It's only a sign that we're doing something wrong if you assign a positive value to procreation. Many of us don't, either for ethical reasons (life includes suffering, and you have no right to inflict suffering on someone who didn't ask for it) or environmental reasons.
And as the logical conclusion of that ethical value system, I do sincerely hope we get a Children of Men scenario where we put an end to procreation entirely. (I'm aware that that viewpoint is fringe)
Having heard very few people espouse that opinion (which I share), I appreciate that you shared it. Somehow it seems very rare that parents consider their children's capacity for suffering before insisting that they exist without the chance to be asked if they actually want such an existence. Everyone just rolls the dice without truly knowing what they're getting into and assumes that "of course my kids will enjoy life, they're mine." It needs to change, in my opinion.
Air traffic control at domestic airports in many regions do communicate with pilots in the local language (even if they're are all able to switch to English at a moment's notice).
It's all just jargon, for those of us working in the field it's really not difficult to both know the international Latin medical terms and the local terms to use with patients or colleagues.
> Straight men/women can easily have it and one fuckup and you can be infected
The probability is low though, and apparently there are side effects. We also don't preemptively dish out antibiotics for similar reasons: they won't do you any good unless under very specific circumstances and you will likely experience side-effects. Do no harm.
But the plan for prep also specifically includes you going into the doctor every 3 months to not only test for those side effects but also for a full STD panel. (Source: my husband and me are both on prep)
Just saying that "at risk" people should be trying to prevent this ignores a large portion of the population to try to stop its spread.
Thankfully a vaccine is in testing now, but if this was a vaccine most people would probably not question taking it.
So why is a pill to protect against something like HIV so much different?
My point was that "at risk" means "seriously at risk", not "well, you are theoretically at risk, so better safe than sorry". If you're statistically not very likely to be infected, the side effects may outweigh the good.
> if this was a vaccine most people would probably not question taking it
Doctors would, or so I hope, not recommend taking a vaccine with serious side-effects without a reason. You typically don't get vaccinated for Dengue fever when traveling to Helsinki.
Maybe I should rephrase that, anyone in not in a monogamous relationship (and having sex) should at least discuss it with their Doctor and see if it would be worth them being on.
I find it shocking when I am talking to someone and find out they have no idea that prep even exists.
Do you know what the odds of contracting HIV for straight people that have non-anal sex are? Infinitesimal. Even when one of them is infected, the odds are less than one in a thousand exposures.
What you are describing makes absolutely no sense for straight men or women that don't have unprotected anal sex.
If you give penicillin to a million people, about two hundred of them will go into anaphylactic shock. Sometimes the tail risks for taking drugs are more harmful than the condition they're trying to prevent or treat.
The drug has several non-minor side effects, is prohibitively expensive, and is the same as the treatment for someone who already has the virus. I for one think it's improper to prescribe a drug with these nephrological side effects to a large number of otherwise healthy individuals, not even accounting for the cost.
If it weren't for Gilead's legal efforts to extend the patent on Truvada, it'd be a dirt cheap generic by now; it already is in many countries.
You might think it's improper, but the evidence says otherwise - PrEP is safe, well-tolerated, marginally cost-effective at proprietary prices and clearly cost-effective at generic prices.
One of the fundamental principles of modern medicine is informed consent. Patients have the right to make their own decisions about their treatment based on their own assessment of the risks and benefits. PrEP is an incredibly compelling proposition for a lot of patients.
I think PrEP is great and I don't think we do a great job of getting it to people for whom it makes sense. That being said, the CDC has an excellent position on who should be getting it and that's not a lot of people.
PrEP is well tolerated given it's known side effects but conservative medicine dictates that we don't prescribe medications unless we have a measurable benefit and that's not a large group of people. A homosexual male who has lots of unprotected sex with strangers should probably be on it. A hetereosexual mostly monogamous person probably shouldn't be.
A big factor here is that the prevalence of HIV in the US is low, at .34%. Globally it's a bit higher at .48%. It is also often not that contagious. That being said, under the right circumstances it could be so it's real important to be aware of the risk factors.
They were speaking of medicine rather than policy, and getting it wrong. PReP is not the same course as treatment, and prophylaxis is always a thing given to healthy people rather than sick ones. The side effects are considered manageable: you watch for signs of liver problems and you don't give the drug to people prone to them.
I'm not a doctor but I can read the prescribing information[1], which they don't seem to have done.
Arguing the facts is totally good. And you may very well be right (I don't know anything about the subject). But attacking the commenter's position because he/she is not a doctor (like you are not a doctor), struck me as poor form.
Of course. In many circumstances, the experts don't even agree. It's incumbent on me to inform myself, and I can lean on those very experts, but I'm not at all comfortable ceding how to weigh those tradeoffs to the people who identified them scientifically.
I'm not necessarily saying you ought to cede to the experts, I'm saying you ought to do the research they have already done if you expect them to take you seriously about changing the way they do their jobs.
Obviously it's not breaking any laws to post an uninformed opinion on the internet, but what is going to be accomplished by it?
Yes, that is the case. Tenofovir and emtricitabine are generally well-tolorated. They can affect bone density and kidney function and this should be monitored; the majority of people experience no side-effects.
Please post substantive comments instead. I would also assume that a majority of 50 year olds would rather work on their own time making good content than have a short lived, strenuous, and micromanaged career in lower earth orbit. Doesn't mean those 50 year olds have bad opinions or should be dismissed.
it's not intended to be dismissive of an individual's dream, but a 50 year old today is less likely to be a product of a failed education system than a 12 year old today.
I feel that's a bit of an overstatement, having studied them a bit is one thing, but most people here cannot comfortably communicate at all in Danish or a 4th language, and cannot read a book in these languages.
I would actually be interested in seeing a crude analysis of this, because I don't know if there is a skew or if we just tend to notice the things that break our expectations.
There are a few recent shows where a gay character is a part of the core ensemble, but I'm not sure gay characters are overall more than 1 out of every 30.
This can also be explained by the fact that humans are terrible at estimating percentages. I would assume we'd see similar result for other questions. "3% of the population" sounds ridiculously low, but if you interact with 30 people each day you're likely to meet someone in that small category.
And as the logical conclusion of that ethical value system, I do sincerely hope we get a Children of Men scenario where we put an end to procreation entirely. (I'm aware that that viewpoint is fringe)