becoming-dinner for me. I've had passing acquaintances with some of them, and don't want to deepen the relationship with any.

Re:Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

This research doesn't just look at gay AIDS propagation, it pinpoints the source no matter how it was transmitted. I believe you just made the assumption that AIDS is a "gay plague". The charge of murder may be apropos, however "not guilty" should be the verdict unless it can be proven that the infection source had knowledge of the infection and then acted in such a way known to transfer the virus.

In other words, the law is probably already equipped (depending on your particular jurisdiction) to prosecute those who spread AIDS. This technology merely ensures that only the one who actually caused the infection could be found guilty.

One related question is: what if there is more than one source? It would be quite possible to be infected from multiple vectors.

Oh, BTW: I am not saying your assumption of AIDS being a "gay plague" is a false assumption, merely that you did assume it as evidenced by your comments. It may be difficult to make a case otherwise when statistics (e.g. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistics_2009_HIV_Surveillance_Report_vol_17_no2.pdf) show things like 91% of new HIV infections were attributable to male to male sex in 2009. I do object to the phrasing though - it does feel callous.

Two reasons I don't care about this

[Velex]

(only care enough to leave this here)

#1: Somehow, despite being homosexual and/or trans or whatever, I don't have AIDS/GRID. Amazing!

#2: My genitals were mutilated and I suffered all that physical pain that forced me to effectively chose impotence as the solution so that now I'm protected from AIDS/GRID and don't need to worry about it, right?

So, my question is, why should I trust the idiots in the medical profession who think that #1 is because I'm a mentally ill psychopath and that I'm even more mentally ill because in #2 I wish I had been intact and hadn't known 19 years of genital pain?

Karma to burn, etc. Thought this would be better than spending my mod points on this thread.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[operagost]

Is there some reason you are crying out for attention? That's your real issue.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[i kan reed]

While I can understand residual anger at the profession of the person who did that to you, it's not actually the case that doctors are malicious or generally ignorant.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't figure out whether you're serious or not, but you certainly can get HIV even if you're "impotent".

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you read his post? He's gives two good reasons. He even numbered them for you!

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[Thanshin]

I don't get your post. Do you think there's any relation between aids, tracking its spread vectors, and homosexuality?

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? You can't catch it, so it doesn't matter?

That's like me saying: All those people who suffer from genital mutilation don't matter, because my genitals are just fine, thanks.

The world does not revolve around you. Have some fucking compassion.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[Eunuchswear]

My genitals were mutilated and I suffered all that physical pain that forced me to effectively chose impotence as the solution so that now I'm protected from AIDS/GRID

The bad news is - no, you are not protected from AIDS.

You are just less likely to catch it voluntarily.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[Charliemopps]

it's not actually the case that doctors are malicious or generally ignorant.

I disagree. I think the majority of doctors, just like any profession, don't have a clue what they are doing. You have to search around to find anyone competent. I've lost count of the number of times I've had problems that bugged me for years... until I walked into the right doctors office and the doctor knew exactly what to do and cured me within weeks. The biggest problem with healthcare is the incompetence of our medical professionals. When you can have 2 hospitals in the same city, sitting less than a mile apart and one has a survival rate for heart surgery that's double or even triple the other hospitals, somethings Fing wrong. That sort of disparity happens in every town in this country and it's criminal that it's allowed to continue. They are literally killing tens of thousands of people with their incompetence.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. "Is there some reason he is crying out for attention in this particular thread?"

This isn't a thread about genital mutilation or medical incompetence, it's about HIV. Unless you were infected with the latter while someone performed the former on you, there is no obvious reason to make the awkward leap from "HIV" to "genital mutilation" other than "Hey, I really want to tell you all about my awful genital mutilation experiences."

I wonder if GP goes into driverless car threads and says "yeah, driverless cars will reduce the number of awful car wrecks, which look JUST LIKE MY GENITAL REGION!". Or maybe in rocketry threads we might get "Of course, that big phallic rocket looks ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE ANYTHING IN MY UNDERWEAR!"

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[Antique Geekmeister]

Do you get transfusions or donate blood, or did you do so before the tests improved? Do you share needles, or have you had surgery where a surgeon accidentally cut their hand, even wearing gloves?

AIDS requires the exchange of intimate body fluids, but it can still happen by accident. And given how quickly it spread originally from a very "active" gay man, the risk of a surgeon accidentally infecting patients or a hooker engaging in unsafe practices is still a real epidemiological tracking reason to want to track the source of an AIDS cluster.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[dyingtolive]

Cool story bro, but I think you typoed "reddit.com" in your address bar.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[Shakrai]

Do you get transfusions or donate blood, or did you do so before the tests improved?

How do you get HIV (or any other blood-borne disease) from donating blood?

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[odigity]

Don't worry, I'm sure our wonderfully competent amnd benevolent federal government will step in and take over everything and make it better. Because poor quality is always to be blamed on the free market, not past interference by our wise and saintly government. Or at least that's what I was conditioned to believe in school. (A government service.)

Or maybe...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt0tKl0J-S4 -- The Death of Healthcare, Part 1

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[ShanghaiBill]

I think the majority of doctors, just like any profession, don't have a clue what they are doing.

A big part of the problem is their effort to maintain their mystique. While working as a coder, I check the docs, or look up a problem on Stackoverflow a dozen times a day. Medicine is way more complex than coding, but I have never seen a doctor whip out a laptop and say to a patient "Let me just Google those symptoms!" because they want to maintain the illusion of omniscience. So they just "wing it" instead, and often get the diagnosis wrong.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[Anonymous Coward]

You can compare the survival rates or any other statistics only if both hospitals have the same or similar enough number and type of cases. Otherwise the comparison is made difficult and you need a real statisticomagician to get to the truth. This is not to say that the difference you talk about are not criminal - I am sure some of them are a result of criminal negligence possibly.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[DexterIsADog]

Don't be too hard on him, it's a sore point.

He has a bumper sticker that reads, "Ask me about my genital mutilation"

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[DexterIsADog]

Not to be too contrary, but when I recently picked a new primary physician, we were talking about my Zantac use for acid reflux. This guy went to the laptop he always keeps in the examining room to look up maximum dosage, and possible ill-effects. He found what he needed, and advised me to cut back to avoid negative effects on vitamin absorption that may occur at the dose I was using.

He's a keeper.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[Archwyrm]

Medicine is way more complex than coding

It is? Most people in the modern world have some idea of what makes them sick and what to do to get better. Most people in the modern world don't have the first clue about software or what makes their computer crash. Attitudes like yours do nothing to demystify medical doctors' "illusion of omniscience".

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[Anonymous Coward]

Some hospitals specialize in the sickest, most likely to die patients. That is going to skew their statistics.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[Anonymous Coward]

When you can have 2 hospitals in the same city, sitting less than a mile apart and one has a survival rate for heart surgery that's double or even triple the other hospitals, somethings Fing wrong.

Sigh. Statistics isn't so simple. Lets say there are two heart surgeons, Dr. Smith and Dr. Doe:

90% of Dr. Smith's patients do very well.
50% of Dr. Doe's patients do very well.

So, you should choose Dr. Smith for your heart surgery, right?

Wrong. Dr. Doe is the best heart surgeon in the city, and tends to get the toughest heart cases. Many of Dr. Doe's patients do badly, because they were in very bad shape to begin with.

Dr. Smithis nowhere near as good, and tends to get the easy patients because that's all that hospitals trust Dr. Smith to deal with.

You want to look at success rates with comparable patients.

Having dealt with different health issues over the years, it is difficult for the layperson to judge the quality of their health care.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[jd.schmidt]

Kind of in the way not living near tigers makes you less likely to be eaten by one. Sure an escaped zoo tiger *might* eat you, but is just very unlikely.

No disease is magic, basic behavioural changes can be very effective in reducing their spread. We need to remind people we already know everything needed to stop the spread of HIV.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[chihowa]

Having dealt with different health issues over the years, it is difficult for the layperson to judge the quality of their health care.

...and that's no accident. It doesn't have to be that way.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[Anonymous Coward]

While working as a coder, I check the docs, or look up a problem on Stackoverflow a dozen times a day. Medicine is way more complex than coding, but I have never seen a doctor whip out a laptop and say to a patient "Let me just Google those symptoms!"

It happens all the time, even if you didn't notice.

- doctors look things up in paper & electronic reference texts such as Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, The Cochrane Library or pharmaceutical guides
- doctors informally ask other doctors
- doctors formally ask other doctors (sometimes billed as a "phone consult")
- doctors refer you to see a specialist

FYI, google isn't always the best source of health info - there are many kooks & quacks peddling snake oil.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[ShanghaiBill]

Most people in the modern world have some idea of what makes them sick

Most people understand that if you drop a rock on your foot, it will hurt. But that doesn't mean they understand general relativity, and the gravitational warping of space-time that makes it happen.

Most people in the modern world don't have the first clue about software or what makes their computer crash.

This is because of apathy or intimidation rather than inherent complexity. The basic principles of computing are amazingly simple.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[mynamestolen]

I have to agree about the health profession. And here's an example that may be useful for geeks. For years I suffered from painful hips. At the age of 35 I thought I had early onset arthritis. Two different doctors about two years apart said no, but didn't know what it was. The pain got so bad after four years that I went to another doctor who asked me questions about my lifestyle. He established that I sat in front of a computer too long and then asked me to touch my toes. I couldn't. He said the problem was my hamstrings had shrunk so badly that they were crunching my leg bones up into my hip sockets. Answer simple stretches. Instant relief. Now I do my !@%$! stretches.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[Anonymous Coward]

While there are differences in skill among doctors, 90% of complaints are very routine and almost all board certified doctors will arrive at the correct diagnosis and treatment. Differences in survival are far more closely related to patient population than skill (e.g. a university hospital with some of the best equipment and top specialists in their field will have a lower survival rate as only the sickest patients are transferred to them).

Now, we can interpret your anecdote in one of two ways:

• First, some city has a majority of people who were at the top of their class throughout their academic career, studied a subject for 11+ years, have passed 4+ specialty boards, and yet still remain incompetent. And they are never successfully sued.
• Second, you doctor shop until you find one that will give you the (likely DEA controlled) medicine or treatment you think you need, and you call all the others incompetent.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[Antique Geekmeister]

You _give_ AIDS by donating blood, and already being infected.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[Velex]

Of course there is. On Fox News at least. That was three halfs the point of the post. btw, I am glad it was downmodded. Shows that the other mods at least have sense, although I'm surprised how many folks responded to it.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[Velex]

I don't.

Nobody will ever catch AIDS from my blood. That's because they've figured out that only fags get AIDS/GRID, so they won't let me donate blood unless I'm comfortable about lying about when the last time I slept with a hot guy was.

Since I don't have AIDS/GRID, it does make me quite a bit uncomfortable about the possibility that I might receive blood. I don't want that infection.

If the precautions you straight people take against AIDS/GRID is only limited to the idiocy of beliving it only affects t3h g4h, I'm safer refusing all treatment that might involve some straight idiot's blood.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[Velex]

Allow me to elaborate.

#2 was supposed to be ironic. Of course circumcision doesn't protect me in any meaningful statistical way.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[Antique Geekmeister]

Please forgive me for this, but I'm going to try to be logical for the education of other slashdot readers who have to think about real risks.

There are other means: the blood supply is one of them: I've even had injured people bleed on me, on open cuts. Many years ago, I helped a convulsing man who bit me and drew blood, and he was choking on blood from his bitten tongue. If he'd had AIDS, I'd have been at serous risk. It wouldn't have stopped me from helping him stop choking, but it gave me pause later when I thought about such risks, and I did wind up getting a tetanus booster shot.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[Eunuchswear]

'cos rape never happens in your tiger-free neighbourhood?

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[mcgrew]

It's sad that AIDS was originally started with "gay cancer" because it really isn't a gay thing and HIV isn't a sexually transmitted disease, it's a blood-bourne disease -- you get it from infected blood getting into your bloodstream. Asimov died of AIDS he got from a transfusion in a hospital. You can get it from anal sex because the anal tissues often tear, allowing the infected semen into the bloodstream.

Most infections these days are from the same thing as Hep C -- junkies sharing needles.

BTW, mentally ill != psychopath.

Re:Two reasons I don't care about this

[Velex]

Thanks for the reply and the sanity. I'm sorry I was a bit off my rocker when I posted that.

unlike- mutates in host quickly

[peter303]

If both the vector and recipient have dozens of varieties due to internal mutations, it would be hard to legally connect the two.

Re:unlike- mutates in host quickly

[Fwipp]

You're right, there can be a large amount of difference even between co-infecting strains. However, there's quite a lot of potential variant sites - you can sort of think of it as a large multi-dimensional problem, which thousands of axes in which you can see variation. If strain A differs from strain B at 50 sites, and strain C from strain A at a separate 50 sites, A and C can have anywhere from 0-100 differences.

You can use some pretty simple formulas to estimate what the "infecting" strain looked like for any given person, as well (even if there are multiple separate infecting strains, possibly occurring at distinct times).*

While this approach won't be perfect (there _will_ be both false negatives and false positives), it's a fairly straight-forward application of available information. I am very worried about some law enforcement agency maintaining a database of HIV users, and running a blind search for any new infected patients. If they restrain themselves to only testing reasonable suspects (as additional evidence), this may be okay.

The AIDS-panic never really went away for a lot of people - I'm afraid that improper application of these modeling tools could easily bring it back.

*Full disclosure, I co-authored a paper on some preliminary work for this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21716075

Re:unlike- mutates in host quickly

[interkin3tic]

Nonsense. HIV has 9200 base pairs in its genome. 12 mutations in the recipient aren't likely to completely overlap with 12 mutations the donor contributed.

Re:unlike- mutates in host quickly

[LoyalOpposition]

If strain A differs from strain B at 50 sites, and strain C from strain A at a separate 50 sites, A and C can have anywhere from 0-100 differences.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if strain C differs from strain A at 50 sites, then isn't it true that A and C have exactly 50 differences? In other words, it's false that A and C can have anywhere from 0-100 differences?

~Loyal

Re:unlike- mutates in host quickly

[bob_super]

"legally"?
Who cares about "legally"? ...

Today on "Maury" (cue music): "Are YOU the infecter?"

(louder music, blurred images of people arguing)
Belinda slept with both HIV-positive John and HIV-positive Marc!! Never used a condom!
(Audience: Boo!!)
After the break, we'll tell you which one is responsible for her infection!
Or is there another person involved?
After the break! Stay with us!
On Maury!
(cue music)

Re:unlike- mutates in host quickly

[Fwipp]

Shit. I meant B and C, thanks for catching that!

Re:unlike- mutates in host quickly

[LoyalOpposition]

If strain A differs from strain B at 50 sites, and strain B from strain C at a separate 50 sites, A and C can have anywhere from 0-100 differences.

Oh, well. You're welcome. I'm still confused, though. If strain A differs from strain B at 50 sites, and strain B from strain C at a separate 50 sites, then isn't it true that A and C have exactly 100 differences?

~Loyal

Re:unlike- mutates in host quickly

[Fwipp]

They can share some, all, or none of the sites. I really did a bad job explaining that. :X

Re:unlike- mutates in host quickly

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

You know it will furn out to be neither of them, and Belinda will be back four or five more times, with a different Possible infecter each time. Each time swearing that he has to be the one.

For the record, I love the Maury show, and and Springer. They make me feel SO good about myself. No matter how badly I screw up, I am not on either show, so I know it isn't that bad. :)

Re:unlike- mutates in host quickly

[bob_super]

Nah, she got it from Jimmy from the car shop when she traded a brake job for a blowjob.
Judge Mathis/Judy/whoever, in an unusual crossover, will walk on stage and order her to pay the garage owner for the work.

Oh, and this

Re:unlike- mutates in host quickly

[LoyalOpposition]

They can share some, all, or none of the sites. I really did a bad job explaining that.

If they shared some or all sites then they wouldn't be a separate 50 sites, no?

~Loyal

niggers did it

[Anonymous Coward]

I blame the niggers fucking monkeys.

Re:niggers did it

[Anonymous Coward]

I blame the niggers fucking monkeys.

At the risk of replying to a troll ac, they could just as easily gotten it from eating monkey meat.

grammer

[jalopezp]

Who's infecting whom.

Re:grammer

[Valdrax]

That's why the victim's M fell off too.

So I could sue someone....

[Anonymous Coward]

...who gave me a cold?

Isn't America wonderful? Look how closely entwined the Legal and Medical professions have become...

If I had to guess

[redmid17]

I'd say it's the people with HIV infecting the people who did not have HIV. I don't think you can get it twice

Screw the criminal landscape

[EmagGeek]

I wanna get PAID. The implications will be far more profound in the tort law landscape as this technology is extended to be able to pinpoint the identity of someone who gave you any generic disease.

Think big. Think HPV, Hepatitis, Herpes, and the whole range of STDs.

Imagine the payout if you can prove that a wealthy person gave you the HPV that caused your cervical cancer? Imagine the payout your family will get if you die from it.

Trial lawyers are absolutely salivating over this, and I would not be surprised to see lawyers "investing" in this technology.

Re:Screw the criminal landscape

[Mashiki]

In Canada and several other countries I can see this being useful. Since, deliberate infection of incurable diseases is criminal, and infecting someone with a disease that causes death is also criminal. No tort coming into this at all.

Re:Screw the criminal landscape

[Shados]

Think bigger.

The common cold. Next time I'm under for half a week or more, I want to know who's the asshole who didn't wash their hands before taking the subway...

Re:Screw the criminal landscape

[DexterIsADog]

Laws that criminalize certain acts do not preclude the victim from *also* suing the perpetrator.

In fact, a guilty verdict in the criminal case strengthens the civil case.

Re:Screw the criminal landscape

[Mashiki]

Laws that criminalize certain acts do not preclude the victim from *also* suing the perpetrator.

Tort is very well defined many other countries unlike in the US, where it's excessively broad. Compensation is included into the criminal judgement, which can be appealed if it's felt to be too low.

And we'll all discover

[Anonymous Coward]

That the likelihood of getting infected from unprotected heterosexual activity is near zero. It's the gay community and the african american community insistence on keeping things "down low" that fosters the spread of the virus. Same thing in Africa. Apparently it's a thing to use leaves to dry out a woman prior to intercourse. The tearing causes the spread of the virus.

Re:And we'll all discover

[adamstew]

the likelihood of getting infected from unprotected heterosexual activity is near zero.

Incorrect.

The rate of actually acquiring an infection from an infected source by insertive anal (gay) intercourse is 6.5 in 10,000 exposures. The rate for Insertive vaginal (straight) intercourse is 5 in 10,000 exposures. The difference there...1.5 cases in 10,000 is pretty inconsequential.

It is different for the receptive partners. Receptive anal (gay) intercourse is 50 infections per 10,000 exposures. The rate for receptive vaginal (straight) intercourse is 10 per 10,000 exposures. Receptive gay sex is 5 times as likely to transmit the disease as receptive vaginal sex...but when it's 10 per 10,000 vs 50 per 10,000, it's still within the same order of magnitude.

(Source, the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/risk.html)

Re:And we'll all discover

[LoyalOpposition]

it's still within the same order of magnitude.

You two are talking about different things. You're talking about certain types of intercourse given that exactly one subject is infected, and exactly one subject is uninfected. Anonymous Coward is talking about certain types of intercourse given that both subjects are members of the general population.

~Loyal

Maury Povich has a new lease on life

[Anonymous Coward]

And you sir... are not the donor...

Niggers infecting other niggers

[Anonymous Coward]

Niggers infecting other niggers.

But it will be race-anonymized of course.
Because truth is less important than political correctness.

Actually, you can become infected more than once..

[Ellis D. Tripp]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_superinfection

Grammar

[Laxori666]

Surely you mean who's infecting whom? Let's get our priorities straight: grammar first, world-changing health improvements second.

Re:Grammar

[Wescotte]

Uh, wouldn't you want to solve the easier problem first? World health is going to be a hell of a lot easier to work at then teaching the world grammar.

Re:Grammar

[Laxori666]

We cannot hope to solve the world health problem if we go about butchering the English language. That inexorably leads to sloppy thinking and poor mental habits which causes degeneration of the brain cells involved in higher-order thinking. Without those brain cells, dear Wescotte, there is almost no chance that humanity will be able to muster up the intelligence and coordination required to solve these complex, multifaceted, intricate problems.

Just one problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

HIV isn't the cause of 'AIDS', and 99% of the people on Slashdot don't even know what 'AIDS' is...

Indicator disease + HIV = 'AIDS'
Indicator disease - HIV = Indicator disease.

You should try doing some research. How can 'AIDS' cases not have increased by a huge amount since the 1980s, since all other STDS have risen year upon year?
Just like the 'man made global warming' scam, HIV and 'AIDS' is a massive scam created by Robert Gallo and all the other fraudulent 'researchers' who benefit from the continuation of this myth, as well as the drug companies.

Try reading 'The trouple with Nevirapine' and get back to me.

Re:Just one problem...

[Eunuchswear]

Ok, "Skeptics".

Will you get angry with me if I call this arsehole a "denier"?

Re:Just one problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I'll just ignore your Ad hominem remarks like I always do when people here who are too lazy/ignorant to address specifics resort to them, thus betraying their ignorance of the subject matter and rending their opinions entirely irrelevant.

For the rest of the readers, a fascinating book about the antics of Robert Gallo is : "Science Fictions: A Scientific Mystery, a Massive Cover-up and the Dark Legacy of Robert Gallo by John Crewdson.

Personal info?

[nurb432]

So we are going to post everyone's names and addresses ( and photos too) on the web of who is infected? Its for the kids remember.

Will just drive people underground and make them afraid to get tested.

Re:Personal info?

[bluefoxlucid]

What's funny is for a while it was taboo to even list that a patient had HIV on medical records (doctors did it anyway). It's a condition that's had lots of privacy barriers thrown around it in the US, because we want to protect these people from persecution.

As if I'm going to brutally beat and/or stab someone who has AIDS, because I really want to die slowly from a scrape I got on my knuckle while punching the living shit out of someone until they're bloody hamburger.

I've always said that we need the opposite: Bracelets. At least make them list STDs on their license. Make people carry some form of mandatory identification, they're screened every year, and we list all their current STDs. Bracelets are plainly visible in the populous; drivers' license are de-facto ID and must be shown to some people, but can be refused to most; a separate ID has only one use, and can be refused at all times--either you assume the risk or you don't have sex with someone who won't show his coverage.

Yes this means dumb people will hook up a lot more without protection, meaning they're exposing themselves to more risk: that STD test may be wrong, too early, or pre-infection, especially when you start having unprotected sex with everyone who was clean 8 months ago. The risk is reduced if you stamp the chip, so you can go to the clinic every 2 weeks if you want and have a history of "CLEAN" dated Thursday, and Saturday be fucking someone who was "CLEAN" Friday. The device could even have a push-button LED (or OLED date display) that goes RED for infected and GREEN for clean, and you could get treated for bacterial (ghonnorhoea chlamydia etc) and then re-test 3 weeks and 6 weeks out to get it cleared (2 recent CLEAR from known-curable infections required to green again).

Make a paper trail du joure standard. Everyone will be tested every year. You will have ID that has medical information on it, we can check it, and we know if this was last year's test or if you've updated it recently. We can then decide if we want to hook up with these two hot cheerleaders or if they seem slutty and haven't been tested in 11 months and probably fucked 3000 guys since then and have picked up a few riders.

Re:Personal info?

[TheGratefulNet]

bracelets? why not go full retard and make them wear, oh, I don't know, how about some 6 pointed stars on their sleeves?

I think it was done before, though...

Re:Personal info?

[bluefoxlucid]

Yes, then people would know to beat them until they bleed into a scrape, so that they could then contract HIV from them and get their own sleeve wear. Soon we will all be able to own star sleeves!

Re:Personal info?

[Anonymous Coward]

without the LEDs tho which was much less appealing.

Re:Personal info?

[nurb432]

As if I'm going to brutally beat and/or stab someone who has AIDS

You may not, but some will. They will also discriminate at work due to lack of understanding and irrational prejudice. They might deny infected citizens housing or not let them eat in a restaurant or enter a grocery store.

Labeling anyone in public is a potential effective death sentence, regardless of the particular disease. This isn't the something as typhoid where you can be infected just from being in the same room, unlike HIV where you are safe. And even then the person should just be isolated until the risk passes, not be broadcast all over the news they had it.

Re:Personal info?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bracelets. At least make them list STDs on their license. Make people carry some form of mandatory identification, they're screened every year, and we list all their current STDs. Bracelets are plainly visible in the populous; drivers' license are de-facto ID and must be shown to some people, but can be refused to most; a separate ID has only one use, and can be refused at all times--either you assume the risk or you don't have sex with someone who won't show his coverage.

I never thought it was possible to make "Papers, Please" a sexual innuendo.

Re:Personal info?

[bluefoxlucid]

The point was actually that breaking skin is a good way to get yourself HIV.

Re:Personal info?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that persecution comes in other forms than beating someone bloody until they bleed into a scrape right?

Re:Personal info?

[Velex]

You know what?

Fucking go for it.

I'm a transsexual homosexual transgendered from Transsexual, Transylvania. I'm destroying America, and my time-travelling estrogen caused 9/11.

You know what?

I HAVE NO FUCKING STDS.

So do it. I don't give a shit.

You might just unintentionally label a bunch of womyn-born-womyn who have children with 5 different men as diseased, though. Are you sure you can handle that?

Re:Personal info?

[bluefoxlucid]

Well. If they have children from 5 different diseased men and contract HIV, herpes, and hepatitis, then ... yeah, they're diseased.

Re:Personal info?

[Velex]

True that. I suppose I'm sorry for being to overly sensitive that such a program would be applied only to non-womyn-born-womyn. Actually, I'd love to see the faces on the day such a program were applied to womyn-born-womyn en masse.

Re:Personal info?

[bluefoxlucid]

Oh hell no, I think stuff should be applied to everyone. I mean, if gays are 95% of the HIV population or 95% of gays are HIV+, that's just... the truth. If not, then we won't see everyone walking around with HIV bangles being gay/everyone gay having an HIV bangle. A lot of times we try to cover stuff: the public will hold a (correct or incorrect) belief that group X is mostly affected by Y, which is bad, but we can't do anything to broaden awareness because it'll spotlight group X unfairly. Well, bullshit. Either you're wrong, or too fucking bad for group X.

Of course, the proposal using challenge-response implementation rather than broadcast advertising averts this.

We already know the answer

[Anonymous Coward]

HIV Tracking Technology Could Pinpoint Who's Infecting Who

We already know the answer. It's shit stabbers (shirt lifters, chutney ferrets, woolly woofters, etc) infecting other shit stabbers (ever notice how you don't see old homos? This is part of the reason why, drug use being most of the rest of it), with some additional HIV infection courtesy of intravenous drug users (chod-nobbers are overrepresented in that demographic too).

Crabby Patties

[Sponge Bath]

How about a test to show who gave who crabs. That's always a controversial topic, or so I've been told.

And the ACLU will be suing...

[Anonymous Coward]

in 3....2......1.....

BTW- Does anyone who doesn't engage in dangerous activity (i.e. promiscuous unprotected sexual activity and/or IV drug use) still get AIDS? I mean other than unsuspecting spouses whose significant other does evil?

Re:And the ACLU will be suing...

[GameboyRMH]

"Yes. Ask me how I know." - Isaac Asimov's ghost

You are messing with unintended consequences big t

[Anonymous Coward]

Rhinoviruses are a major force in human genetics. If you eliminate the common cold, you will fuck over the entire race harder than you can possibly imagine. You may even realize the (up till now mythical) "devolution" process the old eugenicists used to worry so much about.

How to ruin your day

[Anonymous Coward]

If you feel you have an unbearable surplus of faith and optimism in the human race today, simply browse these comments at -1. You'll soon be clenching your teeth and wishing incurable diseases on random internet bigots and morons!

Glad to be of service.

Re:How to ruin your day

[GameboyRMH]

Dumb people!? On MY INTERNET!?!?

Not Right Enough

[Anonymous Coward]

"With HIV, it's the same. Every person infected with HIV has a slightly different form the the virus. It's the ultimate chameleon because it is intelligently designed and modified this way."

There, fixed the summary the right way.

And yes, I did intend the double meaning in the title and my comment.

Re:You are messing with unintended consequences bi

[Your.Master]

Why does everybody always assume that the unintended consequences of an action will be:

1. A net negative
2. *More* negative than the intended consequences
3. Non-mitigable

Also, why do multiple browsers put red-squiggles under "mitigable"? It's a real adjective.

Also, my imagination is capable of encompassing species-wide extinction and also species-wide eternal slavery to parasitic mind slugs. I don't think there's any way that eliminating the common cold could fuck us over worse than those outcomes.

What is "the HIV Virus"?

[Yakasha]

I knew about the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. But not the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Virus.
FYI, that joke was generated with a PHP Preprocessor on my IBM Machine.

Re:What is "the HIV Virus"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew about the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. But not the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Virus.

FYI, that joke was generated with a PHP Preprocessor on my IBM Machine.

Paid for with cash from an ATM machine, no doubt.

Re:What is "the HIV Virus"?

[Yakasha]

I knew about the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. But not the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Virus.

FYI, that joke was generated with a PHP Preprocessor on my IBM Machine.

Paid for with cash from an ATM machine, no doubt.

No, AC coward, I used my visa cc card.

Re:What is "the HIV Virus"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"IBM machine" is justified. It's a machine built by the company IBM. The machine itself is not an "international business machine" (what would that even mean?), just a machine made by an international company for the purposes of business.

Re:Actually, you can become infected more than onc

[GameboyRMH]

Ah so is this the "super AIDS" I've heard so much about?

Re:You are messing with unintended consequences bi

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Why does everybody always assume that the unintended consequences of an action will be:

1. A net negative
2. *More* negative than the intended consequences
3. Non-mitigable

Experience.

spelling

[ShadyG]

grammar

Redundant Information

[Anonymous Coward]

Just go ask Pat Robertson, he seems to know who is infecting whom all the time

Re:You are messing with unintended consequences bi

[Anonymous Coward]

They also can't be eradicated, because they are not a life form, they are a virus that is part of the human genome. Even if you were able to wave a magic wand and destroy all motile rhinoviruses in the world at a given moment, they would evolve again through normal human processes of DNA replication.

You can be completely isolated from human contact, and still contract rhinovirus spontaneously from your own DNA activating a rhinovirus strain.

Re:Actually, you can become infected more than onc

[Gravis Zero]

Ah so is this the "super AIDS" I've heard so much about?

no, that's Windows 8.1