Garda bitten by HIV man.....Assault causing harm....Attempted murder more like

Boombastic

The Maverick wrote: »

..............assault gardaí.

No seemingly what happened was the Garda's hand was just resting in his mouth:pac:

talla10

Derv 21 wrote: »

There was no fear of the child.'Not mine btw' It was a domestic that got out of hand.I agree waste of taxpayer's money.The lady that called the garda in the first place Mother of the chid.Is mentally not well.There was no need for them to be there in the first place.Yess GENTLEMAN he was caring 4 hiss 2 year old son 4 a week.Just mother had aone of her breakdown's.That's not the topic here.It's about Garda brutallity & an accident that took place & paper's get it wrong.

Are you having a laugh? Where you there? Do you believe everything your Fiancee tells you? According to reports he has 51 previous convictions yet your describing a dedicated father who has been convicted and has bitten the hand of a Garda.

You speak of Garda brutality. Was this incident reported to the Garda Ombudsman? if so what was the outcome? If not why not? Did your Fiancee pay his legal costs or did we the taxpayer foot the bill again. Does your Fiancee work and provide money for his son? Or is he sponging off the state and want all of us to give him money so we can pay his bills for him whilst he is free to commit offences of a serious nature while he go to work?

fasttalkerchat

Why couldn't this test be done immediately? Is there a medical reason or just lack of resources?

And its definitely attempted murder!

talla10

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Why couldn't this test be done immediately? Is there a medical reason or just lack of resources?

And its definitely attempted murder!

Something to do with monitoring blood cells count apparanetly they can mutate over 6 months into HIV. May noy say that in a science journal but thats my very basic understanding

fasttalkerchat

talla10 wrote: »

Something to do with monitoring blood cells count apparanetly they can mutate over 6 months into HIV. May noy say that in a science journal but thats my very basic understanding

Makes sense... but 6 months seemed long to me.
Looked into it... seems its 6 months to get the total all clear. He was safe after 3 months but with something like this you want to be more than 97% sure!

• Most people develop detectable antibodies within 2-8 weeks
• 25 days is the average time it takes to develop detectable antibodies
• 97% of people develop detectable antibodies within 3 months
• In very rare cases, it can take up to 6 months to develop antibodies

mattjack

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Makes sense... but 6 months seemed long to me.
Looked into it... seems its 6 months to get the total all clear. He was safe after 3 months but with something like this you want to be more than 97% sure!

I can appreciate what you're doing investigating the time it takes to get the all clear regarding a possible infection,but can you see how remote the chances are of somebody developing anything from a bite.

Transmission via saliva is practically non existant, to get infected with the virus you have to get a sufficient quantity of the virus into your body , the virus exists in saliva but you would have get a huge amount of saliva into your body.

Another poster has suggested the risk from bleeding gums ... again possible but extremely remote.How much blood from bleeding gums would you need to pass in order to infect somebody if you bite them ?

Take a look a the transmission modes.

I'm not taking anything away from what that Garda experienced ,I've colleagues and friends who've been spat at and suffered needle stick injury and no infection, the same as two posters in here.

fasttalkerchat

mattjack wrote: »

I can appreciate what you're doing investigating the time it takes to get the all clear regarding a possible infection,but can you see how remote the chances are of somebody developing anything from a bite.

Transmission via saliva is practically non existant, to get infected with the virus you have to get a sufficient quantity of the virus into your body , the virus exists in saliva but you would have get a huge amount of saliva into your body.

Another poster has suggested the risk from bleeding gums ... again possible but extremely remote.How much blood from bleeding gums would you need to pass in order to infect somebody if you bite them ?

Take a look a the transmission modes.

I'm not taking anything away from what that Garda experienced ,I've colleagues and friends who've been spat at and suffered needle stick injury and no infection, the same as two posters in here.

Absolutely but in his position I wouldn't rely on scientific probability.

bnt

He's not a "HIV Man", he's a "Person infected with HIV". We're supposed to use People-first language these days. It's the PC thing to do. :cool:

fasttalkerchat

Derv 21 wrote: »

Dont be so niave & make stupid comments like that.You uneducated idiot.He has a high standard when it comes to personal hygiene.:eek: fool

I doubt you are a good judge of character based on your friend choices!

mattjack

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Absolutely but in his position I wouldn't rely on scientific probability.

Without being childish or pedantic , I suppose .. what would you rely on ? would you assume that the person has a chance of infection,would you inform him of the probability or lack of it of infection ?

fasttalkerchat

mattjack wrote: »

Without being childish or pedantic , I suppose .. what would you rely on ? would you assume that the person has a chance of infection,would you inform him of the probability or lack of it of infection ?

I mean putting myself in the place of the victim. If I had been bitten by someone that had HIV, just knowing that it was technically possible that I could be infected would be enough to cause serious stress and trauma. I would need to hear that I was 100% all-clear before I would feel real relief... 97% wouldn't cut it.

token101

Jesus he bit someone knowing he had HIV. ****ing despicable animal.

Potential-Monke

mattjack wrote: »

Without being childish or pedantic , I suppose .. what would you rely on ? would you assume that the person has a chance of infection,would you inform him of the probability or lack of it of infection ?

I was informed, but as fasttalkerchat says, 97% isn't enough. 100% is enough.

At Derv: as pointed out above, this lovely "gentleman" has 51 previous convictions, that's 51 more than me and probably the majority of people here. Sounds like a lovely chap.