I'm not going to reprint any of the article. I let you all read it, but essentially the UN's AIDS chief said that the goal of halting the worldwide AIDS spread by 2015 is not a realistic goal. He later said it was however possible. How he reconciles the 2 statements, I'll never know.
This is a particularly sore spot with me. Let me be the first to say the following:
It is very much realistic to stop the spread by 2006 and this lack of faith in humanity is both sickening and further reasoning for the abolishment of the UN.
The problem of AIDS is a lack of education. Most people know little to nothing about the disease. This problem is only compounded in Africa where civil wars have ravaged many nations preventing any sort of education about things as simple as disease.
We can not prevent idiots from continueing to put themselves at risk. But we can educate people as to how to prevent the disease.
Posted by Skywalker at June 2, 2005 09:14 PM | TrackBack"...halting the worldwide AIDS spread by 2015 is not a realistic goal. He later said it was however possible. How he reconciles the 2 statements, I'll never know."
Simple. Basically - if everyone in the world took action to stop the spread of it (personal responsibility, education, etc...) then it is very well *possible* to reach that goal. However, (and as you pointed out) in Africa where there are many problems: such as lack of education and superstitions (like "healers" telling their patients that if they have sex with virgins then they will be healed from this "sickness" they have. So the men go out and rape 9-12 yr olds because they think it will make them better [of course, one wonders what they think it will do to the poor children that they rape]) then, no. It doesn't seem like a *realistic* goal.
Can it happen? Sure. By 2015? Sure. By 2006? With all due respect, sweetie....you're dreamin'. BTW, I don't think it necessarily has alot to do with "lack of faith in humanity" as it has to do with the facts that are out there. Besides, personally, I don't understand why you think it's "sickening" to have a lack of faith in humanity anyway. It may be a little sad and cynical but, in todays world - not to mention the history of humanity itself - it's completely understandable why someone would hesitate and think twice about putting *faith* in humanity when we're so falible anyway. But that's MO.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at June 3, 2005 12:52 AMIf everyone on earth took responsibility today, then the spread would stop today. Mind you some people don't know they have it. So 2006 would be more realistic under those circumstances.
Posted by: skywalker at June 3, 2005 08:44 AM"If everyone on earth took responsibility today, then the spread would stop today."
*Complete* and *total* responsibility - yes. But As you pointed out: some people *don't* know they have it and Using protection is a good way to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS - as we all know (or very well *should* know by now). BUT, protection is NOT always so "trustworthy".
Besides all that, though, my point was that Not everyone *will* take responsibility (or *enough* responsibility) within this year to stop the spread. Some never will take that much responsibility. How many stories have you heard throughout the years about someone not using a condom correctly? Or that once in use, it didn't stay in place? Better yet...how many stories have you heard from people throughout the years about those who are very sexually active. Who don't bother getting an HIV test - even though they may very well use a condom? How many stories about men/women going out on their spouses/girlfriends/boyfriends and then unknowingly bringing the disease back home to their unsuspecting partner who thought they were in a monogomous relationship - and then once the unsuspecting party *does* find out about their partners unfaithfulness, *they* don't bother to go get tested? Here's one I heard in high school all the time. Person goes out and gets waisted. They wake up the next morning not able to remember *anything* from the night before. Then their friends start telling them true stories about the person who they spent "alot of time with" the night before - while they were drunk. I've heard of quite a few stories of all those and more throughout the years as I'm sure you have too. It's scary. Not to mention sad. But that's why *I* say that 2006 IS unrealistic because people *won't* take certain respsibilities. That's why we need to start with ourselves and (in mine and muddy's case) continue with the next generation through education.
I mean, come on. You're not a naive person nor are you stupid. Do you *really* think that by 2006 (or any year for that matter) that *everyone* around the world will be 100% responsible for their actions? Especially when it comes to sex? Personally, I don't think we will *ever* stop the spread of HIV/AIDS - unless we find a cure. But I *do* think we can dramatically decrease it's spread.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at June 3, 2005 11:39 AMi cant belive what i read. ive been coming to this site for a year and this is the first thing you ever written thats made any logical sense. :D
its easy to talk about stoping aids in america, but as skywalker pointed out its a different situation in the 3rd world. not just lack of education, lack of everything. its not like the average subsitance farmer in zambia can do down to walgreens and get a box condoms.
the fact is no one knows how many peole have aids. millions in africa do, but i read an article a few years ago by a doctor who thinks the number is Greatly inflated. millions of people have it, but there are Dozens of diseases and viruses people have, that are labeled as "aids". in africa, there arnt many aids test. they see a people dying and theyll label them as an "Aids" patient, when in reality it could be another disease. add to this All the problem with insects and the diseases they spread, its trully a horrific situation.
there was a story on [that evil godforsaken channel PBS] a few years ago, about the Army of cameroon or some country that started to teach its soldiers about aids and issue condoms. the rate of aids amongst the soldiers started to drop to the point where it wasnt even a problem.
now bush has CUT money for overseas family planning because it May include small funding for abortion. i guess that woman out there in the tanzania really wanted that 9th child anyway. so that is money that teachs people about condoms and aids, not going to educate women about safe sex.
well at least we can go all rejoice in the fact iraq is "liberated".
Posted by: mooseboy84 at June 3, 2005 06:27 PMI don't think any amount of money from the US will solve the problem to be honest. Not to mention that I don't believe it's our job to do it. Private charities should do it. If you don't think that it'll happen, look at how much money we gave almost overnight for Tsunami relief. People in this country mostly don't know about the immense problems about AIDS in Africa, where tribal traditions and ignorance are creating a plague across that continent.
My stand: stop giving them money, the money is going to corrupt governments who are not using it for medication (which is ultimately futile anyways) or education. In stead, fight to make it easier for private organizations such as the Red Crescent and Red Cross societies to get into these countries and educate the public and test the public. Educate our citizens about their plight so that our citizens can take action.
In the US, the spread of AIDS these days is essentially from dirty needles and unprotected sex with people who don't know or don't care that they have it.
In Africa, it is almost 100% because people don't know how it is spread or don't know they have it.